OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[Jackdog]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

I can.

[pk500]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

Hell yes. The Christian Science Monitor is about the only national news outlet left which after reading I still can't determine an overt political slant.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Matthews is chasing ratings. Country is against Bush and the Republicans so he challenged the GOP guests more, especially those saying Obama was anti-American or socialist.

In 2000 and 2004, he challenged the Democrats, saying why do liberals say Republican candidates aren't smart and so on.

Horsesh*t. Matthews is showing his true colors as a nearly lifelong Democrat now that the authority of Russert is gone.

Matthews opposed the Vietnam War, worked in the Peace Corps to avoid Vietnam and worked for four Democratic congressmen in D.C. He was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and then worked for Tip O'Neill.

Yes, Matthews voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and was opposed to the Iraq War. But his love affair for Obama is obvious and blossomed on the national TV screen once Russert died.

Plus Matthews and Olbermann were replaced by David Gregory as MSNBC's political convention host after their incredibly partisan, c*ck-in-mouth, pom-pom waving performance as hosts of the DNC in Denver. That speaks volumes.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

Hell yes. The Christian Science Monitor is about the only national news outlet left which after reading I still can't determine an overt political slant.

Take care,
PK

There is no doubt about that Paul.

[Jared]

Call it whatever the f*ck you want. I watch them all and at some point they're all a joke. If you don't see that then your blind. I watched O'Reilly interview Clinton,McCain and Obama. If he was what you claim,why did Clinton and Obama do his show? Because of his ratings. He kills MSNBC and CNN in that timeslot. Why? because he goes after them all. After his interviews he didn't come away with anyones jizz dripping down his chin like Olbermann and Matthews. They were so bad even Bill Bill Maher said they were ready to have sex with Obama. O'Reily goes after them all on both sides and in the middle. If you really watched his show you would know that. Sounds like your a fan of Olbermann. He relies on the Daily Kos and Media Matters for his talking points. AWSOME!!

Hannity goes after the liberals and Colmes goes after the conservitives. That's what they do! That's why they have a show. The difference between you and I is simple. I want to see both side grilled for fuckups. You don't.

In the 25-54 age group, O'Reilly and Olbermann are usually really close, and both beat CNN. Although I think O'Reilly does have the senior citizen crowd.

And a lot of people don't shudder that information comes from Media Matters, for example. O'Reilly complains about them left and right (because they point out when he's not being "fair and balanced"), but people rarely, if ever, show where Media Matters is actually wrong in their coverage. It's just more complaining to push people off whether Fox News' coverage is really balanced or not.

[pk500]

I also think Politico.com does a pretty good job of staying objective in its political reporting.

And my boy Chuck Todd at MSNBC. Chuck is the man. Seriously, when watching Todd report, do you get an inkling of a political agenda? Do you ever see the guy interject partisan politics into his reporting?

Todd is the next Russert. No question. He's a natural to host "Meet the Press" once Brokaw's period as transition host ends.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

Call it whatever the f*ck you want. I watch them all and at some point they're all a joke. If you don't see that then your blind. I watched O'Reilly interview Clinton,McCain and Obama. If he was what you claim,why did Clinton and Obama do his show? Because of his ratings. He kills MSNBC and CNN in that timeslot. Why? because he goes after them all. After his interviews he didn't come away with anyones jizz dripping down his chin like Olbermann and Matthews. They were so bad even Bill Bill Maher said they were ready to have sex with Obama. O'Reily goes after them all on both sides and in the middle. If you really watched his show you would know that. Sounds like your a fan of Olbermann. He relies on the Daily Kos and Media Matters for his talking points. AWSOME!!

Most of these channels are news/entertainment channels. They should be taken lightly, but to completely dismiss EVERYTHING as crap or biased is wrong. There must be some truth scattered in there, but let the listener beware. Arguing that one is worse than the other is also ridiculous. Watch what you want....research what you want to know more about....and know your sources. If 100% unbiased news is what you desire, then seek it out. Fact is, most people enjoy the company of others who think alike, so many conservatives will watch FOX and liberals MSNBC.

[JackB1]

My friends are dedicated soldiers who do not want to go home until the mission is done,wherever that may be. The Army is their life. They are soldiers. The families of my friends understand exactly what makes these men tick and enjoy the times they come home for leave. I love my family very much,given a chance I would go right back to Iraq or Afghanistan tomorrow. It is what it is my friend. Don't worry about the "Lifers". Worry about the reserve and NG troops that really have a civillian life. They are the ones that suffered heavy casualties in these wars.

It's hard for me to understand, but if these men choose to be "lifetime soldiers" then bless them for that and protect them. It's not a lifestyle I am familiar with and it's one that I don't completely understand, but I respect it. You are right about these unfortunate weekend warrior natl guard troops that have ended up doing 2 & 3 tours of duty in Iraq. But I guess they knew the possibilties existed when they signed up.

[RobVarak]

Let me try to beat this dead horse a different way.

People don't want truly balanced news. They want the events of the day presented in a way that fits their lives presented by people with whom they are sympathetic.

The change from the 3 big nightly anchors, seen as unbiased Olympian stoics but every bit as prone to spin as anyone, to the armies of smirking hair models, bloggers and .rss feeds is just the market giving the people what they want.

The administration of justice, the one area in which society not only strives for objectivity but actively regulates in order to minimize bias to the extent that it can, is not free from bias. Why one would expect journalism, a commercial enterprise which is self-regulating and subject to the laws of economics, to be free from bias is beyond me. It's an ideal to be sure, but there is no evidence in the long history of the field that such objectivity is even modestly achievable.

[Feanor]

While checking on exactly how many people in the US are uninsured, I found this Aetna proposal for a way to work toward universal health care coverage. It's from an insurance company so it's not suggesting anything like the UK model, but it makes some good points about how much the uninsured already cost taxpayers and those of us with private insurance.

http://www.aetna.com/about/aoti/aetna_p ... sured.html

Q: Don’t the uninsured already receive free or discounted health care?

A: No, uninsured patients typically do not receive services at discounted rates. In fact, most are likely to go without care at all or be treated in high-cost emergency room settings. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (August 2008), one-quarter of uninsured adults “go without needed care due to cost each year.” Because they do not receive early treatment and regular preventive care, the uninsured are more likely to be hospitalized and die from preventable causes. When those without coverage do receive treatment, expenses are significantly higher than those of their insured counterparts due to group discounts negotiated by employer-sponsored insurance plans. According to Health Affairs, bills that cannot be paid – the uninsured will receive about $56 billion in uncompensated care in 2008 – are passed on to taxpayers through government programs that will finance 75 percent of the cost, or to the privately insured through higher rates. In short, America covers the uninsured in the least effective, most expensive manner possible.

With unemployment at a 14 year-high of 6.5 percent and the number of employers offering health coverage to their employees having dropped from 69% to 60% this decade, the number of uninsured people in the US is sure to start rising again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27591780

[Jackdog]

It's hard for me to understand, but if these men choose to be "lifetime soldiers" then bless them for that and protect them. It's not a lifestyle I am familiar with and it's one that I don't completely understand, but I respect it. You are right about these unfortunate weekend warrior natl guard troops that have ended up doing 2 & 3 tours of duty in Iraq. But I guess they knew the possibilties existed when they signed up.

I now it's hard to understand brother. Thank God or whoever for them in a non draft military. I wanted to do 30 then retire. I loved the Army and the life it provided me. I truly miss it.

[greggsand]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

Absolutely. Esp when it comes to International News. Unless a bomb blows up, it's not making the news. In LA, they run a 60sec "international news" segment & actually have a little timer in the corner to let people know 'don't worry people, all this foreign stuff will over soon...'.

[pk500]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

Absolutely. Esp when it comes to International News. Unless a bomb blows up, it's not making the news. In LA, they run a 60sec "international news" segment & actually have a little timer in the corner to let people know 'don't worry people, all this foreign stuff will over soon...'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://www.iht.com/

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

As for the news side of Fox News, there are mounds of evidence that show that it has a clear conservative bias. It's not just the prime-time commentators, it's the reporters as well.

This kind of evidence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/ma ... eetjournal

[wco81]

Matthews isn't that liberal though. He's a Catholic who supposedly is raising his kids with some old school discipline. If I recall, he was real hard on Clinton through the whole impeachment circus, even though Clinton had high approval ratings and only diehard Republicans supported the impeachment.

He's probably no more liberal than Ridge or Giuliani.

But he's not a news guy and doesn't pretend to be. His show is entertainment which is why SNL satirizes him.

IIRC, Roger Ailes gave him the show before going on to start Fox News.

[RobVarak]

This seems germaine to the discussion LOL

<embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46Ueu6USU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" />

[DivotMaker]

Based on that video, it certainly appears that the "gaffes" aren't limited to Sarah Palin.....

[XXXIV]

Matthews isn't that liberal though. He's a Catholic who supposedly is raising his kids with some old school discipline. .

Many catholics are liberals who raise their kids well.

My brothers wife and her entire family. 6 guys at work..etc etc etc etc etc...

Were do you come up with this stuff?

[davet010]

Well, certainly the evidence from over here is that both UK dailies that Murdoch is owner of are, at the very least, centre-right. However, he does tend to try and swing with the wind in terms of his personal relations with those in power (as evidenced by his repulsive prole daily, The Sun, endorsing voting for Tony Blair and the Labour Party in 1997).

So as far as 'clear conservative bias' goes, the case is proved against Murdoch over here - he's just too interested in money to let dogma get in the way of dealing with those whose opinions he doesn't personally agree with. He has no hesitation in reversing the position of his papers later on.

[Jared]

As for the news side of Fox News, there are mounds of evidence that show that it has a clear conservative bias. It's not just the prime-time commentators, it's the reporters as well.

This kind of evidence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/ma ... eetjournal

Considering that it has nothing to do with the reporting at Fox News, no, that's not evidence. I think Murdoch, as davet said, just swings whichever way the winds are blowing.

[Feanor]

This seems germaine to the discussion LOL

<embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46Ueu6USU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" />

WTF is Matthews talking about? Maybe he's going to be Obama's press secretary.

[Feanor]

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?

Absolutely. Esp when it comes to International News. Unless a bomb blows up, it's not making the news. In LA, they run a 60sec "international news" segment & actually have a little timer in the corner to let people know 'don't worry people, all this foreign stuff will over soon...'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://www.iht.com/

Take care,
PK

Somehow I don't think the IHT is going to be considered an outlet for true news with articles like this:

After the imperial presidency

[DivotMaker]

This seems germaine to the discussion LOL

<embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46Ueu6USU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" />

WTF is Matthews talking about? Maybe he's going to be Obama's press secretary.

It seems from the video discussion that Emanuel is having second thoughts about becoming Chief of Staff.....

[pk500]

Matthews isn't that liberal though. He's a Catholic who supposedly is raising his kids with some old school discipline.

What the hell does being Catholic have to do with liberalism or conservatism? Are you Catholic?

If you're assuming that most Catholics are Republicans, you're off the mark.

This is only one example, but my parents are devout Catholics and are hardcore Democrats. Yes, the abortion plank troubles them, but they -- like me -- feel abortion is more of a religious and moral issue than a political one. They also are strong believers in government social programs as an extension of the work for the poor and sick that the Church does, so they always vote Democratic.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Somehow I don't think the IHT is going to be considered an outlet for true news with articles like this:

After the imperial presidency

Read the fine print: That's a excerpt from an upcoming piece in the New York Times Magazine, which is filled with commentary and analysis.

Take care,
PK