Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Y'know, I just watched some clips on YouTube from Fox, NBC, etc and have come to a conclusion about the America media.

It's full of crazy batshit individuals, personal attacks and general poor reporting, regardless of political bias.

At 12/10/07 09:11 AM, Slizor wrote: Y'know, I just watched some clips on YouTube from Fox, NBC, etc and have come to a conclusion about the America media.

It's full of crazy batshit individuals, personal attacks and general poor reporting, regardless of political bias.

Thats why I read the news online. Its generally better, can be reported quickly without interrupting a television broadcast, and the bias generally isn't there.

Here is a study that shows that people that watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report generally know more about the world than those that watch actual news. This probably stems from them reading actual news online and from newspapers.

The media you see mostly on TV has been bought by the government and report only what they're told.
Hillary and Obama are clearly not the front runners for the election but they tell you so anyway, Dennis Kucinich would win the election if it were held today, and Ron Paul has a good chance too, they both are good guys.
So my advice would be to throw your TV out the window and look up Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, they are truly the last hope for us Americans.

At 12/10/07 03:16 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: , Dennis Kucinich would win the election if it were held today, and Ron Paul has a good chance too, they both are good guys.

Shit. I have the same candidate as the conspiracy theorist.

At 12/10/07 03:16 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: The media you see mostly on TV has been bought by the government and report only what they're told.
Hillary and Obama are clearly not the front runners for the election but they tell you so anyway, Dennis Kucinich would win the election if it were held today, and Ron Paul has a good chance too, they both are good guys.
So my advice would be to throw your TV out the window and look up Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, they are truly the last hope for us Americans.

Lol, I haven't looked into Dennis Kucinich before now (I don't live in America), but the first thought that crossed my mind was "hippy!". XD

Haven't seen his stances on various issues yet though, so I shall not pass judgment.

At 12/10/07 01:36 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/9/07 08:22 PM, Elfer wrote:

Meaning that they'd affect who, people who watched NBC for hours in anticipation of the assessment?

In the words of the congressional democrats who slammed Alberto for firing those attorneys, even though it was completely legal: ...Ethics...

So it's unethical to run a cheap ad at a shitty time? I don't get it.

At 12/10/07 03:16 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

And the 9-11 conspiracy theory is real.

At 12/10/07 03:51 PM, Drakim wrote:
Haven't seen his stances on various issues yet though, so I shall not pass judgment.

He is the best. He's the only one whose healthcare system isn't driven by profit. Everything that comes out of his mouth is like it came out of my own

Which brings us back to the media. Out of the 2 hr democratic debate, he got 6 mins. He's the most liberal. So...... CNN is liberal?

At 12/10/07 04:49 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

:: He is the best. He's the only one whose healthcare system isn't driven by profit. Everything that comes out of his mouth is like it came out of my own

Which brings us back to the media. Out of the 2 hr democratic debate, he got 6 mins. He's the most liberal. So...... CNN is liberal?

Yup. He doesn't have a chinamans chance in hell of winning. So they give the airtime to the candidate who's got the best chance at winning. The worst thing for the left is to let that crackpot talk for too long, thereby everyone equating the left with dennis kucinich i.e. crackpot.

At 12/10/07 04:49 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

At 12/10/07 03:51 PM, Drakim wrote:
Haven't seen his stances on various issues yet though, so I shall not pass judgment.

He is the best. He's the only one whose healthcare system isn't driven by profit. Everything that comes out of his mouth is like it came out of my own

Which brings us back to the media. Out of the 2 hr democratic debate, he got 6 mins. He's the most liberal. So...... CNN is liberal?

You don't need to be very far to the right or left to be biased i am afraid, it is possible to constantly present a bias, but not have an extremist veiwpoint.

For example, Lets say the spectrum is white to black, a show that constantly has Dark Gray Dark Gray Dark Gray Dark Gray Dark Gray dark gray, etc. etc. Clearly has favoritism for dark grey, that doesn't mean it's centrist because it's not black. Also, what if CNN had a particular favoratism to one person... [because that person funded the station alot for example]

I don't know what else to say, just trying to make a point that Bias doesn't mean FAR in one dirrection, bias is looking heavily favoring on one direction.

At 12/10/07 03:47 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

At 12/10/07 03:16 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: , Dennis Kucinich would win the election if it were held today, and Ron Paul has a good chance too, they both are good guys.

Shit. I have the same candidate as the conspiracy theorist.

Ditto. An unfortunate side effect of backing the honest ones.

At 12/10/07 08:25 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Yup. He doesn't have a chinamans chance in hell of winning. So they give the airtime to the candidate who's got the best chance at winning. The worst thing for the left is to let that crackpot talk for too long, thereby everyone equating the left with dennis kucinich i.e. crackpot.

I would laugh so hard if Kucinich won the Dem primaries and Ron Paul won the Rep nomination.....
It'd be the best election in world history.

Most of my news comes from the CBC, and I watch very little American television. So, my experience usually comes from a generally left-wing source. (The CBC isn't really known to be super conservative, or super liberal, but from what I've seen, they sit more to the left. Just IMHO.)

Fox News does lie a bit to the right. It isn't the "Conservative Mouthpiece" that a lot of people make it out to be. Bill O'Reilly does a really good job of giving it that image, but I'd say that most of the time, they are just reporting on the same idiotic issues as everyone else, even if they do have an odd fascination with breasts.

However, you've got MSNBC with Keith Olbermann at the opposing end. He seems to be rather liberal, but I don't know the man well enough to tell you. MSNBC covers the same issues as Fox does, even if they do put their own very slight spin.

They're both news sources. If they fail to report an issue accurately, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're leaning left or right. It just means that they are quite possibly shitty reporters, and probably shouldn't have the jobs that they posses.

Now to the tricky question.

In the United States of America "Scale" of politics (Meaning, ignoring European/South American/Asian/African, Canada, etc) which is between Republican and Democrat, Republicans being the "Conservatives" and Democrats being the "Liberal", I'd say there is an even split. Fox News is conservative, NBC sits on the liberal side. CNN and ABC both have their liberal and conservative moments.

Then again, I'm Canadian. I rarely watch American channels, so I don't really have too much experience.

At 12/10/07 01:36 AM, Memorize wrote: In the words of the congressional democrats who slammed Alberto for firing those attorneys, even though it was completely legal: ...Ethics...

It was not legal. There was nothing wrong with the performance of those attorneys.

At 12/10/07 08:25 PM, therealsylvos wrote:
Yup. He doesn't have a chinamans chance in hell of winning. So they give the airtime to the candidate who's got the best chance at winning.

I believe that's for the Democratic party to decide, not CNN

The worst thing for the left is to let that crackpot talk for too long, thereby everyone equating the left with dennis kucinich i.e. crackpot.

Oh, shut the fuck up or make a real point. Why is he a crackpot, exactly?

At 12/11/07 05:57 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

I believe that's for the Democratic party to decide, not CNN

You are absolutely right, but that is beside the point. The point is, someone with a left leaning agenda would want a dem in the white house. Since Kucinich can't win on a national scale they don't give him a lot of airtime.

Oh, shut the fuck up or make a real point. Why is he a crackpot, exactly?

Oh I don't know, maybe he see's UFOs?

At 12/11/07 05:35 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

It was not legal. There was nothing wrong with the performance of those attorneys.

Doesn't matter. They could be doing the BEST job out of anyone, but they can still be fired by the attorney general for ANY reason. Which the constitution allows.

At 12/12/07 11:43 PM, Memorize wrote:
Doesn't matter. They could be doing the BEST job out of anyone, but they can still be fired by the attorney general for ANY reason. Which the constitution allows.

"business ethics" isn't a phrase you use much, is it?

At 12/9/07 08:35 PM, skatin-andy wrote: I hate the term "liberal bias" because in my mind that is a good thing. Why? Because liberal truly means "individual liberty over government". Why would any person disagree with that.

If anyone thinks a true liberal person is bad, they obviously only care about themselves (which in a way is ironic). If it isn't their way, its wrong, and that is a stupid ideology to have.

Excuse me for saying, but if you think that you must be on something. Liberal means that a person wants a large, powerful government. You can see this through liberal policies on the economy (take a lot of money from the people in the form of taxes and spend it on a lot in order to boost the economy, or Keynesian economics), health care (have everyone covered over one government controlled health care policy, which in every country a universal health care system has been enacted, the quality of health care has severly fallen), gun control (give the government as much control over legal guns as possible, while taking attention away from illegal guns), and states rights (national government, which is further away from the people it serves, should have the most power). Conservative, on the other hand, believe in a small government, with more individual rights. Their beliefs are the opposite of liberals, such as lowering taxes and giving people more money to spend to boost the economy, a health care system based on fair competition, allowing people to protect themselves, and giving the governments colsest to its constituents the most power. Oh, and sorry to get off topic, but seeing this really ticked me off.

So I'm assuming you've never heard of "Classical Liberalism ".

Oh by the way, "Conservatism", means to preserve the old order. Had you followed European history closely, you'd realize that "Conservatism" follows closely to the reaction to the Age of Napoleon, and actually promotes having monarchies take hold. (Therefore conserving the old institutions.

The meanings have changed over time, and it means different things in different areas.

Thank you, come again.

I'd like to correct myself. I said Age of Napoleon, which I confused with the French Revolution.

True, liberal also means favoring change and conservative means favoring continuity. However, on many issues they mean the same ironically (it's a stretch for that to be irony, but I think you know what I mean). Also, on most issues the first meaning remains true. And, either way, it isn't what was said before.

1.) Alan Colmes

Actually, coming from a liberal perspective, he's a moderate at best.{1}{2}

3.) Neal Gabler, of Fox News Watch

I don't think he's liberal, based on the book's he's written. {3}

True, it's not proof positive, so this is in my honest opinion.

5.) Kirsten Powers

I'd say she is moderate, from her own website.

Then again, I don't know much about her.

Other then that, I agree.

At 12/10/07 09:43 AM, skatin-andy wrote: Here is a study that shows that people that watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report generally know more about the world than those that watch actual news. This probably stems from them reading actual news online and from newspapers.

It's a web site I've never heard of that links to a non-existant article. Hmmmm.

At 12/10/07 04:49 PM, SlithVampir wrote: He is the best. He's the only one whose healthcare system isn't driven by profit. Everything that comes out of his mouth is like it came out of my own

That's why he sucks. Because a system where profit isn't a factor...is a failed system. It's why the health care in England and Canada is so inferior to our own: because the state run health care makes no profit, they have to ration services and provide inferior quality. And they're still losing money hand over fist. Kucinich is the biggest fool in clownland.

At 12/11/07 12:29 AM, Imperator wrote: Ditto. An unfortunate side effect of backing the honest ones.

Honesty=/=good.

I would laugh so hard if Kucinich won the Dem primaries and Ron Paul won the Rep nomination.....
It'd be the best election in world history.

Funniest yes. But at the end of the day it'd be like a choice between drinking cyanide and drinking stricknine.

At 12/12/07 11:47 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/12/07 11:43 PM, Memorize wrote:
Doesn't matter. They could be doing the BEST job out of anyone, but they can still be fired by the attorney general for ANY reason. Which the constitution allows.

"business ethics" isn't a phrase you use much, is it?

Um, this isn't business chuckles. This is government. It runs by different rules. For example, in the real world there's no reason to put your entire board of directors up against other people and fight for their jobs...yet we do it in the house every two years. We put 1/3 of the 100 Senators up every two years. The President has to run every four years.

But let's look at your "business ethics" nonsense. Appointment positions are political in nature, and they serve at the Pleasure of the President. The President can fire all of his cabinet members tomorrow and replace them, just as an example, so that he can get fresh perspectives. And they can resign immediately without reason.

This is not a matter of ethics.

At 12/17/07 06:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote: But let's look at your "business ethics" nonsense. Appointment positions are political in nature, and they serve at the Pleasure of the President. The President can fire all of his cabinet members tomorrow and replace them, just as an example, so that he can get fresh perspectives. And they can resign immediately without reason.

This is not a matter of ethics.

Actually, it is. Because it IS completely legal, like Memorize said. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Once we're in that realm, we call it "ethics".

At 12/17/07 07:03 PM, Ravariel wrote: Actually, it is. Because it IS completely legal, like Memorize said. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Once we're in that realm, we call it "ethics".

There is nothing morally wrong about it. They serve at the President's pleasure. And he was no longer satisfied with their performance. So he got rid of them.

So, since it is neither illegal nor unethical, it's not about ethics.

It's about the rules of politics. Railing against them as unethical is like railing against the infield fly rule as unethical.