• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's "Game Over" for the Liberal Biased Media Deniers

pbrauer said:
Well, you asked for it, so I delivered.
Click to expand...

You did indeed.

Funny thing is, on another thread I already mentioned how it looks like the defenders have chosen their strategy, actually, it was more like it was thrust upon them out of desperation.

"Looks like the NYT, MM, and some posters have settled on the "Everybody does it", or a variation, to get Obama and the Democrat Party through this dirty laundry limited hangout before it spreads to the big guy.
You've seen Nancy do her "Never heard of this, Goober you say, fellow", but I did see where Gruber gave an interview that brought Barry into the cabal by name."

It pretty much became codified after I read the NYT column.
Maybe now it'll be safe for ABC & NBC to mention the whole affair since they can offer the Times piece for "balance".
 
CanadaJohn said:
The real story, if you asked me - (and you didn't, but that never stopped me before) - is the total destruction of journalism as a profession. The only true journalists, at this point, seem to be those willing to put their lives on the line to report real-time news in the middle east and other hot spots. I think of people like Arwa Damon, a freelancer for CNN in the middle east, who has provided real reporting for a long time and often contrary to the corporate political posture of the network she appears on.

Today, there are no real journalists in the national media - they're all National Enquirer wanna-bees who are only interested in doing opposition research for the political party their network supports. The Walter Cronkites of the past must be rolling in their graves.
Click to expand...

IMO, I see three main problems with political journalism.

1. Partisan cheerleading: Fox and MSNBC both spin everything their party of choice does as positive while refusing to criticize the dumbass actions of those in said party which turn off independents.

2. Too much repeating of yeaterday's message. Obamacare will destroy America, Benghazi, young blacks are being executed by the the police, Scalia and Thomas are destroying the country...you name the meme, the newsreaders of the two stations above repeat it ad nauseum. Who other than the base of each party wants to hear the same BS day after day?

3. CNN-ism: Presenting every argument as though it has equal merit with the opposition. Interviews where someone presents an argument saying the police are the most dangerous entity to young black men in America without questioning the fact that other black men are the biggest threat to American Blacks is just silly. The same can be said when someone interviews anyone opposing or supporting climate change without challenging their data. Who wants to listen to someone lying through their teeth without being challenged?
 
pbrauer said:
It wasn't an editorial, it was a news item. If you don't want to believe it, I really couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't a "news item", Pete. Stop embarrassing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between news and a NYT blog post you need some remedial training.
 
jmotivator said:
No it wasn't a "news item", Pete. Stop embarrassing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between news and a NYT blog post you need some remedial training.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I goofed that.:3oops:

However, I have no reason to doubt what he wrote.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
So to all you deniers out there, I give you a quote from the Borg Collective...
Click to expand...

So your proof that the mainstream media is liberal is to post a video link to the most watched news network in the nation talking about how liberal the media is?

Genius.
 
humbolt said:
Thanks, Pete. Nothing in legislative rules requires lying, and "politically acceptable limits" cannot be construed as a green light to mislead the public, unless one's moral compass has been completely disabled. Then such things work. I would agree that much of the public may not realize that taxing an insurance company for certain policies is actually a tax the public will pay, but the cynicism behind such crap conducted by those who do know the truth only damns them more.
Click to expand...

"one's moral compass has been completely disabled" Democrats? Say it isn't so! :eek:
:lamo

Also in the news. Water is wet.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The real story, if you asked me - (and you didn't, but that never stopped me before) - is the total destruction of journalism as a profession. The only true journalists, at this point, seem to be those willing to put their lives on the line to report real-time news in the middle east and other hot spots. I think of people like Arwa Damon, a freelancer for CNN in the middle east, who has provided real reporting for a long time and often contrary to the corporate political posture of the network she appears on.

Today, there are no real journalists in the national media - they're all National Enquirer wanna-bees who are only interested in doing opposition research for the political party their network supports. The Walter Cronkites of the past must be rolling in their graves.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Biased Lame Stream Media, and it's alleged journalists have sold out their profession to the devil. Becoming an active participant in politics rather than an impartial reporter of facts.

The founds saw this coming, and made provisions to keep political influence out of the news media by giving the news media freedom of the press. Of course that freedom comes with a responsibility, which is speaking truth to power and holding politicians accountable. Something that we've seen so little of these last 6 to 8 years.

Problem for the nation is that if we don't have antagonist journalism, challenging politicians and holding them accountable, but instead have political minions who reliably and shamelessly parrot their political overlord's issued talking point, essentially state controlled news media, with what news and information are the electorate actually making their voting decisions with?

I fear that this is far more acidic and far more serious a threat to the Republic than many would admit to themselves or others.
 
eohrnberger said:
"one's moral compass has been completely disabled" Democrats? Say it isn't so! :eek:
:lamo
Click to expand...


Careful. Don't go around repeating that, especially the disabled part. Next thing that happens will be a bunch of liberals submitting claims for disability.

Also in the news. Water is wet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but only between certain temperatures, stupid voter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
Careful. Don't go around repeating that, especially the disabled part. Next thing that happens will be a bunch of liberals submitting claims for disability.



Yeah, but only between certain temperatures, stupid voter.
Click to expand...

Oh how right you are! :)
Click to expand...
 
whysoserious said:
So your proof that the mainstream media is liberal is to post a video link to the most watched news network in the nation talking about how liberal the media is?

Genius.
Click to expand...

Kurtz has been apart of the liberal media his entire career until he came to Fox News. He even tried to make excuses for the lack of election coverage, but in this instance even he had to admit that the only explaination for why the msm ignored this was liberal bias. He's not the only one either.

When you have liberals in the media who have for years refused to accept that the msm has a liberal bias, then finally have to admit it, that is "game over" in my book.
 
Grim17 said:
Kurtz has been apart of the liberal media his entire career until he came to Fox News. He even tried to make excuses for the lack of election coverage, but in this instance even he had to admit that the only explaination for why the msm ignored this was liberal bias. He's not the only one either.

When you have liberals in the media who have for years refused to accept that the msm has a liberal bias, then finally have to admit it, that is "game over" in my book.
Click to expand...

The point clearly went over your head. Fox News is main stream media. Rush Limbaugh is main stream media. Is CNN liberal biased? No ****. Is MSNBC? No ****. But Fox News is just as main streamed, and it's just as biased.
 
eohrnberger said:
Exactly. The Biased Lame Stream Media, and it's alleged journalists have sold out their profession to the devil. Becoming an active participant in politics rather than an impartial reporter of facts.

The founds saw this coming, and made provisions to keep political influence out of the news media by giving the news media freedom of the press. Of course that freedom comes with a responsibility, which is speaking truth to power and holding politicians accountable. Something that we've seen so little of these last 6 to 8 years.

Problem for the nation is that if we don't have antagonist journalism, challenging politicians and holding them accountable, but instead have political minions who reliably and shamelessly parrot their political overlord's issued talking point, essentially state controlled news media, with what news and information are the electorate actually making their voting decisions with?

I fear that this is far more acidic and far more serious a threat to the Republic than many would admit to themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Very well said and I agree completely.
 
eohrnberger said:
And that it does. Most definitely.
Click to expand...

avatar22689_4.gif


Could you please define MISELADING?
 
pbrauer said:
avatar22689_4.gif


Could you please define MISELADING?
Click to expand...

[h=1]misleading[/h]

[mis-lee-ding]



adjective 1. deceptive; tending to mislead.


Origin
1630-1640

1630-40; mislead + -ing[SUP]2[/SUP]


Related forms
misleadingly, adverb
misleadingness, noun





[h=2]mislead[/h]

[mis-leed]

verb (used with object), misled, misleading. 1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray.

2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment.

verb (used without object), misled, misleading. 3. to be misleading; tend to deceive: vague directions that often mislead.
Click to expand...
Misleading | Define Misleading at Dictionary.com

But I'm thinking that you are looking for a specific context. Which context are you looking for this to be applied?
 
Fox "News" talking about bias in the media.

irony-meter.jpg
 
Phys251 said:
Learn to objectively understand what denial actually means and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

You don't address the topic and instead take a shot at Fox News... What exactly would you expect me to call it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom