SEC=UGA Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Hey, now. There are some direct correlations... meh, screw it. ETA: Glad I stopped where I did since Bushy deleted his post. Edited March 3, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Hey, now. There are some direct correlations... meh, screw it. ETA: Glad I stopped where I did since Bushy deleted his post. I was starting to take the debate too seriously and caught myself after posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ZMOG! they used stock union thug footage instead of freshly-baked!!!1! so someone is guilty of journalistic laziness. oh the horror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 time of you post noted Sweetie...I can post a few times, I just don't have all day to play. I think you are smart enough to know the difference. But then again, I have read some of your posts. I may be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Why can't MSNBC hire hawt lesbians instead of Rachel Maddow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ZMOG! they used stock union thug footage instead of freshly-baked!!!1! so someone is guilty of journalistic laziness deliberate lies. oh the horror. : Fixed, although it's still a totally predictable : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Why can't MSNBC hire hawt lesbians instead of Rachel Maddow? Because they all have other jobs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton would suplex Moneymakers and then squeeze the life out of him by placing his neck between her vice-grip legs. What a horrible position to be in, for sure. It would be like being bitten and chewed up by one of Michelle Obama's 400 teeth. I think that might be the precursor to when she tags in Janet Reno who finishes him off with her piledriving poll of doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) I think that might be the precursor to when she tags in Janet Reno who finishes him off with her piledriving poll of doom. I would tag Captain Karl Rove and all is well. Edited March 3, 2011 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Interesting hearing this for someone that is so fast to say "but Bush...". Anyway didn't all the clips from WI have "Madison" indicated on the footage? That seems to me to differentiate between the two. Maybe they assume the (rightly or wrongly) that their audience is more intelligent than those the majority on the left, and could pick up on where the clip was from based on what it said on the screen. It dang sure is a lot better than the way MSNBC selectively edited their footage int the "racist TEA Party" segment so that you couldn't see that the evil gun toting racist that hated that we had a black president, was in fact a black man. With regard to Hannity, O'Really, and Beck, I've never heard any of them claim to be anything other than commentators, as a matter of fact I've heard all three say many times that they are not journalists. The MSNBC post I provided was from a news show, not a commentary show. There is a significant difference in that, though I doubt you'll be willing to admit it. First thing I thought of also. The liberal hypocrisy is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What does Fox purposefully displaying clips that do not apply to the discussion at hand have to with George Bush? Or MSNBC? Is there no Fox News follower that has the integrity to say that they were wrong? :crickets: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What does Fox purposefully displaying clips that do not apply to the discussion at hand have to with George Bush? Or MSNBC? Is there no Fox News follower that has the integrity to say that they were wrong? :crickets: This from a guy that won't even answer a simple question in his own thread. Entertainment at its best with you wally. How would you even know what integrity looked like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 The only thing I think you guys are failing to notice is that the shows you guys are complaining about are mostly in the "talk show" format, much like Keith Olberman's show, Al Franken's radio show, etc... These are opinion shows, they are not going to shoot you straight, you know that, I know that, Because the news anchor is talking more than the guy she is supposed to be interviewing and actually interrupting and debating more than she is trying to have (what other news channels seem to consider " non-talk show") question and answer session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What does Fox purposefully displaying clips that do not apply to the discussion at hand have to with George Bush? Or MSNBC? Is there no Fox News follower that has the integrity to say that they were wrong? :crickets: The rebels, armed with rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns and tanks, called Wednesday for U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries it said were fighting for Gaddafi. Opposition activists called for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya's deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi. "Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Because the news anchor is talking more than the guy she is supposed to be interviewing and actually interrupting and debating more than she is trying to have (what other news channels seem to consider " non-talk show") question and answer session. Anthony Weiner nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) The best piece of journalistic integrity on Fox is their use of the phrase "some people say" to interject an agenda into any discussion. This phrase is used constantly throughout their broadcasts and not just from the talk show format guys like oreilly. Edited March 3, 2011 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The best piece of journalistic integrity on Fox is their use of the phrase "some people say" to interject an agenda into any discussion. This phrase is used constantly throughout their broadcasts and not just from the talk show format guys like oreilly. You idiot. That is a commonly used tactic by many interviewers on all sides of the aisle. You lib morons must take a class on how to be disingenuous. For crying out loud I have seen that tactic on 60 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 My father in law spends a good portion of his day watching Fox News. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. or is that... What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) If Fox News is the ring, who is Gollum? Zeke, tosberg, or gpb? Or moneymkaers? Edited March 3, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The best piece of journalistic integrity on Fox is their use of the phrase "some people say" to interject an agenda into any discussion. This phrase is used constantly throughout their broadcasts and not just from the talk show format guys like oreilly. Well to be fair, when they use the phrase "some people say" on Fox, they are usually referring to . . . another commentator ON FOX. So they reinforce the same opinion-based reporting. Using the phrase "some people say" isnt party-specific if you actually use other outlets for reference, but when you are just using your co-workers as the sole point of reference, then you are only doing so to advance your own agenda. It is like Glenn Back spouting some Hitler nonsense, and then Hannity saying "you know some people compare Obama to Hitler". Yes. yes they do. It fact, it was the crazy guy on your own network that said that. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Well to be fair, when they use the phrase "some people say" on Fox, they are usually referring to . . . another commentator ON FOX. So they reinforce the same opinion-based reporting. Using the phrase "some people say" isnt party-specific if you actually use other outlets for reference, but when you are just using your co-workers as the sole point of reference, then you are only doing so to advance your own agenda. It is like Glenn Back spouting some Hitler nonsense, and then Hannity saying "you know some people compare Obama to Hitler". Yes. yes they do. It fact, it was the crazy guy on your own network that said that. Well done. So CBS doesn't do the same thing? Just Fox? You lie worse than Fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Sweetie...I can post a few times, I just don't have all day to play. I think you are smart enough to know the difference. But then again, I have read some of your posts. I may be wrong. man, you are witty....good stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) man, you are witty....good stuff see what I mean...the more time you spend lapping bushwacked's nutsack the more you act like him. yer doin a heck of a job. Edited March 3, 2011 by caddyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) In case you aren't following the gas thread, I thought I'd give you this little tidbit regarding media bias. Bush Links To Oil Rise Ran 15-To-1 Vs. Obama By JULIA A. SEYMOUR Posted 03/02/2011 06:34 PM ET Unrest in the Mideast has hit American consumers hard, driving up gas prices that had already been above $3-a-gallon since Dec. 23. The national average for gasoline hit $3.36 on Feb. 28, the highest ever for the month of February, according to the Associated Press. But the amount of network news coverage of rising gas prices did not reflect it. All three broadcast networks together averaged just one story about rising gas prices per day. In contrast, when gas prices rose similarly in 2008, the networks averaged more than one story, per network, per day. It took 24 days, from Feb. 1 to Feb. 24, for the national average for unleaded gasoline to climb from $3.101 to 3.228. The last comparable period of "eye-popping" gas prices: the 20 days between Feb. 21 and March 11, 2008, when the national average climbed from $3.086 to $3.227. Some 2008 reports, including the March 6 "Early Show," exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump charging $5.19 a gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower. Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe." The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 1/2 times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011. But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media's willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned "Bush," the "president" or "government" in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1). A number of stories portrayed Bush as out-of-the-loop when asked about the possibility of $4 gas and hadn't yet heard that prediction. In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention Obama has been NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24, when Tom Costello quoted Obama as being "optimistic." "We actually think that we'll be able to ride out the Libya situation and it will stabilize," Obama said. Costello didn't question the president's statement or mention any of the administration's policies that will constrict the supply of oil and gasoline and could further increase the price of gasoline for consumers. Investors Business Daily Was that CBS, that failed to note the location of gas prices? Edited March 3, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 In case you aren't following the gas thread, I thought I'd give you this little tidbit regarding media bias. Investors Business Daily Perch, have you given thought to when oil rose before . . we had a direct influence on that by CHOOSING to engage in a war in Iraq versus the unrest now is completely out of the hands of the US in relation to Libya? Bush sure didnt do himself any favors at all with his families very very very close ties with teh Saudi Arabian gubmnet either . . . . now if Kenya had anything of value we imported a lot of, THEN Obama would be up SHAM WOW! creek without a paddle . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.