search results matching tag: Couric

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (72)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (5)     Comments (118)   

Judge Nap: Leaks Could Trigger 'Saturday Night Massacre'

bobknight33 says...

If Fox has it I'm sure every media outlet has it. Time will tell. The main stream leftest media,( you kind of news) is in the tank for Hillary.

Yes I know Fox is biased but to lie like this - nope. Leave that to the Dan Rathers, Peter Jennings and Katie Couric.

Live in you bubble bubble boy.

newtboy said:

So wait...she's in trouble for not turning over an email and instead deleting it, but somehow Faux News and no one else has this email? Uh huh.....

I'll believe it when the DOJ says publicly that's what they're charging her with, not when Napolitano claims it...remember, he's the one that said he was CERTAIN that Alito was assassinated with a pillow.

IF, and it's a HUGE "if", this is true, it's terrible for her, but judging the story based on the source, it's highly likely (>95%) that this is in no way true and is nothing more than more Fox manufactured conspiracy fodder.

This needs a *lies , because it's more than likely that it's all Fox lies, but if not, then it's about her lies, so either way.

notarobot (Member Profile)

Hipnotic (Member Profile)

Colbert All Star Singing Final

Sagemind says...

Who did you see on the list?

Kareem Abdul-Jabar
JJ Abrams
Alan Alda
Christiane Amanpour
Jon Batiste
Big Bird
Cory Booker
Tom Brokaw
Ken Burns
Bill Clinton
Andy Cohen
Francis Collins
Cookie Monster
Bob Costas
Katie Couric
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Jeff Daniels
Bill DeBlasio
Maureen Dowd
James Franco
Thomas Friedman
Vince Gilligan
Doris Kearns Goodwin
David Gregory
Terry Gross
Mike Huckabee
Arianna Huffington
Dean Kamen
Toby Keith
Henry Kissinger
Nicholas Kristof
Paul Krugman
Alexi Lalas
Cyndi Lauper
David Leonhardt
George Lucas
Yo Yo Ma
Barry Manilow
Senator Claire McCaskill
Tim Meadows
Willie Nelson
Randy Newman
Grover Norquist
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ric Ocasek
Keith Olbermann
Mandy Patinkin
Stone Phillips
Samantha Power
Pussy Riot
Charlie Rose
Dan Savage
Smaug
Shane Smith
Eliot Spitzer
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
Patrick Stewart
Michael Stipe
Andrew Sullivan
Matt Taibbi
Jeff Tweedy
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Sam Waterston
Elijah Wood

(http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7419893/colbert-finale-song)

Why U2's Bono Wears Sunglasses

Dan Rather outtake reel - should I wear my coat?

Couric vs. Coulter

Couric vs. Coulter

VoodooV says...

>> ^lantern53:

All of the details are in her books.


so it should be easy for her to regurgitate them on command...she wrote the book after all right? she wouldn't dare put anything in there that wasn't fully researched and subject to peer review right??

cept she doesn't...ever. she literally does the exact opposite of what she declares early in the interview. Libs call people names, Conservatives make arguments. Unfortunately Coulter was the only one slinging derogatory names around. The only arguments I heard were from Ms. Couric.

funny that.

Couric vs. Coulter

Couric vs. Coulter

dystopianfuturetoday says...

That's not in her job description. Her job is to inject new outrageous, offensive and unthinkable arguments into the conversation, so that more respectable conservatives can say, "Oh that Coulter is extreme, but I think she actually makes a good point when she says, "x,y and z"." She is an Overton window washer. >> ^VoodooV:

Has she EVER given any specifics or ANYTHING to back her shit up?

Couric vs. Coulter

Couric vs. Coulter

VoodooV says...

she couldn't give specifics on Bill Maher's show either.

Has she EVER given any specifics or ANYTHING to back her shit up? It's the exact opposite of her claims. Couric is the one presenting arguments and Coulter is the one slinging the names around.

So she's right, it's impossible to have a rational discussion when you can't agree on basic facts, but she's got her players flipped around.

Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

This pretty much showed how JS is a hypocrite so blinkered by bias that he personifies the very evil he decries.

Let’s call a tiger a tiger. Cable news channels have two completely different facets. One facet is the “news” update – which is when channels are announcing stuff that happens – the cut and dry stuff. The other facet is “commentary”: biased, agenda driven, subjective, interpretive, talking-head bologna that preaches to a specific ideological crowd. Whether you want to admit it or not – ALL news channels have both of these facets of News and Commentary.

Now, the cable news channels have a lot higher “Commentary to News” ratio because they are filling up a 24/7 schedule. Fox is not unique in that regard – but shares the same market space as MSNBC & CNN - about 20% ‘News’ and 80% ‘Commentary’. Whether you like the commentary of a particular channel depends on your own bias. To people who are leftists (the majority of the Sift and JS) commentary on Fox News is like garlic to a vampire. To someone on the right (such as myself) commentary on MSNBC is like salt on road rash.

If Stewart was really a true “satirist” (as he likes to say he is) then he would be mocking all sides because they both have plenty of targets. However, 99 times out of 100, Stewart focuses on the side he ideologically opposes while ignoring juicy targets on the other side. A real satirist doesn’t handcuff himself like that, so what Stewart is doing is less ‘satire’ and more ‘biased commentary’ because what he selects as subject material is driven by his biases.

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem. So when presented with ironclad proof that he is biased by Wallace, Stewart CANNOT bring himself to admit it. Instead he desperately cringes behind his typical dodge of being “comedy informed by an ideological background”. What a load of honk. You were nailed Stewart. Your claimed beef with Fox News (that they are somehow ‘unique’ in commentary bias) is proven demonstrably false. Instead, it was made crystal clear that you simply don’t like Fox’s brand of commentary because it ideologically opposes your own. Kind of hurts when you can’t just mack at the camera when you get pegged don’t it? You got visibly irritable and defensive because the truth hurts.

So in this interview Stewart couldn’t dive into the tall grass of his standard “Hey – I’m just a comedian! No fair! My clown-nose is on!” coward defense. The commentary of many news channels is liberally biased just as bad (or worse) than any of Fox News’ conservative commentary. Wallace proves it in black and white. In fact there are many studies that have proven this point routinely. But Stewart can’t bring himself to SAY that news outlets he shares an “informed ideological background” with are biased because that would mean that he would have to admit that he HIMSELF is biased. So in the face of all evidence he says that hack organizations like MSNBC are not biased but “trend toward sensationalism and laziness”. I haven’t heard a weaker, more pathetic rhetorical dodge in a long time.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

Of course Stewart doesn’t want to mention polls like this that prove that FOX patrons are about 2X as ‘informed’ as people on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBC. He doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Couric’s audience is about as ‘informed’ as the average reader of the Inquirer. Of course Stewart isn’t going to admit that people who listen to LIMBAUGH are more informed than his audience. No – like Obama – Stewart only sticks to isolated, biased polls that favor his own personal world view - and ignores the evidence to the contrary. BIASED.

If you’re a fan of Stewart then bully for you. He can be entertaining sometimes, and he even has the occasional decency to admit (albeit sarcastically) his own problems – such as with the whole Weiner scandal. But those of you who are patting yourselves on the back pretending that he somehow ‘skunked’ Wallace are living in a self-insulated fanboi fantasy world.

Wallace made his point. Wallace never tried to say Fox News doesn’t have biased commentary on it. Wallace proved conclusively that other news channels – including Stewart’s own show – are primarily driven by biased commentary rather than news. To the world, Stewart proved that he cannot bring himself to simply admit that left-wing, neolib commentary is biased. Thus, proving to all that Stewart himself is an untrustworthy, intellectually hypocritical, biased tool. Game, set, and match to Wallace. Now Stewart can slink back to his show and lick his wounds by selectively re-editing reality so he doesn’t look quite as big of a tool – as is his wont.

Quirky Hand Model is Obsessed with her Hands

True Grit - 2nd Trailer

shuac says...

>> ^alien_concept:

I wasn't saying that it wouldn't be better all round if people explained why, when they have an opinion on something, I just think calling someone out on it and accusing them of being a typical internet opinion-wielder, might have been a bit strong under the circumstances...
And I wouldn't say I'm defeatist either, just perhaps less passionate


"Typical internet opinion-wielder"

Hmm, you may be right. That was WAAAAAY over the top, wasn't it? <shakes fist and screams toward the ceiling> How can I ever live this shame down? HOW??

Just havin' some fun.

I disagree with you again, of course, as I think my words were quite tame and also quite true.

Such that no one can call me a hypocrite, let me illustrate why being able to explain yourself is always a good thing: I recently watched a shitload of the Election08 channel videos and sort of re-experienced the great entertainment value that the election actually was. If you have a couple hours to kill, I highly recommend doing the same.

There are two sifts from this collection I'd like to introduce into evidence, your honors.

1) http://videosift.com/video/Joe-the-Plumber-Wont-Explain-Death-to-Israel-Remarks
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg (Sarah Palin on Russia)

Video 1 features Joe the Plumber asserting that a vote for Obama means death to Israel. Fox Host Shepard Smith tries to get Joe to explain himself a bit further but he is ultimately unsuccessful.

Video 2 is the famous "Well, it certainly does" comment. Couric presses Palin to explain exactly why Alaska's proximity to Russia has provided her with foreign policy credentials.

In both videos, one can easily recognize the flaccid attempts to justify outlandish assertions. Do you think a well-reasoned response on the part of either of them would have helped or harmed their respective cases? For Joe the Plumber, it's particularly embarrassing because he freely admits that he "knows just enough to probably be dangerous." At the very least, Palin provided some explanation, laughable and transparent (and plenty of both) though it was. Had either Joe the Plumber or Ms. Palin provided explanations, even ones that merely grazed at the periphery of sense, the GOP might have been placed in a different position, election-wise.

If you haven't yet gotten the point, let me say that the assignment of an opinion as "valid" or "invalid" is independent of agreement with the opinion. The deciding factor? Whether an opinion is backed-up in an effective way. The fact that one may not be able to (because it's "just a feeling" they get) is rather the whole point, isn't it?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon