Donahue.... CANCELLED!

[spacecowboy]

I dislike Phil for one single reason: His interview style. The way he condescends others who don't share his view, and even stoops to calling names bothers me to no end. I've never had a problem with him being liberal, but he wasn't doing it intelligently, rather he was doing it confrontationally. I'm glad he's gone.

Amen.

SC

[Almaci]

Originally posted by Stone
This is like listening to Noam Chomsky rant about how Jimmy Carter isn't liberal. If you're far enough to the left, then everything else is going to look right-wing.

Who says im left?
Im opposed to the liberal use of abortians and within reason support the death penalty.
Doesnt that make me a Republican

Oh and as usual you dont addres any points I make, as ussual you just attack my position without explaining why.
It might be just my oppinion but at least I explained why its my oppinion.
Why dont you explain yourse?

[sleeve]

That's pretty inaccurate, Stone.

Calling CNN "left-wing" is a large leap of the imagination no matter what your personal political orientation. CNN is pretty right-leaning compared to many European news sources such as the BBC.

And no, that doesn't mean that the BBC is ultra-liberal, just that CNN is far less liberal then most American conservatives would like to believe.

[Stone]

The BBC IS quite, quite liberal, and CNN is definitely left-of-center. I guess I could go to one of those sites that lists various left-leaning quotes that have been made by CNN journalists, if you'd like. I don't see the point.

My position, then, is that most people on the left are fairly blind to media bias. Almaci, you seem to be blind to a whole lot of things, considering your interpretation of those headlines that you brought up in the other thread.

[Almaci]

Again youre spouting youre BELIEFS, I did too yes but at least I underscored it with showing you WHY I belief those things.
You still dont, youre still saying Youre blind and thats it, youre telling us that theyre left of center but dont tell us why, you say I seem blind to a lot of things but you arent sharing with us why.
At least i had the decency to explain WHY I disagree with the notion that CNN are liberal news spinners.

[spacecowboy]

My position, then, is that most people on the left are fairly blind to media bias. Almaci, you seem to be blind to a whole lot of things, considering your interpretation of those headlines that you brought up in the other thread.

That's a little stereotypical wouldn't you say? I think your statements are beginning to do more harm to your own credibility than to ours. If you can't support a rebuttal with an logical argument against Almaci's links then don't say anything. It just makes you look bad.

SC

[elBeardoAlwaysWins]

I like Donahue, he stuck it to Chris Matthews and showed the world what the Hardball man really is, a bitch pundit, it was great, I have it on tape.

And Stone is crazy, "CNN left of center," lol, typical American conservative distortion of reality. Weird.

[Stone]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
That's a little stereotypical wouldn't you say? I think your statements are beginning to do more harm to your own credibility than to ours. If you can't support a rebuttal with an logical argument against Almaci's links then don't say anything. It just makes you look bad.

SC

Stereotypical of what? How the hell am I going to avoid being stereotypical when I'm making a statement about "most of the people on the left"?

"an logical argument against Almaci's links" - What links? Almaci wrote about "Typical CNN Headlines" - I'm not willing to trust him on his summation of "typical" anything, given the way that he summarized articles in the other thread.

He's said that the essence of being public makes publicly funded news networks less biased than privately-funded (business-funded) news networks. That's idiotic. Pravda was publicly-funded, too. Being publicly-funded isn't any different from being privately-funded, except you're getting your money from governments instead of from businesses driven by individual actors (consumers). I'll trust the propulsion of individual consumers over some government if I'm looking for truth, anyday.


Almaci didn't back up his theory that public funding is better than private funding if you're looking for truth in journalism - do I now have to write some paper on market economics to prove that? Should I just claim that anyone who "understand the system of market economics" would agree with me? Should I write about typical BBC (or typical Pravda) headlines, or misinterpret actual CNN headlines and hope no one actually checks the documents?

Originally posted by Almaci
I seem blind to a lot of things but you arent sharing with us why.

I did share with you, in the other thread - remember that list of BBC headlines that you yanked off of the front page, either misreading or willfully misinterpreting each one in your description of the topic?

[sleeve]

Originally posted by Stone
The BBC IS quite, quite liberal, and CNN is definitely left-of-center. I guess I could go to one of those sites that lists various left-leaning quotes that have been made by CNN journalists, if you'd like. I don't see the point.

Show me a handful of "left-leaning" quotes from CNN journalists and I'll show you wall-to-wall coverage of "Target: Iraq" and endless interviews with retired generals and policy hawks. There is no serious coverage of the anti-war movement on any of the major news networks.

My position, then, is that most people on the left are fairly blind to media bias. Almaci, you seem to be blind to a whole lot of things, considering your interpretation of those headlines that you brought up in the other thread.

Conservatives raise the issue of media bias only when it suits them. Generally speaking, they have no interest in truly unbiased news coverage, but rather in elevating the likes of Fox News to the national standard for news. And I really think you ought to treat Ali's arguments more seriously.

[Stone]

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Show me a handful of "left-leaning" quotes from CNN journalists and I'll show you wall-to-wall coverage of "Target: Iraq" and endless interviews with retired generals and policy hawks. There is no serious coverage of the anti-war movement on any of the major news networks.

What would you qualify as serious coverage? Their showing of coverage on the war is hardly incompatible with left wing bias. Look, they know their clientele, and this is still the US - if they stuck with a BBC-type schedule of news reporting hardly anyone would watch. I don't think that necessarily shields them from the argument that they're biased towards the left - do you? The amount of "bias" is gradated. Do you need me to actually produce individual quotes from news anchors that seem to imply left-wing bias?

Conservatives raise the issue of media bias only when it suits them. Generally speaking, they have no interest in truly unbiased news coverage, but rather in elevating the likes of Fox News to the national standard for news. And I really think you ought to treat Ali's arguments more seriously.

Truly unbiased news coverage, I'd argue, doesn't exist - truly unbiased news coverage would be random, with a report on weapons violations on the front page one day and a report on Ms. Whiskerbee's lost cat on the front page the next. We could talk about whether CNN or Fox is further away from the center of US politics, that might be interesting.

And, as far as Almaci goes, which arguments?