Fairness Doctrine Video

[iplaw]

Yap all you want, but the donations speak for themselves.  Be thankful that you have such a iron grip on the mainstream media.  Denying that predisposition that everyone sees just makes you look foolish.

[NellieBly]

There are literally hundreds of thousands of working journalists and they found 144 that donated to democrats (mind you, not liberals, but democratic candidates) OMG!! Every body panic. How many donated to the Bushies?

Please -- think the airwaves are owned by liberals? It wasn't liberals censoring the Dixie Chicks' music. It was the conservative ownership that demanded it. Clear Channel, Cox -- conservative owned.

[MichaelC]

Predisposition, as in they aren't pumping terrorism all the time.  As in, they aren't violently opposed to abortion.  As in, they don't automatically tow the Presidential line.  As in, they don't thump their bibles and preach evils of Islam.  As in, they don't automatically slam Democrats by default, or any other party.  

You want predisposition.  If it isn't automatically slanted to fit your preferred media stylings, you call it liberal.  If you don't see predisposition, you'll find a way to make it up.  

Most of your media, besides the Fox/News Corp clan, has it's own automatic "fairness doctrine."  Most of them are exercising that more now, because of the "contributions" you protest so mightily.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

There are literally hundreds of thousands of working journalists and they found 144 that donated to democrats (mind you, not liberals, but democratic candidates) OMG!! Every body panic. How many donated to the Bushies?

Please -- think the airwaves are owned by liberals? It wasn't liberals censoring the Dixie Chicks' music. It was the conservative ownership that demanded it. Clear Channel, Cox -- conservative owned.

Yeah, that's the standard line taken by most libs when they read this story.  This is not the only story that backs up this position.  Google is your friend.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Predisposition, as in they aren't pumping terrorism all the time.  As in, they aren't violently opposed to abortion.  As in, they don't automatically tow the Presidential line.  As in, they don't thump their bibles and preach evils of Islam.  As in, they don't automatically slam Democrats by default, or any other party.  

You want predisposition.  If it isn't automatically slanted to fit your preferred media stylings, you call it liberal.  If you don't see predisposition, you'll find a way to make it up.  

Most of your media, besides the Fox/News Corp clan, has it's own automatic "fairness doctrine."  Most of them are exercising that more now, because of the "contributions" you protest so mightily.

No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal.  Paging Dan Rather.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

No, predisposition as in predisposed to being liberal.  Paging Dan Rather.

Bad journalism can plague all media.  News
Corp almost isn't news at all, because of bad journalism.

That it doesn't spew what you want it to spew, makes it liberal.

I disagree generally with gov't issued fairness doctrine.  Most news outlets have it anyway.  If AM radio listeners and their Fox News/News Corp relatives are so stupid as to believe that what they listen to is true, you can't fix stupid.  And if there's a market for stupid, somebody's gotta take up the space.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
That it doesn't spew what you want it to spew, makes it liberal.

I disagree generally with gov't issued fairness doctrine.  Most news outlets have it anyway.  If AM radio listeners and their Fox News/News Corp relatives are so stupid as to believe that what they listen to is true, you can't fix stupid.  And if there's a market for stupid, somebody's gotta take up the space.

Funny, I could say the same for you.  It looks middle of the road to you because it aligns with your POV.  Foxnews only appears conservative to you because the other outlets are truly not middle of the road.

Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you.  Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan.  IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you.  Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan.  IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...

Before "conservative" media existed, you guys just decided one day that everything else was "liberal".  It was this so-called "liberal" media that brought down LBJ, Nixon, showed the Ford was kind of slow, pounded inflation during Carter and Reagan, sent Clinton to impeachment, and unveiled much of the inter-workings of Bush II.

The only president the "liberal media" didn't really touch much was Bush I.  He kind of hung himself with his own party.

Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media".  The true "liberal media" barely exists at all.  You want indoctrination.  You want pro-Republican propaganda.  You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes.  You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda.  And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that.  Go get you some.

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Mainstream media spews what you want spewed, so therefore they are reasonable to you.  Unless you're somehow above the partisan fray, but a quick read of your posts makes that thought as rediculous as saying I'm unpartisan.  IOW, everyone is partisan, except you...

Before "conservative" media existed, you guys just decided one day that everything else was "liberal".  It was this so-called "liberal" media that brought down LBJ, Nixon, showed the Ford was kind of slow, pounded inflation during Carter and Reagan, sent Clinton to impeachment, and unveiled much of the inter-workings of Bush II.

The only president the "liberal media" didn't really touch much was Bush I.  He kind of hung himself with his own party.

Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media".  The true "liberal media" barely exists at all.  You want indoctrination.  You want pro-Republican propaganda.  You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes.  You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda.  And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that.  Go get you some.

You're funny!

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC
Yes, you fictionalized "liberal media".  The true "liberal media" barely exists at all.  You want indoctrination.  You want pro-Republican propaganda.  You want anti-Islam, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-taxes.  You aren't looking for fair, you're looking for propaganda.  And you found it, and again, I'm cool with that.  Go get you some.

Again, everyone is partisan except you and those that agree with you. Delightful...

Trying to compare media outlets as they existed 15, 20 or 30 years ago is fallacious as well. The money donated speaks for itself.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Lister

You're funny!

Fine, I'll take it.  Though, I prefer hilarious.

There's nothing too funny about some folks complete inability to comprehend or accept the simple functions of media and news.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Again, everyone is partisan except you and those that agree with you.  Delightful...

Trying to compare media outlets as they existed 15, 20 or 30 years ago is fallacious as well.  The money donated speaks for itself.

Yes, we should all tinkle ourselves because money was donated.  By God, let us tinkle.

And by God!  Let the media bring down every Democrat president, let's just not allow them to bring down Republicans.  The concept of "liberal" or "leftist" media, as described by gov't, has been around much longer than you.

It's not about partisan.  You don't understand the media in any other terms than "us versus them."  Then you drag your little conspiracy everywhere you go, trying to convince everyone else that there's nothing normal about this media.  And anyone who says it's normal, only does so to hide their "liberalism".  Again, go get you some, I'm very happy that they have an outlet for you.

[iplaw]

quote:You don't understand the media in any other terms than "us versus them.

So am I to assume that you want exactly the opposite of these evil conservative POVs? How is it that your position isn't indoctrination or propaganda, but the conservative position is?

You can't adopt both sides of an issue without being duplicitous or waffling(Unless you're John Kerry).  You decry the same malady that you yourself suffer from.

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Lister

You're funny!

Fine, I'll take it.  Though, I prefer hilarious.

There's nothing too funny about some folks complete inability to comprehend or accept the simple functions of media and news.

Me thinks you need to look in the mirror..

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You can't adopt both sides of an issue without being duplicitous or waffling.  You decry the same malady that you yourself suffer from.

In your "us versus them" world, that would be true.  However, "conservative" media is a response to the label of "liberal" on everything mainstream.   Many people bought into this label, and looked for something else.  AM Radio, and Fox/News Corp gave it to them in the form of near-pure propaganda.  

The same people claiming "liberal media", even fictionalized the mainstream medias handling of the Iraq War in the beginning.  Even though the mainstream media failed miserably in it's duty to ask questions of the gov't.

I don't watch Fox News, listen to AM Radio, or seek out "liberal media."  If you're one of those kind of folks, you've probably got plenty to look at.  Go get you some.