Bricks through GOP windows, media doesnt report it [Archive]

Wimbly

04-04-2010, 08:03 AM

Just remember this the next time you see someone on the "news" fretting about alleged tea party brick throwing.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/breaking-another-gop-office-attacked-in-ohio-smashed-windows/

BREAKING: Another GOP Office Attacked in Ohio– Window Smashed (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/breaking-another-gop-office-attacked-in-ohio-smashed-windows/)
Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:47 PM
Jim Hoft

Two Republican party officials were shocked to hear someone had thrown a brick through a window at their headquarters downtown — with a message directed at stopping conservatism.
“Stop the right wing,” was written in purple ink on a piece of notebook paper.

Nobody in the MSM has reported this. Not even the AP, who is usually all over these stories.

Here are a few more stories the MSM has ignored:

Recent violence/threats against conservatives and others for their beliefs and/or societal roles:
- Anti-abortion Protester Shot Dead (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090911_anti-abortion_protester_shot_dead_by_michigan_school/)
- Military recruiter Shot Dead (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_recruiter_shootings_060109/)
- Pentagon Shooter: 911 Truther, Anti-Bush Loon & Registered Democrat (http://patterico.com/2010/03/04/pentagon-shooter-anti-bush-nut-case-and-911-truther/)
- Leftist Issues Death Threats to Palin & Family (http://patterico.com/2010/03/25/leftist-issues-death-threats-to-palin-and-family-on-twitter/)
- Leftist Death Threats Against Bush (http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html) Link includes death threats on network TV and in award-winning plays. For extra added fun: a death threat issued by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is documented.

Leftist Hate Crime Hoaxes:
- Here (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/05/gwu-student-journalist-admits-hate-crime-hoax/)
- Here (http://michellemalkin.com/2005/05/09/another-hate-crime-hoax/)
- Here (http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/28/exposed/)
- Here (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/22/unhinged-update-left-wing-hate-crime-hoaxer-pleads-guilty-in-denver/)

(http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/22/unhinged-update-left-wing-hate-crime-hoaxer-pleads-guilty-in-denver/)Other threats and intemperance:
- Leftist Throws Tomatoes at Palin (http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Man-Chucks-Tomatoes-Sarah-Palin-dec-07-2009)
- Montel Williams hopes for a violent death for Michelle Bachmann (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/09/libtalker-montel-williams-urges.html)
- Vandals Strike Military Recruiting Center (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/20/bastards-vandals-strike-at-berkeley-marine-recruiting-center-again/)
- Leftists Attack UC Berkeley Chancellor’s Home (http://www.dailycal.org/article/107793/eight_arrested_after_attack_on_chancellor_s_house)

(http://www.dailycal.org/article/107793/eight_arrested_after_attack_on_chancellor_s_house)Leftists Vandalize Churches:
- Here (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6584961)
- And Harass Christians (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-san-franciscos-castro-district/)
- Even the NY Times Realizes it (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/08/nytimes-finally-acknowledges-that-anti-prop-8-mob-is-harassing-traditional-marriage-supporters/)
- Leftists Bully an Old Woman over her Prop. 8 Contribution (http://www.peacelovelunges.com/relationships/el-coyote-owner-expresses-regret-over-prop-8-contribution-but-boycott-looms/)
- “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220)

kc135cc

04-04-2010, 09:50 AM

Must be a conspiracy....I have a years free supply of tin foil. Would you like some?

LineDoggie

04-04-2010, 09:59 AM

Most of the indicted militia members accused of being anti-government extremists have active voting records, a check with area voter registration offices showed yesterday.

One is a registered Democrat, and the party affiliations of the rest could not be determined.

Jacob J. Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio, voted as a Democrat in the 2004 and 2008 primary elections. He also voted in 10 other elections since 2000. Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which party's ballot they requested in the most recent primary election.

SOURCE:
http://toledoblade.com/article/20100401/NEWS16/4010369

budgie

04-04-2010, 10:00 AM

You say they were ignored wimbly, but how do you prove these stories weren't aired in the news? We only have your word for it.

CG51

04-04-2010, 10:01 AM

Maybe because none of this happened. Common, seriously, getting your news from a blog. Right wing blog at that. Same league as Debka.

Hey, here is another blog:

Laugh along as Gateway Pundit makes stuff up about the Pentagon shooter

March 08, 2010 12:59 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Last week, right-wing bloggers were frantically trying to claim that John Patrick Bedell, who was killed after he opened fired on Pentagon security officers, was a loony liberal and that Bedell's attacks had nothing to do with the increasing bouts of anti-government violence spreading on the far-ring end of the political spectrum.
The supposed proof of Bedell's liberal leanings seemed pretty thin. But this one concocted by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit was almost comical (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.firstthings.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fit-begins-media-calls-bush-hating-pot-smoking-truther-pentagon-shooter-a-right-wing-extremist%2F) in the sheer dishonesty of the charge [emphasis added]:

UPDATE: So... Will the state-run media report this?
The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken.
Oh my, Bedell was linked to lots of liberal groups and even a lib senator. But when readers clicked on the Gateway Pundit link, they ended up (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leftcoastrebel.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fjpatrickbedell-j-patrick-bedell-john.html) at Left Coast Rebel, which tried to deduce all kinds of information about Bedell from his Facebook page:

I don't have access or visibility to Bedell's profile or friends. What I do have though is a list of the friends that his profile is linked to. Right off the bat I see several middle eastern sounding names many students. A large number of Bedell's friends seem to be of Indian descent - not surprising considering John Bedell's tech/science background. I even see actress Mary Bradley on here (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjpbedell) as well.

I found friends of Bedel (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjpbedell%23%2521%2Fprofile.php%3Fref%3Dsgm%26id%3D1545387158)l were linked to several gay rights activist groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization organizations, Greenpeace, Al Franken (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjpbedell%23%2521%2Fjackherertv%3Fref%3Dsgm) and a whole bunch of other stuff.
The right-wing blogger didn't have access to Bedell's FB profile, but the blogger did get to poke around Bedell's friends and found out Bedell's FB friends linked to some liberal orgs and pols. So what does Gateway Pundit do? He announces that Bedell was "linked" to the liberals outposts and politicians. Why? Because Bedell's FB friends had associations with them.
That's right, according to Hoft's fool-proof logic, every Facebook user is now "linked to" every group and interest that their hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of FB friends connect to.
Nifty trick, eh?
Behold "conservative journalism."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003080020

Wimbly

04-04-2010, 12:06 PM

Must be a conspiracy....I have a years free supply of tin foil. Would you like some?

Its not a conspiracy, its pretty blatant fact. how can you deny it? I laid it all out right there. Where is all the hyperventilation we saw this past week? Some of you guys really leave me shaking my head.

You say they were ignored wimbly, but how do you prove these stories weren't aired in the news? We only have your word for it.

Bungie, do you watch the news every night? Do you remember the big threads (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176340-Tea-Party-protestors-shout-racial-slurs-or-do-they)we've had on the subject (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176625-Wingnuts-and-President-Obama)of inciting violence (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176570-House-Democrats-report-increased-threats-since-health-care-vote) when the brick went though the DNC window? Those threads existed, because the media was going ape **** over it (there by triggering your posts). Are you seriously suggesting that right now the media is going ape **** over this brick through an RNC window? REALLY? Where is Ordie's or your thread about violence against the GOP?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003080020

You do know media matters is a left wing blog, started by Hillary Clinton to "fight the vast right wing conspiracy" right? Why would you focus on something that has nothing to do with the OP? That part of the story was only posted to show one of the stories the media tried to paint as a right wing extremest, when that was not a fact.

What do you think about a brick going through an RNC window and none of the media hysteria that existed last week exists now? Why do we constantly see this double standard played out again and again?

CG51

04-04-2010, 12:19 PM

Wimbly

04-04-2010, 12:24 PM

That's my point Wimbly. These are blogs, not a legit news source

The source has absolutely no bearing on the argument. What does the blog that posted a link to the brick story, have to do with what I laid out, showing the inconsistency in how the media reports it? Are you denying that the media had a spastic seizure over the bricks that went through DNC windows? We had 3 or 4 huge threads on the subject in this forums!

My question is, where is the similar uproar and concern for who is inciting violence from the media when the tables are turned? I gave a great list of broken windows and threats, yet no media backlash. It has nothing to do with the gateway pundit blog.

CG51

04-04-2010, 12:42 PM

Uh, yeah, the source does have a lot to do with it. You're posting a blog that has no source other than the nitwit that wrote the article. I have a blog, I can write anything I want to write. That's what blogs are for. Letting any shmuck get his ideas, opinions, fears, hate, ect. out to the world.

Wimbly

04-04-2010, 12:54 PM

Uh, yeah, the source does have a lot to do with it. You're posting a blog that has no source other than the nitwit that wrote the article.

I could have posted a link to the original news paper story and you never would have known I got the story from a blog. The blog has nothing at all to do with the argument I'm presenting. All GP did was link to the original story:

http://www.marionstar.com/article/20100401/NEWS01/4010315

MARION — Two Republican party officials were shocked to hear someone had thrown a brick through a window at their headquarters downtown — with a message directed at stopping conservatism.
"Stop the right wing," was written in purple ink on a piece of notebook paper.
See? So, whats the problem? What is it you're having trouble with?

I have a blog, I can write anything I want to write. That's what blogs are for. Letting any shmuck get his ideas, opinions, fears, hate, ect. out to the world.Honestly, I think you're confused. What is it you're having a hard time believing exactly? The brick through the window story? You're focusing on this 9/11 truther story that has little to do with my argument, except that it shows how the media spun the story to suit Democrats. Even if you throw that one out as an example, it doesn't invalidate anything I've presented. Its inconsequential.

My point with this thread is to demonstrate:

A) How the MSM went insane for a week , claiming tea parties were extremists because a brick got thrown through a DNC window
B) How they are NOT doing that when it comes to Democrat "violence" against Republicans

Can you deny either of these two points?

CG51

04-04-2010, 01:00 PM

I don't think I am the one confused. Your thread states that the media did not report it.

LOL how many times did you edit your last post.

Wimbly

04-04-2010, 01:05 PM

I don't think I am the one confused. Your thread states that the media did not report it.

Correct, the media is not reporting on bricks and threats against Republicans the way they have demonized tea parties for the last couple weeks, based on alleged reports of bricks being thrown. If you deny that, show me the reports I'm missing. If the media was objective or consistent at all, we would be seeing Anderson Cooper and Matt Lauer on everyday, asking Democrats why they're inciting violence. That has not happened.

CG51

04-04-2010, 01:17 PM

Correct, the media is not reporting on bricks and threats against Republicans the way they have demonized tea parties for the last couple weeks, based on alleged reports of bricks being thrown. If you deny that, show me the reports I'm missing. If the media was objective or consistent at all, we would be seeing Anderson Cooper and Matt Lauer on everyday, asking Democrats why they're inciting violence. That has not happened.

Then your title was confusing, it looked like you ment that the media did not pick up the story of a brick through GOP window. As far as the blog I posted, I was relaying the fact of how silly blogs are. I don't read blogs as a rule. I certainly don't use them as a news source or any source for that matter. Now if it's a blog on BBQ then I am all over it.

seraosha

04-04-2010, 01:27 PM

So quoting a "blog" that acts as a clearing house for links to small town news resources isn't valid? Even when the blog links to the original stories quoted?
What, clicking a few links too hard?

I go to drudge, click a few links, read a few articles, follow a few more links and thats not "news" because the original site I went to isn't ABC?
Weak argument...you are right man, stick to BBQ.

Meatwad

04-04-2010, 01:34 PM

You said bricks, when the article clearly says brick. Big difference. Bricks = instant breaking news, one brick= no one cares.

XASA

04-04-2010, 02:05 PM

Let me try, once again, to inject some sanity into this continued paranoia about a "MSM"conspiracy. The "MSM" did not go "insane" when they reported on what happened last week but highlighted actual events that one might consider to be a pattern. After that, commentators drew their own conclusions from that news and made their opinion known. If you disagree with those opinions, you have every right to write your own commentary or editorial and several people did. Posting links to blogs about isolated events perpetuated by people you disagree with politically over several years doesn't mean that the reporting on recent events was biased, it just means that there are kooks and nuts on both sides of the aisle. If you can post a link to a news item that means at some point in time it was reported on by someone and, perhaps, it wasn't considered a major story at the time because, surprise, a lot of local news doesn't get reported on a national basis unless there is a pattern. What I do see is that there are some pyschologically unbalanced people who are so caught up in the give and take of today's heated political commentary they commit crazy acts as if their personal actions will have an effect on the national debate.

Just for argument's sake, let's assume there are media outlets that have different political point of views. For example, FOX and MSNBC commentators are at opposite poles when it comes to politics. FOX commentators lean conservative and MSNBC's leans progressive. So what? If you don't agree with what one or the other is saying, don't listen. If you base your opinion on their political point of view instead of taking the time to do your own research, or cherry pick the news and commentary to support just what you believe in regardless of the facts, that's just means you are lazy and most intelligent people won't take you seriously. A person can spend all of their leisure time countering the commentaries of those they disagree with by looking up links to those who they agree with, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind just because you came up with another biased opinion.

Also, keep in mind that even the highest rated FOX program, Bill O'Reilly, draws a little less than 3,000,000 viewers. That's less than one percent of the U.S's total population. If you combined all the viewers on all the "news" shows both cable and broadcast, it would show in overwhelming numbers that most Americans don't give a flying f**k how the news is reported because they only listen to them in passing or read an occasional headline. If you really want to get your political point of view across to the masses you would be better off buying a one minute commercial on "American Idol" than being a guest on Olbermann or Beck.

What's really baffling to me is how some consider themselves wiser and more intelligent than those who they disagree with just because there are blogs and news outlets that support their paranoid world view. Even if you have a bachelor's, master's or a doctorate degree, that doesn't mean you are the only one who "gets it". Tao Le Ching, a 4th Century B.C. Chinese philosopher once wrote: "The more you know the less you understand". You aren't going to change the way people get their news or how they interpet that news let alone change the world with easily disproved rants. Some people need to push themselves away from the Internet and forget about their obsessive political fantasies. There is so much more to life than tilting at windmills.

Happy Easter!

seraosha

04-04-2010, 07:37 PM

Let me try, once again, to baffle you with a wall of text.
Happy Easter!

Happy
Easter to you too man!
(The bias is obvious, whether you agree or not, but there is no unbiased journalism...just different blends)

wildcat

04-04-2010, 07:48 PM

Let me try,

Happy Easter!

The trouble I have with the media, there is no middle channel, it is all one way or the other, what we need is a channel that is about facts, and not spin, and not either way.

and happy easter.

realityexists

04-04-2010, 08:07 PM

The trouble I have with the media, there is no middle channel, it is all one way or the other, what we need is a channel that is about facts, and not spin, and not either way.

and happy easter.
MSNBC = left

CNN = middle at least to me it is :|

FOX = right

Nonetheless most of the news I obtain comes from various online sources, including this forum ;-)

budgie

04-04-2010, 08:42 PM

That's my point Wimbly. These are blogs, not a legit news source, that was exactly what I was referencing when I posted that article if you bothered reading it and what I posted. Very much relavent. Any clown can write what he wants on a blog and post it as good journalism.

He can also claim that h's the first to report it, that it's nowhere else in the media, that the media went razy of similar attacks on the DNC and that nobody is showing such hysteria this time. They can say whatever they want because its their blog and those whose sole source of news is such blogs will readily believe every word.

The source has absolutely no bearing on the argument. What does the blog that posted a link to the brick story, have to do with what I laid out, showing the inconsistency in how the media reports it? Are you denying that the media had a spastic seizure over the bricks that went through DNC windows? We had 3 or 4 huge threads on the subject in this forums!

My question is, where is the similar uproar and concern for who is inciting violence from the media when the tables are turned? I gave a great list of broken windows and threats, yet no media backlash. It has nothing to do with the gateway pundit blog.

Yeah you claim it was 'hysteria' but as I said it was just the story du jour. Attacks against Republicans were also reported on major networks like MSNBC and CNN - you say underreported, but then there were fewer such attacks. Now the story has passed somewhat, but it's still out there, new events and all. Your only proof that it's nowhere to be found in the news is the insistence of a rambling blogger. But where did he get his news from?

Once again I can easily demonstrate how easy it is to get such news: a single yahoo search with the words 'GOP bricks' yielded this whole page of hits from all over:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnguBTfm4lUrW_kJTAq_uLebvZx4?p=GOP+bricks&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-890

Let me try, once again, to inject some sanity into this continued paranoia about a "MSM"conspiracy. The "MSM" did not go "insane" when they reported on what happened last week but highlighted actual events that one might consider to be a pattern. After that, commentators drew their own conclusions from that news and made their opinion known. If you disagree with those opinions, you have every right to write your own commentary or editorial and several people did. Posting links to blogs about isolated events perpetuated by people you disagree with politically over several years doesn't mean that the reporting on recent events was biased, it just means that there are kooks and nuts on both sides of the aisle. If you can post a link to a news item that means at some point in time it was reported on by someone and, perhaps, it wasn't considered a major story at the time because, surprise, a lot of local news doesn't get reported on a national basis unless there is a pattern. What I do see is that there are some pyschologically unbalanced people who are so caught up in the give and take of today's heated political commentary they commit crazy acts as if their personal actions will have an effect on the national debate.

Just for argument's sake, let's assume there are media outlets that have different political point of views. For example, FOX and MSNBC commentators are at opposite poles when it comes to politics. FOX commentators lean conservative and MSNBC's leans progressive. So what? If you don't agree with what one or the other is saying, don't listen. If you base your opinion on their political point of view instead of taking the time to do your own research, or cherry pick the news and commentary to support just what you believe in regardless of the facts, that's just means you are lazy and most intelligent people won't take you seriously. A person can spend all of their leisure time countering the commentaries of those they disagree with by looking up links to those who they agree with, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind just because you came up with another biased opinion.

Also, keep in mind that even the highest rated FOX program, Bill O'Reilly, draws a little less than 3,000,000 viewers. That's less than one percent of the U.S's total population. If you combined all the viewers on all the "news" shows both cable and broadcast, it would show in overwhelming numbers that most Americans don't give a flying f**k how the news is reported because they only listen to them in passing or read an occasional headline. If you really want to get your political point of view across to the masses you would be better off buying a one minute commercial on "American Idol" than being a guest on Olbermann or Beck.

What's really baffling to me is how some consider themselves wiser and more intelligent than those who they disagree with just because there are blogs and news outlets that support their paranoid world view. Even if you have a bachelor's, master's or a doctorate degree, that doesn't mean you are the only one who "gets it". Tao Le Ching, a 4th Century B.C. Chinese philosopher once wrote: "The more you know the less you understand". You aren't going to change the way people get their news or how they interpet that news let alone change the world with easily disproved rants. Some people need to push themselves away from the Internet and forget about their obsessive political fantasies. There is so much more to life than tilting at windmills.

Happy Easter!

!00 % behind you on that chief. Windmills indeed.

Glaz

04-04-2010, 08:48 PM

Let me try, once again, to inject some sanity into this continued paranoia about a "MSM"conspiracy. The "MSM" did not go "insane" when they reported on what happened last week but highlighted actual events that one might consider to be a pattern. After that, commentators drew their own conclusions from that news and made their opinion known. If you disagree with those opinions, you have every right to write your own commentary or editorial and several people did. Posting links to blogs about isolated events perpetuated by people you disagree with politically over several years doesn't mean that the reporting on recent events was biased, it just means that there are kooks and nuts on both sides of the aisle. If you can post a link to a news item that means at some point in time it was reported on by someone and, perhaps, it wasn't considered a major story at the time because, surprise, a lot of local news doesn't get reported on a national basis unless there is a pattern. What I do see is that there are some pyschologically unbalanced people who are so caught up in the give and take of today's heated political commentary they commit crazy acts as if their personal actions will have an effect on the national debate.

Just for argument's sake, let's assume there are media outlets that have different political point of views. For example, FOX and MSNBC commentators are at opposite poles when it comes to politics. FOX commentators lean conservative and MSNBC's leans progressive. So what? If you don't agree with what one or the other is saying, don't listen. If you base your opinion on their political point of view instead of taking the time to do your own research, or cherry pick the news and commentary to support just what you believe in regardless of the facts, that's just means you are lazy and most intelligent people won't take you seriously. A person can spend all of their leisure time countering the commentaries of those they disagree with by looking up links to those who they agree with, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind just because you came up with another biased opinion.

Also, keep in mind that even the highest rated FOX program, Bill O'Reilly, draws a little less than 3,000,000 viewers. That's less than one percent of the U.S's total population. If you combined all the viewers on all the "news" shows both cable and broadcast, it would show in overwhelming numbers that most Americans don't give a flying f**k how the news is reported because they only listen to them in passing or read an occasional headline. If you really want to get your political point of view across to the masses you would be better off buying a one minute commercial on "American Idol" than being a guest on Olbermann or Beck.

What's really baffling to me is how some consider themselves wiser and more intelligent than those who they disagree with just because there are blogs and news outlets that support their paranoid world view. Even if you have a bachelor's, master's or a doctorate degree, that doesn't mean you are the only one who "gets it". Tao Le Ching, a 4th Century B.C. Chinese philosopher once wrote: "The more you know the less you understand". You aren't going to change the way people get their news or how they interpet that news let alone change the world with easily disproved rants. Some people need to push themselves away from the Internet and forget about their obsessive political fantasies. There is so much more to life than tilting at windmills.

Happy Easter!

Lovin' it, man. Nice one.

The trouble I have with the media, there is no middle channel, it is all one way or the other, what we need is a channel that is about facts, and not spin, and not either way.

and happy easter.

ABC news seems fair enough to take seriously, methinks.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 08:06 AM

He can also claim that h's the first to report it, that it's nowhere else in the media, that the media went razy of similar attacks on the DNC and that nobody is showing such hysteria this time. They can say whatever they want because its their blog and those whose sole source of news is such blogs will readily believe every word.

This has nothing to do with a blog. The fact you're focusing on it shows a completely misunderstanding on your part.

Yeah you claim it was 'hysteria' but as I said it was just the story du jour. Attacks against Republicans were also reported on major networks like MSNBC and CNN - you say underreported, but then there were fewer such attacks. Now the story has passed somewhat, but it's still out there, new events and all. Your only proof that it's nowhere to be found in the news is the insistence of a rambling blogger. But where did he get his news from?Show me a single reporting from CNN or any of the MSM, accusing the Democrats on inciting violence or extremism. You wont even be able to provide one example. On te other hand, I could provided page after page of examples of the media doing that to the GOP.

Once again I can easily demonstrate how easy it is to get such news: a single yahoo search with the words 'GOP bricks' yielded this whole page of hits from all over:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnguBTfm4lUrW_kJTAq_uLebvZx4?p=GOP+bricks&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-890How does this demonstrate your point? All that shows are links to right leaning blogs and small, no name internet "news" sites. Where are the ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, PBS and MSNBC stories? Where are all the specials on left wing extremism and and wringing about their media? Come on bungie, show me JUST ONE example.

budgie

04-05-2010, 08:12 AM

Show us just one example where the so-called MSM doesn't report it.

Several of us covered this in an earlier thread on the threast topic. The major outlets reported both. threats to dems and the GOP. Yeah there were more threats reported against the Dems because guess what, there were more of them to report. Now the threats stroy is old-hat. The media, beingt the whores they are have moved on. There's no cover up they're just chasing the sexy stuff. If you want to har about it, it's out there, dude the internet is mainstream.

And spell my handle right, I do the same for you.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 08:23 AM

Let me try, once again, to inject some sanity into this continued paranoia about a "MSM"conspiracy. The "MSM" did not go "insane" when they reported on what happened last week but highlighted actual events that one might consider to be a pattern.

Right, its a pattern of what they decided to report on....... Its a pattern on the other side too, but they didn't report on it. Thanks for proving my point.

After that, commentators drew their own conclusions from that news and made their opinion known. If you disagree with those opinions, you have every right to write your own commentary or editorial and several people did.

I dont have the power of a dozen media organization, print media and Hollywood.

Posting links to blogs about isolated events perpetuated by people you disagree with politically over several years doesn't mean that the reporting on recent events was biased

You're te perfect exmaple of wat happens when a media is purely used for propaganda purposes. You're convinced this is nothing more than isolated non-news, yet you have all kinds of excuses for why it made sense for the media to be hysterical over bricks through DNC windows. Your excuse, "Its isoclated incident". You prove my point! Its not isolated! Its only reported that way by the MSM!

t just means that there are kooks and nuts on both sides of the aisle. If you can post a link to a news item that means at some point in time it was reported on by someone and, perhaps, it wasn't considered a major story at the time because, surprise, a lot of local news doesn't get reported on a national basis unless there is a pattern.

Yet we know this isn't the case, because the media has spent the last year reporting on every single little incident they can attach to the tea parties. Included events with absolutely no evidence to back them up! Thats the point. Why does the MSM make huge hay over every incident they can paint as extremism against democrat, but completely ignore the stories that would show their previous narrative was over blown?

Im sorry, but you think you're being responsible, when you're really just being obtuse. I really odnt understand how you guys cannot see the difference in the way the media reports this stuff. In my opinion it has to do with your own biases that you cant or wont admit. Like I asked Bungie, show me a single report from the MSM accusing Democrats on inciting hatred and violence. Just one.

Just for argument's sake, let's assume there are media outlets that have different political point of views. For example, FOX and MSNBC commentators are at opposite poles when it comes to politics. FOX commentators lean conservative and MSNBC's leans progressive.

This isn't an assumption. Its a fact that backed by years and years of research. It also encompasses a lot more than just those two networks.

So what? If you don't agree with what one or the other is saying, don't listen. If you base your opinion on their political point of view instead of taking the time to do your own research,

I do all my own research. The problem is one side has a much louder and more influential voice. There is also the problem of the white house taking sides and attacking the one right leaning source for news as not news, while praising all the networks that are lap dogs for his administration. Do you not see this as a problem? If Bush was doing that I'm sure you would have a problem.

or cherry pick the news and commentary to support just what you believe in regardless of the facts, that's just means you are lazy and most intelligent people won't take you seriously.

What have I cherry picked? The only people cherry picking regardless of the facts are you, Bungie and a few others. You refuse to provide anything at all to back up your arguments. If you're right, show me all the MSM reports callign the Democrats racist and accusing them of inciintg violence. There should be lots of them if you're right. Prove me wrong!

A person can spend all of their leisure time countering the commentaries of those they disagree with by looking up links to those who they agree with, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind just because you came up with another biased opinion.

Whos opinion is biased, yours or mine? I'm providing an argument and evidence to back up that argument. Wat have you provided other than long winded blocks of text? If you're argument is so strong, you should be able to link me to all kinds of article form the MSM, that show a similar reaction to the story about bricks though DNC windows that we heard for a week. Instead we get this rambling short story about ow you know better than me, based on nothing. Where is the substance?

If you combined all the viewers on all the "news" shows both cable and broadcast, it would show in overwhelming numbers that most Americans don't give a flying f**k how the news is reported because they only listen to them in passing or read an occasional headline. If you really want to get your political point of view across to the masses you would be better off buying a one minute commercial on "American Idol" than being a guest on Olbermann or Beck.

I'm sorry, but the statistics don't back that up. Where do you get your information?

What's really baffling to me is how some consider themselves wiser and more intelligent than those who they disagree with

You mean like how you're acting now?

just because there are blogs and news outlets that support their paranoid world view.

This has nothing to do with any news outlet supporting my point of view. You don't even seem to have a basic grasp of what I'm trying to get across here. Maybe you could explain what bias blogs and news outlets have to do with my argument and evidence that the media exaggerates incidents against Democrats in order to demonize Obama's critics, but react completely different (or not at all) when the same things happen on the other side? You're just saying stuff that sounds good at this point.

Even if you have a bachelor's, master's or a doctorate degree, that doesn't mean you are the only one who "gets it".

No, I'm not the only one. You don't get it though. At least going off what you've posted her,e much of which has nothing to do with me or this thread.

Some people need to push themselves away from the Internet and forget about their obsessive political fantasies. There is so much more to life than tilting at windmills.

Happy Easter!

If what I posted here is a fantasy, prove it. Show me the MSM stories that you claim exist.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 08:27 AM

Show us just one example where the so-called MSM doesn't report it.

Huh? How could I show you something that doesn't exist? I can post dozens of articles and clips from the MSM making a big deal about bricks through DNC windows. You cannot do the same when it concern bricks though GOP windows. Its a fact you don't want to deal with, so you keep distract with this nonsense.

Several of us covered this in an earlier thread on the threast topic. The major outlets reported both. threats to dems and the GOP.Really? Then post an example! Sow me where the media spent a week or even a day accusing Democrats on inciting violence.

Yeah there were more threats reported against the Dems because guess what, there were more of them to report.What are you basing this on? You're just making **** up in place of evidence or facts.

Now the threats stroy is old-hat.Right, now that its no longer useful as a political hammer. We see this again and again in the media. What happened to outrage over wiretaps bungie? Old hat too?

The media, beingt the whores they are have moved on. There's no cover up they're just chasing the sexy stuff. If you want to har about it, it's out there, dude the internet is mainstream.How convenient that news always become old once its no longer useful against Republicans. At some point one would think such a smart individual would catch on to the pattern...

ABC news seems fair enough to take seriously, methinks.

Based on what? They are caught in lies and spin every single day. They're main anchor George Stephenopolis has daily meetings with DNC strategists and the white house. Hes a former Clinton adviser!

This is why I post this stuff. To erase any doubt that the MSM is no different tan Fox and shouldn't be treated any differently.

MSNBC = left

CNN = middle at least to me it is :|

FOX = right

Nonetheless most of the news I obtain comes from various online sources, including this forum ;-)

Let me fix that for you.

Fox - Right

MSNBC - Left
CNN - Left
ABC - left
CBS - left
PBS - left
NBC - left

How in the world could you call CNN middle? I guess whatever is closest to your point of view is middle right?

SoftLion

04-05-2010, 08:29 AM

Let me try, once again, to inject some sanity into this continued paranoia about a "MSM"conspiracy. The "MSM" did not go "insane" when they reported on what happened last week but highlighted actual events that one might consider to be a pattern. After that, commentators drew their own conclusions from that news and made their opinion known. If you disagree with those opinions, you have every right to write your own commentary or editorial and several people did. Posting links to blogs about isolated events perpetuated by people you disagree with politically over several years doesn't mean that the reporting on recent events was biased, it just means that there are kooks and nuts on both sides of the aisle. If you can post a link to a news item that means at some point in time it was reported on by someone and, perhaps, it wasn't considered a major story at the time because, surprise, a lot of local news doesn't get reported on a national basis unless there is a pattern. What I do see is that there are some pyschologically unbalanced people who are so caught up in the give and take of today's heated political commentary they commit crazy acts as if their personal actions will have an effect on the national debate.

What "might one consider to be a pattern"? And do those responsible for this "pattern" fall somewhere right of center? Just wondering about the "pattern" you use to explain away everything.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 08:33 AM

What "might one consider to be a pattern"? And do those responsible for this "pattern" fall somewhere right of center? Just wondering about the "pattern" you use to explain away everything.

Exactly, he relies on what the media reports to call it a pattern, without realizing they are selectively reporting things based on the political narrative they're pushing. Yet, neither of them see the pattern in hysteria from the media. It makes perfect sense to them for the media to go nuts for a week, accusing Republicans and tea party people of being racist extremest based on a brick, but not report the same way to all on the MANY threats and bricks being used against the GOP.

Xasa doesn't realize it, but hes proving my point.

budgie

04-05-2010, 08:38 AM

What happened to outrage over wiretaps bungie? Old hat too?

Yup, old hat too. Even the Bush admin only copped it for a while, until bigger stories came along.

At some point one would think such a smart individual would catch on to the pattern...

If you'd paid attention to the simple Yahoo search pages I've shown before, only a paranoid schizophrenic with a conspiracy theorist's imagination would even see a pattern.

This is why I post this stuff. To erase any doubt that the MSM is no different tan Fox and shouldn't be treated any differently.

Thanks for the honesty and for refusing to spell my handle properly, again.

Tell you what, go out to the yard, find a shrub to pee on, and pretend you're watering the tree of liberty.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 08:46 AM

If you'd paid attention to the simple Yahoo search pages I've shown before, only a paranoid schizophrenic with a conspiracy theorist's imagination would even see a pattern.

Yeah, the pattern is no MSM links. Those are all no name websites and right wing blogs. You do know the difference right? Were are the nightly stories from the MSM about the Democrats inciting violence and hatred?

Its not even just this story. Its a litany of stories. Anytime the media manufactures anger toward the GOP, they always fail to do the same to the other side when the tables are turned. This goes for Fox too, but like I said, they are one network. A network that not only the MSM keeps a microscope on, but the white house as well.

XASA

04-05-2010, 08:58 AM

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 09:01 AM

@Wimbly: I was speaking in general about the continued paranoia about a "MSM" conspiracy and did not single out you or anyone else in my post. People have been disagreeing about the media since the dawn of history, so it isn't anything new. But if it will make you feel better, I will make a personal observation about you. I think you are not only paranoid but you also suffer from narcissitic personality disorder because you think you are the center of the universe on this topic and everyone should agree with you. Most people grow out of it. You are still young, so I'm hoping this is just a passing phase for you.

Not you though, right? Just for the record I don't think I'm the center of the universe or any of the other retarded crap you asserted here. Why don't you come up with a coherent argument and some evidence to back it up, as opposed to trying to discredit me? Why do you have to make it personal? Because you have nothing of substance to offer.

Tell me, is the white house paranoid when they go on rants about Fox News? Is UCLA paranoid when their studies find the media is overwhelmingly Democrat? If I'm so paranoid, post some clips showing the media accusing Democrats of inciting violence. That should be pretty easy to do right?

@Softlion: I'm not tryng to explain away anything, just offering an opinion that you are entitled to disagree with. But to answer your question, last week's "pattern" was vandalism and threats against mostly Democrat political offices and politicians in the aftermath of the health care bill passing,It wasn't just Democrats though. Why cant you understand that? You're hung up on this idea that if the media doesn't report it, it didn't happen. Which is exactly my point in this thread.

seraosha

04-05-2010, 09:12 AM

...will make you feel better, I will make a personal observation about you. I think you are not only paranoid but you also suffer from narcissitic personality disorder because you think you are the center of the universe on this topic and everyone should agree with you. Most people grow out of it. You are still young, so I'm hoping this is just a passing phase for you.

So xasa, why the personal attacks? If you have a valid observation to make on the topic, I'm sure you could do it in a more mature manner.
Shape up...you've been around here far too long to pretend to not know the rules on this board.

XASA

04-05-2010, 09:44 AM

So xasa, why the personal attacks? If you have a valid observation to make on the topic, I'm sure you could do it in a more mature manner.
Shape up...you've been around here far too long to pretend to not know the rules on this board.

Seraosha, I appreciate you telling me to "shape up". Forgive me, though, if I tell you I find Internet tough guys not only harmless but silly. If you thought that was a personal attack, then you have extremely thin skin, especially for mp.net. That was my opinion based on what has been posted by Wimbly on a regular basis. If you are as smart as you think you are, Google "paranoid" and "narcisstic personality disorder". Then re-read some of Wimbly's posts, specifically his response to mine. At least I give Wimbly credit for at least trying to make a constructive argument. Something you might try to do. Like you said, I've been here long enough to know the rules of the board. In fact, I've been a member before there were any rules, and haven't gotten pinged once for offering my opinion in seven years of posting. If the moderators feel I should tone down my infrequent comments, I would, of course, respect their request. But I have no respect for you, sir, or your advice. Wimbly is a big boy and can defend himself, which he has done by asserting my posts were "retarded crap" and incoherent. That's his opinion, and I respect his right to post it even though I strongly disagree with him.

seraosha

04-05-2010, 10:12 AM

SoftLion

04-05-2010, 10:28 AM

@Softlion: I'm not tryng to explain away anything, just offering an opinion that you are entitled to disagree with. But to answer your question, last week's "pattern" was vandalism and threats against mostly Democrat political offices and politicians in the aftermath of the health care bill passing, so it was news for a few days than the 24-hour news industry went on to more profitable stories, like Sandra Bullock, Tiger Woods and the Final Four. I have no idea who was responsible and so far as I know, no one has been charged. Who do you think was responsible?

I guess I was unaware that there had been enough instances of vandalism meted out by right-wing fanatics to constitute a "pattern". I thought there were only a few isolated instances.

I see no difference between the irresponsible actions taken by those on the far right or far left, whether it be public statements, vandalism, or threats. Dolts from either side will continue to say and do stupid things that no one with half a brain should condone. But inevitably, someone is always trying to secure the politcally moral high ground, when none exists.

XASA

04-05-2010, 10:29 AM

I'm glad you appreciate my telling you to shape up, although I am disapointed in your ability to follow simple instructions.
In the future I look forward to reading more fact based observations from you, then mere opinion on the motivations and psychological profiles of the folks posting...while entertaining, they are hardly compelling arguments on the thread topic, either in support of your puerile commentary, or as personal attacks.

Gee, Seraosha, my feelings are really hurt now. I am so sorry I disappoint you. I'll try in the future to live up to your high standards of Internet discourse. Maybe if I agreed with you, my "puerile commentary" would be more to your liking. Thanks for the advice. In fact, since you are offering advice, may I suggest something to you? Don't take anything on the Internet personally. You'll have more fun that way.

XASA

04-05-2010, 10:49 AM

I guess I was unaware that there had been enough instances of vandalism meted out by right-wing fanatics to constitute a "pattern". I thought there were only a few isolated instances.

I see no difference between the irresponsible actions taken by those on the far right or far left, whether it be public statements, vandalism, or threats. Dolts from either side will always say and do stupid things that no one with half a brain should condone. But inevitably, someone is always trying to secure the politcally moral high ground, when none exists.

I know it's a Monday morning after a holiday weekend but that's no excuse for not reading what I wrote before commenting. You are the one who is saying the vandalism was done by right-wing fanatics, not me. I also said "mostly Democrat" and not exclusively Democrat. I also originally wrote that there were crazy people on both sides of the aisle. I guess you also missed the part where I said I had no idea what their political affiliation was because no one had been charged with a crime and asked you who did you think did it. Hell, it could have been drunken teenagers out on a spree for all we know. What was reported was what happened. Commentators then put their spin on it. Guess what? Commentators don't report the news but editorialize.

Come on guys, if you dislike what I wrote, fine, but don't make an argument based on falsehoods that I never wrote. The points of my post seems to have gone over the head of everyone who disagrees with me. They are: There is no "MSM" conspiracy. Criticism of the "MSM" is Centuries old. Every politician and political party have at some point in time claimed the "MSM" was against them. The "MSM" wants to make money, to do that they need advertising, to get advertising they need consumers. The vandalism story was good for a few news cycles and some news executive realized it wasn't "sexy" enough of a story to get consumers to care. So, this week they have moved on to other stories. That's my opinion. You have your opinion. That is what makes the world go 'round. Whining about how your side is being dissed by the "MSM" works only with those who agree with you already, as is more than clear in this thread. I don't think (think is the operative word here guys) you are going the change the minds of those who don't agree with you no matter how much you continue to act like but hurt cry babies.

That's my retarded, puerile commentary for today. See you guys later.

Glaz

04-05-2010, 11:05 AM

The points of my post seems to have gone over the head of everyone who disagrees with me. They are: There is no "MSM" conspiracy. Criticism of the "MSM" is Centuries old. Every politician and political party have at some point in time claimed the "MSM" was against them. The "MSM" wants to make money, to do that they need advertising, to get advertising they need consumers. The vandalism story was good for a few news cycles and some news executive realized it wasn't "sexy" enough of a story to get consumers to care. So, this week they have moved on to other stories.
It didn't go over my mine. Well stated, accurate assessment, imho.

Chulo

04-05-2010, 11:08 AM

. They are: There is no "MSM" conspiracy. Criticism of the "MSM" is Centuries old. Every politician and political party have at some point in time claimed the "MSM" was against them. The "MSM" wants to make money, to do that they need advertising, to get advertising they need consumers.

If they wanted to make money hand over fist, then they maybe should be what Fox News is and report from the "other side" since Fox News beats all other combined in viewership

Glaz

04-05-2010, 11:17 AM

If they wanted to make money hand over fist, then they maybe should be what Fox News is and report from the "other side" since Fox News beats all other combined in viewership
I blame it on the foxy news network newscasterettes...

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/laurie-dhue.jpg

Rise in ratings, and elsewhere.

Glaz

04-05-2010, 11:19 AM

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/page-hopkins.jpg

Fair and balanced, chica bom bom!!

Chulo

04-05-2010, 11:30 AM

I blame it on the foxy news network newscasterettes...

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/laurie-dhue.jpg

Rise in ratings, and elsewhere.
Unless you are Chris matthews

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6555/id725x1342sitecinieword.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/id725x1342sitecinieword.jpg/)

seraosha

04-05-2010, 11:34 AM

Gee, Seraosha, my feelings are really hurt now. I am so sorry I disappoint you. I'll try in the future to live up to your high standards of Internet discourse. Maybe if I agreed with you, my "puerile commentary" would be more to your liking. Thanks for the advice. In fact, since you are offering advice, may I suggest something to you? Don't take anything on the Internet personally. You'll have more fun that way.

By all means, disagree and post your opinions...that's kind of the point of internet forums.
But your continued inability to stick to the topic without ad hominem arguments, imo, required comment.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, as that wasn't my intent.

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 11:47 AM

The "MSM" wants to make money, to do that they need advertising, to get advertising they need consumers.

You keep saying this despite their horrible ratings and lack of money making. Where is your evidence that what they're doing is bringing in ratings or advertisers? Wile ignoring all the empirical evidence and long list of studies that confirm this isnt a conspiracy at all, but well documentedffact. I noticed you keep ignoreing my question about the white house being conspiracy theorists.

I'll leave you with a clip from a show interview Mika Breziniski. A woman who grew up in the MSM. A self described left winger who freely admits the media is in their corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68-I47W1Q_c

The vandalism story was good for a few news cycles and some news executive realized it wasn't "sexy" enough of a story to get consumers to care. So, this week they have moved on to other stories.They haven't moved to other stories though. Every single day is filled with these stories about how extreme the tea parties are. I'll post about all the stories from tonight's evening news and I guarantee you there are no suggestions that the Democrats or the media are inciting hatred. You can keep explaining it away as "not news anymore", but the pattern suggests its more than that.

Glaz

04-05-2010, 12:07 PM

Well then, thank goodies we have foux news network (a ratings buster, mind you) to counter all this nefarious msm under-reporting/over-reporting business. See that, it all balances out, ying and yang, fire and water, journalistic homeostasis restored.

Breerman

04-05-2010, 12:13 PM

Nothing new here. I remember that the thing that got my antipathy for everything left-wing going wasn't mainly the reprehensible politics, but all the shameless lies and falsifications in order to promote an agenda that they're so emotionally attached to that they''re not interested in facts. There's a dotted line between Lysenko under Stalin and the contemporary liberal media monopolies in the west.

hsh2

04-05-2010, 12:15 PM

To follow up on what Wimbly said:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/19/four-times-more-journalists-identify-liberal-conservative

Nobody would be surprised (let alone outraged) if anybody claimed that Kindergärtnerinnen are mostly Green party voters or that Gunsmiths are mostly right wingers.
Why not just say that Journalism, by it's very nature and like every (other) profession, tends to attract a certain kind of people more so than others; in this case liberals...

seraosha

04-05-2010, 12:40 PM

SoftLion

04-05-2010, 02:17 PM

I know it's a Monday morning after a holiday weekend but that's no excuse for not reading what I wrote before commenting. You are the one who is saying the vandalism was done by right-wing fanatics, not me. I also said "mostly Democrat" and not exclusively Democrat. I also originally wrote that there were crazy people on both sides of the aisle. I guess you also missed the part where I said I had no idea what their political affiliation was because no one had been charged with a crime and asked you who did you think did it. Hell, it could have been drunken teenagers out on a spree for all we know. What was reported was what happened. Commentators then put their spin on it. Guess what? Commentators don't report the news but editorialize.

Come on guys, if you dislike what I wrote, fine, but don't make an argument based on falsehoods that I never wrote. The points of my post seems to have gone over the head of everyone who disagrees with me. They are: There is no "MSM" conspiracy. Criticism of the "MSM" is Centuries old. Every politician and political party have at some point in time claimed the "MSM" was against them. The "MSM" wants to make money, to do that they need advertising, to get advertising they need consumers. The vandalism story was good for a few news cycles and some news executive realized it wasn't "sexy" enough of a story to get consumers to care. So, this week they have moved on to other stories. That's my opinion. You have your opinion. That is what makes the world go 'round. Whining about how your side is being dissed by the "MSM" works only with those who agree with you already, as is more than clear in this thread. I don't think (think is the operative word here guys) you are going the change the minds of those who don't agree with you no matter how much you continue to act like but hurt cry babies.

That's my retarded, puerile commentary for today. See you guys later.

Nowhere in my post did I say my post was attributable to you - where do you get that from? Writing a response to you does not mean I am putting words into your mouth. This whole banter came about from you referring to a "pattern" as justification for why the vandalism, etc. meted out on the Dems was reported by the media.

Upon closer examination, it seems you are saying there really wasn't any pattern, you are completely neutral, the verdict is still out there about who is responsible, and that both parties are equally guilty of hypocratically trying to take the political moral high ground.

Great, we agree. Move on.

I don't believe in a MSM conspiracy. What I do believe is that from a cable perspective, Faux is the only right-biased network in an industry filled with left bias. Inevitably, story selection is slanted left, at least by television media as a whole, because there are many more left-biased networks. Or maybe there are more right-wing outlets that I am unaware of.

realityexists

04-05-2010, 04:49 PM

Let me fix that for you.

Fox - Right

MSNBC - Left
CNN - Left
ABC - left
CBS - left
PBS - left
NBC - left

How in the world could you call CNN middle? I guess whatever is closest to your point of view is middle right?
Out of the three main cable news channesl (msnbc, cnn, fox) CNN basically reports the news. They do less of the polemical bs and ideologue commentary than the other two.

Hey don't take my word for it, take the word of a person who you probably agree with a lot (I base my assumption that you will agree with O'Reilly's news on your frequent quoting of right wing news sources)

He is asked a question about CNN ratings around the 2:10 mark

http://www.youtube.com/v/Pr7387bUOtg

His "analysis" of CNN at the 2:49-50 mark I agree with completely :-)

Of course you will probably disagree with him this time? right? MSM Conspiracy!

Wimbly

04-05-2010, 05:27 PM

Out of the three main cable news channesl (msnbc, cnn, fox) CNN basically reports the news. They do less of the polemical bs and ideologue commentary than the other two.

What are you basing this on?

Of course you will probably disagree with him this time? right? MSM Conspiracy!

When have I ever agreed with him? I cant stand the guy.

Jobu

04-05-2010, 05:36 PM

Where is Ordie's or your thread about violence against the GOP?

He probably threw the brick.
The purple ink was the clue. I'd be 100% sure if it had a small heart as the dot for the i.

kimujnr

04-05-2010, 06:02 PM

What are you basing this on?

I hate that question so damn much!

Its like the default button to these situations, it would be like me arguing that Lions tend to feed mainly on Gazelle and Wildebeest and then your immediate response is "what do you base that on?" I'm like..." I'm watching this **** right now muthafvcka!!!!"

CNN definitely is the lesser left leaning of the bunch, you don't have to conduct pew research polls to confirm that. And I do admit that CNN prefers the smell of that liberal pinko more than the "muskier" aroma of right wing politics just in case someone thinks I believe that CNN is completely center lane.

GlassHarp

04-05-2010, 10:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyhP1pFO_8A&feature=related

12345678912345

GlassHarp

04-05-2010, 11:01 PM

I hate that question so damn much!

Its like the default button to these situations, it would be like me arguing that Lions tend to feed mainly on Gazelle and Wildebeest and then your immediate response is "what do you base that on?" I'm like..." I'm watching this **** right now muthafvcka!!!!"

CNN definitely is the lesser left leaning of the bunch, you don't have to conduct pew research polls to confirm that. And I do admit that CNN prefers the smell of that liberal pinko more than the "muskier" aroma of right wing politics just in case someone thinks I believe that CNN is completely center lane.

You are wrong. Watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKq4388GbxM

budgie

04-05-2010, 11:34 PM

That's a good video Glassharp, and I think it's obvious where that [i]one reporter[i]'s sympathies lie, but there could be many reasons she couldn't get close enough to the Bush/Hitler guy to ask the same questions. Still, I grant her smug reporting of the Bush example shows she thought too lightly of it. But teh whole fifteen percent thing? That was based on one guy's opinion column in Newsweek. Does this guy truly believe Obama won the election bevause teh media conspired to give him 15 points extra in the polls? How does that explain actual voter behaviour? I'll have to chalk this vid down to just another exmple of right-wing media bias. See how easy that is?

I can't think of a name

04-06-2010, 12:09 AM

I blame it on the foxy news network newscasterettes...

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/laurie-dhue.jpg

Rise in ratings, and elsewhere.
Look at her skirt line, it is a poorly done photoshop.

Wimbly

04-06-2010, 08:34 AM

Does this guy truly believe Obama won the election bevause teh media conspired to give him 15 points extra in the polls? How does that explain actual voter behaviour? I'll have to chalk this vid down to just another exmple of right-wing media bias. See how easy that is?

I think hes basing that on the studies that showed Obama got much more favorable coverage than anyone else. Combined with people in the media admitting they didn't learn anything about him (because they were to busy covering for him).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/study-media-coverage-has_n_139916.html

NEW YORK — John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

"We don't know much about Barack Obama". Oh really, why is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw

So yes, I do think the media's coverage of Obama helped him to get elected.

GlassHarp

04-06-2010, 08:47 AM

I'll have to chalk this vid down to just another exmple of right-wing media bias. See how easy that is?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between reporting and commentary?

Atlantic Friend

04-06-2010, 08:59 AM

I think hes basing that on the studies that showed Obama got much more favorable coverage than anyone else. Combined with people in the media admitting they didn't learn anything about him (because they were to busy covering for him).

Since it's about opinions, I think he's rather basing it on the fact he was rooting for the Republican candidate and since that candidate lost it can only be because Obama cheated and so it was big media conspiracy that gave Obama 15 undue points (why 15 BTW? Why not 30? Why not claim every Obama vote was undue?). Any other position would require him to acknowledge that the majority of the country voted for Obama out of conviction, and since during the campaign Obama has been portrayed as a Muslim terrorist-lover who was born in Kenya, I guess when the other side lose a big conspiration is the only way to explain it all away.

And yes, that does count for Democrats when it's a Republican winning. The campaigns have gotten so nasty that now they just cannot stop with the actual election, the results HAVE to be contested by the disgruntled activists. Obviously America CANNOT have voted for Bush/Obama, obviously Obama/Bush CANNOT have won it fair and square, obviously the other guy SHOULD have won, obviously it CANNOT have anything to do with the fact the activists' political platform appealed to more voters, so let us claim the winner illegally stole the election.

Good thing we have politics to replace wars of religion. Oh wait, now we can have both. Bliss.

Glaz

04-06-2010, 09:03 AM

Look at her skirt line, it is a poorly done photoshop.
Absolutely. In fact, that's why I watch fox news, for the poor photoshopped skirts pulled up. In reality, they're dressed like mormons broads fresh off the compound.

Wimbly

04-06-2010, 09:12 AM

Since it's about opinions, I think he's rather basing it on the fact he was rooting for the Republican candidate and since that candidate lost it can only be because Obama cheated and so it was big media conspiracy that gave Obama 15 undue points (why 15 BTW? Why not 30? Why not claim every Obama vote was undue?).

Do you have any studies to counter the one I posted from a left wing blog? How do you explain the coverage?

Any other position would require him to acknowledge that the majority of the country voted for Obama out of conviction, and since during the campaign Obama has been portrayed as a Muslim terrorist-lover who was born in Kenya, I guess when the other side lose a big conspiration is the only way to explain it all away.Actually he was accused of liking American terrorists. Since he seemed to be surrounded by so many. The media quickly dismissed it for Obama. Unlike the "selected not elected" crap that continued even after Bush won again in 2004.

And yes, that does count for Democrats when it's a Republican winning. The campaigns have gotten so nasty that now they just cannot stop with the actual election, the results HAVE to be contested by the disgruntled activists. Obviously America CANNOT have voted for Bush/Obama, obviously Obama/Bush CANNOT have won it fair and square, obviously the other guy SHOULD have won, obviously it CANNOT have anything to do with the fact the activists' political platform appealed to more voters, so let us claim the winner illegally stole the election.What does this have to do with the fact our media gave over the top, positive coverage of Obama?

budgie

04-06-2010, 09:32 AM

What does this have to do with the fact our media gave over the top, positive coverage of Obama?

Positive yes. Over the top? Opinion. Hysteria? Opinion. This is what you're peddling Wimbly. You ask us to counter your reams of opinion articles with a similar number as though the one who can produce the most opinion wins. It's just opinion man.

Yeah we know the 'mainstream' media leans left, but this morbid obsession you have with 'outing' them has gone too far. It borders on conspiracy theory, with every slip of the tongue, every outspoken journo getting dragged over the coals on the various right-wing blogs you subscribe to. The media is i]supposed[/i] to be a bunch of lefties. We get it, we always did. But this vast conspiracy you've been touting, even a consistent pattern - doesn't exist. And on a site like mp.net where most people would identify with 'conservatives' you're preaching to the choir as well. Need a soapbox that bad? How's that sapling coming along?

Chulo

04-06-2010, 09:40 AM

Positive yes. Over the top? Opinion. Hysteria? Opinion. T

well even ABC agrees with the bias coverage
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
PEW research
http://www.journalism.org/node/12097

Wimbly

04-06-2010, 10:19 AM

Positive yes. Over the top? Opinion. Hysteria? Opinion. This is what you're peddling Wimbly. You ask us to counter your reams of opinion articles with a similar number as though the one who can produce the most opinion wins. It's just opinion man.

You call it opinion, when I provide actual, referenced statistics to back up my claims. Thats not opinion Bungie..... What you post is opinion, because you never back anything up. Just because you odont like the facts, doesn't make it opinion or conspiracy theory.

You never answer the question, but do you see Obama and the white house as conspiracy theorists?

Yeah we know the 'mainstream' media leans left, but this morbid obsession you have with 'outing' them has gone too far.No, it just makes you butt hurt. Of course when YOU are outing media or GOP, its ok right?

It borders on conspiracy theoryUgh, here we go again. Bungie, verified, referenced statistics are not conspiracy theory. You have no arguments of substance to offer, so you contanstly depend on insults and labeling anyhting you dont agree with "conspiracy theory". Its getting old.

with every slip of the tongue, every outspoken journo getting dragged over the coals on the various right-wing blogs you subscribe to. The media is i]supposed[/i] to be a bunch of lefties. We get it, we always did. But this vast conspiracy you've been touting, even a consistent pattern - doesn't exist. And on a site like mp.net where most people would identify with 'conservatives' you're preaching to the choir as well. Need a soapbox that bad? How's that sapling coming along?For someone who hates my threads, you are certainly are a regular contributor. Why not try posting some substance, instead of the usual accusations and insults? Its hard I know, but you should try it.

budgie

04-06-2010, 11:47 AM

For someone who hates my threads, you are certainly are a regular contributor. Why not try posting some substance, instead of the usual accusations and insults? Its hard I know, but you should try it.

Why not post something of substance in your own threads? Because while you occasionally catch some leftie loudmouth in the act, the vast majority of your threads are a collage of talking points and opinion pieces from the right-wing blogosphere. It's not news, it's garbage.

Wimbly

04-06-2010, 11:50 AM

Why not post something of substance in your own threads? .

Ok I'm done playing these childish games with you. Go back and re-read thread. I provided statistics to back my argument up, then you denied it and labeled it a conspiracy theory. Deal with that.

budgie

04-06-2010, 11:54 AM

D is three or four spaces removed from N on the keyboard.

Atlantic Friend

04-06-2010, 12:19 PM

Do you have any studies to counter the one I posted from a left wing blog? How do you explain the coverage?

What coverage? The supposedly nonexisting coverage of the brick attack, or the allegedly abnormal coverage of Obama?

Actually he was accused of liking American terrorists. Since he seemed to be surrounded by so many. The media quickly dismissed it for Obama. Unlike the "selected not elected" crap that continued even after Bush won again in 2004.

Yeah, it's terrible indeed. Now if I remember correctly, the Republicans had an excellent answer to it in 2000 : it ran on the lines of "our guy won, quit whining about it". It was pretty good Constitutional advice, perhaps they should follow it as well.

What does this have to do with the fact our media gave over the top, positive coverage of Obama?

I think it illustrates the point. The Big Media Conspiracy stole the 2009 election for Obama by giving him 15 points' worth of over the top, positive coverage. That's the only possible explanation, because we all know American voters are so stupid and uninterested in politics they couldn't have voted for him (as well as for McCain) because of his political platform, or the quality of his campaign, or because he came up as a better choice than his opponent. Nosireebob, can't do that.

Now, a simple question : do you really want objectivity in the media, Wimbly? Do you want the media to tell it like it is, and not like you and the next guy would want to hear it? Do you want every channel to put objectivity above anything else, to call a crook a crook regardless of party affiliation, to call a good decision a good decision even if that makes the side you're rooting for look like idiots for having opposed it?

And another question: if the majority of US media was baying for Obama's blood, stamping as idiotic his every move and decision, would you worry about over the top negative coverage? Or would you feel secure that this is objectivity at its finest?

Because in all honesty, the overwhelming majority of the people I know who complain about media bias do not demand less bias at all. They usually demand that the media gets more biased in their favor, as a form of compensation.