Mr. 61 Percent
June 9th, 2009, 11:17 PM EDT
President Obama ranks quite high as a person (67%), not so high as an economic savior (yet), or on North Korea, but overall has a 61% approval rating in a new Gallup Poll.
Search
- Alan on...
-
Login with Facebook:
Friends on this siteTo see your friends on this site, you must be logged in with Facebook:
{5/128 comments}-
Mr. 61 Percent
By The Good Kentuckian 14/06/2009 at 9:06 pmPresident Obama Continues to Fool the Gullible Public…
Of course, the libs are crowing over this. I admit that I don’t understand this.
We read the following from the patriot Dick Morris:
Continue–>{Here}
… -
Mr. 61 Percent
By OldLefty 11/06/2009 at 3:35 pmPino said,
“By the way, I tried searching for the words ““Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” ” in the study and didn’t find a match. I don’t know where you saw that, but if you provide the link, I’ll take a look.”Every time I include a link I get “awaiting moderation, so I hope this isn’t too repetitious.
Bottom of pp 5 on the pdf version“But yes, if CBS news says the words “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” I would consider that positive, favorable and bias coverage for Obama, wouldn’t you?”
Positive and favorable of course, but not bias if it is true: if it is a fact, then it is a fact….that is what the media is supposed to report.
This is the problem I have with ‘neutrality’: Reality is not always neutral.
If you investigate and find that one person, (I exaggerate numbers to make a point), is 100% truthful, and the other person is 0% truthful, the network that just reports the facts will report exactly that. The network that is neutral, is sugarcoating the truth for the liar either because they are in the tank for the liar or because they want to seem ‘neutral’.
Or if I run for dogcatcher against Pino, and say:“Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies”, and network A investigates , finds NO evidence, and thus gives it NO airtime, while network B gives tons of coverage to my side repeating over and over, that “Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies!!”, “Does Pino kill and eat adorable little puppies??” “ Is it OUTRAGEOUS for OldLefty’s campaign to accuse Pino of killing and eating adorable little puppies!?!”….. while Pino’s people get equal time to say, “No he doesn’t.”,
Network B can be said to be the neutral one, (Network A may be accused of giving the most positive coverage to Pino), even though they indirectly helped to get the “killing and eating adorable little puppies” smear out there.As for more people watch Fox, than Msnbc….More conservatives watch cable news period, and more people watched Jerry Springer than Nova, but that did not make Jerry Springer higher quality.
-
Mr. 61 Percent
By OldLefty 11/06/2009 at 3:33 pmPino said,
“By the way, I tried searching for the words ““Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” ” in the study and didn’t find a match. I don’t know where you saw that, but if you provide the link, I’ll take a look.”
Every time I include a link I get “awaiting moderation, so you add the “org/node/13307” after the http://journalism.
Bottom of pp 5 on the pdf version“But yes, if CBS news says the words “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” I would consider that positive, favorable and bias coverage for Obama, wouldn’t you?”
Positive and favorable of course, but not bias if it is true: if it is a fact, then it is a fact….that is what the media is supposed to report.
This is the problem I have with ‘neutrality’:
Reality is not always neutral.
If you investigate and find that one person, (I exaggerate numbers to make a point), is 100% truthful, and the other person is 0% truthful, the network that just reports the facts will report exactly that. The network that is neutral, is sugarcoating the truth for the liar either because they are in the tank for the liar or because they want to seem ‘neutral’.
Or if I run for dogcatcher against Pino, and say:“Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies”, and network A investigates , finds NO evidence, and thus gives it NO airtime, while network B gives tons of coverage to my side repeating over and over, that “Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies!!”, “Does Pino kill and eat adorable little puppies??” “ Is it OUTRAGEOUS for OldLefty’s campaign to accuse Pino of killing and eating adorable little puppies!?!”….. while Pino’s people get equal time to say, “No he doesn’t.”,
Network B can be said to be the neutral one, (Network A may be accused of giving the most positive coverage to Pino), even though they indirectly helped to get the “killing and eating adorable little puppies” smear out there.As for more people watch Fox, than Msnbc….More conservatives watch cable news period, and more people watched Jerry Springer than Nova, but that did not make Jerry Springer higher quality.
-
Mr. 61 Percent
By average james 11/06/2009 at 2:07 pm“if CBS news says the words…..”—–
I would call that reporting the news, if it was in fact true. It may be positive and favorable but factual just the same.
I would not call it biased info.If they were to follow that up with a sentence like,–It’s good to see that the american public is wising up to the Republican failed ideology that McCain represents, or,– duh, what did you think was going to happen?—now that would be biased.
-
Mr. 61 Percent
By steve 11/06/2009 at 1:58 pmI came up with a good 1 hahahhe.
Powered by Sociable! -
Chat Stream
Only registered user allowed
Though I wish him well, give it some time. Those numbers will drop.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:47 am
The numbers probably will drop and maybe jump back up again.
Fluxuation happens.
VegasLib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Wanna bet it won’t go as low as Bush?
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Bad bet Vegas,
I’ll pass. What’s up ??
VegasLib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Haha. Not even a beer? LOL. Just waking up to a new day on the West Coast. Pretty good weather in Vegas right now, you should come check for yourself AJ. Bargain prices on everything. Haha.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Just might do that before too long.
Wakeboarding on Mead sounds fun. Those flash flood control washes are perfect for skating. I’ll bring my board.
Daddio Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
If I were a betting man VegasLib I would take you up on that bet.
The numbers will fluxuate up and down. 2010 will be a good indicator of what America thinks about Obama and or his policies.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I agree with Flap on wishing him well AND on the poll numbers being likely to drop. A president has to make hard calls and chance alienating some people in the course of the job, or risk being seen as indecisive and consequently losing respect all around. Also, the public can get tired of seeing the same person dominating the news, and get tired of awaiting results.
While being critical of Obama’s banking plan and his decision to use military tribunals, I’m still in with the 61%.
(Hope Flap and I are wrong about those numbers dropping, though.)
June 10th, 2009 at 1:59 am
I guess he is doing well, if you like facism.
TDro319 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“I guess he is doing well, if you like facism.”
The last time we were under a facist rule was with the Bush/Dickster administration.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:32 am
More fluff and BS while Obama ruins the country. Shocker alan (the Barack Apologist) is running this story. He was elected with only 53% of the votes (along with some acorn voter fraud) and now we are supposed to believe his approval ratings have jumped up? Pleeeeazzze.
This guy has quadrupled the debt in a few months and you libs don’t care. Socialism has never worked anywhere yet you think it’s going to work here. Gm would have been better off to fail months ago, instead of failing and taking billions of our tax dollars down with it. Oh, I forgot, Obama supporters don’t pay taxes, my bad.
Lee Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:48 am
The fluff and BS is in how some people mischaracterize government policies, make misleading statements and have no interest in being rational and objective, instead they just want to wail and whine that a liberal is in the oval office.
The ‘debt’ has not been quadrupled. It’s been increased about 20% unless Pres. Obama spent another 25-30 trillion that I don’t know about? What you mean is that the annual deficit has been quadrupled but thats not quite such a zinger of a soundbite when you take into account the once in a lifetime economic crisis we are in.. Also, if you don’t twist the facts a little, it stops you from those other cool soundbites like ‘generational theft’ etc..
You know, believe it or not, even as a liberal, there are things this administration has enacted that bother me or are I think too risky or for example, pandering to the poor or unions.
However, I find it really hard to find common ground with someone when they are blinded by a partisan lack of realism/objectivity and persist
in almost childish rants about Socialism etc
goliath43 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 4:19 am
The U.S. Federal Deficit is when government spending is greater than revenue received for that year. In Fiscal Year 2009, the budget deficit will be $1.75 trillion. The FY 2010 deficit will be $1.17 trillion.
The U.S. Federal Debt is over $11 trillion. This is nearly double the debt in 2000, which was $6 trillion.
Epiphany Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:18 am
When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That’s a difference of $4.97 trillion in 8 years.
Yes I looked it up. :)
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am
So your point is that Bush’s average deficit was $620 Billion? Obama has more than doubled that average with no end in sight. It appears a safe bet that Obama will add more than $4.97 to the national debt in only 4 years. Obama’s FY2010 budget is based on two very rosy predictions. An average unemployment rate of 7.1% and average GDP growth of 3.5%. The WH said before the stimulus was passed that with the stimulus Unemployment would top out at 8%, well in May it was 9.4% and climbing? Interestingly at the time of the stimulus debate Obama said it would be “timely and targeted”. Yet nearly 4 months later the nation still waits. Before the stimulus economists were predicting a third quarter growth rate of 2.5%. Now that prediction has been reduced to .65%. It is no wonder Americans are losing confidence in his ability to deal effectively with the economy. And how the hell do you verify a job as being “saved”. It would seem that as smart as Obama appears to be he would want to use verifiable benchmarks.
VegasLib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am
The stimulus began with Busshyboo.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Socialism. Obama is a socialist.
Fascism. Obama is a fascist.
I wish you Obama-haters would just make up your mind.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Socialism. Obama is a socialist.
Fascism. Obama is a fascist.
We thought he was going to be a socialist. Turns out we were wrong; he is a fascist.
Epiphany Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:16 am
And the above comment is exactly why most Americans cannot take conservatives very seriously anymore. Which is ok by me.
Yeah I know, he’s as bad as Hitler. No, worse!!
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Isn’t it funny how those more left leaning, felt that he was going to be like FDR, but turns out he kept the same right leaning, Wall Street loving economoc team as Bush.
placefield Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Yes it is funny how many on the left are upset he is not liberal enough. Many on the right are upset with how liberal he is. Maybe that means he is where he needs to be. I have some serious reservations on his economic plan but am taking a wait a see attitude about it for now (what else can I do). I generally approve though, not perfect but better then what we had that’s for sure.
VegasLib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Placefield: “not perfect”
Nobody’s perfect, it’s just the Cons are pissed cause they don’t have a puppet at the WH anymore.
“but better then what we had that’s for sure.”
For damn sure!!!
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Nobody’s perfect, so true. We on the left are very aware of that basic truth.
It’s the conservatives that keep up the “blessed”, “messiah” crap.
flap Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
AJ, I think the “blessed” and “messiah” crap is appropriate in jest after the media fawned over him and even tossed HILLARY CLINTON aside in favor of him.
I will admit one of the things I love and respect Obama for is that he beat Hillary Clinton. Seriously. We don’t need any more Bushes or Clintons in the White House.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:10 am
80% of the 32% show up here to whine and complain about a very popular president. Sucks to lose, doesn’t it?
Daddio Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
No it doesn’t “suck” to lose. I guess if you are a sorry loser then yes it would. I believe if you lose you go back to the drawing board, figure out where you went wrong and try and correct it. America is greater than any one man or party.
Plenty of Dems and liberals whined and complained from the 1994 election through the end of Bush’s presidency. In every event that is competitive one side celebrates and the other side licks their wounds.
Life goes on.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Yeah I know, he’s as bad as Hitler. No, worse!!
Do you know the definition of fascism?
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:27 am
fascism
/fashiz’m/
• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Epiphany Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
fas·cism (fāsh’ĭz’əm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
fas·cis’tic (fə-shĭs’tĭk) adj.
fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]
A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.
Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Isn’t it funny how those more left leaning, felt that he was going to be like FDR, but turns out he kept the same right leaning, Wall Street loving economoc team as Bush.
Yeah, I do find it interesting to see folks think he is too far left and others saying he is too far right.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.
I agree. Today’s version of the word brings to mind Hitler; complete with his military views and, of course, his racists views.
That being said, fascism is defined as “Government Controlled”. And that IS what Obama is doing. He is controlling the banks. He is controlling the auto-industry. He is controlling how bankruptcy laws are, well, ignored. Further, he is controlling pay and bonuses. In short, he is a fascist.
Note a racist. Not a military overlord. But a fascist none the less.
And I do have to say lefty, I AM impressed with your continued banging of the drum wherein you find definitions to the word that says “Republicans Suck”.
Talk about intolerant.
Um Cara Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Doesn’t fascism require a dictator? I’m not conceding that there is enough government control to even begin considering the US a fascist government, but I thought the whole dictator thing was required as well.
You have to stretch reality PRETTY far to consider Obama a dictator.
michael Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Pino. Are you serious?
June 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Doesn’t fascism require a dictator?
By definition, The Blessed Leader IS a dictator of sorts….. ;-)
I have never seen that as a strict requirement. Again, modern versions of fascism have had dictators and have included military force along with extreme racism.
Though I did particularly love where The Blessed Leader pressured the Supreme Court to neglect to overturn his decision to just ignore bankruptcy law.
A day in the life of The Decider
Um Cara Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Though I did particularly love where The Blessed Leader pressured the Supreme Court to neglect to overturn his decision to just ignore bankruptcy law.
How did that work out for him? As a dictator, I suppose he succeeded? He probably imprisoned or executed any of the justices who would not go along with his plan?
I don’t get all the US news down here, so fill me in, I’m intrigued!
June 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
My problem is not so much that “Republicans Suck”, it’s the long consistent strategy like Newt’s Language, A Key Mechanism of Control, to establish among a receptive audience that the other party is “unpatriotic, Anti American, anti family etc.”, and never veer from that stereotype.
So that everybody repeats the same talking points, and the same words….
I see no evidence to refute John Dean’s book, Conservatives Without Conscience, that the GOP has become a party of those looking to follow authoritarian leaders.
Everytime they say “Democrat” party, or Islamofascist or the far left,(when it is the far left, the moderate left, the center, the moderate right, and the far right).
These are all words that come from the top down and EVERYBODY repeats them whether or not they make sense.
And he BETTER control the pay and bonuses when they come begging for government money.
According to the Prompt Corrective Action Law of 1991, they should have taken over these banks, put them into recievership, cleaned up the toxic assets, then sold them back to private owership.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:04 am
[...] the Republicans are being crazy: Obama’s approval ratings are still good. Evidently people know that the previous messes took a while to build up to and we’ll have to [...]
June 10th, 2009 at 10:13 am
and never veer from that stereotype.
A lot like reblikkkans or rethuglicans?
And he BETTER control the pay and bonuses when they come begging for government money.
Of course, being able to pay employees is critical to retaining top talent. And however you feel, restrict pay or not, it should be done across the board, yes? You MUST agree that we should similarly restrict the pay of the execs at Fannie and Freddie? Yeah, ooops, can’t do that! After all, Obama was THE SINGLE highest receiver of money from those companies.
they should have taken over these banks
They shouldn’t have regulated these banks into giving loans to people that couldn’t afford them. Them they should have change the regulation on how assets are priced. And failing all of that, they should have let the bank fail and redistribute those assets to institutions that have demonstrated they could succeed.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Of course, being able to pay employees is critical to retaining top talent”?!?!
They ran their companies into the ground! They should be lucky to get jobs at McDonald’s.
“They shouldn’t have regulated these banks into giving loans to people that couldn’t afford them.”
The truth is they DEREGULATED the banks to give loans to people that couldn’t afford them. Because Wall Street loved investing in them, then they insured the toxic loans with money they didn’t have.
Bush started this in 02:
From Whitehouse .gov.
“Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans.”
The demand for those great, safe mortgage backed securities was really high. In fact, so high, that there was a point somewhere in 2003 when everyone who qualified for a mortgage got one, and still the global pool of money wanted more.
Thus, things needed to change. And they did. The mortgage qualification guidelines did.
At first, the stated income, verified assets (SIVA) loans came out. People didn’t have to prove their income any more. They just needed to “state” it and show that they had money in the bank.
Then, the no income, verified assets (NIVA) loans came out. The lender was no longer interested in what you do for a living. People just needed to show some money in their bank accounts.
This wasn’t enough to satisfy the huge appetite of global investors. The qualification guidelines kept going looser in order to produce more mortgages, more securities.
This leads us to NINA. Have you heard of NINA?
NINA is an abbreviation of No Income No Assets. Basically, NINA loans are official loan products and let you borrow money without having to prove or even state anything. All you needed to have in order to get a mortgage was a credit score.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie:
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, urged the government to cancel the retention bonuses.
That was in March, I haven’t heard anymore.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
When the institutions in question pay back the loans then they can pay whatever they want to their ceos and such.
When you borrow money for a home loan, you must adhere to certain rules, hoops the lender reqires you to jump through, yes ?
These are bridge loans, all of them.
The conservative Republican solution of simply letting it all collapse, seems dangerously reckless.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 2:58 am
the problem James (in principle I agree with you) is that they gave them the money, then made up the rules.
I’ll sell you a car for a dollar…then after I give it to you I change it to 1 dollar an hour until the day you die.
that doesn’t fly in courts of law, and shouldn’t fly with loans.
However I said from day one, if you are going to loan the money you have to limit pay as a condition…but they didn’t do that.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Last thing; Must get out of here….
“A lot like reblikkkans or rethuglicans?”
Yes, people do say that, just like they say libtards and dummycrats, but stuipid, inncorrect words like “Democrat party”, and Islamofascist are used by talk show hosts, Congress people and Pres. Bush.
Imagine if Thom Hartman, Olbermann, ALL the Democrats in Congress, all the candidates, and the Democratic president referred to the “Republic Party”.
It would seem a little indoctrinated.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:16 am
How did that work out for him?
msnbc.msn.com/id/31185911/
[again, props for using the radical extreme hate filled leftist news outlet, msnbc. that as opposed to the more neutral, albeit right leaning foxnews.]
Weird that Brazil blocks news outlets and internet sites down there. I’ll see what I can do to help ya out.
TDro319 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“How did that work out for him?”
Yes Pino, but how many of the justices did he have executed? How many people did he pick off the streets because they “looked like terrorists”?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:27 am
as opposed to the more neutral, albeit right leaning foxnews.]hahahahahaha
KKKlanity, O’Loofah, Glennie Peckerhead, the kindergardeners in the morning, and that’s just the appetizer.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Yeah SGL,
I see you caught that too. I just sprayed a little coffee out of my nose.
C’mon Pino, get real man. More neutral ???
flap Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“…kindergardeners…”
Glennie Peckerhead…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
My problem is not so much that “Republicans Suck”, it’s the long consistent strategy
Lefty, see SGL:
Nice.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thank you. This is a liberal site ya know. You do know that, don’t you?????
pino Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Sure I do. Just don’t claim this righteous indignation when someone calls you ignorant or a libtard.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
This type of ugliness started steamrolling with the advent of hate radio. For years, the libs had no voice. Still don’t on the radio. But the internet has give the left a voice. Both sides need to cool it, but turn on your radio, switch it to AM and you will see what I mean. There would be no Keith Olbermann if there had not been a Sean Hannity first. Bush haters? Try Clinton haters.
flap Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Libs had no voice except for EVERY DAMN NEWS OUTLET. You may have more left-wing commentators, but the news in general was always biased in your favor.
TDro319 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“but the news in general was always biased in your favor.”
Really??!! Is that why every station backed up Dubya and the Dick’s decision to invade Iraq? Every single station backed that bad decision. Only one person (Phil Donahue) opposed the war on the air – and he was fired.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
When the institutions in question pay back the loans
They are trying like motha’s right now; we’ll see if The Fascist lets them.
When you borrow money for a home loan, you must adhere to certain rules, hoops
Except many of these banks didn’t “borrow”. They were forced to receive. Further, these rules and hoops were not in existence at the execution of the loan. THAT came after. After, you know, the administration was shock, just SHOCKED to learn that these bonuses were on the way.
Psst, they knew in the fall when Geitner was in his last job, but, details….who needs ‘em.
solution of simply letting it all collapse
A bit over the top on the whole thing. Bankruptcy is a very well understood process whereby assets are reorganized. The widgets keep getting produced, just maybe or maybe not, by someone else.
Not one single plane fell out of the air as the airlines filed.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am
C’mon Pino, get real man. More neutral ???
My claim is this:
FoxNews is more neutral than MSNBC is.
I am not saying that Fox doesn’t lean right, it does, I am just saying that it is closer to the center than MSNBC.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Prove it.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Southern Girl Lib,
There was a study about the number of negatives and positives about the candidates in the 08 election.
The study claims that Fox was more equal, although they state that ALL cable news outlets focused mostly on campaign strategy, in which everyone agreed that McCain ran a horrible campaign, so that more negative things would be said about McCain’s campaign, even on Fox.
They also do not define negative….so when Fox calls Obama a marxist = negative for Obama.
When Fox complains that McCain is not calling Obama out on being a Marxist = negative for McCain.
They are not analyzing whether there is any validity in calling him a Marxist.
flap Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Every news outlet is biased. Some people (present company possibly excluded) just refuse to admit that.
placefield Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am
All this talk of if MSNBC or Fox News is closer to center is getting real old to me. Center is not a fixed point, if fluctuates depending on the person defining it. Arguing about who is closer to a subjective point is fairly pointless.
Epiphany Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Fox News closer to the center than MSNBC? LOL. Just earlier I watched “Morning Joe” hosted by conservative commentator Joe Scarborough. His show is 3 hours long (6-9AM).
Name me one show on Fox that is 1 hour long, let alone 3, hosted by a liberal commentator.
Neil Cavuto, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck are more neutral???! Again…LOL. Yes I remember watching Glenn Beck for the last time when, while ranting about the Obama administration, Beck had videos of marching Nazis and tanks behind him. Very neutral. Not hate filled at all.
Oh that’s right you think Obama is a fascist dictator. Never mind.
michael Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Sure, Pino. I’ll stick with CNN and NPR.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Both sides need to cool it,
You’re right. I don’t like the Republican Cheerleaders; Hannity, Rush, Levin and so on….
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Pino,
I’m with you on this.
SGL is right, both sides need to cool it.
I don’t see it happening anytime soon though.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56 am
FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF DEMOCRAT…Psalm 2008-2012
Obama is my shepard.
I shall not want.
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the conservative party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment.
Yes, though I walk thru the valley of the bread line,
I shall not go hungry.
Omama has anointed my income with taxes,
my expenses runneth over my income.
Surely poverty and hard living
will follow me all the days of his term.
From hence forth we will live
all the days of our lives in a rented home
with an overseas landlord.
BUT I AM PROUD I AM A DEMOCRAT AMERICAN!
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Well there you go again RDM.
How have you been ?
RDM Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
AJ,
Good to hear from you. Glad to see ya back on site.
I’m heading off this weekend for a little trail riding with my 4 legged girlfriend( Ally ).
Yep, every now and then I just have to fire something off.
Take care.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Sounds like a good time.
Have fun you potstirring conservative knucklehead you.
Geez.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
What the heck is a “democrat American”??
Sounds like something Archie Bunker would say.
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.
RDM Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Lefty said; what the heck is a “Democrat American”.
Goggle it.
Go left young man, go left!
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You rock Lefty.
Epiphany Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Hahaha! That was great Lefty!!
RDM Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Lefty, I’m learning from you how to make stuff up as I go along.
“Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt’.
Shaolin Priest
Kwai Chang Cane
(Grasshopper)
June 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
So who was Mr. 68%? None other than George W. Bush. According to Gallup polls, Bush averaged a 68% approval rating in his first year of his presidency. Jumped up to 71% in his second year.
Seems Obama is an abject failure in comparison.
Keep patting yourselves on the back while you destroy the American economy.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Of course, after 9/11, EVERYBODY gave the president a high approval rating….it seemed like the patriotic thing to do.
That’s when we thought he was actually going to fight terrorism.
But we’ll keep patting ourselves on the back while Obama trys to save ther American economy.
John G. Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Of course, after we elected the first african american as president, EVERYBODY gave the president a high approval rating….it seemed like the politically correct thing to do.
That’s when we thought he was going to govern from the center.
But, you can keep pretending that increased tax burdens on corporations and health care benefits, and the ever increasing deficit debt, will actually improve the economy. Blissful ignorance is a wonderful way to live a life.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I don’t think the Klan members are particularly fond of him. The greatwirers, fox nationers, or michellemalkiners either.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Wait! I’m breathless! Don’t leave hanging like this! Please tell me………………the rest………..of the story……………..
John G. Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
sorry to leave you hanging. Bush’s approval ratings plummeted, same as Obama’s will.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hahahaha hahaha
How low did it go ??
June 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Prove it.
Sigh. Okie dokie
An average score is 50.06. The higher up the scale, the more liberal, the lower, more conservative. The study conducted did not measure MSNBC, you’ll have to insert them into the list below. Further, CNN ranks where it does due to Aaron Brown being neutral, Anderson Cooper being more to the left than Mr. Brown.
Rank Measure Closest to Center:
1. 55.8 Newshour with Jim Lehrer
2. 56.0 CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
3. 56.1 ABC Good Morning America
4. 60.4 Drudge Report
5. 39.7 Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume
6. 61.0 ABC World News Tonight
7. 61.6 NBC Nightly News
8. 63.4 USA Today
9. 64.0 NBC Today Show
10. 35.4 Washington Times
11. 65.4 Time Magazine
12. 65.8 U.S. News and World Report
13. 66.3 NPR Morning Edition
14. 66.3 Newsweek
15. 66.6 CBS Early Show
16. 66.6 Washington Post
17. 70.0 LA Times
18. 73.7 CBS Evening News
19. 73.7 New York Times
20. 85.1 Wall Street Journal
Personally, I put MSNBC to the left of NPR, to the right of The New York Times. Who wouldn’t thought the WSJ was the MOST liberal outlet?
sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
pino Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Notice, of the 20 listed media outlets, only TWO are right of center. Foxnews and The Washington Times.
So yes, Fox leans right and is more neutral than MSNBC [and almost all of the above listed outlets] and maybe, just maybe, should be allowed to give a conservative viewpoint in what is otherwise a sea of liberalism.
Oh, and viewers vote with their eyes, Fox outperforms the other news channels sometimes in total.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Did I just read a tentative nod to the fairness doctrine ??
Was I over reaching on the maybe, just maybe comment ?
June 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
You may have heard this before, if not: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide:
You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a .45 cal Kimber, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What would you do??
Democrat’s Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Colud we run away?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Kimber have a appropriate saftey built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, what kind of a message does this send to my children?
Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me, or would he be content just to wound me?
Should I call 911?
This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
——————————————————-
Republican’s Answer:
BANG!
——————————————————-
Redneck’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click…( sounds of reloading )
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click
Daughter:
‘Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?’
Wife:
‘You are not taking that to the taxidermist! ‘
That’s all, ya’ll.
average james Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
RDM,
Pretty funny, I must admit.
If we can’t laugh at ourselves….
As a liberal, I would prefer to think it through.
Republican—–shoot first, maybe ask questions later.
I’ll take the thinking approach, even if it seems more risky.
flap Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Alan Colmes’ answer: “That’s a hypothetical situation that I can’t (or refuse to) answer.”
Still love ya, Alan.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Did I just read a tentative nod to the fairness doctrine ??
I do not, as a matter of principle, advocate telling private companies what to do with their money. But yes, it WOULD be fun to force the Fairness Doctrine on the media; talk radio included mind you. But I would LOVE to have the Times forced to write actual news.
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Thing is, “actual news” is now a matter of opinion.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
a matter of opinion.
What seems NOT to be a matter of opinion is that Fox is closer to center than MSNBC.
Q.E.D.
TDro319 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“Fox is closer to center than MSNBC.”
Especially Hannity, O’Really, Beck and the three stooges in the morning – those crazy “centrists”
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Pino said, “Fox is closer to center than MSNBC.”
……………………..
Actually, this whole study intrigues me for several reasons.
The study notes that “coverage of the candidates is “positive” or “negative,” not “favorable” or “unfavorable” or that coverage is “biased” in favor of a given candidate.’
“Some of that positive coverage was related to evidence that the financial crisis was aiding Obama. “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,”
That’s what counts as “positive” coverage of Obama? A fairly straightforward report that a poll finds Obama in a “clear lead” over McCain? And, it seems, much of Obama’s “positive” coverage consisted of reports like that.
The PEJ study also stated:
“ Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted. “
Was there anything that McCain or his campaign has wanted the news media to focus on and they have refused?
From “lipstick on a pig” to Bill Ayers, the media have scampered after whatever mud McCain has flung.
Sure, sometimes they have pointed out that McCain is lying But — even as they’ve debunked McCain’s claims, they’ve too often privileged the lie by allowing those claims to drive their coverage.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
A $timulu$ story for the White House:
It is the month of June on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It’s tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town.
He enters the only hotel, lays $500.00 on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.
The Hotel manager takes the $500.00 and runs to pay his debt to the grocery.
The grocer takes the $500.00 and runs to pay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $500.00 and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.
The supplier of feed and fuel takes the $500.00 and runs to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her “services” on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the $500.00 for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.
The hotel manager lays the $500.00 back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.
At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his $500.00, saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.
No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism…
And that is how the United States Government is doing business today.
Reminder, don’t forget to pay taxes…12 million illegals are depending on you!
June 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The last time we were under a facist rule was…….
Yesterday. Obama pressured the Court to ignore basic bankruptcy law. But hey, truth and facts.
TDro319 Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Yes, but how many people have Obama killed or fired for political purposes?
RDM Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Would this include Chrysler and Government Motors?
It appears that the marriage between the govt. and GM is official. Know how I can tell?
The first thing to go was the Hummer!
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 3:07 am
so we know Bill Clinton had no say in this…no way he’d let the Hummer go.
Daddio Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Bill Clinton liked El Cominos Guido, with astroturf in in the back. :)
Remember that one? Hee, hee.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Mr. 61 percent is working on ligislation on limiting how much one can earn. Keep an eye on this one. Why would a non-socialist inject government into how much one makes? Hmmm. I wonder. Maybe Obama makes to much.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Why would a non-socialist inject government into how much one makes?
Because he is a fascist.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
So yes, Fox leans right and is more neutral than MSNBC
SGL,Lefty, James, Place, Greed:
Been almost a day, nothing to say about the study? At least a “It would seem that the data you present shows that Fox trends more neutral than at least some other media outlets”?
Nothin’?
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Pino,
I’ve been doing stuff.
Really I’ve got no comment on the survey other than to say,. When I do watch Fox, I can’t ignore the right lean. I can’t ignore it on MSNBC either (left).
NPR is my choice for a largely unbiased newscast on the radio, PBS or C-Span on TV. CNN/HL seems pretty tame on the biased scale. I gave up TV years ago, so the only time I watch is when I’m on the road working. I do check in on Fox, MSNBC and others on-line pretty much daily.
Regardless of surveys, my perception is my perception. I do not like being manipulated. I do like someone telling me what I’m really thinking, what I’m really up to.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:41 am
That would be;
I do not like someone telling me what I’m really thinking, what I’m really up to.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Pino said,
“SGL,Lefty, James, Place, Greed:
Been almost a day, nothing to say about the study?”
………………………..
I’m going out, now, but I ALREADY responded yesterday;
(although this new format makes it difficult).
****************************************
OldLefty Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Pino said, “Fox is closer to center than MSNBC.”
……………………..
Actually, this whole study intrigues me for several reasons.
The study notes that “coverage of the candidates is “positive” or “negative,” not “favorable” or “unfavorable” or that coverage is “biased” in favor of a given candidate.’
“Some of that positive coverage was related to evidence that the financial crisis was aiding Obama. “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,”
That’s what counts as “positive” coverage of Obama? A fairly straightforward report that a poll finds Obama in a “clear lead” over McCain? And, it seems, much of Obama’s “positive” coverage consisted of reports like that.
The PEJ study also stated:
“ Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted. “
Was there anything that McCain or his campaign has wanted the news media to focus on and they have refused?
From “lipstick on a pig” to Bill Ayers, the media have scampered after whatever mud McCain has flung.
Sure, sometimes they have pointed out that McCain is lying But — even as they’ve debunked McCain’s claims, they’ve too often privileged the lie by allowing those claims to drive their coverage.
steve Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Very true Oldlefty and FAUX NEWS focus on the lies and smear doing the election. FAUX NEWS has been down hill since the election as well and MSNBC went up hill.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am
The study notes that “coverage of the candidates is “positive” or “negative,” not “favorable” or “unfavorable” or that coverage is “biased” in favor of a given candidate.’
I’m not sure what you are referring to. The challenge to me was to “prove” that Foxnews was more neutral than MSNBC. This study shows that to be the case.
As for methodology see here, first sentence in the study:
By the way, I tried searching for the words ““Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” ” in the study and didn’t find a match. I don’t know where you saw that, but if you provide the link, I’ll take a look.
But yes, if CBS news says the words “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” I would consider that positive, favorable and bias coverage for Obama, wouldn’t you?
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
no.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Ditto.
No.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“if CBS news says the words…..”—–
I would call that reporting the news, if it was in fact true. It may be positive and favorable but factual just the same.
I would not call it biased info.
If they were to follow that up with a sentence like,–It’s good to see that the american public is wising up to the Republican failed ideology that McCain represents, or,– duh, what did you think was going to happen?—now that would be biased.
OldLefty Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Pino said,
“By the way, I tried searching for the words ““Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” ” in the study and didn’t find a match. I don’t know where you saw that, but if you provide the link, I’ll take a look.”
Every time I include a link I get “awaiting moderation, so you add the “org/node/13307” after the http://journalism.
Bottom of pp 5 on the pdf version
“But yes, if CBS news says the words “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” I would consider that positive, favorable and bias coverage for Obama, wouldn’t you?”
Positive and favorable of course, but not bias if it is true: if it is a fact, then it is a fact….that is what the media is supposed to report.
This is the problem I have with ‘neutrality’:
Reality is not always neutral.
If you investigate and find that one person, (I exaggerate numbers to make a point), is 100% truthful, and the other person is 0% truthful, the network that just reports the facts will report exactly that. The network that is neutral, is sugarcoating the truth for the liar either because they are in the tank for the liar or because they want to seem ‘neutral’.
Or if I run for dogcatcher against Pino, and say:
“Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies”, and network A investigates , finds NO evidence, and thus gives it NO airtime, while network B gives tons of coverage to my side repeating over and over, that “Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies!!”, “Does Pino kill and eat adorable little puppies??” “ Is it OUTRAGEOUS for OldLefty’s campaign to accuse Pino of killing and eating adorable little puppies!?!”….. while Pino’s people get equal time to say, “No he doesn’t.”,
Network B can be said to be the neutral one, (Network A may be accused of giving the most positive coverage to Pino), even though they indirectly helped to get the “killing and eating adorable little puppies” smear out there.
As for more people watch Fox, than Msnbc….More conservatives watch cable news period, and more people watched Jerry Springer than Nova, but that did not make Jerry Springer higher quality.
OldLefty Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Pino said,
“By the way, I tried searching for the words ““Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” ” in the study and didn’t find a match. I don’t know where you saw that, but if you provide the link, I’ll take a look.”
Every time I include a link I get “awaiting moderation, so I hope this isn’t too repetitious.
Bottom of pp 5 on the pdf version
“But yes, if CBS news says the words “Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain,” I would consider that positive, favorable and bias coverage for Obama, wouldn’t you?”
Positive and favorable of course, but not bias if it is true: if it is a fact, then it is a fact….that is what the media is supposed to report.
This is the problem I have with ‘neutrality’: Reality is not always neutral.
If you investigate and find that one person, (I exaggerate numbers to make a point), is 100% truthful, and the other person is 0% truthful, the network that just reports the facts will report exactly that. The network that is neutral, is sugarcoating the truth for the liar either because they are in the tank for the liar or because they want to seem ‘neutral’.
Or if I run for dogcatcher against Pino, and say:
“Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies”, and network A investigates , finds NO evidence, and thus gives it NO airtime, while network B gives tons of coverage to my side repeating over and over, that “Pino kills and eats adorable little puppies!!”, “Does Pino kill and eat adorable little puppies??” “ Is it OUTRAGEOUS for OldLefty’s campaign to accuse Pino of killing and eating adorable little puppies!?!”….. while Pino’s people get equal time to say, “No he doesn’t.”,
Network B can be said to be the neutral one, (Network A may be accused of giving the most positive coverage to Pino), even though they indirectly helped to get the “killing and eating adorable little puppies” smear out there.
As for more people watch Fox, than Msnbc….More conservatives watch cable news period, and more people watched Jerry Springer than Nova, but that did not make Jerry Springer higher quality.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
I do not like someone telling me what I’m really thinking, what I’m really up to.
Me either, which is why I like data.
NPR is my choice for a largely unbiased newscast on the radio
As far as radio is concerned, you are probably right, hard to find an unbiased outlet on the radio, mostly dominated by far right wing folks. But, don’t be fooled, NPR is one of the most biased outlets in the study.
13. 66.3 NPR Morning Edition
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
NPR is pretty straight forward.
If they run an editorial type piece, they will have equal time for both views/guests and will not talk over them.
They don’t yell the news at you.
They regularly air feedback from listeners, negative and positive(as does O’reilly), which is interesting.
I’ve been listening for years and simply put, it’s my favorite source.
Shows like;
Car talk
The Jefferson hour
Wait wait, don’t tell me
Talk of the nation
Prarie Home Companion
All things considered
Thistle and Shamrock
etc. really cinch it for me.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:45 am
NPR is pretty straight forward.
Absolutely. NPR is a fantastic station. No doubt.
They just are not more neutral than Foxnews.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
That may well be the case, according to the survey, yours and others opinions.
My perception is certainly different. My perception has been wrong before and I am certain it will be wrong again.
My opinion today is……nah, I don’t think Fox is more neutral.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
no.
That’s the sum of your reaction to the proof? No?
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Yes.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
HA! You beat me to it.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Hehehe
June 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
FAUX NEWS has been down hill since the election as well and MSNBC went up hill.
What is your metric in measuring “downhillness”
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Downhillness—–What a great word !!!!
pino Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
heh heh.
steve Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I came up with a good 1 hahahhe.
steve Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
TV ratings,even though FAUX remains at the top,MSNBC ratings went up.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
My opinion today is……nah, I don’t think Fox is more neutral.
Don’t get me wrong, you have a lot to say I agree with. But it is REALLY frustrating when someone states a position, is given a “Prove it” statement and then delivers proof and then has that proof dismissed is rather frustrating. Further, unless refuted by equal but opposite data, it weakens your position.
Now, I know that this is a discussion board sponsored by an opinion show so opinion is much the rule of the day. But sometimes, some of us actually take steps in reaching across and making some progress.
average james Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Pino,
I certainly do not intend to frustrate you bro.
I’m just saying that I disagree with you and that survey. Maybe it’s just that I know that Hannity,etc., will come on after the newsbreak and throw objectivity out the window. Perhaps that thought just lurks and colors my perception of the regular newscast.
It’s like if Obama’s approval ratings were in the tank, and I still approved of him. I simply disagree.
We’re cool man, no frustration intended.
pino Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
kewl
June 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
HA! You beat me to it.
So, SGL. Given proof, you still can’t come around to say that you, at least, MAY, have been wrong. The Red team vs Blue team in you is so strong that you can’t react to factual data?
Don’t get me wrong, I am into the whole team thing. I hate the Packers. Always will. But to say that they are or are not a good football team based on that is silly.
And that’s how you sound right now.
Silly.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
TV ratings,even though FAUX remains at the top,MSNBC ratings went up.
So, head to head, not only does Fox have 2.5 times the audience, but it grew at a faster rate. Contray to Fox going downhill, it is winning going away.
Serious. How do you look at facts and then say the things that you say? It is very much as if you stomp your feet, squeeze your eyes shut and scream to the heavens.
So, yeah, just more of the same.
Again, not only is Fox more fair than MSNBC, they are watched by more people. ‘Prolly ‘casue they area better show.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
President Obama Continues to Fool the Gullible Public…
Of course, the libs are crowing over this. I admit that I don’t understand this.
We read the following from the patriot Dick Morris:
Continue–>{Here}
…
June 14th, 2009 at 9:06 pm