Also where was the talk radio Knights of Conservatism when Bush was in power with his liberal spending government, illegal wars and infractions of the constitution?

With the exception of ideological outlets, like FOX, MSNBC and AM talk radio, news bias generally revolves around ratings, profit and ad revenue. The media MO is to appease the political status quo while trying to avoid controversial things that will piss off advertisers.

Most media advertisers are corporate, who generally support Republican corporatist economic policies, so in this respect, it's fair to say the media has a conservative bias.

When it comes to social issues that have no financial impact, the media is indifferent, and tends to support the more popular, less controvercial, liberal viewpoints - taking the path of least resistance. So when it comes to social issues, you could reasonably say the media leans left, or at least center-left.

It honestly isn't so much the bias, as it is the lies and deception. NPR, for instance, is undoubtedly run by liberals, but when it comes to broadcasting, they tend to be more fair, honest and well intentioned than any other media outlet I am aware of. I know plenty of Republicans that listen to NPR daily because of these qualities.

If FOX had the integrity that NPR had, there would be no problem. MSNBC needs to be careful they don't take the same path that FOX did for the last eight years.

I'd love to see a FOX news channel with integrity, or a libertarian news network, or a green news network. A bias is nothing more than a point of view, and the more points of view, the merrier.

I'm finding it harder and harder to determine whether "The O'Reilly Factor" is legitimate right wing lunacy or an exceptionally devious farce.

While it's easy to recognize that these "news" shows (O'Reilly/Olberman/60 minutes/talk radio/etc.) are primarily entertainment, a increasingly large number of people gleam the majority of their news from them.

That terrifies me.

Grab your cameras! It's the "free speech" liberal who's trying to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence talk radio! One of the Annointed who bankrupted California appears in the background.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no way a burka-clad fundamentalist Muslim woman would ever become a western school teacher, because the same dogma that forces her to cover her entire body in cloth also requires her to have a male escort when outside of the house. Are you telling me that this teacher had a male family member escort her through college, credentialing, student teaching, job interviews, hiring and ultimately 9 months a year of work? I'm calling BS on this one.
This sounds like the kind of thing you find on fringe political sites, chain emails and talk radio.
Same thing with the cross story. I've done a lot of teaching and seen plenty of people who wear crosses. Do you know how hard it is to fire a teacher? Even if some rogue principal decided to fire someone for wearing a cross, the Unions would file a huge lawsuit - which they would win - and the principal would be let go immediately, while the teacher in question would get a large settlement. Either there is more to this story (i.e. proselytizing on the clock, wearing a T-shirt that said 'Jesus Saves', having sex with students, etc) or this story is bullshit.
Maybe things are completely different where you live, but I doubt it. You are trying to paint the picture of some massively oppressive cultural phenomena, but struggling to even come up with small isolated examples, let alone some kind of powerful systemic force. In my opinion, you are getting worked up over nothing.


I'm certainly worked up now, after you speaking to me like i'm some sort of wack-job when all i tried to do was throw a few "other end of the spectrum" examples in to show how a subject can be counter-productive to that which it is trying to aid.

Fortunately for me, you're completely wrong on this one, they were fully covered by many different news sources across great britain. It's almost common knowledge over here to anyone who follows the news and current events. However, your opinion that i'm trying to paint some oppressive cultural phenomenon is erroneous. I've simply said that "political correctness can often be counter productive to racial harmony", and cited a few examples.

So, i'm sorry dude, but they're 100% true. Despite your defensive stance over this, i think you simply don't realise we're agreeing that people simply need to be nice to each other the world over and racial differences and racial struggles will be a thing of the past. I think you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and you're not WANTING to see or hear anything that might impact on the stubborn ideas you have about political correctness. I think you've got it in your head that i'm a racist, or at least ignorant, and you're dead set on proving it even if it means ignoring half of what i say. I think you're the ignorant one.

Now let me tell you something - my dad is not only a teacher but a head teacher, has been for 20 of 35 teaching years. Yes i know how tough it is to fire a teacher, i'm very very familiar with the ins and outs of the NUT as a result of such and ...... i won't go on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
There is the story about the woman wearing the burkha, if you're interested (you're not) in finding out more information (you're not) and getting to the root of the story (you're not) and you'll see that originally she was allowed to continue teaching until students complained again that they couldn't understand her. So please research a little more and deliver your apology post haste (i'll wait for it while i wait for hell to freeze over)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418819/BA-cross-women-vows-compromise-92-cent-public-her.html
Regardless of the "do you know anything about teaching" (and my father sits here as i write this laughing at me being asked that question) debate, this woman was not a teacher and i never said she was. Go ahead and read it and research it if you like, but i warn you once again that it might encourage you to change your POV and i can see you get frosty when your POV is challenged.

Want another? A christian nurse asked an old lady (who was very ill) if she wanted her (the nurse) to pray for her recovery. The old lady said no, made a complaint, and the nurse has been suspended. That was in either today's or yesterday's newspaper.

Please, please, please do not speak in such an antagonistical manner to me when all i did was try to have a little chat and give you my opinion on political correctness. And at least have the common decency to listen to my opinion before slating it. And then, once you've done that, have a little search for subjects that you're about to summarily dismiss without consideration. And then, finally, get off your "i'm righteous i am" high horse and understand that there are people out there who aren't racist, aren't bigots, aren't xenophobes, but DO find political correctness insulting to their intelligence.

I am neither heavily for nor heavily against political correctness, i have stated my opinion and you have translated it to suit your over zealous righteous attitude. I am, however, heavily against having my polite friendly attitude replied to by haughty supercillious pomp, and that's why i'm more stern with this reply than with my previous.

I'm looking forward to see exactly which parts of this you ignored.

Thanks for the promote =)

In reply to this comment by Oatmeal:
*promote
He brings up a very good point here... as much as we all love to hate Rush and Billo and the type, their job isn't so much about getting people to agree with them, as it is about getting a reaction out of those who don't. These people thrive on the negativity generated by their personas, and their job performance depends on it.

Anyone else notice it took mere seconds of Obama being president before hard-core right winters went off the deep end? Comments like this, which may be a bad joke, smack of loosing touch with reality. The complete cluster-bleep that is Hanity since then. Some of the absolute anti-american things I've been hearing on talk radio.

I don't know how any of these guys are going to make a full four years without being committed, or going suicidal.

Stop giving the village idiot a platform for her hate-filled bullshit. She's like the Hutu talk radio guys in Hotel Rwanda.

Perhaps. I'm on the fence as to whether BO is a real troll, or someone playing the part for the laughs, a'la Colbert. I think others see him as amusing, so it explains the upvotes to his ridiculous comments.

Winstonfield doesn't appear to have a tongue in his cheek when commenting. It's just the vitriol you'd hear from any conservative talk-radio host, whom I'm sure he's parroting. To me that explains the up/down ratio of the two.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^thepinky Speaking of taking things out of context, did you read the paragraph after the one that you quoted?
So you are saying that Limbaugh's after the fact apologetics amount to a retroactive recontextualization of what he said on the radio?
The paragraph you quote is not what followed on the radio show, it's how he is attempting to weasel his way out in the article. He has a well documented history of saying absurd and racist things and then making a stink that he was "just making a joke" or that his listeners "didn't take it that way" etc. The fact that he is trying to cover his ass does not indicate that he is not guilty as charged. I submit that his track record suggests exactly the opposite.


I'm not defending Limbaugh so much as criticizing the ad. Whatever Limbaugh's record may be, the comments were indeed taken shamelessly out of context, changing Limbaugh's meaning and expressing opinions for him that are obviously not his own.

I hate talk radio. Let me point out something about it. The hosts purposely say shocking, hateful, one-sided things in order to get the listeners excited enough to call in. Limbaugh does what he does. I'm sorry, but his extreme right-wing comments taken out of context are not exactly the best indicator of how McCain feels about Mexicans.

"I wouldn't go so far to say Fox and Conservative talk radio ever "trashed" Obama"

Can I buy some of your drugs?

TRILL.

In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
What scrutiny has obama had?
ever since he won his candidacy, every report of him has built golden statues. The only people who would trash obama are fox and talk radio, a hell of a lot less than the people who hear McCain being trashed.
Seriously, this guy is saying that the media coverage of the race is unfair to OBAMA?!???!??
bs

Rolling Stone(d): yet another in a long, long line of ultra-liberal publications posing as an objective news source. Kind of like MSDNC, ABC, NBC and CNN, only in paper form.

The only people who would trash obama are fox and talk radio, a hell of a lot less than the people who hear McCain being trashed.

I wouldn't go so far to say Fox and Conservative talk radio ever "trashed" Obama, rgroom1.

They've simply reported on Obama's ultra-liberal voting record, his TWO self-serving autobiographies, his suspicious, detestable circle of f(r)iends like "Rev" Wright, Ayers and Rezko, his lack of experience (so McCain has the big ego...how 'bout the hubris of believing you're Presidential material after 143 do-nothing days in the Senate)?

What scrutiny has obama had?
ever since he won his candidacy, every report of him has built golden statues. The only people who would trash obama are fox and talk radio, a hell of a lot less than the people who hear McCain being trashed.
Seriously, this guy is saying that the media coverage of the race is unfair to OBAMA?!???!??
bs

I can fill in the blanks for Cenk. The talk-radio branch of the Republican party is pushing a line of bull about how the credit crisis is really the Democrats' fault.

It hinges on a piece of legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The site describes the bill:

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations.

(emphasis mine)

Yes, the legislation was aimed at encouraging banks to do more lending to low-income buyers, and minorities. However, it was not requiring them to abandon the considerations of risk.

This diary from dKos fills in more detail, and has further references (from Government agencies) debunking this as being even a minor contributing factor to our current crisis.

Cavuto just forgot to mention the piece of legislation before race baiting.

Oh, and he was Olbermann's worst person tonight for this very comment.