do you agree with the jury?
is Schooner guilty?
he looks guilty
what kind of a name is Schooner anyway?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070306-1437-cialeaktrial.html
Schooner 'Loobis' Lindey - Guilty
- Thread starter PKRipp3r
- Start date
do you agree with the jury?
is Schooner guilty?
he looks guilty
what kind of a name is Schooner anyway?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070306-1437-cialeaktrial.html
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']
do you agree with the jury?
is Schooner guilty?
he looks guilty
what kind of a name is Schooner anyway?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070306-1437-cialeaktrial.html[/quote]
It's not a name at all. His nickname is "Scooter" not Schooner.
do you agree with the jury?
is Schooner guilty?
he looks guilty
what kind of a name is Schooner anyway?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070306-1437-cialeaktrial.html[/quote]
It's not a name at all. His nickname is "Scooter" not Schooner.
HumanSnatcher
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='daphatty']What a shame... I actually met this guy when I worked for the White House. He was one of the few decent people working there. I guess that's what happens to good people who misplace their loyalties. It should have been Cheney.[/QUOTE]
its always the little guys that get hung up to dry, they take the fall while the people really responsible walk around guilt-free
its always the little guys that get hung up to dry, they take the fall while the people really responsible walk around guilt-free
usickenme
CAGiversary!
no shit....but still funny.
p.s.
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.
He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper
So the "headline" is a half-truth at best.
p.s.
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.
He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper
So the "headline" is a half-truth at best.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Leave it to Fox News: Scooter Libby now 20% not guilty!!!!
And now the inevitable Presidential pardon so he won't talk.
And now the inevitable Presidential pardon so he won't talk.
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']And his last name is Libby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby[/QUOTE]
no... no...
i'm pretty sure it's 'Schooner'
I follow the news and stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby[/QUOTE]
no... no...
i'm pretty sure it's 'Schooner'
I follow the news and stuff
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']no... no...
i'm pretty sure it's 'Schooner'
I follow the news and stuff[/quote]You must not follow it very closely, because it's Scooter, not Schooner.
i'm pretty sure it's 'Schooner'
I follow the news and stuff[/quote]You must not follow it very closely, because it's Scooter, not Schooner.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Fair and Balanced: Part Deux
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
The Fox Noise Channel is trying to confuse the public. The charges were obstruction of justice, not leaking a covert CIA operative (which was also a crime anyway since CIA agents are classified by Congress, not the President).
This has been a lousy 2 years for Republicans. :lol:
This has been a lousy 2 years for Republicans. :lol:
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']no shit....but still funny.
p.s.
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.
He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper
So the "headline" is a half-truth at best.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you guys just will do anything to bash Fox. They had a running banner, like all the other cable news networks, of the counts he was found guilty and not guilty of. So what do you do? You find a screen capture of when they were flashing the fact that he was found not guilty on the one count and attempt to extrapolate that into them focusing on that one count. Get a clue.
p.s.
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.
He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper
So the "headline" is a half-truth at best.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you guys just will do anything to bash Fox. They had a running banner, like all the other cable news networks, of the counts he was found guilty and not guilty of. So what do you do? You find a screen capture of when they were flashing the fact that he was found not guilty on the one count and attempt to extrapolate that into them focusing on that one count. Get a clue.
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, you guys just will do anything to bash Fox. They had a running banner, like all the other cable news networks, of the counts he was found guilty and not guilty of. So what do you do? You find a screen capture of when they were flashing the fact that he was found not guilty on the one count and attempt to extrapolate that into them focusing on that one count. Get a clue.[/QUOTE]
ummm.... yeah....
b/c FNC is always so flawless with their on screen graphics
I think the better question is why you feel so compelled to defend them and try to excuse their obviously slanted 'reporting'
:lol:
ummm.... yeah....
b/c FNC is always so flawless with their on screen graphics
I think the better question is why you feel so compelled to defend them and try to excuse their obviously slanted 'reporting'
:lol:
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='E-Z-B']This has been a lousy 2 years for Republicans. :lol:[/QUOTE]
And a lousy 6 years for the rest of the country.
And a lousy 6 years for the rest of the country.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']ummm.... yeah....
b/c FNC is always so flawless with their on screen graphics
I think the better question is why you feel so compelled to defend them and try to excuse their obviously slanted 'reporting'[/QUOTE]
You're barely worth responding to, but if pointing out facts is "defending," I'm going to defend. Your dumb statements implying that I somehow am claiming that they are perfect/flawless with their graphics (or even "slanted reporting," in your words) are a lame attempt to belittle me for pointing out said facts and going against the "four legs good, Fox baad! four legs good, Fox baad!" crowd around here in doing so.
b/c FNC is always so flawless with their on screen graphics
I think the better question is why you feel so compelled to defend them and try to excuse their obviously slanted 'reporting'[/QUOTE]
You're barely worth responding to, but if pointing out facts is "defending," I'm going to defend. Your dumb statements implying that I somehow am claiming that they are perfect/flawless with their graphics (or even "slanted reporting," in your words) are a lame attempt to belittle me for pointing out said facts and going against the "four legs good, Fox baad! four legs good, Fox baad!" crowd around here in doing so.
Elp well said. Fox news the #1 broadcasting station in America dont like it go look at there ratings then comeup with a better answer. The people who bash fox news are normally your left wing democrats who have nothing else to do but eat a bag of potato chips & play video games . Whats the point in arguing with the crap you say when you have nothing to back it up.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='ttriber']Elp well said. Fox news the #1 broadcasting station in America dont like it go look at there ratings then comeup with a better answer. The people who bash fox news are normally your left wing democrats who have nothing else to do but eat a bag of potato chips & play video games . Whats the point in arguing with the crap you say when you have nothing to back it up.[/QUOTE]
I, for one, do not eat potato chips.
Now, arguing that Fox is the highest rated new channel in the nation, and thus, by logical extension, they must be the best news station, is an absurd argument to make. There's no relationship whatsoever between the number of TV Viewers and the quality of a program.
The frustration from Fox comes from several sources:
1) When they err, they err in favor of Republicans and to the detriment of Democrats, without fail. They were the only news channel to accidentally call Mark Foley a Democrat, the only channel to pick up and run with the story that Obama studied at a "madrassa" (and never once admitted to making an error in that piece, despite being very, very, VERY wrong).
2) Their TV personalities are, without fail, conservatives. Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, all the Fox & Friends, and others. The *only* "liberal" on Fox is Alan Colmes, who is deliberately the weakest person they could find, both in his arguments and his appearance. He fulfills the stereotype people want to believe that liberals are spineless, emaciated cowards who will concede their arguments once pushed properly by the righteous conservative. It's a passion play no different than watching the old Saturday morning pro wrestling, where the big name guy, like the Iron Sheik, would fight (and destroy) ol' no-name guy.
Ultimately, while there's no substantive evidence that Fox shares a "fair and balanced" perspective (despite how popular you think they are), they share the same bias that all 24/7 news channels have: What matters isn't liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. What matters is this: are you watching or not? Their primary concern is making sure their ratings stay high so that they can charge their advertisers more. No news channel is in the business of informing you, they are all in the business of giving you to their advertisers and sponsors. Don't ever forget that. It's the primary reason that, liberal or conservative bias, we can all agree that there's more pure *shit* on the news than there is important and worthwhile news. I hold nothing but disgust for *any* network that uses the phrase "Anna Nicole" more times per hour than "Darfur." Sadly, that's all of them.
I, for one, do not eat potato chips.
Now, arguing that Fox is the highest rated new channel in the nation, and thus, by logical extension, they must be the best news station, is an absurd argument to make. There's no relationship whatsoever between the number of TV Viewers and the quality of a program.
The frustration from Fox comes from several sources:
1) When they err, they err in favor of Republicans and to the detriment of Democrats, without fail. They were the only news channel to accidentally call Mark Foley a Democrat, the only channel to pick up and run with the story that Obama studied at a "madrassa" (and never once admitted to making an error in that piece, despite being very, very, VERY wrong).
2) Their TV personalities are, without fail, conservatives. Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, all the Fox & Friends, and others. The *only* "liberal" on Fox is Alan Colmes, who is deliberately the weakest person they could find, both in his arguments and his appearance. He fulfills the stereotype people want to believe that liberals are spineless, emaciated cowards who will concede their arguments once pushed properly by the righteous conservative. It's a passion play no different than watching the old Saturday morning pro wrestling, where the big name guy, like the Iron Sheik, would fight (and destroy) ol' no-name guy.
Ultimately, while there's no substantive evidence that Fox shares a "fair and balanced" perspective (despite how popular you think they are), they share the same bias that all 24/7 news channels have: What matters isn't liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. What matters is this: are you watching or not? Their primary concern is making sure their ratings stay high so that they can charge their advertisers more. No news channel is in the business of informing you, they are all in the business of giving you to their advertisers and sponsors. Don't ever forget that. It's the primary reason that, liberal or conservative bias, we can all agree that there's more pure *shit* on the news than there is important and worthwhile news. I hold nothing but disgust for *any* network that uses the phrase "Anna Nicole" more times per hour than "Darfur." Sadly, that's all of them.
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) Their TV personalities are, without fail, conservatives. Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, all the Fox & Friends, and others. The *only* "liberal" on Fox is Alan Colmes, who is deliberately the weakest person they could find, both in his arguments and his appearance. He fulfills the stereotype people want to believe that liberals are spineless, emaciated cowards who will concede their arguments once pushed properly by the righteous conservative. It's a passion play no different than watching the old Saturday morning pro wrestling, where the big name guy, like the Iron Sheik, would fight (and destroy) ol' no-name guy.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is every other major network that does news (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are unabashed liberals.
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.
2) Their TV personalities are, without fail, conservatives. Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, all the Fox & Friends, and others. The *only* "liberal" on Fox is Alan Colmes, who is deliberately the weakest person they could find, both in his arguments and his appearance. He fulfills the stereotype people want to believe that liberals are spineless, emaciated cowards who will concede their arguments once pushed properly by the righteous conservative. It's a passion play no different than watching the old Saturday morning pro wrestling, where the big name guy, like the Iron Sheik, would fight (and destroy) ol' no-name guy.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is every other major network that does news (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are unabashed liberals.
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='lordwow']The problem is every other major network that does news (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are unabashed liberals.
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.[/QUOTE]
You're confounding journalists and editors (and guess who really gets to dictate the flow of the news), and you're also oversimplifying the "90% are liberal" point. First, while a majority, it's far less than 90% (though I don't recall what the number is). Second, their liberalism is strictly social - the same percentage considers themselves fiscally conservative, so it's a more complex issue than "the majority of the media is unabashedly liberal."
Besides the editors, at the very very top of the power structure lie multinational corporations. Corporations that clearly value their own interests first and foremost. You've never seen a genuine debate on the merits versus burdens of globalization on tv for that reason.
My simple question is this: if the media was so hell bent on putting forth a liberal agenda, all they would need to do is have Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky host the "ask us a stupid question and we'll embarrass the hell out of you" show, where they display their intellectal superiority to everyone. The fact that you get Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of nobody bloggers all over these new networks, and neither Chomsky nor Vidal, suggests to me that the notion of indoctrination into liberalism is false.
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.[/QUOTE]
You're confounding journalists and editors (and guess who really gets to dictate the flow of the news), and you're also oversimplifying the "90% are liberal" point. First, while a majority, it's far less than 90% (though I don't recall what the number is). Second, their liberalism is strictly social - the same percentage considers themselves fiscally conservative, so it's a more complex issue than "the majority of the media is unabashedly liberal."
Besides the editors, at the very very top of the power structure lie multinational corporations. Corporations that clearly value their own interests first and foremost. You've never seen a genuine debate on the merits versus burdens of globalization on tv for that reason.
My simple question is this: if the media was so hell bent on putting forth a liberal agenda, all they would need to do is have Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky host the "ask us a stupid question and we'll embarrass the hell out of you" show, where they display their intellectal superiority to everyone. The fact that you get Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of nobody bloggers all over these new networks, and neither Chomsky nor Vidal, suggests to me that the notion of indoctrination into liberalism is false.
[quote name='lordwow']The problem is every other major network that does news (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are unabashed liberals.
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.[/quote]
Yeah, they're mostly liberal (and all 24hr news networks suck anyway, as myke said, and whether they call themselves liberal or not they shouldn't be calling themselves journalists), but what we have to understand is why a lot of journalists consider themselves liberal. They mostly report on negative social issues like crime and poverty (here or abroad). Trying to understand crime and poverty on a deeper level is usually referred to as "liberal." I'm not saying conservative people don't care about the poor or why people commit crimes necessarily, but that the study of such things is usually considered to be a liberal thing and therefore almost anybody that does so is labeled a liberal and would consider themselves a liberal.
I mean, think about this: How many sociologists, psychologists, or social workers that work with things like poverty and crime would be considered conservative or consider themselves conservative (in the political realm anyway, there are plenty of religiously or socially conservative people that work with the poor)?
It seems sometimes that anybody right now that doesn't say "everything's going fantastically!" is considered a liberal. Especially currently with a conservative Republican administration anyone critical of that administration is considered to be a liberal.
How people label themselves doesn't come from what they think, but what others think and how others label them and other people. Journalism is considered to be a liberal field for the most part, so it's not surprising that people that go into it are liberal or later consider themselves liberal because of it.
That's simply my observation, correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: and a good point from myke about the economically conservative social liberals
Look at the field, 90% of journalists consider themselves Democrats and 85% consider themselves liberal. Most new-age media scholars believe that news should be biased anyway. The conservatives just flock to FOX News because they're sick of hearing the leftist spin on the rest of the news.[/quote]
Yeah, they're mostly liberal (and all 24hr news networks suck anyway, as myke said, and whether they call themselves liberal or not they shouldn't be calling themselves journalists), but what we have to understand is why a lot of journalists consider themselves liberal. They mostly report on negative social issues like crime and poverty (here or abroad). Trying to understand crime and poverty on a deeper level is usually referred to as "liberal." I'm not saying conservative people don't care about the poor or why people commit crimes necessarily, but that the study of such things is usually considered to be a liberal thing and therefore almost anybody that does so is labeled a liberal and would consider themselves a liberal.
I mean, think about this: How many sociologists, psychologists, or social workers that work with things like poverty and crime would be considered conservative or consider themselves conservative (in the political realm anyway, there are plenty of religiously or socially conservative people that work with the poor)?
It seems sometimes that anybody right now that doesn't say "everything's going fantastically!" is considered a liberal. Especially currently with a conservative Republican administration anyone critical of that administration is considered to be a liberal.
How people label themselves doesn't come from what they think, but what others think and how others label them and other people. Journalism is considered to be a liberal field for the most part, so it's not surprising that people that go into it are liberal or later consider themselves liberal because of it.
That's simply my observation, correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: and a good point from myke about the economically conservative social liberals
[quote name='elprincipe'] "four legs good, Fox baad! four legs good, Fox baad!" crowd around here in doing so.[/QUOTE]
i wasn't trying to belittle you, just point out how useless FNC is as a 'news source'
Myke summed up my thoughts perfectly, I couldn't say it any better than that
but the part i left quoted above was funny as shit.
i LOL'd
i wasn't trying to belittle you, just point out how useless FNC is as a 'news source'
Myke summed up my thoughts perfectly, I couldn't say it any better than that
but the part i left quoted above was funny as shit.
i LOL'd
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I, for one, do not eat potato chips.[/quote]
The right ones are very good though!
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, arguing that Fox is the highest rated new channel in the nation, and thus, by logical extension, they must be the best news station, is an absurd argument to make. There's no relationship whatsoever between the number of TV Viewers and the quality of a program.[/quote]
Beaten to the punch...this is exactly what I was going to respond with.
[quote name='mykevermin']Ultimately, while there's no substantive evidence that Fox shares a "fair and balanced" perspective (despite how popular you think they are), they share the same bias that all 24/7 news channels have: What matters isn't liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. What matters is this: are you watching or not? Their primary concern is making sure their ratings stay high so that they can charge their advertisers more. No news channel is in the business of informing you, they are all in the business of giving you to their advertisers and sponsors. Don't ever forget that. It's the primary reason that, liberal or conservative bias, we can all agree that there's more pure *shit* on the news than there is important and worthwhile news. I hold nothing but disgust for *any* network that uses the phrase "Anna Nicole" more times per hour than "Darfur." Sadly, that's all of them.[/QUOTE]
Agree on this as well, more than you can imagine.
The right ones are very good though!
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, arguing that Fox is the highest rated new channel in the nation, and thus, by logical extension, they must be the best news station, is an absurd argument to make. There's no relationship whatsoever between the number of TV Viewers and the quality of a program.[/quote]
Beaten to the punch...this is exactly what I was going to respond with.
[quote name='mykevermin']Ultimately, while there's no substantive evidence that Fox shares a "fair and balanced" perspective (despite how popular you think they are), they share the same bias that all 24/7 news channels have: What matters isn't liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. What matters is this: are you watching or not? Their primary concern is making sure their ratings stay high so that they can charge their advertisers more. No news channel is in the business of informing you, they are all in the business of giving you to their advertisers and sponsors. Don't ever forget that. It's the primary reason that, liberal or conservative bias, we can all agree that there's more pure *shit* on the news than there is important and worthwhile news. I hold nothing but disgust for *any* network that uses the phrase "Anna Nicole" more times per hour than "Darfur." Sadly, that's all of them.[/QUOTE]
Agree on this as well, more than you can imagine.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']i wasn't trying to belittle you, just point out how useless FNC is as a 'news source'[/QUOTE]
I can somewhat agree, albeit with the caveat that the other news networks are no better, if not worse...at least we have no evidence of Fox giving slanted coverage of dictators in exchange for exclusive access.
I can somewhat agree, albeit with the caveat that the other news networks are no better, if not worse...at least we have no evidence of Fox giving slanted coverage of dictators in exchange for exclusive access.
[quote name='elprincipe']I can somewhat agree, albeit with the caveat that the other news networks are no better, if not worse...at least we have no evidence of Fox giving slanted coverage of dictators in exchange for exclusive access.[/QUOTE]
look at these `caps
there are a gillion of them
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html#more
seriously... take your time and peruse
nothing but images that FNC has broadcast
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
look at these `caps
there are a gillion of them
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html#more
seriously... take your time and peruse
nothing but images that FNC has broadcast
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='PKRipp3r']
[/quote]
This is my favorite.
Look at those backdrops - the woman on the right looks like she's in front of the Eifell Tower - why don't they just put a beret on her and give her an accordian?
[/quote]
This is my favorite.
Look at those backdrops - the woman on the right looks like she's in front of the Eifell Tower - why don't they just put a beret on her and give her an accordian?
bread's done