Air America Goes Under

[quote name='JolietJake']I saw one of his books on my former boss's desk one day, couldn't believe it. The guy's name is fitting at least, he is savage.[/QUOTE]

His real last name is Weiner, and...

...that joke's been done to death.
 
[quote name='Krymner']Thanks but no thanks. I'm not interested in any wealth-envy crap. I don't care how much wealth other people make, steal, borrow, or bleed, and I don't care how much they pay or don't pay to the government. It just doesn't interest me at all personally, and doesn't make me upset either way.[/quote]

You even threw steal in there, astonishing.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The one claim that a lot of conservatives make, above all the others, which has befuddled me, is the claims of liberal bias in the media. Millions of people every day listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage on the radio, while one of the few liberal radio outlets has just collapsed.

Books written by these and other authors like O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter almost always debut and spend weeks in the top 10 of the NY Time Best Seller list, while similar books by more liberal authors go ignored.

FOX News annhilates just about everyone else on cable. Sure, maybe the liberals still have the Newspapers, but nobody reads those and most of them are struggling to survive. So even if there IS a liberal bias in media (and I'm not saying there is), be it CNN, MSNBC, or any of the Network Nightly News programs, what does it matter, since most people clearly aren't paying much attention to these outlets anyways.[/QUOTE]

Conservatives usually refer to studies showing that 90+% of journalists vote Democratic. They have a point. However, as the years have gone on and new media has become that much more important, these institutional biases are being wiped away. Sure, MSNBC and to a lesser extent CNN lean left, but Fox destroys their combined audiences and they lean right. Less and less people watch the nightly news, and more and more get their news from the Internet (or, perhaps even scarier, Stewart/Colbert). The biggest downside, actually, is that with the Internet more and more people can, and do, tune out facts and opinions that don't fit into their worldview, and IMO it contributes to a rise in partisanship.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And since when is Chris Matthews a liberal?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps talk of him running for Senate as a Democrat in Pennsylvania, or when he got a "thrill up his leg" listening to Obama's speeches gave him away.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's perhaps the same folly as the Libertarians who fail to realize that, in order to become recognized as a legitimate third party, they need to stop focusing their efforts at national-level politics and, instead, start local and build legitimacy as the city, county, and state level. Ignoring that and funding a jobber every 4 years hasn't done a thing for their movement.[/QUOTE]

The bigger problem for the libertarian movement are the libertarians themselves. Anarchists hate the minarchists (and anyone else who isn't them), non-interventionist libertarians have squabbles with neo-libertarians, civil and fiscal libertarians often go for the democratic and republican parties out of the (I would say false, as democrats aren't doing well in protecting civil liberties, and republicans aren't doing well fiscally) realization that voting third party won't advance their causes, anarcho-communists fight with anarcho-capitalists... you can see where I'm going with this.

There aren't many people who run for office that represent all, or most, of these view points, and until more strong libertarians attempt a run at office, local voters will continue to get picked off by establishment scum interested in a grab bag of policy options. The most recent and well publicized example of this is the tea party movement.

There's also the issue with special interests being against the movement, too. A strong libertarian candidate is going to have special interests and the establishment against them, and will be strongly opposed in a state or national House/Senate seat. I don't want to say that a strong third party rising from the libertarian realm of ideas will never happen, but it's unlikely - for all of these reasons - that it will occur any time in the next couple of decades.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Conservatives usually refer to studies showing that 90+% of journalists vote Democratic. They have a point. However, as the years have gone on and new media has become that much more important, these institutional biases are being wiped away. Sure, MSNBC and to a lesser extent CNN lean left, but Fox destroys their combined audiences and they lean right. Less and less people watch the nightly news, and more and more get their news from the Internet (or, perhaps even scarier, Stewart/Colbert). The biggest downside, actually, is that with the Internet more and more people can, and do, tune out facts and opinions that don't fit into their worldview, and IMO it contributes to a rise in partisanship.[/QUOTE]

A few things: (1) journalists as people ain't journalists as journalists. That poll is weak at best, spurious and misleading is more likely. (2) assert the media's liberalism. for me? please? i'm so tired of this being asserted as a taken-for-granted fact, and that so many people in the US was to cram their confirmatory bias into my brain. gimmie a grain of fact, a nugget of truth, some qualitative study of some type that used content analysis on news programs or newspaper articles. (3) FOX News does not "lean right," it is an unabashed news arm of the Republican party that (a) delivers talking points verbatim from the RNC, (b) has 100% ultraconservative commentators that occupy almost all of their prime time programming, leaving no time for genuine news broadcasts let alone a liberal voice, and (c) has EVERY (I REPEAT EVERY) presumed major Republican presidential candidate for 2012 on their payroll - Romney, Huckabee, and Palin.

This is not an issue of balance in the slightest. FOX does not lean right, they barrel right at 250 miles an hour and their brake pads are worn out. You're a smart guy, elprincipe, so please stop with the false equivalency that your posts have been dripping in lately. General cynicism towards both parties is fine, but don't take that attitude to the illogical conclusion that both parties are equally deceptive in the media, or equally abusive.

As for your point on Chris Matthews, I'll concede that he's a Democrat (obviously), but that hardly paints him as a "liberal."

Abscess, you've described a lot of problems the Dems have too (where issues like civil rights find plenty of disagreement between, say, labor interests and environmental interests). But I disagree with your larger point b/c special interests aren't much of an issue at all in sub-state level elections (where the most important growth sector is) - not to mention the Democrats are dysfunctional as fuck and manage to get elected (for whatever reason).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A few things: (1) journalists as people ain't journalists as journalists. That poll is weak at best, spurious and misleading is more likely. (2) assert the media's liberalism. for me? please? i'm so tired of this being asserted as a taken-for-granted fact, and that so many people in the US was to cram their confirmatory bias into my brain. gimmie a grain of fact, a nugget of truth, some qualitative study of some type that used content analysis on news programs or newspaper articles. (3) FOX News does not "lean right," it is an unabashed news arm of the Republican party that (a) delivers talking points verbatim from the RNC, (b) has 100% ultraconservative commentators that occupy almost all of their prime time programming, leaving no time for genuine news broadcasts let alone a liberal voice, and (c) has EVERY (I REPEAT EVERY) presumed major Republican presidential candidate for 2012 on their payroll - Romney, Huckabee, and Palin.

This is not an issue of balance in the slightest. FOX does not lean right, they barrel right at 250 miles an hour and their brake pads are worn out. You're a smart guy, elprincipe, so please stop with the false equivalency that your posts have been dripping in lately. General cynicism towards both parties is fine, but don't take that attitude to the illogical conclusion that both parties are equally deceptive in the media, or equally abusive.[/QUOTE]

There's no false equivalency. You know from what I've posted on this board that I call a spade a spade, how I see it.

Fox is sometimes lean right, sometimes hard right. I think you're going overboard on them, as the White House did last year. Fox is as "hard right" as MSNBC is "hard left." It doesn't really matter, as the point is that whoever you get your news from you need to be aware that agendas and biases are everywhere in this stuff. There just aren't programs on cable news channels, or network TV news for that matter, that are even close to objective nowadays. Just my opinion: always look for another viewpoint because if you only hear one, you're probably missing half the story.

Sorry you disagree on journalists. This fact has been confirmed in every study/poll that I've seen. If you have some info that says otherwise, I'm all ears.

And BTW, I'm much more than cynical about both major parties. I'm anti-both major parties. If I could push a button today and destroy every last vestige of the Democratic and Republican Parties, I wouldn't hesitate. They are both malicious organizations, bad actors, and detrimental to the prosperity and progress of our country.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A few things: (1) journalists as people ain't journalists as journalists. That poll is weak at best, spurious and misleading is more likely. [/QUOTE]

Exactly, showing how someone voted is in no way proof that there reporting was misleading.

A journalist can be objective in showing both sides of the story, and just reporting the news like they were trained in j-school.

That doesn't mean they're going to go cast their ballot for 50% democrats and 50% republicans to be fair and balanced in their personal life as well!

I think a lot of the problem comes from people including anyone on a news channel/program, writing for a newspaper/news magazine to be journalists. When the talking heads, columnists etc. are thing of the sort. They are commentators catering to a particular ideological bent.

Fox news is the only one I've seen any evidence of the actual news reporting being biased form any major network or newspaper with cases of putting a (D) beside a republican's name when there was a scandal, not covering certain things etc. etc. outlined various places over the years.

Most every news source leans a certain way in their commentary/opinion columns, shows, segments etc. But most are fair in the actual reporting of the news. And that's all I pay attention to. Sure the NY times opinion page tends to lean to the left. But I don't read it. I read it (online) for the outstanding reporting of national an international news.
 
I really can't see how the other major news networks are as biased as FOX is. And a lot of their recent more liberal commentators exist almost entirely in reaction to FOX. FOX barely even has a conservative bias, it's more or less simply Republican.

The attacks on the media are a Republican venture, and they've used those false accusations, etc. to set up their own media outlets that are far more biased in order to win the "information war", so to speak. Unlike many other news outlets currently and in the past, objectivity is not even on their radar, they have no aspirations of being objective in any way. They exist only to push certain political agendas.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There's no false equivalency. You know from what I've posted on this board that I call a spade a spade, how I see it.

Fox is sometimes lean right, sometimes hard right. I think you're going overboard on them, as the White House did last year. Fox is as "hard right" as MSNBC is "hard left." It doesn't really matter, as the point is that whoever you get your news from you need to be aware that agendas and biases are everywhere in this stuff. There just aren't programs on cable news channels, or network TV news for that matter, that are even close to objective nowadays. Just my opinion: always look for another viewpoint because if you only hear one, you're probably missing half the story.

Sorry you disagree on journalists. This fact has been confirmed in every study/poll that I've seen. If you have some info that says otherwise, I'm all ears.

And BTW, I'm much more than cynical about both major parties. I'm anti-both major parties. If I could push a button today and destroy every last vestige of the Democratic and Republican Parties, I wouldn't hesitate. They are both malicious organizations, bad actors, and detrimental to the prosperity and progress of our country.[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on, dude. You're relying on your conclusion to justify your conclusion. That's hardly a good argument.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I really can't see how the other major news networks are as biased as FOX is. And a lot of their recent more liberal commentators exist almost entirely in reaction to FOX. FOX barely even has a conservative bias, it's more or less simply Republican.

The attacks on the media are a Republican venture, and they've used those false accusations, etc. to set up their own media outlets that are far more biased in order to win the "information war", so to speak. Unlike many other news outlets currently and in the past, objectivity is not even on their radar, they have no aspirations of being objective in any way. They exist only to push certain political agendas.[/QUOTE]

MSNBC in the afternoon is pretty partisan as well. Olbermann did have Howard Dean sit in for him while he was out, you really don't get much more partisan then that.

Now that I've said that, Gretchen Carlson of Fox News has to be the stupidest person on TV. Seriously.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I love Car Talk and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and listen to Fresh Air and All Things Considered on the way to/from work and school.[/QUOTE]


Awesome shows. Love Car Talk. Click and Clack are hilarious.

I have an opinion why liberal radio failed, but I'm at work and need time to put my opinion down.
 
[quote name='camoor']MSNBC in the afternoon is pretty partisan as well. Olbermann did have Howard Dean sit in for him while he was out, you really don't get much more partisan then that.

Now that I've said that, Gretchen Carlson of Fox News has to be the stupidest person on TV. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know Olbermann is partisan, but his show has been on since 2003, long after FOX had perfected that kind of TV - following in the footsteps of right-wing radio. I'm just saying that by their narrative they would have you believe that the partisan commentators on FOX news are simply the counterpoint to a long-existing liberal agenda followed by everybody else in the media, but really it was their shtick from the beginning and that kind of not-even-trying-to-be-objective "news" production is their own creation. They just use the "liberal media" scapegoat to justify themselves.
 
Not to mention FOX News had a hand in campaigning for Scott Brown and they are the single biggest, most unabashed and unashamed cheerleaders of the tea party movement.

They are propaganda. There is absolutely nothing even close to FOX News on the liberal side.

They would die if the fairness doctrine were ever brought back.
 
[quote name='camoor']MSNBC in the afternoon is pretty partisan as well. Olbermann did have Howard Dean sit in for him while he was out, you really don't get much more partisan then that.

Now that I've said that, Gretchen Carlson of Fox News has to be the stupidest person on TV. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much all the talking heads and talk shows on all the news channels are partisan (aside from the Sunday Morning network shows).

The point being made was that Fox News is the only one that's been shown partisan in the straight reporting of the news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who listen to Fresh Air, look on their website for the Al Franken interview and the Bill O'Reilly interview, both done in 2003.

It's kind of funny to listen to the tone of both interviews. Most of the interviews I've heard Terri do have been with writers and such. She took a really combative tone with Billo compared to Franken. I think Billo has a point that she gave Franken a pass and took a tougher tone with Billo. That said, Billo really knows how to exaggerate. Listen to the full interview and post what you think.
 
It is weird how liberal radio has never taken root. I can't stand conservative radio because it's basically just a bunch of loud people name-calling and trying to convince me that Satan and Obama are related.

And regarding kevin's comment that he thinks old people are more likely to be conservative because they're scared of change...I think that's a very presumptious explanation. Perhaps since people tend to make considerably more as they get older and advance in their career, they become more opposed to higher taxes and social welfare programs. It's easier to volunteer someone else's money to pay for things you are mildly in favor of, but when it's your money, you get a bit more defensive.

Rush, Hannity, and Michael Weiner (Savage) could all be yanked off the air though, and I'd be more included to search the bands.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
I think that's a very presumptious explanation. Perhaps since people tend to make considerably more as they get older and advance in their career, they become more opposed to higher taxes and social welfare programs. It's easier to volunteer someone else's money to pay for things you are mildly in favor of, but when it's your money, you get a bit more defensive.
[/QUOTE]

That explains fiscal conservatives (or is a possible explanation anyway).

It doesn't explain social conservatism, and these conservative talk shows spend plenty of time on issues like abortion, gay marriage, tough on crime policies etc. etc.--not just issues of government spending.
 
I can kind of understand why she would be harder on O'Really than Frankenberry. It's the same way that a conservative on fox news may be given a soft interview versus a liberal guest getting the opposite. If you know the person you're interviewing is going to react negatively to something, you almost have to be stricter about the interview, otherwise they'll take control. Plus some like O'Reily is a pretty strong personality, to put it bluntly, the dude is loud.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Abscess, you've described a lot of problems the Dems have too (where issues like civil rights find plenty of disagreement between, say, labor interests and environmental interests). But I disagree with your larger point b/c special interests aren't much of an issue at all in sub-state level elections (where the most important growth sector is) - not to mention the Democrats are dysfunctional as fuck and manage to get elected (for whatever reason).[/QUOTE]

I know. It starts with city councils, county office positions, then positions like state house seats can be explored. Even if many of the libertarian minded people my age started jumping into that path now, we wouldn't make it onto the national scene with any sort of numbers for another 20 years, at minimum. But the focus at the moment is federal level Senate and House seats, and libertarians don't stand much fo a chance in that fight at this point.
 
More or less the point - 20 years is the short estimate because aiming high at federal congressional seats won't happen spontaneously, ever, shy of the occasional one-off every few decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top