Alright, then, more specifically, how did the media smear bush during the 2006 congressional elections?
I didn't make that claim specifically nor is it a correct inference of a claim on your part. Bush wasn't up for reelection in '06, however, that question is relevant as far as how he's been torn down by the left's relentless demagoguery that followed with the decision to go into Iraq. This stuff: Lying Liar, Adolf Hitler, Miserable Failure, Waged War for Political Gain, War for Oil, Targetted Civilians for Assasination, Cokehead, Insane, Inept, Draft-Dodger, Re-opened Saddam's Torture Chambers under New Management, yadda yadda.
But no, what I was talking about was our '06 congressional losses and how drive-by media agents (a pejorative I've grown to like) aided the cause with their war reporting style. Addressing personal smears be they covert or even overt by members of the MSM (not openly partisan media members) is another matter. I was speaking to a general impression of how they simply wait for something to explode, a chopper to go down, or a solider(s) to die, etc. and then that's mostly the news that I'll get out of Iraq. After a couple of years this leaves me and I'm sure other Americans wondering, are we doing ANYTHING right over there? I don't get a comprehensive progress report, where are we going right, as well as wrong. I mostly just get the wrong. They simply wait for a soldier to die or something to blow up and I'm left with that, by and large. I'm not saying it's always the case, as I did see the reporting on the elections they had, the approval of their constitution, etc. but it's been very tilted to where I get everything that goes wrong in Iraq along with an extra fixation on it. Abu Graib for example. Way over reported.
I watched MSNBC and FOX On MSNBC, Olberman clearly leaned to the left, but he's not taken seriously. His show is halfway between the Daily Show and a real news show.
He leans to the far angry left. But you're really getting far away from my point in giving me your judgements of openly partisan/televised op-ed type news programs.
Let's see, gee, what am I gonna do today? I know! Lemme declare O'Reilly the worst person in the world again! Yeaaaaah!! Pffft.
Occasionally, Chris Matthews leaned to the right, but he balanced it out with his personal disgust with the president's policies.
He's gone considerably left since the Iraq war started. I wouldn't say he's balanced, but that doesn't matter! He is what he is. If I'm watching Chris Matthews, I'm getting his views, what he thinks on any particular subject. I have no illusions about that fact. I know he was Jimmy Carter's speech writer and the rest.
I said what I take issue with is when you claim you're non-partisan, down the middle, but when it couldn't be further from the truth. It's the attempt to hold onto the status of objectivity/fairness in your hard news coverage that offends me when I know you're full of shit. That is for what I use the drive-by media comment. For them. That's not what Chris claims nor any other host you mentioned further down. These are all televised op-eds.
However, FNC indisputably leaned far to the right.
FNC is indisputably moderate to conservative. Perhaps you're just too far to the left (which judging by your use of TheNation isn't far from the truth), and so of course watching something like FNC appears too far to the right. I'll trust my own gauging thank you very much, not that of a liberal when deciding degrees of "too far to the right" & "too far to the left" but then on the other hand, I'll project that guaging as fact, the way a liberal does. Heh.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
FNC is moderate.
There. Just practicing, don't mind me.
You have Hannity and Colmes, where you have a strong conservative against a moderate.
By my gauging Sean is a moderate and Colmes is a liberal, but the only positive thing I can say about him is he's polite at least. He's not a moderate in his views, that'd be a silly claim. I don't call someone a moderate simply because they're nice/polite most of the time.
You have the O'Reilly Factor, which leans extremely right.
Ah, horseshit. O'Reilly at times leans left on things, which is why I prefer Sean better as he is a real Reagan Republican. Overall though the O'Reilly Factor is not a bad show and I love his work on speaking truth to power when it comes to groups like the ACLU (aka American Criminal Liberties Union).
But once again, this is an opinion on someone that runs a televised op-ed. FNC exists, so deal with it, but don't all of a sudden act like it's so all encompassing and overwhelming in influence that leftists are now having to run for the hills.
Fair and balanced my ass.
Yeah, it is fair and balanced WHEN put into perspective against the rest of the big networks. By itself as a single entity, yeah, you get more right than left. But the argument that they're making (or have been making) is that the rest of that [old] media hasn't been giving you the whole story and that they're there to fill in some of the blanks, but the sticking point for many is that they do use a good deal of televised op-ed types of shows to make that point.
From my own experience, I got to hear news analysis I never heard before in my entire life viewing just the other big 3 networks (although, theirs is a different style of reporting). That's why I would watch FOX religiously when I had it because I found myself a great many times saying,
"Hell yeah, that's how I always thought about the issue. Why didn't I ever hear this being analyzed like that before anywhere else?" Even from the first day I tuned in when somebody told me about the network, it felt like someone filling in a vacuum that was always there but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. See, if I didn't feel that argument of theirs didn't have any merit, I wouldn't have remained a loyal viewer for all the years I was able to. I could've spent my time elsewhere if I didn't feel I was getting a fairly exclusive style of opiniated reporting that was informing me of things I wasn't getting from the other free big networks on my tv dial, which I was, and why I kept coming back for more...
Personally, I seem to prefer a show like Hannity and Colmes where they report hard news, but give you their personal opinions and analysis (a televised op-ed) instead of pretending they're objective news reporters simply trying to seek the truth and present it as fairly as possible, but all the while sneaking in their bias. In this case, there's no attempt to conceal bias because it's overt/open and I prefer it that way.
Also, I think attention that leftists place on FNC is disproportionate given their audience share is a drop in a bucket when compared to the audience size that any one of the big 3 networks garner. I wonder how crazy they'd go if O'Reilly was pulling in 7 million viewers instead of his usual 1.5-2.3 million or whatever it usually hovers at.
Special Report with Brit Hume is the only moderately middle-of-the-road show on the whole channel, and even that has clear right leanings.
Brit Hume is a pretty good guy and in no way deserved the kind of bullshit Al Franken gave him. Looks like we
almost found agreement if we're gonna analyze televised op-ed programs.
and little to no bias in the mainstream print media (Washington Post, New York Times).
Hahahah. New York Slimes and the Washington Compost... Little to no bias, huh? LOL
You're playing with me now, right? That's OK, I've been playing with you too.
However, if you count the extremes in print, they cancel eachother out (thenation, new york post, washington times).
I think we'd have a very different country if print or whatever media was balancing/canceling each other out.
Then again, the nation is no where near as extreme the New York Post (accused Bill and Hillary of murdering a business partner for MONTHS?!)
The Post may be tabloidish, but when compared to the oldest and most left-wing of all popular American weekly magazines that supported the Russian Revolution, that holds the honor of being the first to publish the Soviet Constitution, your basic Soviet lapdog that gave a platform to pro-Soviet Marxists for a time, I'd say the Post at least has some class...
Yessss, a magazine with Stalinist ownership & influence for a time could never be all that extreme. My fault though, they have toned it down a bit in recent years, eh? So yeah, let's just wipe their past under the rug. Give 'em some credit and stop being all McCarthy on 'em. They're "reformed" Stalinist trash now minus Chris Hitchens of course, right?
the Washington Times(Run by a cult leader who declared himself the second coming of the Messiah and has said on record that he would sentence all gays to death).
Whatever. Guess he can find common ground with Fidel Castro then who actually has had a long tradition of imprisoning same gender loving "undesirables."
If you'd like to point me to specific liberal bias in the media (Media Research Center's CyberAlerts are intellectually dishonest and untrustworthy (they pick and choose facts etc.)), I'd be eager to investigate it.
Hm, "intellectually dishonest and untrustworthy..." Exactly what I think of Eric Alterman, The Nation, The Washington Compost, The New York Slimes and the whole gang right along with you.
Let's not play coy. You wouldn't be eager to investigate anything. For people like you, the truth is already known, and the objective is to cloud it.
Media Research Center actually is one such tool for reference of bias incidents and I certainly do trust it more for such a purpose over something like say MediaMatters.
EDITx1:
EDIT: By the way, don't take any of this personally. The fact that our political views differ shouldn't be taken personally, not saying that you are doing so. =)
I didn't see this till after. But um, political arguments often go that route as I'm sure we both know. And we definitely got some friction going on here. Definitely. Heh.
Am I taking it personally? Well, your position is one that calls my honesty into question, or, my honest conclusion about a particular subject. That and an initial mocking tone is a basis to take something personally. I would also say though it'd be fair now given I directly call your honesty into question myself.
