QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.

Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

>> ^Yogi:

It's amazing to me that no one needs facts or anything to convict someone of shielding a child rapist. Just say he did it and "OH MY GOD HE DID IT!" Pathetic...the American public school system is a joke churning out morons who don't understand what Objectivity is.


You won't bother to read the grand jury report.. I'm left wondering what "facts" would actually satisfy you if the grand jury report doesn't...

>> ^Yogi:


I can't find Joe Paterno's name anywhere in that grand jury report. I see how he could've acted, I don't see how everyone can sit there and with 20/20 hindsight they'd know exactly what to do.


It would probably help if you shut your spew hole for 3 seconds and opened your eyes...

And I quote:

"Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Paterno and Tim Curley, in which Paterno reported "disgusting" and "inappropriate" conduct in the shower by Sanduskey upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student."

So it was reported to Paterno and he did nothing about it. If he passed it up the line expecting higher ups to deal with it, then failed to act when it became clear they wouldn't, he's as culpable as the rest of the pricks. No matter that he only suspected, if he had stepped in at that point, more boys might have been spared the torment of being molested (read the rest of the 'stupid fucking report' if you want the gory details).

He's lucky he was only fired and nationally disgraced.

Of course Colbert et al ignore the comments West was actually referring to, "He thinks it's OK to objectify and denigrate women. He thinks it's OK to take away our reproductive freedom. He thinks it's OK to associate with people who refer to women as oral relief stations." Debbie Crazylady Schultz has said a lot of things about West that are hardly "civil". Don't hear too much about them from leftie shills...

You must be fun at parties.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then
Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-polit
icized
So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.
Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.
There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.
Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.
I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.
We don't really have partisan lines like that
No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:
Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.
What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

Aw - how cute. What is she going to do next? Start writing it on a chalkboard? Maybe she and Beck could start being chalkboard buddies. What a load of total claptrap masquerading as 'serious analysis'. I'm getting tired of listening to people who think that biased infotainers like Maddow, Beck, Schultz and all the rest any credibility.

It's bullcrap. All of it. For example, Maddow uses pictures of a bunch of guys in Kabul and then insults completely unrelated security guards in Wisconsin. I didn't like the service I got at a Pizza Hut in Albaquerque once, but that doesn't mean the employees of the Pizza Hut where I live are scumbags. What she's doing utterly dismisses her entire screed as anything but propoganda of the lowest sort.

Anyone who thinks Maddow is anything but a junkyard mutt on the Democrat party chain is addled. Anyone that thinks she has a 'point' in this particular piece of total tripe has to have been pithed. Maddow is as unhinged and full of crap as Beck ever has been.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then

Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.

Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.

I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.

We don't really have partisan lines like that

No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:

Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then, secondly, like I said, it finds "most of the media" has a "leftist bias" thats because FOX has, as I said, moved the standard on the right into crazyville. This makes anyone left of Reagan basically into a "leftist." Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange. I'm not American, I'm Norwegian, and frankly American left or right politics mean very little to me, nor, I think, to the rest of the world. To me what matters is that American politicians are reality-based and care about other countries and their history as well as their own, that they respect international laws and treaties and that they know about real problems like global warming and so on.

Which reminds me,the fact that I mention global warming probably proves to you that I'm a "leftist" but in the rest of the world GW is not a partisan issue: It's just a scientific fact. And that example alone is enough to show how screwed up the American right has become. Not only are they denying undeniable scientific fact, but they've managed to make it a partisan issue. Basically they've managed to get half the country to ignore the available data on the changing climate, as well as a few other things, like evolution.

We don't really have partisan lines like that, sure we have fiscal conservatives and progressives, left and right and so on, but we dont have the same degree of reality denial. (Alas, I fear it might be on its way to some of the populistic parties, inspired by the success in the US) Anyway we have discussions and debates and disagree on important principles and so on. But no side lies and distorts systematically, no side is fundamentally antiscientific, and no side is full of religious nuts.. Oh well, I guess what I'm saying is that theres nothing wrong about being right wing, but theres something seriously wrong with the rightwingers.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.
As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.
So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

I maintain - based on personal experience and analysis - that FOX News is no more biased than any other media outlet. Your perception that it is 'insane' is more a reflection of your own left-wing bias, than towards any inherently stronger bias in FOX News. As a leftist, your sensitivity to differential opinion is very high. You are on the lookout - so to speak - for right wing bias because it more easily upsets and angers you.

As a result of this hypersensitivity, you have a false perception that there is 'more' bias at FOX. In addition, what bias you do see become more exaggerated and extreme in your mind. However, research has repeatedly proven that FOX News is no more biased 'to the right' than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, NBC, AP, and many other news outlets are biased to the left.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

This research was conducted by the UCLA - hardly a right wing bastion - and clearly indicates that FOX is not some sort of outlier in the spectrum of media bias.

So I dismiss as poppycock the false accusation that FOX is somehow crazed, while other outlets are not. Such an opinion is balderdash and nonsense. I've watched all news outlets - and there is no difference between Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz on the left and Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly on the right. These persons are not 'news anchors'. They are opinion based infotainers, and they are all equally guilty of voicing strong opinions that their opponents would call 'extremist' or 'crazy'. However, the accusation that FOX is somehow the sole offender in that regard is pure bologna.

Does the Black caucus (formally known as the Black Elected Democrats of Ohio) have any conservative qualified persons? Their member list is all black. Link

Maybe they are the raciest. No white members.

Unless the Black Caucus have a qualified conservative black then John Kasich I would gather is correct is saying what he said.


Nice try Ed Schultz
Netrunner are you propagating the race card?

A man with access to the googles brings you fresh copypasta:

Uygur has appeared on television on numerous occasions on MSNBC, CNN Headline News, E! Entertainment Television, Aljazeera, ABC News, Voice of America, NPR and the Fox News Channel.

He is a regular guest on The Dylan Ratigan Show for a segment opposite various conservative commentators. On several occasions, Uygur has guest hosted the show in Ratigan's absence, and has also served as guest host for The Ed Show in the absence of Ed Schultz as well as the guest host for Keith Olbermann on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

On October 21, 2010 msnbc announced that Uygur had been officially hired as a contributor and substitute anchor for the network. Previously, Uygur had periodically guest hosted and appeared on numerous msnbc programs.

The issue isn't whether they allowed these candidates or activists to plug their causes on the air. That's always going to happen.

The issue is whether the commentator/anchor/personality themselves donated money to candidates they were interviewing, without disclosure to their viewers.

Chris Mathews didn't, Rachel Maddow didn't, Ed Schultz didn't.

Olbermann did, and was punished for it.

IT'S TIME...Share
Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 9:32am
After five years, I’m THRILLED to announce that The Spirit Molecule will be released by October 2010. I strongly believe your support, patience, and belief in this film, allowed it to materialize through physical communities, the Internet, festivals/events, South America, etc. Thank you. I dreamt of this day many times, but never expected tears when announcing the release…I stand corrected. I’m truly excited to share this film with the world.

As we developed our distribution model, we continually felt more comfortable outside the box, especially considering the subject matter of the film. We went with the Trojan horse approach, the appearance of a traditional model (submit to as many festivals possible), but knew our audience was much wider. To that end, we decided to release as wide as possible, as quick as possible. So, when we physically premier this fall, we will simultaneously release the DVD/PPV for the world. As part of the physical premier, we also hope to have a live stream from the location (TBD) so the world can share in the premier. Additionally, we have an iPhone application (other devices soon) in the works, which features access to the entire collection of interview footage, roughly 100 hours. Finally, once we regroup from post-production, and screen some festivals, we plan to construct the DMT remix project, allowing anyone access to the collection of interview footage, original VFX, and original music to create their own Spirit Molecule film.

Although it has taken longer than anticipated, it has been integral in building our fan base. And due to that network, we have a rare opportunity to show the relevance, and potential, of this simple molecule, which seems to open the door to another reality. Over the last decade, I’ve witnessed a worldwide consciousness/psychedelic community reawaken and grow, and I need to access the potential of the community. As we prepare for the launch, we intend to reach as many people as possible, so I gracefully ask for your assistance. Considering the diversity, and size, of the community, we can make Google take notice. If you work in (or know someone) in PR, design/code for the web, create street art, or just want to help push this message forward, please use your talent, imagination, or knowhow to help us create buzz.

Thanks again for your support. More soon…

Regards,
Mitch Schultz
Updated about a week ago · Comment · Like · Report Note
745 people like this.

I didnt even know of Ed Schultz until this clip so I looked at his Wiki and found this interesting:

"In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his attitude. One was his mother's illness. A former educator, she got Alzheimer's Disease and began a long, slow decline. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them. To his surprise, he found some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that was the moment he began to look at poverty differently."

I think that's what being a liberal is often about, looking reminding yourself that you're not better than the people around you just because of your circumstances.

I only wish he took that same approach in dealing with Rush Limbaugh. Instead of taking a critical look at the man's life and sympathizing and respectufully disagreeing, he chose to insult him and challenge him to a duel.

That being said, i know it's difficult to maintain a polite attitude in the face of bigotry and hate, but I think John Lennon put it best when he said (im paraphrasing because I cant find the quote but I believe i heard it in "The US vs John Lennon")

'Of course they're gonna yell at you and bat at your nose because they want to get you violent. And when you're violent they know how to handle you'

I just hope it doesn't turn into a shouting match, b/c then neither of them will win.

Thing is, Ed Schultz was absolutely correct.

Oh no, McCain may not agree with torture, but he's still trying to appease Republicans here. The "extreme talk show host" isn't the one some of us are thinking here. And even if he were slamming Rush, he'd have to apologize within a day or so any way. http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

It was Ed Schultz of the new Ed Show on MSNBC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/ed-schultzcheney-wants-th_n_190703.html). Was Ed right? Personally, I think Cheney thinks more about his own success and the success of the Republican party than he does the whole of the American people, so...