Dean: Fox News is Republican Propaganda Outlet

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Wow, Dean's really calling them out lately:

Dean: Fox News Is Republican Propaganda Outlet

Responding to comments by Vice President Dick Cheney on a Fox News telecast Sunday morning, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a Chicago audience Sunday afternoon, "My view is Fox News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on Fox News." Dean's comments came at the Rainbow-PUSH coalition conference after he was strongly criticized earlier in the week by Democratic strategist David Axelrod, who said that the party was unlikely to lure Republican voters "if the chairman of the Democratic Party is out there gratuitously characterizing all Republicans in a truly nasty way."

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-06-13/#tv5
 
Rich: ABC, NBC, and CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and every other newspaper ever are Democratic Propaganda Outlet
 
[quote name='Rich']Rich: ABC, NBC, and CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and every other newspaper ever are Democratic Propaganda Outlet[/QUOTE]Well, they must all be doing a really shitty job if "every newspaper ever" can't even elect a president. That's some weak-ass propaganda considering they control the entire media.
 
The funniest part of Cheney's statment was

"He's never won anything, as best I can tell," Cheney said in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.

Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000. And just won the DNC chair.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Well, they must all be doing a really shitty job if "every newspaper ever" can't even elect a president. That's some weak-ass propaganda considering they control the entire media.[/QUOTE]

You won't find get an argument out of me.

They do a shitty job. They don't even cover their asses when they try to forge shit, ala Rathergate.

You're right, though, to a point. They control the entire old media, but since the dawn of the new media, the liberal lock has been challenged. Go talk radio and internet!
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, Rich, I think we can all agree that most of the media is simply not doing their job.[/QUOTE]

Well, Jon Stewart is an exception. :D

I don't take anything I see in the news regarding politics, right or left, with more than a grain of salt.
 
[quote name='Rich']Rich: ABC, NBC, and CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and every other newspaper ever are Democratic Propaganda Outlet[/QUOTE]

If "every other newspaper" are Democratic Propaganda Outlets, why did the Chicago Tribune endorse George W. Bush?

It is a gross overstatement that the media is inherently "liberal." There are liberal reporters and columnists out there competing with the conservative reporters and columnists. But, news is just news. Editorials are where bias is exposed and the majority out there are generally neutral with certain topics going one way, and other topics going the other. Few media sources are blatantly skewed one way or the other unless intentional. Fewer still are skewed and claim not to be (i.e. Fox News).
 
Dean is either a scheme by Hilary to get herself elected in 2008 or a complete idiot that doesn't realize how much he is helping the republican party.

And anyone with eyes and ears should know that most of the major media is liberal. Fox gets bashed every day simply for being conservative and you people still have the nerve to say the major media isn't mostly liberal. :roll:
 
I wish I knew where my "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" book by Bernard Goldberg was...then I'd be able to give you the voting habits of newsmen and women as well as countless first hand examples of bias in the news.

[font=arial, helvetica] This comes from the pen of a man who was a correspondent for CBS News, having worked inside the company for 28 years. Nor is the author part of the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy” imagined by Hillary Clinton. Since Bernie Goldberg first broke his silence and went public with an op-ed piece on media bias in the Wall Street Journal in February 1996, he had never voted for a single Republican.[/font]
Click to expand...

He was ostracized and all but fired, btw, for that op-ed, btw.

I found this:

chart0604_1.gif


chart0604_2.gif


chart0604_5.gif


--
http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp
 
You can vote 100% Republican or 100% Democrat and still give unbiased, impartial news reports. That's what good journalists do.

Of course if you want to argue that an overwhelming majority of reporters vote Democratic, I would say that since they cover politics so closely, they must know best. :lol:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Notice the source?:roll:[/QUOTE]

Notice what I said? "I found this"

It was a very quick google search.
 
[quote name='Rich']Notice what I said? "I found this"

It was a very quick google search.[/QUOTE]

Yes, one would hope you would have recognized the site.
 
Found it in the Goldberg book:

Here, from the "Freedom Forum, an independent foundatino that examines issues that involve the medua and The Roper Center, an opinion research firm with a solid reputation."

"89% of journalists said they voted for Clinton in 92, compared to 43% of nonjournalist votets"
"7% of journalists voted for Bush, 37% of voters did"
"2% of news people for Perot, 19% for electorate"

"23% of public describe themselves as liberal, 55 of journalists"
"56 of public favored Reagan, 30 of journalists favored Reagan"
"49 public for abortion, 82 journalists"
"74 prayer in public school, 25 journalists"
"56 public affirmative action, 81 journalists"
"75 public death penalty, 47 journalists"
"50 public stricter handgun control, 78 journalists"
 
If you think American Media is "liberal" then you don't know what "liberal" means.

By the way Rich..reporters don't make news or decide what gets printed. Editor's and is some cases media owner's do. That same Roper study also showed that only 32% of editors were "liberal"

From studies of the elite national press to those focused on medium- and small-town newspapers, working journalists consistently register positive on the liberal litmus test and have since the 1930s when Leo Rosten first examined the character, background and practices of the Washington press corps.

To many critics, these studies offer definitive evidence of a pervasive liberal bias among the nation’s journalists. But this is far too simplistic. Among other things, these critics ignore the political predilections of publishers and media owners, which are and have always been overwhelmingly conservative. They ignore the tilt of newspaper editorial endorsements, which frequently favor Republican candidates, often in the face of popular sentiment. They ignore the influence of market forces, which serve as a natural check on journalistic partisanship. They ignore the professional principles to which credible journalists subscribe. They ignore the astonishing diversity of the American press. And, perhaps most importantly, they ignore the conspicuous paucity of research demonstrating a pervasive bias in news content.


http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/97.jan-feb/dennis1.htm
 
By the way Rich..reporters don't make news or decide what gets printed. Editor's do.
Click to expand...

Don't dig your own grave. It should be common sense that if most reporters that are hired are liberal it means that those who hire them do so because they are liberal. Thus it means that there is liberal saturation all the way to the top. What are you going to say next that Ted Turner isn't liberal??
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Don't dig your own grave. It should be common sense that if most reporters that are hired are liberal it means that those who hire them do so because they are liberal. Thus it means that there is liberal saturation all the way to the top. What are you going to say next that Ted Turner isn't liberal??[/QUOTE]

Um not really. They hire them because they probably think they are good writers. lol..common sense...more like uncommon stupidity

Besides the same studies Rich was citing show that the higher up you go, the more conservative the news gets.

Furthermore if reporters are slavishly liberal..why did Gore have by more negative stories written about him than Bush in 2000?

Bush and Gore received roughly the same amount of coverage, with Bush dominating 24% of the stories and Gore 29%. Another 47% were equally about both candidates. This was true across print, television and the Internet.

But the parity ends quickly. As we found in two of the earlier studies, Bush continues to benefit more than Gore from press coverage. As outlined above, 24% of Bush stories were positive, nearly double the 13% for Gore.

In contrast, the coverage of Gore was more negative. A full 56% of the Gore stories had a negative tone, compared to 49% for Bush. The remaining stories were neutral.

Stories that focused equally on both candidates were more neutral in tone, but the critical treatment of Gore still emerged. Twelve percent were negative toward Gore, while only 8% more were negative toward Bush.
In addition, while the numbers are small, Bush was twice as likely to enjoy positive coverage in these comparative stories, 7% versus 3% for Gore.

These findings are consistent with patterns we found earlier in the campaign. In a study of primary coverage leading up to the conventions, we found the press far more likely to cover the subjects Bush wanted to run on-such as the idea that he was a different kind of Republican-than it was to cover the subjects that Gore wanted to run on-such as his knowledge and experience.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/bushgore.asp
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Don't dig your own grave. It should be common sense that if most reporters that are hired are liberal it means that those who hire them do so because they are liberal. Thus it means that there is liberal saturation all the way to the top. What are you going to say next that Ted Turner isn't liberal??[/QUOTE]

No, it's common sense that people get hired because they are qualified for the job, not due to any political affiliation.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']No, it's common sense that people get hired because they are qualified for the job, not due to any political affiliation.[/QUOTE]

:lol:
My ass they do.


That's why Bernard Goldberg was so ostracised for his WSJ op-ed.

usickenme--i'd whip out the stats of coveraged on AIDS and homelessness from the media, but it's not worth typing out.
 
For anyone with more then half a brain, Dean's comments aren't news.

Faux News: Fairly Balanced

It's only common sense that most media reporters will vote liberal, after all to work in the news business you need to know how to write and pronounce the word "nuclear".
 
[quote name='Rich']:lol:
My ass they do.


That's why Bernard Goldberg was so ostracised for his WSJ op-ed.

usickenme--i'd whip out the stats of coveraged on AIDS and homelessness from the media, but it's not worth typing out.[/QUOTE]


Have you ever worked for a newspaper or know anyone that does? Have you been asked your pollitical affiliation for any job? I never have and those I know who work at newspapers haven't either.

I don't doubt that you will find some interesting stats on AIDS and homelessness. But those points to 2 main problems with the Media..sensationalism (AIDS) and laziness (reporting bad information on homelessness).
 
Dean Who?

This is the leader of an increasingly irrelevant party who has lost how many elections?

What a waste of a thread.
 
Um not really. They hire them because they probably think they are good writers. lol..common sense...more like uncommon stupidity
Click to expand...

Right, right. Just like all the liberal teachers infesting our college schools. It's purely a coincidence. It has nothing to do with liberals hiring more liberals to continue their agenda in the college institution. They're all good teachers and it's only by chance that the majority are liberal.

This kind of ignorance is special.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Right, right. Just like all the liberal teachers infesting our college schools. It's purely a coincidence. It has nothing to do with liberals hiring more liberals to continue their agenda in the college institution. They're all good teachers and it's only by chance that the majority are liberal.

This kind of ignorance is special.[/QUOTE]

Majority? Many schools don't have a SINGLE conservative, and if they do, they're not allowed to teach their ideals.
 
[quote name='Rich']Majority? Many schools don't have a SINGLE conservative, and if they do, they're not allowed to teach their ideals.[/QUOTE]


That's because colleges only want to teach things that are worth learning.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']That's because colleges only want to teach things that are worth learning.[/QUOTE]

Yup, that kind of ignorance is special, Scrubking.
 
[quote name='Rich']Rich: ABC, NBC, and CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and every other newspaper ever are Democratic Propaganda Outlet[/QUOTE]

Mookyjooky: Rich finds yet another reason to start and arguement and flame-bait by arguing simply nothing. His bullshit makes no sense, but he spews so much of it, people either start believing it... or fight to the death over a stupid thread in the first place over it.
 
Oh noes! Arguments in the Vs. Forum!

FOR SHAME!

A vs forum with nothing but liberal ideals would be as fun as sausage fest.

I bet you love sausages fests.
 
[quote name='Rich']Majority? Many schools don't have a SINGLE conservative, and if they do, they're not allowed to teach their ideals.[/QUOTE]

I'd say it's more due to the fact that any good capitalist will make more in the private sector than they will in the public. Why teach when you can make an extra 20K doing something productive.

And if you'd like to find some conservatives take a look in the buisness school.
 
[quote name='Rich']Oh noes! Arguments in the Vs. Forum!

FOR SHAME!

A vs forum with nothing but liberal ideals would be as fun as sausage fest.

I bet you love sausages fests.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I love "Sausages Fests". Not only are the Sausages plural...but the fests are as well.

Dude, CAG is pretty equal. You just argue retarded shit...and make conservatives look bad.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']No, it's common sense that people get hired because they are qualified for the job, not due to any political affiliation.[/QUOTE]



LOL, right. Just like teachers don't favor students of their same political beliefs. Nice.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Mookyjooky: Rich finds yet another reason to start and arguement and flame-bait by arguing simply nothing. His bullshit makes no sense, but he spews so much of it, people either start believing it... or fight to the death over a stupid thread in the first place over it.[/QUOTE]


Flamebait? Wtf man, this whole thread is flamebait. Just look at the f'n title.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']LOL, right. Just like teachers don't favor students of their same political beliefs. Nice.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I knew a student who failed a paper because the professor made the class write papers on gay marriage, and he wrote against it only to find out after that the teacher was gay.

dmpolska--you answer him seriously?
 
[quote name='Rich']I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I knew a student who failed a paper because the professor made the class write papers on gay marriage, and he wrote against it only to find out after that the teacher was gay.

dmpolska--you answer him seriously?[/QUOTE]


lol. I can never answer seriously to democrats. They hide their head in their ass half the time. I love in liberal New York, and I can also say I get in trouble when I try to go against a preaching democrating "we went to iraq for oil" teacher. All democrats are hypocrites. They cry when something offends them and they cry "bigot" all the time, then they say Anti-Catholic remarks and expect to get off scotch free.

Don't worry... I'm working to become a lawyer/politician so when I get older I can work on permanantly bannig gay marriage. :)
 
[quote name='Rich']Majority? Many schools don't have a SINGLE conservative, and if they do, they're not allowed to teach their ideals.[/QUOTE]

With conservative views often what they are, is it any wonder? For a college professor to denounce gay rights, multiculturalism etc. in a class would clearly be taken as an attack or offensive by many students in that school, and that class (assuming it's not some back woods all white college). Most schools don't want their professors insulting and offending the students.

To clarify, I'm not attacking conservative views, just stating that some conservative positions to not lend themselves to a positive and productive student/teacher environment.

Though good luck on that dmp. Whatever short term civil rights losses there are, I know in the end liberal (more tolerant) views have a much higher succes rate than conservative ones on issues of civil rights. Delay it all you want, I have little doubt that eventually the anti gay rights side will lose.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']With conservative views often what they are, is it any wonder? For a college professor to denounce gay rights, multiculturalism etc. in a class would clearly be taken as an attack or offensive by many students in that school, and that class (assuming it's not some back woods all white college). Most schools don't want their professors insulting and offending the students.

To clarify, I'm not attacking conservative views, just stating that some conservative positions to not lend themselves to a positive and productive student/teacher environment.

Though good luck on that dmp. Whatever short term civil rights losses there are, I know in the end liberal (more tolerant) views have a much higher succes rate than conservative ones on issues of civil rights. Delay it all you want, I have little doubt that eventually the anti gay rights side will lose.[/QUOTE]


But it's 100% okay if a liberal college professor denounces religion and offends people.

It's okay if the anti-gay rights side will eventually lose, because there will always be people denouncing gays anyhow. Good luck with that.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']But it's 100% okay if a liberal college professor denounces religion and offends people.

It's okay if the anti-gay rights side will eventually lose, because there will always be people denouncing gays anyhow. Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

Just like Republicans still denouncing the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Just like Republicans still denouncing the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements.[/QUOTE]

Civil rights? No. Woman's right to an abortion? Yes--and hopefully Roe Vs Wade will be overturned ;)

We'll keep working on fixing the problems, don't worry.
 
[quote name='Rich']Majority? Many schools don't have a SINGLE conservative, and if they do, they're not allowed to teach their ideals.[/QUOTE]

Gee, Catholic schools are now getting federal vouchers (that's my tax money)

Many schools in the south bus the kids to a bible class halfway through the day.

You really think there aren't going to teach conservative values in Jesus bootcamp?
 
[quote name='dmpolska']But it's 100% okay if a liberal college professor denounces religion and offends people.

It's okay if the anti-gay rights side will eventually lose, because there will always be people denouncing gays anyhow. Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

There's a difference into arguing science in a science class that goes against religious teaching from outright denouncing religion. One should be encouraged, another (actually denouncing it) is not ok. If there was science that was pertinent to the subject and offensive to gays then so be it, that's not the case. That is the case with religion.

Though I agree, anti gay rights crowd will still have their place, right next to the anti hispanics and anti black people. :lol:
 
dmp and Rich obviously listen to too much Michael Wiener (Savage) and regurgitate everything they hear. (although I suspect that dmpolska is someone's alter ego)

One look at the level of their discourse is all you need to see. Dumb people aren't worth my time.
 
[quote name='usickenme']dmp and Rich obviously listen to too much Michael Wiener (Savage) and regurgitate everything they here. (although I suspect that dmpolska is someone's alter ego)

One look at the level of their discourse is all you need to see. Dumb people aren't worth my time.[/QUOTE]


Who the f is Savage?

And I'm glad you don't think we're dumb, since you spent that time ranting in your little post.

BTW, I'm Bush's alter ego ;)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There's a difference into arguing science in a science class that goes against religious teaching from outright denouncing religion. One should be encouraged, another (actually denouncing it) is not ok. If there was science that was pertinent to the subject and offensive to gays then so be it, that's not the case. That is the case with religion.

Though I agree, anti gay rights crowd will still have their place, right next to the anti hispanics and anti black people. :lol:[/QUOTE]


No one said anything about a science class. I don't know what you're talking about...

But yeah you're right... anti-black groups are definitely the equivalent in size to anti-gay groups. Keep dreaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top