GOP trades patriotism for pure spite.....OMG

[1955]

Originally Posted by daleb

Well, I miss the days when most news broadcasts were informative for all, and bias was simply a point of view, not something they needed to bash people over the head with for hours on end.

And just how old are you??? Because that has NEVER been the case, you just had the same view as the liberal talking heads of the time and didn't even consider that there might even be an opposing thought.

As for being bashed over the head...back when the libs owned all the airwaves, they didn't have to do any bashing at all, since they were the ONLY outlet for any news they considered worthy. But now that both sides are being presented, you all are having a hissy fit and do and say anything to present yourself as the only one in the room with common sense. You can speak quietly when you're the only one speaking, but in a room full of voices, you have to speak up to be heard, and both sides are doing it.

So, instead of bashing both points of view, you should be thankful that BOTH sides are now presented...but oh no, someone with a dissenting point of view, other than your own, needs to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by daleb

because they will not take the time to sit down and study all the issues on their merit

You let me know where you get your UNBIASED news so you can "study all the issues on their merit" and I WILL read it, but unfortunately there is no such thing. The only way to do that is the read the congressional record, and every page of every bill out there...something even our elected officials will not do, whether it's for a lack of caring, or the lack of time.

Everything we say and do is biased in some way...why is it so hard for the left to admit it, are they ashamed? Come out of the closet and say how you feel and then let the viewer decide who to watch.

At least the right wing airwaves present themselves as they are, right up front, and you can chose to turn the channel if you so desire. But the left has the gall to say they're unbiased and put on an act as if they're above it all...

I'm a conservative (and I was before the Rush revolution came along), what are you?

[daleb]

Originally Posted by 1955

And just how old are you??? Because that has NEVER been the case, you just had the same view as the liberal talking heads of the time and didn't even consider that there might even be an opposing thought.

As for being bashed over the head...back when the libs owned all the airwaves, they didn't have to do any bashing at all, since they were the ONLY outlet for any news they considered worthy. But now that both sides are being presented, you all are having a hissy fit and do and say anything to present yourself as the only one in the room with common sense. You can speak quietly when you're the only one speaking, but in a room full of voices, you have to speak up to be heard, and both sides are doing it.

So, instead of bashing both points of view, you should be thankful that BOTH sides are now presented...but oh no, someone with a dissenting point of view, other than your own, needs to be destroyed.



You let me know where you get your UNBIASED news so you can "study all the issues on their merit" and I WILL read it, but unfortunately there is no such thing. The only way to do that is the read the congressional record, and every page of every bill out there...something even our elected officials will not do, whether it's for a lack of caring, or the lack of time.

Everything we say and do is biased in some way...why is it so hard for the left to admit it, are they ashamed? Come out of the closet and say how you feel and then let the viewer decide who to watch.

At least the right wing airwaves present themselves as they are, right up front, and you can chose to turn the channel if you so desire. But the left has the gall to say they're unbiased and put on an act as if they're above it all...

I'm a conservative (and I was before the Rush revolution came along), what are you?

I'm a moderate Republican and old enough to have 1955 Chevy as my first car a year after I went into the Air Force.

I never said the bias only came from the Right or Left those are your words. At different times they come from either direction.

"The fact the right always presents themselves at they are"..what the hell does that mean??? You have to decide if they really support what you want, or what they think you want.

Both sides go overboard and distort reality, all the time? Of course not. But enough that those not astute enough to find out the truth on their own will fall for it. Thank you for proving my point.

I never claimed all news was always unbiased, but following the news you would often have commentators give their points of view, right or left on an equal platform.

Today you have right or left windbags who IMO are largely there for entertainment value. If you don't agree, that's fine.

As far as I know, most of the broadcasting industry has been owned by conservative business interests from day one. Some have more balanced programming than others. It does not take too long to see which ones, if you pay attention and can approach a topic objectively.

You are entitled to your own opinion, and me, mine. I don't hold it against you, but the fact that all your reasoning comes from only one direction from everything I've seen you've post, tells me objectivity is not a priority.

[tcarcio]

Originally Posted by oblioman

But have Olberman or Madow ever been the referred to as the head of the party?? To consider Limbaugh mild is certainly laughable. He had pictures of Obama painted as Hitler on his website before Pelosi shot off at the mouth. He publicky stated that he wants Obama to fail. What other entertainer has went this far?"??

Limbaugh is not the head of the GOP. The left say's that because they love to make it seem that he is. He is a large voice of the conservative ideal but not the head of the republicans.

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by hatt

The Limbaughs and Olbermans ARE NOT news broadcasts.

Limbaugh is definitely not a journalist in any shape or form no matter what he says. He is an entertainer and greedy businessman. Olberman seems to think of himself as a serious journalist though. I would not vouch for the serious part but he could make a good argument about the model of his network being video journalism.

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by oblioman

But have Olberman or Madow ever been the referred to as the head of the party??

This wouldn't surprise me if this was true. But I would like to be able to use a name and reference to be able to repeat this. Do you have a link to the source for this?

Originally Posted by oblioman

He had pictures of Obama painted as Hitler on his website before Pelosi shot off at the mouth. He publicky stated that he wants Obama to fail. What other entertainer has went this far?"??

This wouldn't surprise me either, but I would have to see it to believe it. Do you have a link to the pictures?
I can think of several entertainers who have said much worse.

[hatt]

Originally Posted by DerFish

Limbaugh is definitely not a journalist in any shape or form no matter what he says. He is an entertainer and greedy businessman. Olberman seems to think of himself as a serious journalist though. I would not vouch for the serious part but he could make a good argument about the model of his network being video journalism.

You just illustrated my point. This is the norm today with "journalists." They aren't but make the claim. I think I'd trust the hack who says he's a hack over the hack that says he's a journalist.

[daleb]

Originally Posted by DerFish

I can think of several entertainers who have said much worse.

Most definitely.

I would think that title of 'the head of the party' would be more likely assigned to Limbaugh. Given the fact he has been around a lot longer, and more people identify with him.

[daleb]

Originally Posted by hatt

You just illustrated my point. This is the norm today with "journalists." They aren't but make the claim. I think I'd trust the hack who says he's a hack over the hack that says he's a journalist.

He could be a 'journalist' by education, etc. The operative word here may be 'serious' not journalist.

[hatt]

Originally Posted by daleb

He could be a 'journalist' by education, etc. The operative word here may be 'serious' not journalist.

You're either working as a journalist or you're not. Education and "serious" do not come into play. A journalist could certainly do some opinion work, but they should be clearly identified as such and not as news and reporting.

[daleb]

Originally Posted by hatt

You're either working as a journalist or you're not. Education and "serious" do not come into play. A journalist could certainly do some opinion work, but they should be clearly identified as such and not as news and reporting.

I disagree, how one performs their job most certainly defines them more than a title they have earned by way of an education.

If a journalist is not objective, I don't consider them serious. It does not take away the fact they may be a journalist, whether they are reporting over the air or in a newspaper column.

According to Merriam-Webster:
" 1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2 : a person who keeps a journal"

Just as a 'bad' doctor is no less a licensed physician than a good one.

[1955]

Originally Posted by daleb

I'm a moderate Republican and old enough to have 1955 Chevy as my first car a year after I went into the Air Force.

I never said the bias only came from the Right or Left those are your words. At different times they come from either direction.

"The fact the right always presents themselves at they are"..what the hell does that mean??? You have to decide if they really support what you want, or what they think you want.

Both sides go overboard and distort reality, all the time? Of course not. But enough that those not astute enough to find out the truth on their own will fall for it. Thank you for proving my point.

I never claimed all news was always unbiased, but following the news you would often have commentators give their points of view, right or left on an equal platform.

Today you have right or left windbags who IMO are largely there for entertainment value. If you don't agree, that's fine.

As far as I know, most of the broadcasting industry has been owned by conservative business interests from day one. Some have more balanced programming than others. It does not take too long to see which ones, if you pay attention and can approach a topic objectively.

You are entitled to your own opinion, and me, mine. I don't hold it against you, but the fact that all your reasoning comes from only one direction from everything I've seen you've post, tells me objectivity is not a priority.

Could you at least quote me correctly?

This is a direct quote from my post, not the best sentence I've ever written, but hey. Here's what I meant to say...Rush and the other conservative commentators will tell you that they are NOT journalists...and if you so desire, you don't have to listen to them...clear enough???

"At least the right wing airwaves present themselves as they are, right up front, and you can chose to turn the channel if you so desire."

Again, were do you get your news from??? How do you disseminate hard fact from opinion laced "news? To hard to answer?

You present yourself as a "moderate Republican"...does that mean that you still get your news from the main stream media?

[1955]

Originally Posted by daleb

If a journalist is not objective, I don't consider them serious. It does not take away the fact they may be a journalist, whether they are reporting over the air or in a newspaper column.

Here's one I found...and it even contains something of a definition of an actual journalist.

A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased.

So again, how do you determine if a "journalist" is objective??? Do you just base it on if they agree with you? Or do you base it on how many journalists repeat the same thing, over and over again?

In all fairness, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you find the TRUTH and how do you know it is (the truth)?

[daleb]

Originally Posted by 1955

Could you at least quote me correctly?

This is a direct quote from my post, not the best sentence I've ever written, but hey. Here's what I meant to say...Rush and the other conservative commentators will tell you that they are NOT journalists...and if you so desire, you don't have to listen to them...clear enough???

I was not even responding to your comment, but to Hatt's. I never said Rush or other specific commentators ARE journalists. Get your facts straight!

Originally Posted by 1955

"At least the right wing airwaves present themselves as they are, right up front, and you can chose to turn the channel if you so desire."

Again, were do you get your news from??? How do you disseminate hard fact from opinion laced "news? To hard to answer?

Too hard to answer? Not really.
I read what I can on various issues I find interesting as well as news from various sources. Can I discern facts from opinion laced news? I doubt any one can completely. I do the best I can and arrive at my opinion.

Originally Posted by 1955

You present yourself as a "moderate Republican"...does that mean that you still get your news from the main stream media?

I think I answered that above. Of course, the big difference is I don't look at just one side, thinking it is always right because it comes from the 'right' and or has no merit because it comes from the 'left'.

[daleb]

Originally Posted by 1955

Here's one I found...and it even contains something of a definition of an actual journalist.

A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased.

So again, how do you determine if a "journalist" is objective??? Do you just base it on if they agree with you? Or do you base it on how many journalists repeat the same thing, over and over again?

In all fairness, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you find the TRUTH and how do you know it is (the truth)?

I agree, that defines what a good journalist does...there are many that are not that honorable or ethical.

Why is it so important for you to know how I make decisions about news stories or anything else in my life?

[1955]

Originally Posted by daleb

I agree, that defines what a good journalist does...there are many [don't you mean, most?] that are not that honorable or ethical.

Why is it so important for you to know how I make decisions about news stories or anything else in my life?

It's not, and you know as well as I do, that I don't give a rats ass about your personal life. And don't make this personal, this is just a political discussion about political view, so don't hide behind that. Besides, I didn't think that you'd tell where you get your "facts" from anyway, since it would give you and your bias away.