jfuh

Haven't seen any real Roveian tactics? The entire Faux news network is a Roveian tactic.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

MC.no.spin

And how, exactly, does this video support that assertion?

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill

aquapub

We get it. You can't win and you're bitter.

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

American

Why is no one asking questions about who ABC, NBC and CBS hire? Are they immune from question? Who thinks they are fair and balanced?

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

aquapub

The difference here is that:

1) Democrats don't get prosecuted for the same things Republicans do, hence Harry Reid and many other Democrats remaining completely unscathed despite taking far more money from Jack Abramoff than Tom Delay ever did, Bill Clinton being left completely alone when he fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, Sandy Burglar getting off for stealing highly classified documents pertaining to the 9/11 Commission investigation, Clinton remaining in office despite proven perjury and rampant sexual misconduct/rape allegations, Clinton getting nothing for using the IRS to destroy his political enemies, Gerry Studds (D) getting a standing ovation and promotion from Democrats for having sex with teenage male pages, etc.

2) My list was way, way longer, including national AND local scandals.

So basically, one can only conclude that Democrats have to invent partisan scandals over things that sometimes aren't even crimes, which they themselves are almost always far more guilty of, so that partisan liberal sheep can come to places like this and perpetuate the myth of the "Republican culture of corruption.

aquapub

The question of this thread is based on the left's dismissiveness regarding all the former partisan Democrat operatives the networks put in charge of disseminating legitimate political news.

In short, any liberal who comes here and votes "yes" inadvertantly confesses that they think the networks, MSNBC, and CNN are biased to the left.

aquapub

So...your big evidence against Rove...is a disgruntled former employee of the president claiming that he never acted on the inside information he has on Rove...because he had no access to inside information on Rove?



Yeah, go ahead and smear Fox for bothering to include multiple sides of the story. We see how logical and accurate your information is. By the way, did you not know the MSNBS source you're using here-Chris Matthews-is a former partisan Democrat operative, just like Rove?

Tucker Case

N ot technically, they could believe that Rove is a scumbag who embodies all that is wrong with american politics (let's face it, he is the king of negative, mudslinging distractionary campaigning). That is a patriotic belif that does infact separate Rove from other political-types.

As the question was phrased, it did not necesarly ask about FOX's bias alone. It asked about innapropriate as well. Is it inappropriate is far different form asking if it is a sign of Fox's bias.

Technically, one could have answered "yes" without acknowledging the biases of the other networks (although I agree they are slightly biased towards the left). The rightward leaning of Fox is more pronounced, because the far left would never receive any sponsors and would not make any money for the networks that aired far leftist ideas.

What corporation in their right mind would sponsor a program that called for them to be disbanded?

In reality, it is far easier for the extremes n the right to get airtime than the extremes on the left. So while the median (50% above, 50% below) of the total distribution of left vs. right is on the left side, the MEAN is probably more centered because the views from the right tend to be more extreme right than what is possible on the left.

In general, the slight leftward lean is a brilliant ploy by corporate America (whom the networks are all a part of) to appease the lefties into thinking that their views are being represented in the MSM when in reality, the extremist views are only being represented for the Righties.



Personally, I don't care as I think they all are manipulative entities with no real purpose other than to distract us from reality in order to sell us products.

CaptainCourtesy

What I find especially disheartening is the level of corruption on both sides of the political spectrum. This, to me, demonstrates one of three things (or all three): 1) elected officials have more of a tendency to fall into corruption (aka "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts, absolutely); 2) those who seek office tend to be corrupt to begin with, and follow this patter upon being elected; 3) corruption is a natural tendency of the public at large, and public officials are just mimicking that on a smaller scale.

I lean towards option #1.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

aquapub

You had me until you portrayed Rove as the king of something the left is far more notorious for. Democrats destroy their rivals personally with invented scandals, trample the Constitution, lie, cheat and steal to get elected. Rove bringing out conservative voters by getting gay marriage bans put on state ballots, for instance, is just smart strategery.

Right. It was worded that way for a reason. If hiring former partisan operatives to disseminate legitimate political news under the title of "anchor" or even "political analyst" is inappropriate in this case, then it is also inappropriate in the many, many others throughout our media...which are almost always Democrats.

Aired far left ideas? Is that what you think is being alleged here? No. There are plenty of cases of liberal news sources doing incredibly left-wing things, like when the NY Times called a terrorist cell to let them know the FBI was coming, or when they needlessly exposed the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program...but the claim with the media in general is not that they do overtly left-wing things and get away with it.

The claim is that, for example, when CBS called a leak about Clinton's indictment "Republican backed," and "well-orchestrated" only to find out the next day that a liberal Carter judge had admitted to accidentally leaking the information, they were caught trying to slant the news against Republicans.

Or when they overtly propagandize against our troops and the war, or help Democrats try to steal an election, perpetuate bogus partisan scandals, lie to protect Democrats, relentlessly trash the economy until the moment a Democrat takes office, respond to Democrat scandals by focusing on the Republicans daring to ask questions, etc.

Members of the media admit to being, donating, and voting far, far to the left of the average American in surveys after survey. The New York Times hasn't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower. Newsweek tried to bury the Lewinsky scandal.

Fox sits just to the right of the average American. It's inclusion of multiple sides of the story makes it seem biased to those of us used to watching Clinton advisors like Stephanopolous moderate debates on the issues between liberal extremists and liberal centrists.

Fox News pundits trash corporations routinely.

The extremes on the left are the ones running virtually every level of our news media. What is portrayed (by the extreme left) as the extreme right does eek out a little airtime for itself (at least until the "Fairness" Doctrine is reinstated), but always clearly labeled as conservatives offering opinions, while actually extreme leftists get treated as objective news reporters. The actual extreme right almost never gets heard except on the Internet.

And pigs fly.

Two problems with your conspiracy theory here:

1) PBS is every bit as liberal as the networks. Far left partisans controlling every level of our media cannot be a corporate conspiracy if even public news has the same problem.

2) If a tiny minority at the top of a station is not liberal and that somehow means all the admittedly far left campaign donors, voters, and former partisan Democrat operatives in charge of every level of our news media are being pressed to slant the news against their own extreme ideas (and just going along with it), then wouldn't that obligate you to admit that CNN has spent the vast majority of its existence propagandizing for Democrats, being that it has been run by a far left ideologue (Ted Turner) since its inception?

Whoever's at the top determines everything about the news coverage, right?

I can go on all day providing examples of outrageously left-wing bias. Now I invite you to show me yours...something more than your baseless dismissal of all media as corporate...like actual examples of important political news being slanted in favor of corporations.