• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bias: Even here at DP

madman said:
if you cant extrapolate, then i cant help you.
Click to expand...

You made the statement that the "rest of the US prefers the other MSM".

How so? Based on the ratings? Combined, the 3 news shows in the 6:30 ET hour don't usually have more than 20 million viewers. Not sure if you know what the population of the US is.
 
tres borrachos said:
You made the statement that the "rest of the US prefers the other MSM".

How so? Based on the ratings? Combined, the 3 news shows in the 6:30 ET hour don't usually have more than 20 million viewers. Not sure if you know what the population of the US is.
Click to expand...

People will usually tune in to a news channel that floats with their political leaning. Those leaning left do not follow the news like those on the right. We're more into entertainment/art/social stuff (ohhh, the horror!). In my opinion, those on the right are more into politics. So when you say numbers are low for the 6:30 news, I do understand that. Im not debating that. We rather spend our time not getting all worked up over political news/commentary.

and the whole fox news has way more ratings is silly. It's only because it's the only right leaning news channel. It's kinda like saying a catholic church has more catholics than muslims.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
hell...i'm still waiting on him to post a link to just one of the supposedly "PLENTY" of studies that show FOX is the most biased news source.
Click to expand...

All he has to do is post a link to any study showing that FOX is the most-watched news source... Oh I dunno a study like Nielsen's, I think they're called ratings if memory serves. As far as bias is concerned, heck I'm not even sure that a study of that nature is even practicable. It would depend almost entirely on the variables, and who gets to choose them.. LOL

Is FOX biased? Yes, but only in their primetime lineup. Are they fair and balanced? Yes, I would say mostly, even in their prime-time lineup with the exception of Hannity. Unlike the LSM, FOX actually has intelligent, well articulated democratic, liberal opinion. Not token, inarticulate, radical conservative morons that you see from places like MSNBC, or CNN when they put the Neocon on display.. :)

Tim-
 
madman said:
People will usually tune in to a news channel that floats with their political leaning. Those leaning left do not follow the news like those on the right. We're more into entertainment/art/social stuff (ohhh, the horror!). In my opinion, those on the right are more into politics. So when you say numbers are low for the 6:30 news, I do understand that. Im not debating that. We rather spend our time not getting all worked up over political news/commentary.

and the whole fox news has way more ratings is silly. It's only because it's the only right leaning news channel. It's kinda like saying a catholic church has more catholics than muslims.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the MSM has a left leaning bias. Or are you saying that most of the country leans left?
 
madman said:
I ALREADY said that all news is bias in my first post.
Click to expand...

So most of the country leans left because you admit what they watch is left leaning? Can you back that up with sourced proof that the country leans left, please?
 
tres borrachos said:
So most of the country leans left because you admit what they watch is left leaning? Can you back that up with sourced proof that the country leans left, please?
Click to expand...
I never said most of the country leans left. I said that those that dont tune into the fringe fox news, tune into the remaining MSM.
How you construe that as me saying the country leans mostly left is beyond me.
 
madman said:
I never said most of the country leans left. I said that those that dont tune into the fringe fox news, tune into the remaining MSM.
How you construe that as me saying the country leans mostly left is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because you are making that claim. You said everyone who isn't in the right wing "fringe" gets their news from other sources. But you have no evidence to back up your claim that they are watching because they aren't part of the "right wing fringe". The assumption that people watch what they watch because of the "leaning" of the source can't just be when you decide what makes up the audidence.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because you are making that claim. You said everyone who isn't in the right wing "fringe" gets their news from other sources. But you have no evidence to back up your claim that they are watching because they aren't part of the "right wing fringe". The assumption that people watch what they watch because of the "leaning" of the source can't just be when you decide what makes up the audidence.
Click to expand...


Im not claiming there's more people watching left leaning news. I already told you that fox has higher ratings. This is NOT about numbers. This is about those that dont tune into fox, tune into the other main stream news channels. Again, this is NOT about NUMBERS.
 
iliveonramen said:
New Detailed Account of Benghazi Attack Notes CIA’s Quick Response - ABC News

Learning that your news sources lie to you sucks.....but here's what adults are saying about the Benghazi attack.
Click to expand...

Look, you guys on the left can scream at the top of your lungs that this is a Right Wing concocted conspiracy, but it's not.

I'm going to try one last time to be rational with you people, and it's really simple. This isn't just about the attack, but the decisions that were made leading up to the attack, and the way the administration spun the facts after the attack, and how they are avoiding the real questions even now.

Let's beging with this: The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked 2 PRIOR TIMES before the 9/11 attack. So, a good question to ask Obama is "did you know that the consulate in Benghazi had sustained 2 prior attacks before the attack on 9/11?". Why is that question important? Because this wasn't just some "one time, spontaneous attack". The consulate had been attacked before, and all kinds of people were requesting additional security. Now, KNOWING that the consulate had already suffered 2 prior attacks, WHY WERE REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY DENIED? You liberals may think that is some kind of "partisan" question, but it's not. It's a relevant question, and an important one.

This isn't partisan politics here. This is a serious story, that the left keeps ignoring, and accusing Conservatives of just manufacturing. That's absurd. 4 people died. But liberals pretend that Obama and his entire administration didn't respond the way they did. You can't change what they said, and what they did.

The CIA is reporting they never turned down any requests for help. Ok, that's comforting to know. Now what about the Administration? Why are they refusing to answer questions about Obama's Oval Office meeting with Panetta and the Joint Chiefs? Why are there CIA agents stating they were told to "stand down"? Why has General Ham been replaced at AFRICOM? New reports indicate and prove that the CIA was informing State as early as 5 hours after the attack, that Anwar Al Sharia was responsible, so why did the administration spin the intel and blame the video for 14 consecutive days?

Why did the administration not meet with the counter terrorism units during or after the attacks? Why did they choose the FBI to conduct the investigation, and more importantly, why in the hell did it take 24 days to get the FBI on sight in Benghazi?

Did Obama know that England had removed their personel from Libya? Did he know the Red Cross had pulled out? Did he know that the English consulate had been attacked, and the Red Cross headquarters had been attacked? A question arises, "why did we still have people there", and at the very least, if we were going to leave people there, WHY IN THE HELL WEREN'T REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY GRANTED? After all, the English consulate had been attacked, the Red Cross had been attacked, and our own consulate had been attacked TWICE!

On top of that, the CIA released documents PROVING that they notified the White House, and State Dept, that Ansar al Sharia had the hospital where Stevens was taken, surrounded. So, it's proof that the administration KNEW who was responsible for the attack, and who had the hospital surrounded where Stevens was taken. What do liberals have to say for these things?

You guys just ignore the fact that VP Joe Biden said, "we didn't know ANYTHING", and "we werent told ANYTHING". You guys buy that? If so, you are simply IGNORING the facts.

This is a real story, and we deserve the transparency that Obama promised all of us in 08.....where's it at?
 
madman said:
Im not claiming there's more people watching left leaning news. I already told you that fox has higher ratings. This is NOT about numbers. This is about those that dont tune into fox, tune into the other main stream news channels. Again, this is NOT about NUMBERS.
Click to expand...

Fox News doesn't have higher ratings than ABC, NBC & CBS.

If it's not about numbers, what is it about?
 
I get most of my news from Drudge. There is nothing biased about Drudge. He simply links stories from other sources, including liberal sources.

I also listen to conservative COMMENTARY. But for those of you not bright enough to understand commentary vs. news, sorry for ya.....

Yes, commentary appeals to people, because it's based primarily on opinions. But the reason FOX commentators are more popular than the others, is because they don't pretend to be "journalists". The lefties, well, most of them, pretend they are journalists, and not commentators. If you listen to Beck, or Hannity, or Rush, or OReilly, they openly tell people, "hey, I'm not a journalist, I'm a commentator, and this is what I get paid to do." But the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, and all these other so-called "news" agencies, are the furthest thing from "journalists". They are straight up activists.

Is there a difference? Yes. Sean Hannity isn't trying to pass as a "news" anchor, or "journalist". Stephanopolis is. AP is. CNN is. NBC is. NYT is. Newsweek is.

You wanna call FOX a network that lies? Please, give me specifics. Even among their commentators, what "lies" have they told? A different opinion isn't a lie, it's merely a different opinion.

But to say there isn't a lopsided bias in our main stream media is nothing more than a denial of reality.
 
Masada said:
I get most of my news from Drudge. There is nothing biased about Drudge. He simply links stories from other sources, including liberal sources.
Click to expand...

Nothing biased my @ss! he picks and chooses according to his agenda.
 
madman said:
You have a point, yes. Im ending my break now and will look later. However, you'll see those on your side claim that fox has the highest ratings.
Click to expand...

Other than ABC, NBC and CBS aren't on news 24 hours a day so that would be an apples/oranges comparision to a 24 hours news network... Here are a few other things to note here:


1) Conservative punditry owns 90% of the radio talk show airwaves
2) Conservatives have by far the #1 24 hour news network.
3) Conservatives own the biggest ciruclated paper in the country. The WSJ and many other massive newspapers.​


The whine of conservatives not being heard in the media is such a farcical comedy.
 
Panopticon said:
Libs diss msnbc, which according to studies has a poor but better rep than fox, cons defend fox. Its blatant and indisputable that the cons here are less objective.
Click to expand...

Disputed... there is no "study" or credible research that shows Fox is the most biased media source PERIOD! Most of the conservatives at DB honestly give themselves that label. Don't see that near as much as libs hiding behind "undisclosed" like yourself. Regardless of your ideas... Be proud of what you are and don't hide from it.
 
madman said:
You have a point, yes. Im ending my break now and will look later. However, you'll see those on your side claim that fox has the highest ratings.
Click to expand...

Fox does have the highest ratings - amongst cable news programs. I never saw anyone say that Fox's shows have higher ratings than the the networks.
 
Masada said:
This isn't partisan politics here. This is a serious story, that the left keeps ignoring, and accusing Conservatives of just manufacturing. That's absurd. 4 people died. But liberals pretend that Obama and his entire administration didn't respond the way they did. You can't change what they said, and what they did.
Click to expand...

Everything is a "serious story". Every "scandal" fabricated is a huge story on this board. The thing is...what happened was serious but the manufactored narrative of how events took place are not serious. In fact they are a joke. That's the thing. Nobody think 4 people dying is not serious it's the right that has politicized this and instead of seeing 4 dead people see political opportunity. Honestly don't pretend Republicans just care more about State Department employees than the people he worked and befriended (Clinton and the Obama State Department).

Also I'd like to point out the whole "crying wolf" relevance. It's the same sources, same folks that have struck out on every "scandal". You may go back to beleiving them like it's marriage...through thick and thin....but most rational people are like....maybe they aren't trustworthy?

Why did the administration not meet with the counter terrorism units during or after the attacks? Why did they choose the FBI to conduct the investigation, and more importantly, why in the hell did it take 24 days to get the FBI on sight in Benghazi?
Click to expand...
Huh? Now it's the FBI? After people from the CIA annex were there within 25 mins....after we found out people CHARTERED a jet to fly in from Tripoli...all completely contradicting right wing claims it's moved to how fast the FBI got there to investigate? Move the goalpost much? The fact it's a shotgun approach that when one narrative dissapears one just MIRACULOUSLY takes it's place is pretty telling.

On top of that, the CIA released documents PROVING that they notified the White House, and State Dept, that Ansar al Sharia had the hospital where Stevens was taken, surrounded. So, it's proof that the administration KNEW who was responsible for the attack, and who had the hospital surrounded where Stevens was taken. What do liberals have to say for these things?
Click to expand...
His response to what happened was badly handled. I don't think that's much up to debate. The difference is this idea that there's some coverup trying to hide facts...which is just not true. The fact is people eff up. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean something nefarious is taking place which would be a scandal.

This is a real story, and we deserve the transparency that Obama promised all of us in 08.....where's it at?
Click to expand...
Is that why you voted for him in 08? You were tired of the lack of transparency under Bush? I guess you're going to have to accept that reality forces people to compromise on promises at time. I did vote for Bush in 00 and his "no nation building" statement during the datebates was gone pretty quickly after 9/11....people dealing with the realities of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom