Seriously, can anybody find anything on CNN or elsewhere as terribly useless as this.

[StageLeft]

Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

*EDIT* For those who don't understand my premise, let me rephrase: I defy anybody to find on CNN or other major news org a piece that leaves the viewer no question whatsoever on which way the "journalists" or anchors are going to vote. Maybe that will make this easier.

 

[palehorse]

Wait, what's this? Fox news is biased and leans to the right?! Say it ain't so Joe!!

:roll:

duh.

 

[jonks]

"And the top 5% will be 'spreading the wealth' and I guess it just depends which side of the fence you are on as to whether you think that's a good tax plan or a bad tax plan."

Hm. I would guess if you asked 100 people, the 95 who are getting a break might like it and the 5 who aren't might not.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

Is this for real? I dont see an attack. Since when talking about a candidates tax plan attacking the candidate? Obama's work credits do indeed appear to be nothing but a check in the mail to people who essentially dont pay federal income taxes. Do we as a nation want to venture down the road where we pay lower income people to work via the govt by taking more from the rich? Honest question, I dont have a fully developed opinion on it.

Anyways these percieved bias's are within the viewers own bias. When i watched Couric interviewing Obama on his world tour. I swear there was a twinkle in her eye for Obama. Other people didnt feel the same way.

These threads turn into crap faster than most other topics in this forum. Ill exit stage left now.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

Is this for real? I dont see an attack. Since when talking about a candidates tax plan attacking the candidate? Obama's work credits do indeed appear to be nothing but a check in the mail to people who essentially dont pay federal income taxes. Do we as a nation want to venture down the road where we pay lower income people to work via the govt by taking more from the rich? Honest question, I dont have a fully developed opinion on it.

Anyways these percieved bias's are within the viewers own bias. When i watched Couric interviewing Obama on his world tour. I swear there was a twinkle in her eye for Obama. Other people didnt feel the same way.

These threads turn into crap faster than most other topics in this forum. Ill exit stage left now.

You saw this as objective? Please don't vote in November.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

Is this for real? I dont see an attack. Since when talking about a candidates tax plan attacking the candidate? Obama's work credits do indeed appear to be nothing but a check in the mail to people who essentially dont pay federal income taxes. Do we as a nation want to venture down the road where we pay lower income people to work via the govt by taking more from the rich? Honest question, I dont have a fully developed opinion on it.

Anyways these percieved bias's are within the viewers own bias. When i watched Couric interviewing Obama on his world tour. I swear there was a twinkle in her eye for Obama. Other people didnt feel the same way.

These threads turn into crap faster than most other topics in this forum. Ill exit stage left now.

You saw this as objective? Please don't vote in November.

And this is exactly where these threads head. OP shit his own thread in a matter of minutes. Congrats.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

Is this for real? I dont see an attack. Since when talking about a candidates tax plan attacking the candidate? Obama's work credits do indeed appear to be nothing but a check in the mail to people who essentially dont pay federal income taxes. Do we as a nation want to venture down the road where we pay lower income people to work via the govt by taking more from the rich? Honest question, I dont have a fully developed opinion on it.

Anyways these percieved bias's are within the viewers own bias. When i watched Couric interviewing Obama on his world tour. I swear there was a twinkle in her eye for Obama. Other people didnt feel the same way.

These threads turn into crap faster than most other topics in this forum. Ill exit stage left now.

You saw this as objective? Please don't vote in November.

And this is exactly where these threads head. OP shit his own thread in a matter of minutes. Congrats.

I thought you were leaving the thread.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

Is this for real? I dont see an attack. Since when talking about a candidates tax plan attacking the candidate? Obama's work credits do indeed appear to be nothing but a check in the mail to people who essentially dont pay federal income taxes. Do we as a nation want to venture down the road where we pay lower income people to work via the govt by taking more from the rich? Honest question, I dont have a fully developed opinion on it.

Anyways these percieved bias's are within the viewers own bias. When i watched Couric interviewing Obama on his world tour. I swear there was a twinkle in her eye for Obama. Other people didnt feel the same way.

These threads turn into crap faster than most other topics in this forum. Ill exit stage left now.

You saw this as objective? Please don't vote in November.

And this is exactly where these threads head. OP shit his own thread in a matter of minutes. Congrats.

I thought you were leaving the thread.

Figured I would stay around to watch this go down in a ball of flames.
Not like you were expecting anything else right? Because you didnt want to discuss the content of what they were saying, only how they were saying it.

 

[Red Dawn]

The only thing missing from the so called Morning News Show is Elizabeth Hasslebeck and Kathy Lee Gifford.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because you didnt want to discuss the content of what they were saying, only how they were saying it.

There you go! That's what I said in the first post for pete's sake. This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmmm, pretty mild considering the source (Fox).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

I didn't watch the vid, don't need to really.

And "Nope" these are not professional journalists. We have Op/Ed and we have (what should be) objective journalism/news shows.

Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity etc, these are all Op/Ed and should not be confused with objective news reporting.

This is the morning show you link, they are "personalities" (and banal ones IMO), not objective news shows.

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

I didn't watch the vid, don't need to really.

And "Nope" these are not professional journalists. We have Op/Ed and we have (what should be) objective journalism/news shows.

Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity etc, these are all Op/Ed and should not be confused with objective news reporting.

This is the morning show you link, they are "personalities" (and banal ones IMO), not objective news shows.

Fern

Actually aren't they all ex Meteorologists? They are about as air headed a group as you'll see on TV, even those gals on the VIEW make them seem like lightweights.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it.

Just watch Chris Matthews sometime (MSNBC). He's the one that gets a "tingle" up his legs when Obama speaks etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Actually aren't they all ex Meteorologists? They are about as air headed a group as you'll see on TV, even those gals on the VIEW make them seem like lightweights.

Yeah, I think you're right.

I myself can't bear to watch that group. As uninformed as so many of them are, I have often wondered if THEY even the watch the news themselves. Those people make me cringe.

Fern

 

[First]

That's nothing, and I'm serious when I say that. I've seen worse. That said, MSNBC is just as biased for the left, if not more so. Difference is that Fox tries to hide it, while MSNBC seems to be more open.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

I didn't watch the vid, don't need to really.

And "Nope" these are not professional journalists. We have Op/Ed and we have (what should be) objective journalism/news shows.

Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity etc, these are all Op/Ed and should not be confused with objective news reporting.

This is the morning show you link, they are "personalities" (and banal ones IMO), not objective news shows.

Fern

They shouldn't be confused with real news, but they ARE...that's the point. Fox News, and to a less extent other networks, intentionally blur the line between news and commentary. Bill O'Reilly may be about as far away from objective journalism as you can get, but his show does not convey that impression. Newspapers helpfully put OPINION or a similar label above their OP-ED section, but shows like the O'Reilly Factor go out of their way to NOT remind the viewer that everything they see is slanted towards the right (or the left).

This problem is made worse by the fact that opinion folks interact with and sometimes even supplement actual reporters. Even on unbiased news shows, guests almost always seem to be chosen from the extremes of the political spectrum, and there have been many times on Fox News where it's been multiple right-wing guests against one or zero left-wingers. Even if the host is unbiased, the show certainly won't seem that way.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

I didn't watch the vid, don't need to really.

And "Nope" these are not professional journalists. We have Op/Ed and we have (what should be) objective journalism/news shows.

Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity etc, these are all Op/Ed and should not be confused with objective news reporting.

This is the morning show you link, they are "personalities" (and banal ones IMO), not objective news shows.

Fern

Actually aren't they all ex Meteorologists? They are about as air headed a group as you'll see on TV, even those gals on the VIEW make them seem like lightweights.

All three of them referred to the WSJ article. I'll bet if you asked them detailed questions about what the WSJ article said, and what it really meant, none of them could explain it.

The blond chick clearly didn't understand anything at all. She said, "One third of all Americans don't pay taxes." That's a lie. One third don't pay INCOME TAXES, but most DO pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. For those in the lowest income group, Obama's plan is in effect a refund of PAYROLL taxes.

The fact that these nincompoops decry what they don't understand is just a clear indication that they're being spoon-fed their lines. This isn't "Op-Ed." It's willfully slanted content from the people pulling the strings.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I don't care about the content here; this is not about Obama's tax plan or spreading the wealth. But what we see here is an attack on Obama, then a portion of a speech by Palin throwing gas on the fire, then more attack on it. It's so disgustingly biased it really defies belief almost.

If anybody can find anything on CNN as gushingly positive about Obama, please do it. Or not just CNN but any other major news org. And I don't mean a guest speaker, I mean a real position by permanent CNN employees so fantastically partisan as this.

*EDIT* For those who don't understand my premise, let me rephrase: I defy anybody to find on CNN or other major news org a piece that leaves the viewer no question whatsoever on which way the "journalists" or anchors are going to vote. Maybe that will make this easier.

I see what you mean, that was vicious, how do these animals sleep at night.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Skoorb
-snip-
This is about journalistic professionalism and objectivity. When everything they say has that veneer of obvious bias and it's dripping wet with their obvious personal preference, it makes their message dirty.

I didn't watch the vid, don't need to really.

And "Nope" these are not professional journalists. We have Op/Ed and we have (what should be) objective journalism/news shows.

Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity etc, these are all Op/Ed and should not be confused with objective news reporting.

This is the morning show you link, they are "personalities" (and banal ones IMO), not objective news shows.

Fern

They shouldn't be confused with real news, but they ARE...that's the point. Fox News, and to a less extent other networks, intentionally blur the line between news and commentary. Bill O'Reilly may be about as far away from objective journalism as you can get, but his show does not convey that impression. Newspapers helpfully put OPINION or a similar label above their OP-ED section, but shows like the O'Reilly Factor go out of their way to NOT remind the viewer that everything they see is slanted towards the right (or the left).

This problem is made worse by the fact that opinion folks interact with and sometimes even supplement actual reporters. Even on unbiased news shows, guests almost always seem to be chosen from the extremes of the political spectrum, and there have been many times on Fox News where it's been multiple right-wing guests against one or zero left-wingers. Even if the host is unbiased, the show certainly won't seem that way.

Fox also frequently "interviews" a person who they describe in a neutral way ("journalist"), with no further background supplied, when in fact the person has a right-wing history that if revealed would greatly undermine the illusion that the information being provided is objective.

 

[Lemon law]

No, No, and no, the premise of this thread is incorrect. Its the 95% of the American people base of the food chain that is the only thing important here. Even as the top 5% of the foodchain screams bail me out,
we must realize that the top 5% feels the pain first.

When the bottom of the foodchain is hurting, the top of the foodchain is unable to run ever faster to even maintain its former piggishness. When the total size of the economic pie gets smaller, everyone hurts.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Link
Link

Both of these play like non-funny versions of The Daily Show. I'm not going to defend Fox (I don't watch it), but if you think they have the market cornered on partisan bias, you're delusional. The best news program I've found is Newshour with Jim Lehrer. The rest of them cater to an audience, and they deliver what they promise - entertainment. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are all biased more to their own bottom line than anything else. They're selling a product, and it's not news.

 

[StageLeft]

Those are pretty bad. I suppose we expect that from the obvious opinion pieces but the fox morning crew just get under my skin for some reason. I think it may be because they probably sont think they are partisan hacks. Really I do my besy to avoid them on all sides. I do think fox is the worst, but all of them are different smells of sh*t. I find cable news rather intolerable,which is why I read most of my news.