PDA

View Full Version : Where do you get your information?



arkanian215
08-02-2008, 06:22 PM
I was wondering where people on PSD find their information and how that sways or reinforces what they believe.
I personally watch fox news the most because I believe that we need different perspectives on the issues. However, I watch it with the most scrutiny.

ps that ***** about caylee anthony is bull ****ing *****. where are the other girls on fox news, or CNN.

Doc Fluty
08-02-2008, 06:28 PM
rush, drudge, cnn, fox news... sometime yahoo lol

ink
08-02-2008, 06:31 PM
RSS feeds and any news about the nominees. Direct quotes from them are best if you want to see what they're proposing. Sometimes there are excellent editorials or blogs. Doesn't matter where they're from if they're good quality. This is a pretty comprehensive (http://www.politics1.com/news.htm) resource. And search engines will get you to direct quotes.

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 06:32 PM
Fox news is clearly the least biased of all the news sources

PHX-SOXFAN
08-02-2008, 08:02 PM
cnn, npr, nytimes, foxnews, foxnews.com, cnn, npr, neocon radio (hannity, and this idiot named jd hayworth who I voted out of congress:D, rush)

I mainly watch foxnews, read it online, and listen to the blowhard talking point liberals to research what they are saying to know the truth about their spin. I enjoy coming on here and telling you guys about the bs I hear from rush and hannity and how they are blatant liars and spin artists.

I avoid msnbc, and nbc in general because of their bias.

I like cnn, online newspapers, abc, and npr for intelligent substance.:clap:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-02-2008, 08:03 PM
Fox news is clearly the least biased of all the news sources

this is comedy

b1e9a8r5s
08-02-2008, 08:06 PM
Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics (which links articles from newspapers and websites from both the left and right), Fox News, CNN.

Randy West
08-02-2008, 08:07 PM
I usually do a search on the politician and what was said

Then read through several of the articles from different sources and then try and formulate my own opinion on what I have read

ari1013
08-03-2008, 12:05 AM
TV is mostly CNN during the week and NBC on Sunday. Print is Time, Newsweek, and The Economist. Radio is NPR and whatever is on Talk Radio when NPR bores me (usually happens to be Hannity or O'Reilly). Online is fivethirtyeight.com, electoral-vote.com, Drudge, DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder, Matthew Yglasias (The Atlantic's bloggers), and NYT's editorials.

gcoll
08-03-2008, 03:51 AM
I watch me some Fox News, some CNN.....MSNBC if I feel like annoying myself.

And the interwebs gives me news as well.

JHG722
08-03-2008, 04:05 AM
Fox, CNN, MSNBC

CubsGirl
08-03-2008, 01:25 PM
I don't watch the news on TV (except for the Daily Show which, ironically while it doesn't cover all the issues, has the least spin out of any of the networks, IMO). I prefer to read news about the candidates online, where "tone of voice" can't be used to help sway my opinion in the way the network chooses.

OnWisconsin2007
08-03-2008, 01:29 PM
I watch FOX News sometimes to laugh at how ridiculous it is...but mostly MSNBC, or, I try to read these archaic things called newspaper articles or just listen to the candidates speeches.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:15 PM
I don't watch the news on TV (except for the Daily Show which, ironically while it doesn't cover all the issues, has the least spin out of any of the networks, IMO). I prefer to read news about the candidates online, where "tone of voice" can't be used to help sway my opinion in the way the network chooses.

You don't think the Daly show has any spin? I actually think it would be interesting to see how the Daly Show, Letterman, Leno and other comedians would act with Obama in office, since they've had such a field day with Bush and the republicans. I just can't picture it ever getting to the level of what it is right now for Bush. Of course Bush has brought a lot of it on himself.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:16 PM
I watch FOX News sometimes to laugh at how ridiculous it is...but mostly MSNBC, or, I try to read these archaic things called newspaper articles or just listen to the candidates speeches.

MSNBC is the most ridiculous network out there and it's not even close. They are so in the tank for Obama it's ridiculous. I don't watch that much Fox News, but I think there "bias" is overblown by those on the left and they aren't nearly as bias as MSNBC.

CubsGirl
08-03-2008, 02:24 PM
You don't think the Daly show has any spin? I actually think it would be interesting to see how the Daly Show, Letterman, Leno and other comedians would act with Obama in office, since they've had such a field day with Bush and the republicans. I just can't picture it ever getting to the level of what it is right now for Bush. Of course Bush has brought a lot of it on himself.
Making fun of the administration and spinning facts into opinion are two completely different things.

They make fun of the Bush administration a lot, but in my opinion, they never really twist anything (probably because they don't technically report on anything).

ink
08-03-2008, 02:25 PM
Sorry to be petty but it's starting to really bug me when people say "the network is bias". :)

It is ... “I am biased” or “I am guilty of bias”.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:29 PM
Making fun of the administration and spinning facts into opinion are two completely different things.

They make fun of the Bush administration a lot, but in my opinion, they never really twist anything (probably because they don't technically report on anything).

The spin comes in big time with the interviews. Questions are slanted and the audience also plays a role by laughing at serious answers by republicans/conservatives. It's not a big deal, because as you mentioned it is a comedy show, but I do think it is biased.

OnWisconsin2007
08-03-2008, 02:35 PM
MSNBC is the most ridiculous network out there and it's not even close. They are so in the tank for Obama it's ridiculous. I don't watch that much Fox News, but I think there "bias" is overblown by those on the left and they aren't nearly as bias as MSNBC.

Dude, just watch FOX News. Every time they mention Obama they discuss it with some negative spin on him. Such as, "Is Obama's trip to the Middle East just a publicity stunt?", and then they have some right wing guy come on and spew out some BS facts and agree with whatever conservative host they have. This is the network that parades Ann Coulter around like some kind of prophet and has Bill O'Reilly as their main man. Just watch the channel, every time they discuss Obama there's a negative spin on it.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:42 PM
Dude, just watch FOX News. Every time they mention Obama they discuss it with some negative spin on him. Such as, "Is Obama's trip to the Middle East just a publicity stunt?", and then they have some right wing guy come on and spew out some BS facts and agree with whatever conservative host they have. This is the network that parades Ann Coulter around like some kind of prophet and has Bill O'Reilly as their main man. Just watch the channel, every time they discuss Obama there's a negative spin on it.

And every time Obama comes up on MSNBC there is a tingle down someone's leg. I think it's safe to say that we (you and me) are on different sides of the aisle and will see things differently. MSNBC has one Republican/Conservative analyist (Buchanan) on the network. Personally, I don't watch that much fox, as I don't like O'Reilly or Hannity/Colmes, but if you think MSNBC gives a fair shake to McCain you are kidding yourself.

OnWisconsin2007
08-03-2008, 02:46 PM
The main reason I can't stand FOX is the Ann Coulter Bill O'Reilly factor. Ann Coulter is easily the most ignorant/arrogant person I've ever seen speak.

ink
08-03-2008, 02:54 PM
Don't get your information from TV news. TV is so hard to produce they have to predetermine every storyline and interview. It's impossible for them to avoid scripting in the network's political slant too.

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 02:57 PM
The main reason I can't stand FOX is the Ann Coulter Bill O'Reilly factor. Ann Coulter is easily the most ignorant/arrogant person I've ever seen speak.

Well I'm not a fan of either myself. Coulter especially, just says stuff to get attention and I can't even listen to here talk. I do like watching Fox when they are doing the panel with Britt Hume hosting and then usually, Mort Krondake, Juan Williams and Bill Kristol giving opinions. I think they try to talk about strategies that both campaigns are using and what they think each should do without being biased. You'd probably disagree, I'm sure.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Well I'm not a fan of either myself. Coulter especially, just says stuff to get attention and I can't even listen to here talk. I do like watching Fox when they are doing the panel with Britt Hume hosting and then usually, Mort Krondake, Juan Williams and Bill Kristol giving opinions. I think they try to talk about strategies that both campaigns are using and what they think each should do without being biased. You'd probably disagree, I'm sure.
The problem is that the unbiased panel you're describing is made up of 3 guys on the right and one guy on the left. You're going to get a biased look of what's really going on by listening to that.

It's like when a newspaper puts together a faux debate over something like gun rights. If you have someone who's pro-gun, but with gun control as his argument, and then the other person is against guns altogether, readers will be left seeking the middle ground, i.e. very strict gun control, which still puts them towards the left.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 06:24 PM
You don't think the Daly show has any spin? I actually think it would be interesting to see how the Daly Show, Letterman, Leno and other comedians would act with Obama in office, since they've had such a field day with Bush and the republicans. I just can't picture it ever getting to the level of what it is right now for Bush. Of course Bush has brought a lot of it on himself.
Daily rips on Congress all the time. Bush just makes it too easy a lot of the time.

BG7
08-03-2008, 07:21 PM
MSNBC for TV, CNN.com and fivethiryeight.com for online, and Barely Political for online videos.

MSNBC doesn't go out of their ways to bash conservatives (they don't bash Pat Buchanan ever, and he's one of the most conservative people out there). It's just that the conservatives are so ridiculous, but you can't help but laugh at them. (not really sure what audience laughs at the Bush jokes...unless your talking about that edited in audience noise on Countdown...which is the only show that goes out of its way to bash Bush).

What are they supposed to do on MSNBC when they get these idiotic conservatives on? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

b1e9a8r5s
08-03-2008, 08:50 PM
The problem is that the unbiased panel you're describing is made up of 3 guys on the right and one guy on the left. You're going to get a biased look of what's really going on by listening to that.

It's like when a newspaper puts together a faux debate over something like gun rights. If you have someone who's pro-gun, but with gun control as his argument, and then the other person is against guns altogether, readers will be left seeking the middle ground, i.e. very strict gun control, which still puts them towards the left.

I disagree with your premise. I think you can be on one side and offer an intelligent and unbiased opinion on the other side's candidate and campaign. I think often, when they are talking about the politics of the race, and what a candidate should or shouldn't be saying or doing, that they are speaking unbiased on the race. I think there is a difference between analyzing what the candidates are doing then when the "analysts" are surrogates for a candidate and are just arguing their points. Like David Greffen (I think that's his name) on CNN, I'm not sure of his political slant, but enjoy his analysis of the race on both candidates.

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 09:22 PM
Poor CBS.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Poor CBS.
The whole Dan Rather thing kind of killed them. Though I do watch Face the Nation on Sundays...


Of course, this is the best reason to watch CBS News: http://www.glamour.com/images/news/2007/11/near_lara_logan.jpg

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 10:33 PM
Her interview on the Daily Show was killer.

SmthBluCitrus
08-03-2008, 10:41 PM
BBC America, bbc.com, NPR, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, NY Times, NYTimes.com, the Des Moines Register, desmoinesregister.com, usatoday.com, fox news (rarely), Yahoo! news, WOW-FM (Conservative talk radio, Des Moines), bleedingheartland.com

carson005
08-04-2008, 12:08 AM
Colbert Report and PSD :) Glenn Beck too

gcoll
08-04-2008, 12:35 AM
The Daily Show is biased.

I've often thought it may be a product of Bush being a Republican and him being the guy in office...but it's more than that if you pay attention.

Watch the way Stewart conducts an interview with a Republican, or a supporter of Bush. He goes on the offensive...and if he gets called on anything he hides behind "Hey...I'm just a comedian"

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 01:52 AM
The Daily Show is biased.

I've often thought it may be a product of Bush being a Republican and him being the guy in office...but it's more than that if you pay attention.

Watch the way Stewart conducts an interview with a Republican, or a supporter of Bush. He goes on the offensive...and if he gets called on anything he hides behind "Hey...I'm just a comedian"

Well, Stewart does ridicule Obama sometimes:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=177060&title=obama-in-iraq

But, you could always watch The 1/2 Hour News Hour (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=YjIfaMwIFxU). It's really funny (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp4vPKmQNb4&feature=related), too.


The difference between Daily/Colbert and Fox (other than the obvious fact that one is "news" programming and the other is "entertainment" programming) is that Stewart and Colbert make no claim of NOT being biased. They're on freakin' comedy central, not a network whose slogan is "fair and balanced".

It's exactly Fox's pretension of being objective that opens them up to criticism of being biased.

OnWisconsin2007
08-04-2008, 01:57 AM
To add, DenButsu, it makes me sick to think of that channel. Literally every time I watch it and they talk about Obama, they have an extremely negative spin on whatever he's involved in. "Obama in the Middle East : Bad decision?", or "Is Obama flip-flopping", ******** like that. After they come back from their Viva Viagra and John McCain commercials, they'll have some "expert" come on and convince the masses that Obama is wrong, to which O'Reilly will throw out some BS facts and talk in his arrogant, pompous voice. I can't stand that channel, it's so ridiculous.

gcoll
08-04-2008, 03:55 AM
Denbutsu, I'd rather gouge out my own eyes than watch the half hour news hour.


Well, Stewart does ridicule Obama sometimes
That wasn't criticizing Obama, that was making fun of the media's reaction to Obama.

They have made fun of Obama though.

It's exactly Fox's pretension of being objective that opens them up to criticism of being biased.
I don't think that's it.

I think it's the fact that they lean to the right, when every other channel leans to the left. I mean...the complaints about Fox come mostly from the left. Similar complaints the right has about the rest of the media.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 04:23 AM
Similar complaints the right has about the rest of the media.

You think the left doesn't have complaints about the rest of the media?

The idea that CNN et al is a "liberal media" is just false. Liberals are the most vocal in their criticism of Fox because Fox is the most blatant and eggrerious example - I mean they literally take their marching orders from the White House. But the other major networks definitely allow their news dockets to be defined at least in part by the continuous drumbeat of propoganda coming out of Fox. More than this, they're simply sensationalist, which is something that sometimes (as in the case of the Middle East/Europe trip) might help Obama, but much more often (as in Rev. Wright, Somalian Muslim wear, regurgitation of attack ads which are designed to grab the attention of and be promoted by the media, the flag pin crap, the no-hand-over-heart crap, don't think I need to continue here) hurts him.

And that's just the fluff.

When it comes to real issues, Obama's every move gets heavy media scrutiny, while McCain can blunder and gaffe away with it essentially being dismissed as "that ol' maverick being kind of cute again". If Obama had made even a small fraction of the foreign policy blunders that McCain has made - the "Iraq-Pakistan border", "Iran is providing aid to Al Qaeda", etc. - he would have been absolutely crucified. He has to be 10 times better as a candidate just to break even.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 04:24 AM
But more importantly than ^all that...


I'd rather gouge out my own eyes than watch the half hour news hour.

:laugh2:

gcoll
08-04-2008, 04:35 AM
You think the left doesn't have complaints about the rest of the media?
I'm sure they do. But the "bias" part.

I mean they literally take their marching orders from the White House
I call bull **** on that one though. I've heard it alleged twice, but never backed up with any kind of solid information.

More than this, they're simply sensationalist
agreed.

When it comes to real issues, Obama's every move gets heavy media scrutiny, while McCain can blunder and gaffe away with it essentially being dismissed as "that ol' maverick being kind of cute again".
That is a 100% fair evaluation of the situation. Come on.


the "Iraq-Pakistan border"
Do you think he might have meant "Afghanistan"? Or do you actually think that Mccain thinks Iraq borders Pakistan?


"Iran is providing aid to Al Qaeda"
Yeah..that one. Not sure about that one.


he would have been absolutely crucified. He has to be 10 times better as a candidate just to break even.
I don't really buy that.

Are you suggesting that Obama is actually knowledgeable on foreign policy. I'm not saying Mccain is, by default. But, do you consider Obama to be a foreign policy expert? Where would you put his level of expertise?

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 05:17 AM
I call bull **** on that one though. I've heard it alleged twice, but never backed up with any kind of solid information.


From crooksandliars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/25/mcclellan-white-house-gave-fox-commentators-talking-points/):

McClellan: White House gave FOX commentators talking points

This just in from the Department of the Obvious: Scott McClellan admits to Chris Matthews that the White House made a deliberate effort to use FOX News commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly to disseminate White House talking points.

WMP Download (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/31327/1/Hardball-McClellan-FOXTP.wmv) | Play (javascript:playerPopUp('http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/31327/1/Hardball-McClellan-FOXTP.wmv/','370','290')) Quicktime Download (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/31327/2/Hardball-McClellan-FOXTP.mov) | Play (javascript:playerPopUp('http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/31327/2/Hardball-McClellan-FOXTP.mov/','370','290'))

Matthews: “Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?”

McClellan: “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” […] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews: “So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.”

McClellan: “Well, certainly.”

Straight from the source. Enough with the “fair and balanced” crap already.






Are you suggesting that Obama is actually knowledgeable on foreign policy. I'm not saying Mccain is, by default. But, do you consider Obama to be a foreign policy expert? Where would you put his level of expertise?

I'm saying that in this campaign Obama has most definitely demonstrated a level of knowledge and understanding of the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, the Middle East in general, the relationship with America to the rest of the world in general, how America can/should get NATO to be a more effective partner in security, etc., which is at least on par with what McCain has demonstrated, if not superior to it in certain areas.

What Wesley Clark said, as disrespectful as it may have sounded, was essentially true: Being a veteran does not automatically qualify you as a foreign policy expert.

And I'd add that Obama's foreign policy expertise is most definitely superior to Bush's in 2000.

gcoll
08-04-2008, 05:20 AM
Denbutsu, you bring up a good example. McClellan makes the claim, but he gives no facts. I want a "who/what/when/where" type thing.

I'm pretty sure Mclellan apologized to O'reilly on the air about those comments.


What Wesley Clark said, as disrespectful as it may have sounded, was essentially true: Being a veteran does not automatically qualify you as a foreign policy expert.
See. But nobody ever said it did.

From what I see, Mccain usually cites his visits to Iraq, support of the surge, and that type of thing as his "foreign policy experience"

And what Wesley Clark said wasn't all THAT bad. There were other comments that were a lot worse, that got a lot less coverage for some reason. Probably due to Wesley Clark's status.

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 05:45 AM
Denbutsu, you bring up a good example. McClellan makes the claim, but he gives no facts. I want a "who/what/when/where" type thing.

Well, unfortunately the phone companies spy for the White House, so they probably won't provide us with records of the e-mails they snooped and phone conversations they bugged and faxes they monitored between Fox News and the WH.

It is the mission of the most secretive administration in American history to keep the public in the dark about such goings on. It's the one thing they're really good at. Well, that and lying.

ari1013
08-04-2008, 08:38 AM
Denbutsu, you bring up a good example. McClellan makes the claim, but he gives no facts. I want a "who/what/when/where" type thing.

I'm pretty sure Mclellan apologized to O'reilly on the air about those comments.


See. But nobody ever said it did.

From what I see, Mccain usually cites his visits to Iraq, support of the surge, and that type of thing as his "foreign policy experience"

And what Wesley Clark said wasn't all THAT bad. There were other comments that were a lot worse, that got a lot less coverage for some reason. Probably due to Wesley Clark's status.
No, he apologised for using O'Reilly's name. He never went back on the entire thing, he just said that he didn't mean to imply that Bill was one of the people.

nascar10294
08-06-2008, 10:28 PM
Rush/Hannity/Savage/Levin
NY Post and one of NY Times, Daily news, or Boston Heraeld
Fox News

tbron
08-06-2008, 10:34 PM
the net, foxnews, cnn and realclearpolitics.

gcoll
08-06-2008, 11:37 PM
Well, unfortunately the phone companies spy for the White House, so they probably won't provide us with records of the e-mails they snooped and phone conversations they bugged and faxes they monitored between Fox News and the WH.

It is the mission of the most secretive administration in American history to keep the public in the dark about such goings on. It's the one thing they're really good at. Well, that and lying.

Mclellan makes the claim...and he refuses to back it up. That doesn't rub you the wrong way?


No, he apologised for using O'Reilly's name. He never went back on the entire thing, he just said that he didn't mean to imply that Bill was one of the people.
Right. But he's failed to give any concrete information. That's the kind of stuff that I'd be very interested in hearing about.

ari1013
08-06-2008, 11:47 PM
Mclellan makes the claim...and he refuses to back it up. That doesn't rub you the wrong way?


Right. But he's failed to give any concrete information. That's the kind of stuff that I'd be very interested in hearing about.
I agree with you on that. I'd love for him to provide some evidence, but you know as well as I do that White House docs are generally classified for several decades.

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 12:03 AM
I agree with you on that. I'd love for him to provide some evidence, but you know as well as I do that White House docs are generally classified for several decades.

Or otherwise "lost" or "accidentally deleted"...

ari1013
08-07-2008, 12:15 AM
qft

TotallySox9097
08-07-2008, 01:19 AM
I get info from three places.

Digg.com
Colbert/Daily show
My ***

Mostly pulled out of my *** though
*** = Butt

gcoll
08-07-2008, 01:42 AM
I agree with you on that. I'd love for him to provide some evidence, but you know as well as I do that White House docs are generally classified for several decades.

But if they sent them to Fox News....there's gotta be some kind of paper trail.

I mean he wrote a "tell all" book right?

If, in fact, there are Fox News commentators being given talking points by the White House...I want specifics. What's preventing him from doing so?

Is it Cavuto? I really don't want it to be Cavuto. I like that guy.

ari1013
08-07-2008, 08:40 AM
Maybe it's Tony Snow and he just feels bad talking about it?

I really have no clue. But as I said, I'd like to know as well.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-07-2008, 11:00 AM
Rush/Hannity/Savage/Levin
NY Post and one of NY Times, Daily news, or Boston Heraeld
Fox News

wow!:speechless: I can't wait to discuss things with you:rolleyes:.

Please enlighten me, what sort of information have you gotten from Michael Savage recently?:o this should be a very short list.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-07-2008, 07:39 PM
I get my info from newsmax because they run credible stories like this:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_muslim_connection/2008/08/07/119942.html?s=al&promo_code=677E-1

ari1013
08-07-2008, 08:22 PM
I get my info from newsmax because they run credible stories like this:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_muslim_connection/2008/08/07/119942.html?s=al&promo_code=677E-1
yay online tabloids

Drucifer
08-07-2008, 08:40 PM
I watch my local news regularly. I occasionally watch CNN/MSNBC. And I sometime search online if I hear of an interesting news story from the above sources.

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 08:40 PM
yay online tabloids

The really ironic thing is that the original source (http://journalism.org/node/11964) of newsmax's "report" in just an objective analysis of the quantity of news coverage given to such rumors having increased.

Of course, it's exactly because of BS propoganda machines like newsmax that this coverage increased - but they then use the report that the coverage increased as if it's a validation that the rumors are true. :crazy:

Basically, they're saying:

"See? The lie we told was repeated a lot, so that means it's true!"

ari1013
08-07-2008, 10:32 PM
You broke rule #1: Never look behind the curtain!

DenButsu
08-07-2008, 10:34 PM
You broke rule #1: Never look behind the curtain!

:laugh2:

arkanian215
08-11-2008, 10:57 AM
The spin comes in big time with the interviews. Questions are slanted and the audience also plays a role by laughing at serious answers by republicans/conservatives. It's not a big deal, because as you mentioned it is a comedy show, but I do think it is biased.

agreed. imo it's worse on colbert. i guess that's why i dont watch either.

arkanian215
08-11-2008, 11:08 AM
Dude, just watch FOX News. Every time they mention Obama they discuss it with some negative spin on him. Such as, "Is Obama's trip to the Middle East just a publicity stunt?", and then they have some right wing guy come on and spew out some BS facts and agree with whatever conservative host they have. This is the network that parades Ann Coulter around like some kind of prophet and has Bill O'Reilly as their main man. Just watch the channel, every time they discuss Obama there's a negative spin on it.

i was surprised that one of the hosts almost raped romney during one of the interviews. it was one of the big guys, i forget who though, 6 o'clock maybe.

DenButsu
08-11-2008, 11:12 AM
agreed. imo it's worse on colbert. i guess that's why i dont watch either.

Actually, as Colbert plays the part of his conservative "character", I've seen him grill more liberal guests with some pretty tough questions. Granted, he tends to be exaggerated and hyperbolic, but he's still throwing "gotchas" their way, and I've seen a few more left-leaning guests get somewhat visibly flustered or caught off balance.

As for Stewart, I really don't think he pulls any punches with any of his guests, but I do think he sees "keeping the mainstream media honest" (or catching them slacking or lying, more accurately) as part of his job, and I think when he gets, for example, someone in his chair who's a former employee of the Bush administration, he's going to make it a point to ask some tough questions that, say, a Bob Schieffer wouldn't ask. I think he kind of takes it personally:

"We feel like we've been lied to by the Bush admin. We feel that we've been deceived. Explain to us why we're wrong about that."

And I think that's entirely fair, given the proven degree of secrecy and deception the current administration has engaged in.

arkanian215
08-11-2008, 11:15 AM
the layout of the news shows seems very suspicious. they intertwine op-ed like shows in with the actual news stories. studio b with shepard smith, neil cavuto, america's election hq, brit hume, shepard smith, o'reilly, hannity n colmes, and on the record. not to mention that o'reilly has the 8pm slot and hannity and colmes have the 9pm slot.

The Schmooze
08-11-2008, 12:01 PM
every major media outlet is biased, but FOX News is easily the worst. They have spewed some of the worst garbage Ive ever seen.

I've said that now to be completely informed, you have to do your research.