can Duke edit out the audio? This isn't chit chat and I find that nonsense to be thoroughly inappropriate on this board and in this thread.

Scubasteve, grow up.

3/4/2008 3:03:48 PM

yeah, thats some stupid shit, Steve. cut it out.

back on topic:

Quote :

" JoeSchmoe: so .... Matt Drudge, took an unknown aussie tabloid report, publicised it worldwide, and caused strategic and tactical disadvantage to our allies on the front lines in Afghanistan, and put the future King of England's brother directly in harm's way. way to go, "liberal media"

Quote :

" eyedrb: It was tasteless for drudge to do that. However, Im not convinced they didnt want it leaked. Its good PR and the prince is now home safe. If it was leaked by their papers, it would look staged. Now its leaked overseas."

Quote :

" JoeSchmoe: your conspiracy theory fails to stand up to Occam's Razor. but interesting that "liberal" media outlets are just terrorist-loving freedom haters anytime the publish a picture of a flag-draped coffin... but disseminating classified tactical battleground information when done by a "conservative" outlet is a bit of sharp, covert PR beneficial to The Cause."

3/4/2008 5:04:14 PM

^ Your post fails Google 101:

Quote :

"In fact, Mr. Drudge, who declined to comment, was not the first to report the news. New Idea, an Australian magazine, was apparently the first to report the prince’s presence in Afghanistan, on Jan. 7. Bild, a German newspaper, ran a brief item on Feb. 27. Neither report elicited attention from the British press."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/media/01harry.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

1. Prince Harry is an international celebrity. I think the fact that this story didn't break sooner is more about lazy journalism than concern for Prince Harry's safety.

2. I certainly don't think that anyone should hold Fleet Street up as a shining example of journalistic ethics.

3. In any event, as I indicated, I would have preferred that Drudge held the story--I would have held it. I mean, details of the Iraq service of John McCain's son have been kept very quiet, so it's possible.

PS: ^^ and ^ Thanks for the posts about Scuba Steve--I strongly agree.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 9:53:08 PM

what part of "unknown aussie tabloid report" did you not understand?

no, no, its cool. i understand. Matt Drudge has only the best interests of NATO at heart when he disseminates damaging tactical battleground information.

just as long as those godless terror-loving liberals don't publish any pictures of flag draped coffins.

3/4/2008 11:40:35 PM

^ Apparently, you conveniently forgot Bild, the "unknown" German newspaper--the best-selling newspaper in Europe that has the sixth-largest circulation worldwide--which ran a story about Prince Harry's service on February 27, 2008.

You've gotten sloppy, man. It's way too easy to pwnt you anymore.

3/5/2008 12:16:59 AM

bttt

5/10/2008 4:33:05 PM

anyone seen the clip of obama saying hes been in 57 states, where its obvious hes being sarcastic and just illustrating the grueling nature of a presidential campaign...well fox news just tried to imply that was a gaffe...i mean that is freaking redunkulous....they were like "well i'm sure obama knows there are only 50 states!!!1"....how insulting

5/10/2008 4:46:54 PM

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

Quote :

"By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias. Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin. There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias--Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/4534

Mark Halperin, [former] political director of ABC News, admits liberal bias

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cSFYNyZmaX0

From PBS--OCTOBER 28, 1996

Quote :

"I mean, start off with the fact that the press, the reporters, and bureau chiefs, as a poll last year showed. 89 percent of a sample of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 7 percent voted for George Bush. Now to believe that those political feelings have no effect on coverage you would have to believe that you would get exactly the same coverage from an 89 percent Bush press corps. Obviously that's nonsense [emphasis added]. Now I don't think there's standard--there's conscious attempts to influence voters--it's vote for my candidate--that sort of thing doesn't go on in any serious way, certainly not by the standard political reporters who are pretty straightforward. I do think Bob Dole has a point when he says that--and suggests the press has a very much less hearty appetite for news of scandal than with a Democrat administration than it had with a Republican administration. I mean, he cites--this is not in--that doesn't mean they don't cover it at all. Yes, it does come out, but notice on the FBI files, when it was first reported that FBI files of Billy Ray Dale were in possession of the White House long after they fired him, that played on something like Page A-27 of the 'New York Times.' When it became clear that there were 300 files, that also ran on the interior page of the 'New York Times,' and it ran with a lead saying Clinton administration says it's all innocent. The fact is I am utterly convinced that if that had been a Republican administration with one or three hundred with FBI files in the possession of the White House, obviously wrongfully, that would have been front-page news, as it should have been, and as it soon became in the 'New York Times' and many other papers, one must add."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/bias_10-28.html

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 5:38:57 PM

Fox News Admits Bias!

Quote :

"orvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere. Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe: Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind. Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

MY NAME IS HOOKSAW AND I'M A FUCKING RETARD... DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

OMG LOVE MY ROLLY FUCKING EYES ROLL ROLL ROLL

5/10/2008 6:04:05 PM

^ Fucking stupid motherfucker.

Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University

Quote :

"Who's Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties."

http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

Quote :

"CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical."

Quote :

"The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book 'The Media Elite'; 'A Measure of Media Bias,' a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, 'Bias' and 'Arrogance.' All underscore the media's leftward leanings."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 6:23:49 PM

^ OMG, DURRRRRRRRRRRR

Pew Media Study - Only 25% Trust FOX News Network:

Quote :

"Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say that about Fox News Channel (32% vs. 25%). "

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215

MY NAME IS HOOKSAW, AND I LIVE IN A GIANT RETARDED DREAM

5/10/2008 6:29:47 PM

^ I don't think you have a position other than troll, but if your position is that the mainstream media does not tilt to the left, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have presented quite a bit here.

I don't intend to "debate" you further. You are not a serious poster--in fact, you are nothing more than a joke. I'm guessing that you probably already know this about yourself, as you are obviously currently engaged in a heavy round of self-loathing.

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 6:46:01 PM

YOU LOSE

ahahahhahahahahahahaha

gg self

5/10/2008 6:46:40 PM

imo its kinda hard for the networks to not have a liberal bias after the 8 years of suck we got with bush

5/10/2008 7:06:28 PM

liberal bias has nothing to do with the current administration

it has to do with journalists having a fucking education

and how educated people lay politically

5/10/2008 7:08:13 PM

Quote :

"how educated people lay politically"

see I am so sick of liberals monopolizing the "educated people" argument. There are plenty of educated people that lean conservative. Hell most anyone with an education in economics is going to be conservative. Lets face it honestly, there are stupid masses on each side that both parties try to appeal to. Then there are also undecided stupid masses that both sides try to sway. Then there are intelligent and educated people who think logically and rationally who lean a certain way out of educated reasoning about a platform. There are plenty of conservatives who are bright and educated and conservative out of logic and reasoning, not because they are dumb racist rednecks. It is simply an unfair characteristic for liberals to label any conservative as an uneducated ignorant boob. As for why academia attracts liberals...thats another issue entirely that I cant address at the moment.

5/10/2008 7:30:19 PM

you can be as upset as you want one way or the other

the question is... why does the media have a liberal bias?

my answer is better than most

and, polls, as well as history, have always backs up the idea that intellectuals tend to lean left

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 7:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 7:43:18 PM

Ducking into this thread to remind everybody, once again, that even if the media is as "liberal" as conservatives claim, it's still vastly conservative when compared to the educated, developed world at large.

5/10/2008 7:47:10 PM

yeah

god, everyone one of us is conservative compared to the majority of Europe

5/10/2008 7:48:01 PM

Quote :

""how educated people lay politically""

Ive posted this time and time again........the majority of college educated people are conservative.....however, the majority of "liberal arts" graduates aka sociology, communications, and other waste of time majors are liberal. Thats why there is a media bias....The other reason is because the major news networks are located in very very liberal areas most of the time. The chances of hiring a conservative in these areas is unlikely.

5/10/2008 8:52:52 PM

you got any links to show that most college educated people are conservative?

5/10/2008 8:55:24 PM

Hooksaw post:

"You're a troll. You are wrong. I am right. I have presented my sketchy evidence as to why I am right. There is no possibility that this evidence is untrue.

I have won this argument and no longer wish to explain to you why I am right. You're an idiot. (Insert Random Personal Attack). "

LiusClues:

"Liberals always win because we are certainly more in number and much more blindly devoted to our cause than conservatives. We will of course prevail in this battle because there are way more of us."

5/10/2008 10:18:51 PM

IMStoned420's post:

Hooksaw post:

"You're a troll. You are wrong. I am right. I have presented my sketchy evidence as to why I am right. There is no possibility that this evidence is untrue.

I have won this argument and no longer wish to explain to you why I am right. You're an idiot. (Insert Random Personal Attack). "

LiusClues:

"Liberals always win because we are certainly more in number and much more blindly devoted to our cause than conservatives. We will of course prevail in this battle because there are way more of us."

5/10/2008 10:48:18 PM

^^^

I have one that says that's NOT the case source: http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm

5/10/2008 11:52:47 PM

Hey moron, that link shows that more college educated people are conservative...

5/11/2008 12:52:46 AM

heres the math...everyone make fun of ^ for being a dumbass

democrat
.145*759=110.055
.153*759=116.127
.115*759=87.285

.226*402=90.85
.172*402=69.144
.144*402=57.88

republican
.079*759=59.961
.208*759=157.872
.155*759=117.645

.08*402=32.16
.129*402=51.858
.109*402=43.818

474.972- conservative
531.341- democrat

if you add junior college dems win also

5/11/2008 1:28:54 AM

all those numbers tell me, is that retards are the ones who most tend to be Independent.

5/11/2008 2:21:19 AM

another thing about fox news that sucks....they get all chummy with the white house when they should be wondering why bush sucks so much.....they get karl rove on there and they're all like "we are with the architect karl rove"...and now with the bush wedding...they keep saying "western white house" all chummy like they are on a first name basis...its sickening

5/11/2008 7:03:04 AM

My source is the PS 201 textbook used at State. The data come from the University of Michigan and I have used it several times on this website to disprove the "college educated people are liberal" arguement. Looks like Ill have to drag the book back out when I get back to NC tonight again.......


And I just looked at that data above.......The arguement is wheather "liberals" or "conservatives" are more educated......not "republicans" and "democrats". You cannot assume that all democrats are liberal or republicans are conservative......example....in the south, there are millions of conservative democrats around. Way to compare apples to oranges!

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2008 11:02:43 AM

Quote :

"The arguement is wheather "liberals" or "conservatives" are more educated......not "republicans" and "democrats"."

WELL THEN

LETS JUST CLARIFY

DEMOCRATS ARE MORE EDUCATED THAT REPUBLICANS

5/11/2008 8:50:20 PM

Again, those numbers don't prove that Democrats are more educated than Republicans. Look at it again. And think about it.

5/12/2008 1:22:15 AM

dude do the math...or show me some math that shows the opposite

5/12/2008 1:23:07 AM

Quote :

"all those numbers tell me, is that retards are the ones who most tend to be Independent. "

This was the first thing out of the mouth of a poli sci teacher i had. People who actually look at the issues are much more likely to form an opinion that pegs them as left/right than someone who doesn't care and claims to be neutral (they just don't know enough about the issues to say what they are).

^ majesty is playing the semantics game

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:25 AM. Reason : ]

5/12/2008 1:24:44 AM

the story abut the apple store line today was awesome

5/22/2008 6:31:20 PM