billo - you're just jealous of my comment.

you wish you were witty enough, to use the word ironical.
especially since i wasn't wondering if you were being ironic, but facetious. a distinction that surely provided hours of laughter. and you wish someone other than CaptainHomophobia had downvoted it with you.

but seriously.
are you counting on the "no such thing as bad press" angle? doesn't matter as much what they're saying, as long as they're talking about you?

and in regards to not choosing hillary?
don't be absurd, bill. talk radio idiots would be exploiting her either way, and you know it.

"That is a trap. I offer money, you'll play the man of honor and take umbrage; I ask you to do what is right and you'll play the brigand. I have no stomach for games." - The Operative

people make the assumption that everyone knows what the bush doctrine is because they have defined it for themselves already. thats the problem, they have settled on their self definition and assumed that is the only interpretation either because they are arrogant or stupid. i guess it happens when you spend your time in a media/social bubble where everyone agrees with you, so you can just assume such things.

as for them on palin, they basically assume the worst to make their points which is just a cheap tactic. asking for a question to be narrowed is perfectly acceptable. and its only partisan nonsense that makes it into any issue at all.

and well, mahers show has become a bit of a sham, 3 on 1 is the best they can do. last week it was worse, it was 4 people all agreeing. if you think such shows are good political discussions you have no right complaining about right wing talk radio.

i'm not sure its good to concentrate on such trivial things. it shows how weak your opposition is that you have to sink to such a low level of discussion.

....

wait, what? Did QM just say that Palin has more experience ... wait, what?

Is that a typo? Is the right wing talk radio echo chamber saying that Palin has more experience than Obama? ....

really? But, like... isn't that just laughably, provably, fundamentally, inarguably false?

I am scared to go and look now, but somebody tell me at least that nobody really thinks that. Do they?

I thought it was a last-minute-attempt to reach out to to disgruntled Hilary supporters. A very poorly thought out attempt for those very reasons. Also let's face it McCain's got the hots for her and hopes on the off chance that they get elected to be able to spend a bunch of time with her.

"Ms. Fundie, Creationist, big-oil, abstinence" Love it. Heard many callers on talk radio saying the creationism/don't believe in climate change thing swayed them to the obama camp, although I imagine there are other people that had the opposite response, though I doubt many of Hilary's supporters will see it that way.

More of the same ahead as the deconstruction of the economy picks up pace? The "Angry White Male" syndrome? I think it will probably become just "Angry Person" syndrome, as more folks face foreclosure, job loss, high gas prices, closed banks. Add a little Anger Power-ups provided by talk radio, Ann Coulter, etc., and burn, baby, burn. Or something like that.

I have a bad feeling my sister is going to vote for this guy. Talk radio + die hard/pro Bush republican boyfriend (aside from that he's a pretty great guy)and all she gets are the lies or smears about other candidates, taking them for truth. Fortunately some lies have been cleared up. I don't think she has time to watch Fox news, so that helps some.

As for myself, the more I listen to McCain speak and debate, the less certain I am that he is capable of either. When he talks impromptu, it's like he only knows how to use the rehearsed lines and opinions of whoever writes his speeches. McCaine also seems incapable of giving a straight answer for anything that puts him "on the spot" or uncomfortable (admittedly, a trait all politicians have). I don't think McCain could persuade the senate to take a 25% pay raise, much less push an important bill that has resistance.

"Left-wing media" is a term of abuse used by movement conservatives to refer to just about any published or broadcast matter that isn't funded by Roger Ailes and/or Rupert Murdoch.

It's a term of "abuse" only because excepting overt failures like Al Franken, liberals always hide who they really are, especially when trying to get elected. Just about every media source outside of talk radio, FOX cable and a handful of newspapers is liberally-biased. The average liberal has PLENTY of choices for their own brand of bias, and that's not even counting the morons in Hollywood and knuckleheads being spat out the government school system.

As for the substance of QM's comment, why is it incumbent on CBS or anyone else to be a "fan" of Israel or of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Figure of speech. You would have to live in a vacuum not to understand that media choose sides, if only to sell, sell, sell. Big Media is a business, therefore lazy reporting that makes money leads the way. The drive-by media has a total "good news blackout" on Iraq and pretends the surge failed. Fk 'em. They deserve to lose ratings to Fox.

The answer, I surmise, is that the U.S. media aren't supposed to exercise independent judgement; they're not supposed to investigate stories and report them on the merits; rather, they're supposed to be a cheering section for whatever the U.S. government (as long as it's a Republican government, at that) and its allies want.

If you really believe that, can you explain why 99% of the "Republican cheering squad" drive-by media is pushing the Obamessiah, the biggest nothing and empty suit ever to make headway towards the Presidency?

As the liberal says, "WHAT liberal media?" the fish says, "WHAT water?"

You have a right to your own opinions--even you no-star n00bs--but not your own facts, and the fact is Ammadinnawackjob is a corrupt "leader," terrorist and Holocaust denier. You libs can go on amusing yourselves trying to pick up this turd by the clean end.

Wing seat? Aisle seat? The liberal pretends to accept all points-of-view, then is horrified to discover there are other points-of-view. hahahaha.

when will you realize that liberals hate the unbalanced neo-con funded media and conservatives hate the "liberal media"...but it's the same media.

As the fish doesn't see the water, most media liberals never see or are paid handsomely not to see their own bias.

Pointing out two teams play in the same league doesn't change the scores of the game. There is no stepping above the fray here. There are real and serious idealogical differences between liberals and conservatives; one must win and one must lose, because they're mostly incompatible.

The truth has a liberal bias.

The truth doesn't need junk science, political correctness and price controls, plus an in-cahoots media to cover up the resulting failures. Liberals need all four. Obama won't reveal he leans extreme-left. Shouldn't that tell you something?

"No counterpart" to FOX news? Pretty much everything but FOX and talk radio leans left, including 99% of Hollywood dreck.

^ A Vast Left Wing Liberal Conspiracy (VLWLC) would have all news outlets talking about the possibility that John McCain was brainwashed while he was a P.O.W. in Vietnam, which originated from anonymous spam e-mail.

Clips of John Hagee calling Catholicism "the Great Whore", along with Rod Parsley would dominate the news cycle for at least a month, solid. Whenever McCain's numbers rise, the media dutifully brings the topic back up again, ad nauseum.

Rachel Maddow would be the most famous Talk Radio personality (aside from Howard Stern, who would still broadcast on terrestrial radio), and would constantly complain of a right-wing bias in all news outlets. She'd have had a successful smear campaign; most conservatives would be reluctant to use that term, it now has such a negative connotation in common discourse.

President Gore, would of course, time his policy to aid Obama as well, rolling out a report in October on how carbon emissions are now in decline, globally, for the first time since they've been keeping records.

Too bad there ain't no Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, just the right wing kind.

However, as Colbert points out, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Wow. If you aren't down with King and Ghandi, then you most definitely have issues with race. This isn't a personal attack, but rather an observation.

I believe your earlier "racism" barb was the personal attack. By now I'm used to it. As I've said to any and all, if you want to pleasantly debate an issue in depth, stop on by!

As for King and Gandhi, I don't dispute their contributions to the world. However, while you and I are entitled to our opinions of these men, we are not entitled to our own facts. They were flawed, imperfect men...using them as billy clubs on a less knowledgable individual might have worked, but facts is facts, and as this is the internet, no one cares anyway.

I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.

In my younger years I was a liberal and then an anarchist. The libs are still spewing the same emotionally charged half-truths they were a decade ago, and decades before that. They never change their tune.

My later experience combined with new understandings led to my present belief system ("conservatarian") which includes facts and historical learnins where possible. It is a grave error to think righties have their brains switched off; we have to live with facts, including knowledge of our limitations; they are often depressing and often no fun.

The main difference between left and right? The left is forever selling impossible (and costly) solutions while the right illuminates the tradeoffs between one way of doing things and another.

You're wrong about King, who wanted all kinds of special rights.
And Ghandi hated Black people. I can't believe you admire such racists! For SHAME!

Wow. If you aren't down with King and Ghandi, then you most definitely have issues with race. This isn't a personal attack, but rather an observation.

Instead of flinging hasty retorts, why not take an embarrassing moment in a videosift thread and use it as a catalyst for positive change in your life?

I can tell by the words you use that these ideas are not your own (which is a good thing). These are regurgitated talking points from political talk radio and message boards.

Do you really want other people to do your thinking for you? I hope not.

Why not wrestle with these ideas yourself? Maybe you will come to different conclusions than those Fox News has taught you.

I know these comments are a bit forward, but they are genuine and intended to engage you, not insult you.

PS: I apologize for calling you a fucknut.

It ain't easy to fill 24 freaking hours of news on 4+ networks with... news. People wanna hear stupid gossip about Paris Hilton. If there's one thing I respect talk radio hosts for, it's there willingness to say "I'm talking about this for ratings, but I really hate this pointless crap!" I've heard that at least 5 times this month alone.

Also, tabloid-style news is nothing new. Entertainment news has been around since long before I was born. Can someone tell me when the news was not "half about news and half about gossip?" Maybe back in the day when you had to walk-to-school-up-hill-both-ways-in-10-feet-of-snow-with-only-potato-skins-to-warm-your-hands-but
-those-were-your-lunch-so-you-got-frostbite-every-day-on-your-way-home-to-your-wood-burning
-stove-warmed-cabin-made-of-last-year's-half-burned-stove-logs?

The major news media have become capitalist giants. As much as you may dislike them, do you really want the government to manage the media, even if it means breaking them up? Isn't that government controlling media? Just a thought.

Also, remember, your beloved Oberman is one of "them" ... mwahahahahaa.

(this post is half serious, but half a jab, so don't get your panties non-gender-specific-undergarments in a bunch)

btw, I haven't had cable for 3 years now... and I think I'm happier for it. Yay internet, netflix, and radio.

btw, I can't stand this show. it would maybe be watchable if his mirroring of the conservative talk-radio theme was done in a satirical way, poking fun at how nitpicking, stubbornly low-brow and repetitive it is... with the poorly concieved, mean nick-names for people they don't like, and what-not... but no, just does the same thing with liberal talking points.

For those that would like more insight to the myth of the liberal media, I present several books on the subject. there are of course books that look at it from the opposite angle (that the media really is liberal). I'll post about those books when the video comes up on VS.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
by David Edwards (Author), David Cromwell (Author), John Pilger (Foreword)

________________________________________________

The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
by Edward S. Herman (Author)

Book Description
The Myth of the Liberal Media contends that the mainstream media are parts of a market system and that their performance is shaped primarily by proprietor/owner and advertiser interests. Using a propaganda model, it is argued that the commercial media protect and propagandize for the corporate system. Case studies of major media institutions?the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer?are supplemented by detailed analyses of "word tricks and propaganda" and the media's treatment of topics such as Third World elections, the Persian Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the fall of Suharto, and corporate junk science.
"Edward Herman's invaluable studies of the media in market-oriented democracies find their natural place in the broader sweep of contemporary history. Herman quotes James Madison's observation in later life that 'a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.' The observation is apt; formal guarantees of personal freedom do not suffice to prevent the farce or the tragedy, even if the guarantees are observed. These issues, explored and illuminated in (these) essays . . ., should be at the center of the concerns of those who seek to create a society that is more free and more just." From the Preface by Noam Chomsky

__________________________________________

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion.

Saying the media is liberal should just be reworded to say "given the choice, the media will side with the democratic party" with the exception of Fox News, talk radio, and the Wallstreet Journal. I read a study that found that if you do not include Fox News in the survey, only 6% of those working for the mainstream media voted for Bush in last election. During that election, on election day, the bias of each media outlet was very painfully, but very hilariously obvious. If you watched the news that day, you know what I'm talkin about. Anyway, many studies have been done simply counting the number of positive and negative stories about presidential candidates and they always show that the media (except fox) is positive toward democrats far more often than it is positive toward republicans (and the converse). Who cares if that is liberal or just center globally. It's liberal in the USA... and that's what we're talking about.

And about lewinski? Of coarse they'll eat that up on every network. Ratings! If they dodged that story, they'd lose most of their audience to networks that didn't dodge it.
And Iraq? The media has been against that war from day 1... even before day 1. They report nothing positive about it and only recently have admitted ANY advances or successes. They ridicule any politician who focuses on positive results whether they're true or not. They ignore or attempt to marginalize every positive report there is.

"everyone hates fox"
yeah, except for the overwhelmingly enormous population that doesn't. Fox News absolutely dominates the cable news ratings at basically every time slot. O'Reilly has the highest ratings of any opinion show on the news consistently. Fox routinely maintains about 6 of the top 10 news show slots in every cable news rating list. They are a juggernaut. If only because it is the only conservative leaning network in the US. All the rest have to share the dems. Fox gets the most attacks for the same reason. There is only one republican leaning station, but many dem leaning ones. Fox is outnumbered so it looks like they are attacking everyone and everyone is attacking them. If there were another right-leaning news station, it'd share the brunt of the libs' indignation.