Fair and Balanced

[Penn]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I always think it's funny the way the libs go after O'Reilly like he's some major right-winger. Note to libs: Conservatives tend to think O'Reilly is a liberal.

As an , I was watching CNN this morning and they were reading comments from viewers about some poll they just did. The poll was basically, "Given that Iraq has become a quagmire and the US doesn't have a clue how to rebuild, what should be done?" Not surprisingly, every viewer comment they read said, yes, Iraq is a quagmire and George Bush is a lying villain. Does that mean that everyone who watches CNN thinks this way, or does it mean CNN only CHOSE to read certain letters?

When Fox does something like that, they ALWAYS alternate viewpoints. And I mean ALWAYS. So I just think it's interesting that Democrats are always busting on Fox for bias, yet think CNN is real reporting.

Ain't that the truth. O'reilly will bust anyone in or out of office, conservative or liberal, if he spots anything that smells bad
or in his view, isn't being handled correctly.

Yet, he's mostly labeled as a right-wing conservative. Go figure:shrug:

I was partially wrong in one of my earlier posts about the idea that Fox doesn't have a patent on the "fair and balanced" slogan; they do not - but they have apparently trademarked it though.
However, that doesn't ban others from using that same slogan.

Vrai, the demorats would indeed love to see Iraq descend into a quagmire. They've tried their best to damage GW - from the inability to find the WMDs to what? - a 16 word statement in the SOU address. It isn't working, and now they want to harken back to the Vietnam War era with that word again: Quagmire!

Maybe they want to scratch the scabs of activists who were against that war and get more public outcry against this one.

Definite low-lifes!

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
The poll was basically, "Given that Iraq has become a quagmire and the US doesn't have a clue how to rebuild, what should be done?"

The war started in late *March*? Of this year? And we declared it over at the beginning of May? So it has taken a mere three months to become a "quagmire"?

I was listening to C-SPAN radio the other day and one thing was mentioned was that the U.S. is moving leaps and bounds as far as re-establishing infrastructure, but because of the daily potshots - which combined are actually LESS than the normal 'accident' rate of fatalities in the military over the same time period, and thus negligible if newsworthy - but the news just never presents it this way.

Because as far as I can tell, it has NOT become a quagmire. We've been there less than six months and made just tremendous strides in re-shaping that country (although I suspect that the surrounding nations are *sending* in troops to foment trouble). I think we know exactly what we are doing.

I don't know if it's bad reporting or the typical impatience of liberals when it comes to examining the way things work. One remark used in a recent op-ed piece in the post is that liberals are "impatient with process". If the war ain't over the second day, it's a disaster. If we don't roll up the road into Baghdad the first week, it's a disaster. If the war-torn, despot-ruined nation ain't back on its feet in a month, it's a disaster. Be patient. It works. We've actually done this before.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
Except, of course, for the Washington Post.

*shudders with revulsion* You know, I probably write the Post a letter a week commenting on some story or op-ed. They have never published me - not once. But they have plenty of room for anyone who will bash the Republicans. Go figure.

It took me a long time before I realized that letters to the editor were a big scam. You think you're reading what the public really thinks but you're not. You're just getting what the editors think.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by penncam
Definite low-lifes!

Thanks.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I always think it's funny the way the libs go after O'Reilly like he's some major right-winger. Note to libs: Conservatives tend to think O'Reilly is a liberal.

I can understand that. I wouldn't want people to think his views reflect a certain party either.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SamSpade
I don't know if it's bad reporting or the typical impatience of liberals when it comes to examining the way things work.

I think it's partisan politics - nothing more. Most people ignore the fact that more US service members got killed abroad during the Clinton Administration than during the whole Iraq AND Afghanistan wars put together. So if they think Iraq is a quagmire, they should think the whole Clinton presidency was a quagmire as well. But they don't.

Ken or Bru will come on here in a second and tell me if I'm wrong about the numbers.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
*shudders with revulsion* You know, I probably write the Post a letter a week commenting on some story or op-ed. They have never published me - not once. But they have plenty of room for anyone who will bash the Republicans. Go figure.

It's a shame. You write well. They ought to publish your letters. (I've written several letters to the editor of the Washington Times, and guess what? )

It took me a long time before I realized that letters to the editor were a big scam. You think you're reading what the public really thinks but you're not. You're just getting what the editors think.

Mmm... not always. I've actually read several letters in the Post from folks w/ some of your points of view. And there is one gentleman here in Waldorf (I think) who gets published in the SOMD extra frequently, whose views about folks like me are just a shade to the right of Atilla the Hun's.

BTW, you know I was kidding about the Post, right? I read it, but was kidding about it being the one news source that's completely unbiased.

Also BTW, do you read biographies? No matter what you think of the Post I highly recommend Personal History by Katharine Graham. It's an exceptional autobiography.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I can understand that. I wouldn't want people to think his views reflect a certain party either.

But they do. They reflect the Libertarian party, in which O'Reilly claims membership.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
BTW, you know I was kidding about the Post, right?

I knew you were kidding.

In any given week, count up the letters that are critical of Republicans and the conservative agenda. Then count up the letters that are supportive. BIG difference! Also, compare the liberal op-eds vs. the conservative ones. It's just annoying. And you're right that the Times is the same way.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
Thanks.

That was not leveled at you Bertha Venation. It was aimed at the democrap polititians who have this uncanny ability to ignore or forget the foreign policy(or lack of) the last so-called president we had in office trotted out for us.
They'll even lie directly to your face when telling you most of these problems were fomented in a republican administration; either they are enormously ignorant of history, or the worst form
of low-life, read scumbag, in America.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by penncam
That was not leveled at you Bertha Venation.

I know. That's why the

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation

And there is one gentleman here in Waldorf (I think) who gets published in the SOMD extra frequently, whose views about folks like me are just a shade to the right of Atilla the Hun's.

Right of Attila the Hun? That would make him a moderate-liberal, as opposed to extreme left?

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Right of Attila the Hun? That would make him a moderate-liberal, as opposed to extreme left?

I could've used Hitler's name instead, but I doubt that Mr. B. of Waldorf (whose latest letter is found in yesterday's Washington Post Southern Maryland Extra) would much care to be compared to him. But then, comparing him to a murdering, pillaging, rampaging extortionist who murdered his own brother isn't kind, either. So I apologize to Mr. B.

Long story short: The Post occasionally publishes letters from readers with extremely conservative politics, like Mr. B.

 

[SamSpade]

I know, it's just that I've heard J. Michael Straczynski (creator of Babylon 5) use that very turn of the phrase to describe Jerry Doyle's (an actor in the show who ran for a congressional seat) politics.

I guess I mildly object to someone using that turn of the phrase, because they are positioning one of the most monstrous persons in history and calling him right-wing when there's really no way to gauge what Attila's politics were. It says more about the person USING the phrase than what the phrase says.

I'm not sure what to say about substituting Hitler either, except that it is traditional to place Hitler at the extreme right and Stalin at the extreme left. I always found it interesting that if you go far enough in either direction you still end up with a murdering crazy megalomaniac.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by SamSpade
I guess I mildly object to someone using that turn of the phrase, because they are positioning one of the most monstrous persons in history and calling him right-wing when there's really no way to gauge what Attila's politics were. It says more about the person USING the phrase than what the phrase says.

Yep. Which is why, in retrospect (and thanks to your post) I retract it.

I'm not sure what to say about substituting Hitler either, except that it is traditional to place Hitler at the extreme right and Stalin at the extreme left. I always found it interesting that if you go far enough in either direction you still end up with a murdering crazy megalomaniac.

 

[vraiblonde]

But Bertha Baby, why do they never print letters from normal conservatives like me who aren't spewing venom? When they DO print a letter from a "conservative", it's always the biggest nutcase they can find. It's like MSNBC giving Michael Savage a show and calling HIM a conservative. It's offensive because neither are conservatives at all - they're just hate mongers.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
But Bertha Baby, why do they never print letters from normal conservatives like me who aren't spewing venom? When they DO print a letter from a "conservative", it's always the biggest nutcase they can find. It's like MSNBC giving Michael Savage a show and calling HIM a conservative. It's offensive because neither are conservatives at all - they're just hate mongers.

As are many ultra-left liberal pundits. Aren't those at the extreme poles the ones we all abhor? Hell, I wouldn't align you with Pat Robertson, and I'm sure you wouldn't suggest I call myself Mrs. Al Sharpton. (Hell, that one's ultra-stupid).

Maybe they only print the crazies' letters, and not your moderate ones, because the crazies are more sensationalistic. The crazies mean mas dinero.

They don't print my letters, either, and I don't spew venom either--and you and I really aren't that far apart on many issues. I don't get it any more than you do.

 

[Bruzilla]

Speaking of polls, and fairness and balance, have you noticed all of the hype about the recent LA Times poll that says Bustamante is leading the CA Governor's race with 35% of the vote while Arnold is down to 22%? I was watching Hardball last night, and you would have thought that poll was handed down from God and delivered on the wings of angels. It was the focus of discussion and the ticker at the bottom of the screen was constantly showing the results.

This is a poll taken by one of the most liberal papers in the country; taken in one of the most liberal cities; taken in a city that has the second largest Mexican population outside of Mexico City; and a Hispanic Democrat is ahead of a guy from Austria. I am shocked! Who could have possibly seen that poll result coming! Would Chris Mathews, a self-proclaimed "Independent" (despite the fact that he's been a Democrat all his life), have spent as much time giving credence to a poll from the Vienna Times Dispatch or Austria Today that said Arnold was way in the lead???

I learned another thing from watching Hardball though... the other night they were talking about being fair and balanced, and Mathews had some dweeb on who'd written a book that supposedly dispells the myth of Liberal domination of the media. What I learned is that most Liberals don't see themselves as Liberals... they actually believe they are Moderates. This guy told Mathews that the Liberals don't have a "Sugar Daddy" like Murdoch to pour money into a Liberal network. I was like "Hello... ever heard of Ted Turner???" But this guy apparently doesn't think even Turner is a Liberal.

 

[Frank]

I think that's a fair observation. Liberals see themselves as representing the majority view, in the middle, and all conservatives as being way out there on the right. There IS NO left to them. You don't even hear the word "leftist" anymore. Usually people who don't know any better will just say right-wing to describe any group they dislike. Not too long ago I heard someone refer to guerrillas in West Africa as right-wing. I thought, excuse me, didn't they use to call them, leftist guerillas?

 

[Bruzilla]

Mattews offered the best example of this! When they started talking about how wrong the Right is for saying that the Liberals control the media, Mattews made a mocking comment like "Oh, like I'm sooooo Liberal", and the guest agreed with the statement that calling Matthews a Liberal was wrong.

Here's the mans bio: He worked for the San Francisco Examiner for 13 years (very moderate paper); Served as a White Hose aide and speechwriter for Jimmy Carter; and was a top aide to House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill.

Yeah... who would ever think that Matthews might be a Liberal.