Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6953
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:33 pm

Another member of the Democrat Media complex.



Image





Former Time Magazine Washington Bureau Chief Jay Carney's elevation to White House Press Secretary would complete the liberal journalist circle of life: From "unbiased" pro-Obama media mouthpiece to official Obama White House spokesperson.




http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/ ... t_revealed

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Postby UncleMatt » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:58 pm

Golly, I thought that Fox News was the number one "news" station...

I have seen many right wingers claim that they have more viewers than all other news channels combined...

So you are saying the democrats are in charge of Fox? Since you claim the dems are somehow in control of U.S media behind the scenes? How do those stats reflect on those who claim our media has a "liberal" bias?

And I am sure you can educate us all as to what Fox engages in that is not ethical or professional, since you have your finger on the pulse of all our media in a subjective, non-hypocritical manner...

Diogenes
Posts: 6953
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:08 pm

UncleMatt wrote:Golly, I thought that Fox News was the number one "news" station...

I have seen many right wingers claim that they have more viewers than all other news channels combined...



I believe this is true. The conservative component of the Nation is estimated to be about 40% of the Electorate. The Liberal component is estimated to be about 20% of the Electorate, with the non-partisan and ignorant making up the rest.

A News network which attracts the 40% is quite likely to have more viewers than all networks combined that are trying to get that 18%.

In any case, Fox News is a relatively recent phenomena. It's only made inroads in the last 2 decades.

UncleMatt wrote:So you are saying the democrats are in charge of Fox? Since you claim the dems are somehow in control of U.S media behind the scenes? How do those stats reflect on those who claim our media has a "liberal" bias?



You are trying to pull a bait and switch, and I'm not going to go along with it. The Vast majority of the Media (Which includes Movies, Theater, Newspapers, Television entertainment, and MOST News outlets) are very heavily left wing and extremely partisan Democrat.

Most of them are headquartered in New York and Los Angelos (Very heavily Democrat populations) and they are staffed by 100% Union members, (Very heavily aligned with the Democrat Party) many with degrees in Journalism (Very heavily slanted towards liberal leaning people) and are often involved intimately with Democrat politicians. Cokie Roberts, for example. Her Father was a Democrat Senator. Andrew Quomo. Father was Democrat Governor of New York. And So on.


Fox News is the exception. It is owned by a very Liberal man (Ruport Murdoch) who has seen the wisdom of providing a service that no one else is providing. (News without Liberal bias.) Some of his staff members (Roger Ailes) are highly conservative, and they hire conservative (and Libertarian types (like Bill O'Reilly.) to run the Show. Everyone else on the staff are probably Union Democrats.



UncleMatt wrote:And I am sure you can educate us all as to what Fox engages in that is not ethical or professional, since you have your finger on the pulse of all our media in a subjective, non-hypocritical manner...



That part you got right. Fox is not doing anything unprofessional. They are filling in the holes that the REST of the Media are leaving out unprofessionally. Read this entire thread, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:39 am

I talked with Jim Lemay at CNN this morning in Atlanta, and based on our conversation, I think he would agree with you that most reporters are socially oriented. However, he would disagree on the slant part. His point is that the public is generally unable to distiguish between a pundit and a reporter. I thought it was a fair point.
He also thought that CNN has made great effort to go middle of the road, but still has a hard time shaking the "Clinton News Network" historical perception.
All in all a really interesting discussion.

Some of you gun rights types might remember that a few years back, Jim Lemay was involved with getting black man named Barlow off for a murder conviction in AZ when he shot a white man in self defense while being attacked by him. He is now the Deputy Managing Editor for CNN.

Edit: corrected Jim's title.

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Postby UncleMatt » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:50 am

Diogenes wrote:That part you got right. Fox is not doing anything unprofessional. They are filling in the holes that the REST of the Media are leaving out unprofessionally. Read this entire thread, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.
I was being sarcastic. Fox is a complete and utter joke. The rest of your comments are laughable.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:53 pm

UncleMatt wrote:
Diogenes wrote:That part you got right. Fox is not doing anything unprofessional. They are filling in the holes that the REST of the Media are leaving out unprofessionally. Read this entire thread, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.
I was being sarcastic. Fox is a complete and utter joke. The rest of your comments are laughable.


Funny thing is that the joke is on folks with your mind set. And just in case you didn't get the joke you might want to check the election returns from Nov 2010.

But don't ever change. We on a different side of the political spectrum prefer to be underestimated. You can call me stupid and laughable all you want. More please.

Rand Paul (a libertarian) is now a Senator. I like that. Even though I don't agree with him much on foreign policy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:06 pm

The most major thing wrong with Mexico is the mindset of the Mexicans. To my thinking, the best solution is for us to wall it off to prevent the contagion from spreading.


I thought we already tried that with Drugs. How has that worked out?

It has been estimated that we would need a military from 50% greater than its current size to 2X its current size to wall us off from the outside. Where will the money come from?

Of course ending prohibition will not cost us. We will profit.

Suppose we go to a rehab model for treating drugs. Rehab costs 1/7th what interdiction costs. Even if as some predict (unlikely) drug use doubles we will still be in a situation where it costs something like 1/3 what prohibition is costing.

So wall off costs of between $350 bn to $700 bn a year vs a $10 to $30 bn a year profit.

Tough choice.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

UncleMatt
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Postby UncleMatt » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:01 pm

MSimon wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:
Diogenes wrote:That part you got right. Fox is not doing anything unprofessional. They are filling in the holes that the REST of the Media are leaving out unprofessionally. Read this entire thread, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.
I was being sarcastic. Fox is a complete and utter joke. The rest of your comments are laughable.


Funny thing is that the joke is on folks with your mind set. And just in case you didn't get the joke you might want to check the election returns from Nov 2010.

But don't ever change. We on a different side of the political spectrum prefer to be underestimated. You can call me stupid and laughable all you want. More please.

Rand Paul (a libertarian) is now a Senator. I like that. Even though I don't agree with him much on foreign policy.
MY mind set? You mean a mind set based on verifiable facts and not just the cherry picked information presented by people with a political agenda to promote? A poitical agenda that is made into their religion? From the left OR the right?

I am a registered indie, but to many people that means I must lean to the right. I don't, I stay in the middle, where MOST intelligent, practical people place their political priorities.

And once again, Fox News is guilty of ALL the things attributed to the liberal media in this thread. That is why I laugh.

Diogenes
Posts: 6953
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:07 pm

ladajo wrote:I talked with Jim Lemay at CNN this morning in Atlanta, and based on our conversation, I think he would agree with you that most reporters are socially oriented. However, he would disagree on the slant part. His point is that the public is generally unable to distiguish between a pundit and a reporter. I thought it was a fair point.
He also thought that CNN has made great effort to go middle of the road, but still has a hard time shaking the "Clinton News Network" historical perception.
All in all a really interesting discussion.

Some of you gun rights types might remember that a few years back, Jim Lemay was involved with getting black man named Barlow off for a murder conviction in AZ when he shot a white man in self defense while being attacked by him. He is now the Deputy Managing Editor for CNN.

Edit: corrected Jim's title.



I don't recall that particular incident, but if the facts are as stated, that was the right thing to do.

Regarding CNN making "great effort to go middle of the road", I have pointed out previously that the News Media has been SO biased for SO long, that going to the middle of the road isn't sufficient. The media needs to be explicitly right wing for many decades just to undo all the damage it's done by being left wing for so long!

But we will have to take what we can get. :)

On a completely separate subject, I thought you (specifically) might find this article interesting. As a Military history buff, you may already be aware of this information, but I did not know about it until I read this article, so I thought it might be possible that you didn't either.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/ ... great.html

Diogenes
Posts: 6953
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:13 pm

UncleMatt wrote:
MSimon wrote:
UncleMatt wrote:
Diogenes wrote:That part you got right. Fox is not doing anything unprofessional. They are filling in the holes that the REST of the Media are leaving out unprofessionally. Read this entire thread, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.
I was being sarcastic. Fox is a complete and utter joke. The rest of your comments are laughable.


Funny thing is that the joke is on folks with your mind set. And just in case you didn't get the joke you might want to check the election returns from Nov 2010.

But don't ever change. We on a different side of the political spectrum prefer to be underestimated. You can call me stupid and laughable all you want. More please.

Rand Paul (a libertarian) is now a Senator. I like that. Even though I don't agree with him much on foreign policy.
MY mind set? You mean a mind set based on verifiable facts and not just the cherry picked information presented by people with a political agenda to promote? A poitical agenda that is made into their religion? From the left OR the right?

I am a registered indie, but to many people that means I must lean to the right. I don't, I stay in the middle, where MOST intelligent, practical people place their political priorities.

And once again, Fox News is guilty of ALL the things attributed to the liberal media in this thread. That is why I laugh.


I very much doubt you've read this entire thread. What happened to that "Mind set based on verifiable facts..." ? If you haven't read this entire thread, how could you know that "Fox News is guilty of ALL the things attributed to the liberal media in this thread "?

Also there is ANOTHER thread Entitled "Liberal Media Greater threat than terrorism" which contains a lot of information not in this thread. I would suggest you read that one as well. :)

Diogenes
Posts: 6953
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:22 pm

ladajo wrote:I talked with Jim Lemay at CNN this morning in Atlanta, and based on our conversation, I think he would agree with you that most reporters are socially oriented. However, he would disagree on the slant part.



Forgot to address this. There is a phenomena called "Intellectual Phase lock." If you are surrounded by people who all believe the same thing, you lose the ability to tell when you are not being objective.

Of COURSE the reporters don't think they are reporting in a biased manner. They long ago lost the ability to discern this fault in themselves.

Likewise, much of liberal bias is as much about what they DO NOT REPORT, as it is about them slanting what they do report.


Heard anything about the Pennsylvania Abortion doctor on the main stream media? Hear anything about the Obama administration being held in contempt by a Federal judge? (Drilling permits and moratorium) Hear anything about the Obama campaign accepting illegal foreign contributions and how they disabled address checking on their online donations?

I could name dozens of News stories that the mainstream media REFUSED to let the public know about. These people are controlling the microphones, and they do more damage by not letting people hear things than they do by what they themselves say.

You can report "Middle of the Road", but if you are intentionally omitting stories that hurt one political party, you are exercising most of the power of bias.

ladajo
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:38 pm

Thanks for the link. I follow the American Thinker off an on, but have been remiss of late. A friend of mine used to email me really good postings as well. I was unaware of the Kaiser's comments. Thanks.

I, personally agree fully with the point. History has time and time again demonstrated that conflicts rarely begin with agression in the face of a pereived superior opponent. And when it has, it was primarily based on the "Death Ground" principle. Some limited wars were also begun, but in a manner so as to avoid confrontation with the full force of the superior foe, and also to get to war termination before the superior foe could bring the full weight to bear. One un-expected outcome war would be the Russo-Japanese. The Japanese found themselves exceeding all expectations against the Russians, and found great voctory in the end, mostly due to the complete misunderstanding of actual Russian capabilities, as well as some really good luck (such as a particular mine killing to right guy that was the greatest threat they faced in Port Arthur).
Irony one: The Schlieffen Plan retread opening WWII was almost a dramatic failure for the Germans. French mismanagement is what saved them from themselves.
Irony two: I was at the Carter Center and Presidential Library today in Atlanta. Good discussion with Sean Ding, the China Programs Manager. Overall, Peace held mine did I. :)
PS - to be fair, the Carter Center has (and will) done some good work.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:01 pm

D @ Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:13 pm,

Thanks!

And to my road kill (middle of the road) friend. I'd be glad to provide any facts you feel are missing. Care to name one?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:15 pm

ladajo,

I believe Manstein put the Germans in position to exploit French mismanagement. And the opening was a feint. The real blow was to the south around Sedan (through the Ardennes).

What the French/British expected was a repeat of the Schleiffen Plan. They were in a perfect position to blunt that. However, they gave up mobility in order to get moving first. Bad move.

The whole French Plan including French fortifications was based on waiting in France for the blow and defending against it. Instead the French went on the offensive and lost 1/2 their Army in 20 days. The rest was just mopping up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests