How do we protect Barack Obama today?

[boomerang]

When I saw the link to this article the name "Crowley" drew my attention and I thought that maybe Candy Crowley had had a change in her ideology and was spilling the beans on how her team made sausage. Alas, it was not that Crowley. In how many other newsrooms in the nation is this question being asked?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...S0i5vA ]How do we protect Barack Obama today?

When I asked her for an example, she replied, “Every morning, we hold a meeting about how to build that evening’s broadcast. We’ve been doing this for decades. Everybody talks about which stories we’re going to air, what the line-up looks like, and which reporters we’ll have live in the field and which ones will be filing taped pieces. In the past, the left-wing bias was always left unspoken. People just ‘got it,’ because they all thought the same.

“Once Obama pulled ahead of Hillary and certainly once he became president,” she said, “the bias came out of the closet. Now, every morning when we meet to discuss that night’s show, they literally say — out loud — ‘How do we protect Barack Obama today?’”

 

[Jaskalas]

Each media outlet serves their half of the political spectrum. Fox stands alone on the right, thus their impressive numbers. It has no competition for their viewer like the others do.

 

[Bowfinger]

So a self-described conservative columnist working for a far right-wing tabloid claims an unknown, unnamed person, claiming to work for an unidentified major network, alleges an incredulous thing happens regularly? Well, there you go. That's certainly all the proof I need ... if I had the IQ of a kumquat. It's no wonder Gruber thinks Americans are stupid when tripe like this is accepted as credible.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, an unsourced opinion article from a right wing advocacy paper sounds really credible.

Then again, it tells boomerang what he wants to believe, so he swallows it without thinking. You have to wonder if he will ever get tired of being duped.

 

[ivwshane]

Mmm....mmm...good!

How does it taste boomerang? Does the shit you are being fed taste good to you? When you read stories like these do you say to yourself, "please sir, may I have some more", as you hold out your empty head begging for your masters to fill it with more slop.

Lol! Tell us again how you think you are smarter than everyone here.

 

[Jaskalas]

So a self-described conservative columnist working for a far right-wing tabloid claims an unknown, unnamed person, claiming to work for an unidentified major network, alleges an incredulous thing happens regularly? Well, there you go. That's certainly all the proof I need ... if I had the IQ of a kumquat. It's no wonder Gruber thinks Americans are stupid when tripe like this is accepted as credible.

Don't forget the thrill up your leg.

Unless you wish to claim the media is unbiased, the OP's assertions are not incredulous - they're standard fare.

 

[Jhhnn]

Boomerang links a hit piece based on anonymous sources from the Unification Church rag, the Washington Times, at which point Jaskalas claims that Fox News stands alone as Right-biased media while accusing the rest of being Left-biased. Nevermind the New York Post, the Examiner series, the WSJ & a host of others.

And it's all about "protecting Obama!" as a distraction from current efforts to protect Bush & Cheney from their lovely torture scandal.

Fappitty-fap-fap-fap!

 

[Jaskalas]

Cable News, try to follow along.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't forget the thrill up your leg.

Unless you wish to claim the media is unbiased, the OP's assertions are not incredulous - they're standard fare.

Yeah he didn't make that claim. So your post is just another deflection. But that's how you righties operate, you take a partial truth and spin it to fit your narrative, you like boomerang require no other facts than the small tidbit of truth to lend credibility to any claim made, so long as it fits with your own beliefs.

 

[ivwshane]

Each media outlet serves their half of the political spectrum. Fox stands alone on the right, thus their impressive numbers. It has no competition for their viewer like the others do.

Cable News, try to follow along.

Lol! Of course that's what you meant!

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah he didn't make that claim.

His post reflects how "incredulous" the assertion of media bias is. It isn't.

It's the entire reason Fox News stands at #1, they stand alone in their spectrum of viewer.

 

[Jaskalas]

Lol! Of course that's what you meant!

Your reading comprehension is dirt poor.

“Every morning, we hold a meeting about how to build that evening’s broadcast. We’ve been doing this for decades. Everybody talks about which stories we’re going to air, what the line-up looks like, and which reporters we’ll have live in the field and which ones will be filing taped pieces.

Does that sound like print to you?

No, you're smarter than that. You're just trying to support Jhhnn's switch to help boost his examples of right-wing papers, even though the topic is something else entirely. I've been speaking of Fox News and Left / Right media bias.

Apparently the truth of broadcast news makes you guys very uncomfortable.

 

[Newell Steamer]

About six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, I was walking through Rockefeller Center in New York when I heard a woman’s voice calling my name.

So, the 'source' on this opinion column was some random person that approached them, on the street no less,.. and then,...

The story she shared with me was remarkable. She said that she currently works on a broadcast network’s nightly newscast, although she declined to reveal which one. A thirty-year veteran of news, she had worked at the highest levels for all three major networks. She had produced their most important programming: evening news broadcasts, morning shows, and countless election nights. She clearly knew how the network news sausage was made.

“I’m a conservative,” she told me, “although I have kept that quiet for three decades because while the liberal bias was rampant, I enjoyed the work and wanted to keep my jobs.

There it was, real proof of what we suspected from years of evidence: that the leftist agenda was real, tangible and no longer disguised. And it had morphed from simple bias to dangerous advocacy.

This isn't real proof.

Real proof is that she (or whomever this source was) records one of these meetings.

When I asked her for an example, she replied, “Every morning, we hold a meeting about how to build that evening’s broadcast.

It happens every morning,.. so, you can easily capture 2 to 3 example and use that as proof. I mean, for goodness sake,.. liberals do it all the time! Romeny's secret dinners. The K*** Bros secret dinners. It's not that hard. You don't even need video, audio is honkey dory.

Nonetheless, this (post and article) is no different that any other sensationalism from a defective conservative mind - I once heard that a guy who lived next to a family that once lived in another city and across the street from them there was this park where a woman who use to walk her dog once knew someone that was on a crowded bus and they overheard that something was bad and totally not good. Yeah, you've got nothing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Don't forget the thrill up your leg.

Summary? I'm afraid I tend to shun Youtube and its peers. As a literate person, I see such sources as Internet TV for those who lack the attention span needed for regular TV. Both are usually poor substitutes for a well-written article. On-line video clips are also an excellent tool for ensuring partisans can shield their biases from challenges that might force them to think. Propaganda on demand, yay.

Unless you wish to claim the media is unbiased, the OP's assertions are not incredulous - they're standard fare.

To whatever extent there may be some left-leaning bias in the mainstream media, anyone with a hint of objectivity would also note that the media are frequently critical of the Obama administration, and at times quite harsh. Reconciling that fact with the claim that they also, "literally say — out loud — ‘How do we protect Barack Obama today?'" is a feat only the most blind, brainwashed wing-nuts could consider "standard fare." It is, indeed, an incredible allegation.

 

[Bowfinger]

His post reflects how "incredulous" the assertion of media bias is. ...

If I may borrow your words: "Your reading comprehension is dirt poor."

The claim was far, far more specific than merely asserting media bias. It was, in fact, a quite ridiculous claim that nobody should take seriously.

 

[Moonbeam]

An aspect of the Republican Party is insane. It is a dangerous threat to the nation. Anybody who is awake will know the country is in need of protection. There is a war going on between the fanatical right who want to destroy and the conservative left that is trying to preserve reason. The country is in deep need of protection from the forces of madness that grow more powerful day by day feeding on self hate. The power of ego, of 'I me me mine', is turning on 'we the people'. And day by day the wealthy acquire more and more power as they manipulate these strings. The machine operates within the laws of the system. Change is not possible without changing the system. Change requires abandonment of attachment to the system. Reason seeks to change the system, madness to use the system to destroy it. Have fun starting over from zero.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't forget the thrill up your leg.

Unless you wish to claim the media is unbiased, the OP's assertions are not incredulous - they're standard fare.

Of course the claim should inspire incredulity. It is an unsourced claim of a right wing contributor to a right wing advocacy paper of a statement by an anonymous person of an unnamed media outlet asserting something outrageous with no evidence to back it up.

You would have to be a fool to not view that as bullshit. You aren't an idiot like boomerang, so why be duped as easily as he is?

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course the claim should inspire incredulity. It is an unsourced claim of a right wing contributor to a right wing advocacy paper of a statement by an anonymous person of an unnamed media outlet asserting something outrageous with no evidence to back it up.

You would have to be a fool to not view that as bullshit. You aren't an idiot like boomerang, so why be duped as easily as he is?

Here we go with the idiot theme again. boomerang isn't an idiot. He uses his intellect quite capably defending his ego from facts. He does so because as a child he was handed a terrible burden, the idea that the truth is that he is worthless. He wouldn't have survived as a child if he didn't learn to deny that and to conform to whatever insane and ever shifting norm his parents demanded of him. The sad part isn't that he's an idiot but that the hurt he experienced has made him gun shy in such a way that his need to deny who his major enemy is. He can't fix his need to deny reality because he can't look at why he needs to deny it. He has already been called an idiot, and already feels like one. That's part of what he's masterful at denying. You won't get anywhere with him with that tact or Jaskalas either.

Why do I object? You can't explain why some humans can see and some can't and base it on some abstract notion of brain power, a feature science tells us is pretty much genetically determined. If so then I see no hope for humanity other than a breeding program which I don 't think will happen. Neuroscience, however, offers the hope that denial is linked to and unconsciously motivated by feelings. I think I know a bit more about what we feel than the average Yogi and I believe as a consequence there will always be those who can see that we hate ourselves because situations will arise that are so sever they will be forced to feel it consciously.

 

[Jaskalas]

Summary?

Chris Mathew's infamous thrill up leg comment, as my exhibit A against this notion that media isn't biased. Fox News's ratings being another fine example I use, they alone serve half the political spectrum. The other channels fight amongst the other half.

I'm afraid I tend to shun Youtube and its peers. As a literate person, I see such sources as Internet TV for those who lack the attention span needed for regular TV. Both are usually poor substitutes for a well-written article. On-line video clips are also an excellent tool for ensuring partisans can shield their biases from challenges that might force them to think. Propaganda on demand, yay.

To whatever extent there may be some left-leaning bias in the mainstream media, anyone with a hint of objectivity would also note that the media are frequently critical of the Obama administration, and at times quite harsh.

Only after they ensured his re-election. Today he is as disposable to them as yesterday's news, but that wasn't the case when they were busy electing him.

If Presidents did not have term limits, there'd be a much healthier introspective dynamic within party lines. Where the incumbent is viewed with more critique for the future health of the party. Just when does one cut them from the ballot box? Today, however, there's little need for such perspective. Get them elected twice and then move on.

Reconciling that fact with the claim that they also, "literally say — out loud — ‘How do we protect Barack Obama today?'" is a feat only the most blind, brainwashed wing-nuts could consider "standard fare." It is, indeed, an incredible allegation.

We'll have to agree to disagree on how incredulous that is among certain circles. You really think Fox didn't do that for Bush?

 

[Bitek]

Don't forget the thrill up your leg.

Unless you wish to claim the media is unbiased, the OP's assertions are not incredulous - they're standard fare.

Chris Mathew's infamous thrill up leg comment, as my exhibit A against this notion that media isn't biased. Fox News's ratings being another fine example I use, they alone serve half the political spectrum. The other channels fight amongst the other half.

When did Chris Matthews ever claim to be neutral? He worked for Tip O'Neil as a staffer. If that's your A material, the rest must be real garbage

He's quite transparent where he stands.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your reading comprehension is dirt poor.



Does that sound like print to you?

No, you're smarter than that. You're just trying to support Jhhnn's switch to help boost his examples of right-wing papers, even though the topic is something else entirely. I've been speaking of Fox News and Left / Right media bias.

Apparently the truth of broadcast news makes you guys very uncomfortable.

Heh. The Washington Times isn't print media? Really?

Oh, wait... a reporter for a right wing rag wrote a hit piece based on a supposed anonymous source who says it was about network broadcasting, so that's what you want to talk about.... because it suits your agenda better than any verifiable facts, I'm sure.

Eskimospy over estimates you rather badly, I'm afraid.

Have you considered that you're a chump for anybody telling you what you want to hear?

Every right wing "issue" is Benghazi all over again.

 

[bradley]

Does anyone remember JournoList?

Wikipedia - JournoList
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Here Is the Archive of the Famous Liberal Media 'Journolist'
http://gawker.com/here-is-the-archive-of-the-famous-liberal-media-journol-530195415

 

[Victorian Gray]

When I saw the link to this article the name "Crowley" drew my attention and I thought that maybe Candy Crowley had had a change in her ideology and was spilling the beans on how her team made sausage. Alas, it was not that Crowley. In how many other newsrooms in the nation is this question being asked?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...S0i5vA ]How do we protect Barack Obama today?

Some nameless person told some reporter the *real* truth! Or, a story with even less proof than the damn Rolling Stone rape article.

Man the barricades! The revolution is here! Down with the dictator Obama and his motley crew of media flunkeys!

 

[zinfamous]

 

[zinfamous]

So, the 'source' on this opinion column was some random person that approached them, on the street no less,.. and then,...




This isn't real proof.

Real proof is that she (or whomever this source was) records one of these meetings.


It happens every morning,.. so, you can easily capture 2 to 3 example and use that as proof. I mean, for goodness sake,.. liberals do it all the time! Romeny's secret dinners. The K*** Bros secret dinners. It's not that hard. You don't even need video, audio is honkey dory.

Nonetheless, this (post and article) is no different that any other sensationalism from a defective conservative mind - I once heard that a guy who lived next to a family that once lived in another city and across the street from them there was this park where a woman who use to walk her dog once knew someone that was on a crowded bus and they overheard that something was bad and totally not good. Yeah, you've got nothing.

Think about it this way: there is no fundamental reason for this "source" to remain anonymous--to fear the safety of their job, credibility, honor, whatever.

Outing these "evil liberal journalists" in a very public fashion would guarantee lifetime employment and wealth in the Fox, et al. empire. They would be fucking heroes.

Yet another "Hey, let's make some shit up and claim it as news to the brainless idiots that suck our cocks" article posted by the OP.