News sources/talk shows

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

I watch all of them or more correctly I read all of the websites. That is the only way to gather the entire picture. CNN passes on certain things you will only see on Fox and vice versa. Trying to find one outlet you like and only viewing/reading that outlet is a flawed premise, in my opinion. Nancy Grace is a miserable shrew but does make a good point every now and then.

My problem with Nancy is that when she screws up she just fades into the ether. Whether it be Melinda Duckett or Elizabeth Smart Nancy Grace is a bully when it suits her but when she is outed as a fraud the following night her show is premised with the following statement "FILLING IN FOR NANCY GRACE TONIGHT IS...."

Besides we are not supposed to finding an outlet we like. Part of the reality of the news is that is what it is... not a pandering to what we want to hear.

[SanteeFats]

And the unfortunate thing is I have not been able to find any source that presents a relatively unbiased account of any current event. I admit I lean what I consider to be moderate right but I want the truth so I can make up my own mind not be told what to think by some one with an agenda.

[Dropped52]

I think my favorite show would be America now with andy dean, sadly it was canceled but he does a pod cast now of the show. I liked him because he was in my age bracket, early 30s, and he had more than just the same old political shtick. He also had guest hosts alot that were of different political views and he gave them fair air time. Like you Santee I lean to the right, more libertarian that republican at this point. Also tarkus I don't fault you for your news choices because like you said no one is right, I just think you were a little heavy handed on the anti right side of the Isle stuff but you have that right to be, that's the beauty of this discussion is we don't have to agree at all and we can express our views in an open format.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

And the unfortunate thing is I have not been able to find any source that presents a relatively unbiased account of any current event. I admit I lean what I consider to be moderate right but I want the truth so I can make up my own mind not be told what to think by some one with an agenda.

I think part of the problem with trying to obtain an objective data set is that the current news model is based on pushing the personality factor. For example last night on CNN Don Lemon was focusing on Ben Carson's gay comment. They play a 15 second clip of what he said and then bring in three 'experts' who spend 10 minutes telling the viewers what he really meant and why he is right or he is wrong. At what point does this stop becoming news and just news network paid personalities? From what I saw from the right/left/middle expert about 10 seconds from when they began to speak.

You can hold whatever opinion you want about the causal factors of sexual preference but the only voices not heard in that debate were any people who actually knew anything about the endogenous and/or exogenous causal factors. Instead we got to listen to three people with the scientific knowledge of a particularly poorly read gnat suggesting to some degree that if a person goes to prison and decides to suck a dick or get her clitoris licked that this is a choice thereby proving without a doubt that being gay is a choice or is not or maybe it a non choice that was chosen. This is news? No this is just about personality and of course if for the sake of argument the right winger was made to look stupid, well made himself look stupid by opening his mouth rather than just shutting up and saying 'no comment', the conservative response would be "well Don Lemon is gay so the whole thing was an example of ambush guerrilla journalism" so even the entire foundation of the news is suspect.

Is it a wonder that no one considers the news as objective when even the source is ignored let alone any real in depth investigation of fact.

[SanteeFats]

Well there is a poll out from Quinnipiac University about news sources. Now all you Fox haters and there are some here please keep it cool. Here is the link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2173. Fox wins in this poll.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Well there is a poll out from Quinnipiac University about news sources. Now all you Fox haters and there are some here please keep it cool. Here is the link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2173. Fox wins in this poll.

Interesting poll but I am not sure that it all that unusual for people to on hand trust something but then turn around and dislike it when asked for specific examples. While not relevant to this discussion I always thought the Menendez brothers trial was a perfect example of strange dualities that people can hold; when asked why they found the brothers guilty the jury said that they did not believe any of the claims that the brothers had been physically and/or sexually abused by their father. Okay that makes sense and being as I wasn't there they must have had their reasons. When it came to sentencing the jury returned with life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. When asked why not death the general response was that it didn't seem fair given that the brothers had suffered physical and/or sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

So I am not sure that it is all that unusual for people to hold a firm belief in one aspect and then turn around on others. In the case of Fox I expect that the faith in Fox speaks more to their belief in their ideology and that the network confirms their belief. When you get to actual stories it becomes harder because individual stories are not necessarily specific to the ideology or at least can be viewed on their own merit.

29% of Americans polled indicated that they trusted Fox the most which falls within the standard for the so called 'hardcore Conservatives' population in the US. So really no surprise there. It is kind of refreshing to see that these same people however do not march like allegorical lemmings to whatever is stated by Fox and then question the stories.

So I guess the reality is that these people tune into Fox because they find it like minded but then treat the news items on a case by case basis.

[turat]

If you look at the stats...

When asked, "Do you trust the journalistic coverage provided by FOX News," 20 percent of U.S. voters say "a great deal" and 35 percent say "somewhat." Scores for other networks are:

Fox News - 20 percent "a great deal" and 35 percent "somewhat;"
NBC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 46 percent "somewhat;"
ABC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CBS News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CNN - 18 percent "a great deal" and 43 percent "somewhat."
MSNBC - 11 percent "a great deal" and 41 percent "somewhat;"

Now, apart from cable, NBC ABC and CBS can also be viewed OTA (over the air). This greatly extends the reach of the "Big Three".

In contrast, official Fox News is cable-sourced, like MSNBC and CNN.

You can see by how much the deck is stacked against conservative news media. And yet you see and hear Obama and his minions say that if the likes of Fox and Rush Limbaugh would just go away, he could transform America.

The "drive-by media", NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Hollywood, Reuters, AP, liberal websites and bloggers, conduct daily attacks on conservatism, both subtle and overt.

Now I'm not a stooge for the right by any means. In fact I believe the current GOP "leadership" in both houses are manned by spineless, jaded old fart jackasses the likes of Boehner and Mcconnell. And the GOP's Karl Rove is rightly as much of a useless asshole as many true conservatives believe he is.

There is much to like about certain liberal ideas for the good of this country. The key is respect and compromise and the right leader to take us there.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

29% of Americans polled indicated that they trusted Fox the most which falls within the standard for the so called 'hardcore Conservatives' population in the US. So really no surprise there. It is kind of refreshing to see that these same people however do not march like allegorical lemmings to whatever is stated by Fox and then question the stories.

So I guess the reality is that these people tune into Fox because they find it like minded but then treat the news items on a case by case basis.

I do believe you are wrong Tarkus. It seems that not just hard right conservatives view Fox.
Among regular Fox News Channel viewers, 39% identified as Republican, 33% as Democrats and 22% as independents. Among regular CNN viewers, 51% identified as Democrats, 23% were independents and just 18% were Republicans. In short, Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN’s audience.
Oh yeah this is from the Pew research group.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by turat

If you look at the stats...

When asked, "Do you trust the journalistic coverage provided by FOX News," 20 percent of U.S. voters say "a great deal" and 35 percent say "somewhat." Scores for other networks are:

Fox News - 20 percent "a great deal" and 35 percent "somewhat;"
NBC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 46 percent "somewhat;"
ABC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CBS News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CNN - 18 percent "a great deal" and 43 percent "somewhat."
MSNBC - 11 percent "a great deal" and 41 percent "somewhat;"

Now, apart from cable, NBC ABC and CBS can also be viewed OTA (over the air). This greatly extends the reach of the "Big Three".

In contrast, official Fox News is cable-sourced, like MSNBC and CNN.

You can see by how much the deck is stacked against conservative news media. And yet you see and hear Obama and his minions say that if the likes of Fox and Rush Limbaugh would just go away, he could transform America.

I doubt that these stats demonstrate anything other than a higher percentage, (not numbers since any the three mainstream news organizations have more viewers of its news program in one night than all of cable news combined does over a week), of like minded viewers adhere to the bias of Fox tha others. If anything it probably speaks to the intellectual weakness of the core Fox viewership. I expect Putin is getting higher numbers from his State run media sources so one has to be careful about putting too much trust into statistics that are essentially not measuring what they appear to be.

However that said you do state one very telling point in your response:

"You can see by how much the deck is stacked against conservative news media."

There are two aspects of this current mind speak that I wonder about and maybe as someone who is 'not a stooge' you can clarify these for me.

First and foremost what actual proof is there that there is this so called liberal bias against the conservatives? Observationally it seems more that the conservatives have come to the stance that any response that is not undying support for their dogma, even the extreme, is an attack on conservative values and thus biased. Thanks to Sarah Palin and her inability to respond to one very simple follow up question from Katie Couric, - do you read? Yes. oh what do you read? - we now have two standard responses from every conservative who is challenged on anything innately unsupported or pandering to their base:

"the liberal biased press took me out of context when I said the majority of rapes are the fault of the woman"

"asking me to explain my position when I said the majority of rapes are the fault of the woman was nothing but guerrilla ambush journalism"

For the ideology that seemingly claims it is all about 'taking personal responsibility' these two approaches can only be construed as counter intuitive. I know that some factions of the conservative movement to this day still believe that Edward R. Murrow's intellectual dismantling of Senator McCarthy was next to treasonous but if all your dogma can support is a 'unfair and unbalanced' network to let you evoke your dogma unchallenged then one has to question whether or not the person speaking even believes the ideology or is in fact just mouthing the party line.

Does anyone in the conservative movement every wonder that maybe many of their leaders just say really stupid things and then get all bent out of shape when they have to face the media to explain their words? Is that conservatives in their mind speak love to claim how much they love their country and yet only accept a small majority of so called 'real Americans' who from the surface merely seem to be other like minded?

Why is it when the media puts out a sound byte where Ted Cruz announces that God isn't finished with America yet, (keeping in mind such a statement is fundamentally an equivalence to al-Baghdadi proclaiming that God is behind Daesh), that this is a clear bias and yet when the same news provider shows a clip of Al Sharpton claiming that every police officer wakes up in the morning with the intent to shoot a black youth that somehow this is not?

It seems far more likely that this is about conservative victimization where apparently Christmas is almost on the brink of being canceled, churches in every American town are about to be forcibly torn down so a Mosque can be built and how with literally one Muslim in Congress the US is a heart beat away from having Sharia Law imposed on the State. - mind you if you actually knew what Sharia law entails and compared it to Fundamentalist Christian law... not that different -

All that said where is this so called conspiracy against the conservative movement in media except where it seems almost absolutely necessary from a pragmatic stance?

Originally Posted by turat

The "drive-by media", NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Hollywood, Reuters, AP, liberal websites and bloggers, conduct daily attacks on conservatism, both subtle and overt.

When it comes to the blogs/web media etc. the conservatives are over represented in this respect. The Glenn Becks/Limbaughs have far more reach than the few contrary voices both in terms of listener/viewership and money. Essentially this is all 'talk radio' and that has always been the domain of the religious/conservative voice where all you need is a microphone that works and audience that doesn't. People who understand the actual science of Global Warming do not tune into talk radio whereas those who in Oklahoma who are driving by the fields replete with yet another failed corn crop need validation that not only are the crops just fine but that it is the liberal elite that is behind the drought.

What really are these attacks you speak of? Just telling the reality despite the fact that a faction of the US does not want to hear it?

I am not asking this facetiously. What are these attacks? Hollywood is a bad example since a: they are like Palin in that they are all Kim Kardashian, (mostly ass), and b: they apparently do not sway any influence except those who already adhere to their position. So what does ABC or CBS, (can't be sure about NBC since apparently Brian Williams is currently off in the 7th Dimension fighting off the Zorgatrons who want to invade earth... single handedly I might add!), actually do that is a 'drive by' or are they in fact pulling an Obama when it comes to Netanyau by pointing out the truth?

"when I said 'we will continue to expand the settlements and that there will never be a two State solution under my watch' you took me out of context by somehow inferring such a statement could be construed as meaning we will continue to expand the settlements and that there will never be a two State solution under my watch. Clearly another example of liberal biased media!"

I am pretty convinced that pointing out what you said counts... again the whole "taking responsibility for yourself" adage that the conservative voices seemingly love to cast at everyone else.

Originally Posted by turat

Now I'm not a stooge for the right by any means. In fact I believe the current GOP "leadership" in both houses are manned by spineless, jaded old fart jackasses the likes of Boehner and Mcconnell. And the GOP's Karl Rove is rightly as much of a useless asshole as many true conservatives believe he is.

There is much to like about certain liberal ideas for the good of this country. The key is respect and compromise and the right leader to take us there.

Oddly enough many years back in the mid 90's I was fairly impressed with Boehner, (McConnell was and will forever be what is wrong with the Senate whether you be dromedary or wooly mammoth), but he saw the brass ring and one day while washing his tidy whities noticed that his integrity had been lost in the rinse cycle. Kind of common happened to John McCain about a decade years later when he decided that getting microphone time on the media was more important than his integrity.

What is funny about McConnell and Boehner is how their politically strategic intransigent approach to the Democrats since 2003 have come to bite them in the ass as they now have no tactic to find a concurrence with their "Tea Party Alum". I guess when you took the stance "Right Wing is right" it is hard to claim the high ground when those are debating believe "Extreme Right Wing is right."


Ultimately your last paragraph is correct. You need both liberal and conservative views to move forward in a rational manner. You won't like what I have say next in that eventually all 'universal non-morally claused positions' (like murder etc.) conservative values will in time be found a failure because conservatives values are not evolutionary but in fact regressive but that is their role, (different discussion but an interesting one). We cannot move forward without this constant and very necessary push and pull and it is when that dynamic is applied that tend to perform our best, (ie: the rigid US Military thinking made the US fall behind the space race <- conservative, so let the intellectual elite figure it out <- liberal, Military can implement but not think outside the box, intellectual elite can think outside the box but cannot implement, engage private industry as a middleware <-pragmatic and constrained by cost schedule control systems.


Much of our issue lies in the fact that we focus on the extremes of each side rather than those who get the work done. After all look at Netanyahu since the election:

1. I do want a two State solution.
2. I formally apologize to the Arab Israelis for what I said.

Liar? Probably but when... to the right to get himself elected to the left now that he is elected and realizes he has painted himself into a corner.

How is any of that a liberal or conservative bias?

[Tarkus666]

> I do believe you are wrong Tarkus. It seems that not just hard right conservatives view Fox.
Among regular Fox News Channel viewers, 39% identified as Republican, 33% as Democrats and 22% as independents. Among regular CNN viewers, 51% identified as Democrats, 23% were independents and just 18% were Republicans. In short, Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN’s audience.
Oh yeah this is from the Pew research group.

You probably define me as a leftie because I point out conservative failures, of course you take any time I point out liberal failures as just being 'on point'. That said I do not watch Fox News simply because it isn't part of my standard cable package but I do get their news feed. So what does mean to your statistic?

Nothing of course. People of all stripes watch all sorts of news shows. However it has been shown that those people with a core dogmatic focus do tune into those shows that they believe represent their pre-existing beliefs.

Now that said you have to be careful about talking about Fox News NEWS versus the opinion news segments. Fox News' actual NEWS program falls under a different set of FCC regulations than the Gretchen Carlson/Bill O'Reilly "lying hour" shows which are deemed as 'commentator/opinion'. Now granted the format of the Fox News system is to have their commenting shows prior to the actual News so they can quote "experts" but in all the actual Fox News itself is pretty close to what you will see on ABC/CNN/ etc. albeit with more gatekeeping.

What you are confusing here is what we define as 'source news'. The democrats you cite do not go to Fox News to find out what is happening in the world. They go there to see what in their mind is being misreported.

Using your position Jon Stewart must be an incredibly die hard conservative because apparently he spends an inordinate amount of time watching Fox News. I get that because I spend a lot of time listening/reading/watching sources that I know from the start are flawed but that is why I am there.

So be a little careful about misconstruing the facts... unless you are honestly that person who believes that Democrats are going to Fox for their actual news.