sparkomatic 7 Posted August 2, 2008 this is absurd...notice, if you will, the adjectives used on the Obama Campaign by the author http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/us/polit...02obama.html?em - the Obama campaign, a carefully controlled lot on the best of days, - Obama carefully addressed - his campaign’s formidable network - The muted response should not be taken, even campaign insiders acknowledged, to reflect high-mindedness Best one yet: - He is, after all, a candidate who has sought to transcend his own racial heritage in appealing to the broad electorate. Call this unbiased: - So he cues up Mr. McCain as “an honorable man” and a “war hero,” before skewering him as lacking in ideas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emp_Palpatine 501 Posted August 3, 2008 Isn't the NY times a liberal paper? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 934 Posted August 3, 2008 Isn't the NY times a liberal paper? yes but it goes way beyond just chearleading for the left. and they wonder why they are in a steady decline Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted August 3, 2008 I don't believe a word ever written in that paper since it had staff members who were caught making crap up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 934 Posted August 3, 2008 I don't believe a word ever written in that paper since it had staff members who were caught making crap up. Unfortunatly thats wide spread these days,people will unfortunatly lie to further their careers.That situation was more to afirmative action than anything else.That being said I love rerading the Times it just goes to show how out of touch with the people(well the majority)they have become.Just a hollow shell filled with hate and lies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roopod 0 Posted August 3, 2008 It is one of the fourth estates of the collectivist left. Here is a website dedicated to exposing the political agenda of this tabloid of misinformation: Timeswatch_link Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herman01 0 Posted August 3, 2008 The Times has Bill Kristol and David Brooks on their payroll. Judith Miller and Michael Gordon worked at the Times in nobody besides Novak or Fox News was more in bed with the Bush Administration. All papers in the country are in decline to. They try to break big stories for revenue. They could’ve of broken the NSA warrant less wiretapping program storing before the 2004 election but decided to hold onto till after the election. The doesn’t sound like a leftist agenda driven organization to me. Its all about the money. They might lean a little left because that’s probably the majority of their readers but they cant go that far or they will lose their government sources. Personally I wish they were more critical of the government no matter who’s in power. It doesn’t do me any good just have sunshine pumped up my a$$ by our media. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted August 3, 2008 It doesn't do me any good just have sunshine pumped up my a$$ by our media. AMEN! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted August 3, 2008 Neither does doom and gloom though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herman01 0 Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) I go to onion for my lite news. The times in not this blatant though. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5106.guest.html H. W. BUSH: Do you see our man Ailes at all? LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah. I saw Roger at Tony Snow’s funeral…And a couple of times earlier this summer. H. W. BUSH: Are we on the radio, are we? […] I didn’t know that. I’ll clean up my act here. I’m glad they told me. Roger Ailes is the president of Fox News. Edited August 3, 2008 by herman01 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted August 3, 2008 No news agency is innocent. They swing one way or the other. I just want the news, I don't want the reporting agency's opinion of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruggbutt 45 Posted August 4, 2008 I agree with Dave. I can for my own opinion, I don't need the reporter to tell me what to think. They all lie anyway, just like politicians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted August 4, 2008 I like the BBC...not that they are perfect, but at least it is fun for me to try to understand what language is that anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted August 4, 2008 I like the BBC...not that they are perfect, but at least it is fun for me to try to understand what language is that anyway? That would be the Merican language starting with a 'M'. I would remind all posting here that we are lambasting the commercial press. Key word here is 'commercial'. Paper balance sheets are very dependent on advertising sales. Business advertise to reach audiences. Papers are in a decline in the audiences they reach due to competition with faster media (e.g. radio, TV, the internet). Advertising dollars are down. Papers are in a terminal slide. The smart good journalists are looking elsewhere for jobs and the commercial press is left with the dregs in the business to run it. Therefore, the commercial press looks more and more like the expose' crap like the Star or Mirror and there is less and less credibility to their product. That is not a fair analysis for all of the written commercial press, but for most it is a survival crisis. So where do you and I go to get the straight skinny. My suggestion is do a cross-section of CNN, BBC, Fox and others. They are all talkiing about the same things, some with more or less facts, and all with a different perspective. Bye the way, I think the Brits have it right when they address their BBC reporters as news-readers instead of anchors, experts, stars, or analysts like we do. If you look closely at the credentials of most TV news dudes or dudets, they are barely qualified to read, much less analyze the news (e.g. Peter Jennings, RIP, was a high-school dropout). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted August 4, 2008 Jug, as always, makes a superb point(s)...top rope! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted August 5, 2008 Somewhere along the line ratings said viewers wanted TV personalities instead of just a newswire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 5, 2008 Somewhere along the line ratings said viewers wanted TV personalities instead of just a newswire. and now that is what we have. In the absense of content and context, we have personality and "perkiness"......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted August 5, 2008 and now that is what we have. In the absense of content and context, we have personality and "perkiness"......... Well as long at the perkiness comes from Robin Mead at CNN..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 5, 2008 Well as long at the perkiness comes from Robin Mead at CNN..... there are definitely some babes out there!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 6, 2008 Barbara Walters made it in the old days in a male-dominated industry because of her abilities. Today she wouldn't, despite them, because of her looks. Anchormen can be bland looking, but not the anchorwomen. I'm not sure if this is progress or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted August 7, 2008 one word: Ron Burgundy...and San Diego, which is German for Whale's .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
