More Evidence of liberal media bias

Scrubking

Scrubking

CAGiversary!
These are the number of conservative vs. liberal op-ed columnists employed by these major newspapers according to the O'reilly factor tonight.

NY Times
4 liberals, 1 conservative

LA Times
3 liberals, 1 conservative

NY Daily News
5 liberals, 1 conservative

Washington post
11 liberals, 4 conservatives

NY Post
0 liberals, 10 conservatives

Chigaco Tribune
6 liberals, 1 conservative

Houston Chronicle
2 liberals, 0 conservatives

Boston Globe
4 liberals, 1 conservative

Atlanta General
3 liberals, 0 conservatives
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']ahh a very reliable source. I bet his survey methods were fair and balanced[/quote]

I'm sure you prefer CNN. :rofl:
 
Wow, we really need to do something about the NY Post, its out of hand. You do realize that, especially when it comes to print media, that being liberal kind of goes with the job. This is kind of like saying that hunters like to kill animals...
 
It's a good thing he didn't analyze talk radio or his own network.

of the top 20 newspapers he included 9 leaving out #1 and #2.

Wall Street Journal and USA Today. (WSJ has a decided conservative bias)
 
The biggest irony is that proponents of Classic Liberalism (somewhat similar to the modern-day Libertarians) would also disagree with the ethos of the current big government, big spending, plutocratic Republican party. Therefore both types of liberals - the type that thinks government should govern and regulate only when it is absolutely necessary AND the type that wants government to treat ALL people equally and help the poor, discriminated, and impoverished - will disagree with the policies and actions of the current American government. No wonder Our Leader and his echo-chamber of yes men are working so hard to make Liberal the number-one dirty word in American speech.
 
I'm just amazed that the O'reilly team had the skill to go through 9 newspapers and determine whether someone was a liberal or conservative. You'd think with that many people it must be rather difficult to fit them all into such perfect little categories.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It's a good thing he didn't analyze talk radio or his own network.

of the top 20 newspapers he included 9 leaving out #1 and #2.

Wall Street Journal and USA Today. (WSJ has a decided conservative bias)[/quote]

So it seems that, what we have here is, a list showing that some news sources are more liberal while ignoring the other half that are supposedly conservative. I also would guess that it was much easier for a staff member to be counted as a liberal than it was to be conservative, to give the best support to his argument.
 
I just wonder about Bill's "liberal" and "conservative" criteria. Do the liberals hang up on you when you call and talk about your loofah fantasies, or are those the conservatives?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I just wonder about Bill's "liberal" and "conservative" criteria. Do the liberals hang up on you when you call and talk about your loofah fantasies, or are those the conservatives?[/quote]

:lol:
 
Cmon you gotta love the guy.

And he shows just as many negative views about himself on the show as he does positives...who does that?
 
NY Times
4 liberals, 1 conservative

Brooks and Safire?

Maybe one retired but I thought that would be in the future.
 
Hahaha the same liberal media that is owned by a decreasing number of big conservative corporations?

Next you're going to tell me how white male Christians are oppressed, right? Please.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Hahaha the same liberal media that is owned by a decreasing number of big conservative corporations?

Next you're going to tell me how white male Christians are oppressed, right? Please.[/quote]

Great sig :lol:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I just wonder about Bill's "liberal" and "conservative" criteria. Do the liberals hang up on you when you call and talk about your loofah fantasies, or are those the conservatives?[/quote]

Why defend this? Who cares if there's a "liberal" media bias? Its not like they even effect the influence of elections or anything, otherwise Kerry would be Prez right now. So there's a liberal media bias and a conservative radio bias, who the hell really cares? Pick what you like and skip the rest. BTW, and I know its off topic but, I'd love to kick that self righteous, smug prick O'Reilly square in the sac.
 
Here's a simple test, that's far more illuminating than the number of op-ed columnists that are judged to be "liberal" or "conservative" based on some really vague subjective criteria:

If Clinton had gotten softball questions from, and given classified information relating to an undercover CIA operative to, an ex male escort/pimp who had no journalism credentials and worked for a "news" organization that was strongly tied to a partisan outfit that was operating under a pseudonym, would we be hearing about it as little in the media as we're hearing about "Jeff Gannon"?

There is no liberal bias in the media. Period.

seppo
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='ElwoodCuse']Hahaha the same liberal media that is owned by a decreasing number of big conservative corporations?

Next you're going to tell me how white male Christians are oppressed, right? Please.[/quote]

White male Christians are oppressed[/quote]

Thanks for that link, I had missed that. What's great is that I don't have to listen any of the conservative talk show hosts (laura ingraham, michael savage, michael medved, etc.) anymore, I just have to read Scrubking's latest post to see what their current pissy problem is.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Hey Red, I thought you usually floated more toward the conservative side. Am I thinking of somebody else or no?[/quote]

Haha Well, I've always considered myself a very liberal republican (liberal for social issues and republican for government issues, hell I've been all for gay marriage for quite a while now). In the past couple months though, I've drastically changed my overall opinion.

I've grown increasingly sick of the republican crap. I keep thinking more and more about it and now I am pretty much all for most of the democrat's ideas. I am really tired of this "America needs to police the world" mentality that seems to flowing from the republicans too. I already posted this, and I know its a little extreme, but I feel like America is beginning to act like the Soviet Union during the cold war. We feel the need to make every country in the world into a democracy and its not our responsibility to decide for other nations what type of government they have. Not that I condone what the Iraqi insurgents are doing, but what they are doing, at its most basic level, isn't much different than what created our country. We see our founders as patriots, but England, back then and probably still, saw them as rebels.

I turn on the radio to listen to conservative talk shows and I just cringe at the things they say now. For some reason I just can't stomach the republican point of view anymore. As long as Hillary isn't the democratic candidate in '08, I'll probably be voting democrat.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: true conservatism and true liberalism aren't actually all that far apart. The Republican party parted ways with conservatism a long time ago. At this point, its basically controlled by a fringe group of radical fundementalist Christians who occasionally wave the flag of conservatism to keep some of their true conservative members from leaving, but who's true goal is to turn the US into a theocracy by any means necessary.

Welcome to the side of rationality (well, sometimes :p), RedvsBlue. Oh, and just so you know, although I'm not too fond of Hillary myself, she's not nearly as bad as she's made out to be.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I've said it before and I'll say it again: true conservatism and true liberalism aren't actually all that far apart. The Republican party parted ways with conservatism a long time ago. At this point, its basically controlled by a fringe group of radical fundementalist Christians who occasionally wave the flag of conservatism to keep some of their true conservative members from leaving, but who's true goal is to turn the US into a theocracy by any means necessary.

Welcome to the side of rationality, RedvsBlue. Oh, and just so you know, although I'm not too fond of Hillary myself, she's not nearly as bad as she's made out to be.[/quote]

The reason I'm not a big fan of Hillary is the same reason I didn't care for Kerry. I see them both as people that are in politics for their own selfish end. They only want to be in politics because they want the power trip, IMO.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Good luck finding a politician who isn't.[/quote]

Yeah I know. Its too bad I wasn't a fan of Wellstone's before he died, not that it makes a difference now but he's really the ideal politician.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']These are the number of conservative vs. liberal op-ed columnists employed by these major newspapers according to the O'reilly factor tonight.

NY Times
4 liberals, 1 conservative

LA Times
3 liberals, 1 conservative

NY Daily News
5 liberals, 1 conservative

Washington post
11 liberals, 4 conservatives

NY Post
0 liberals, 10 conservatives

Chigaco Tribune
6 liberals, 1 conservative

Houston Chronicle
2 liberals, 0 conservatives

Boston Globe
4 liberals, 1 conservative

Atlanta General
3 liberals, 0 conservatives[/quote]

Wow. Scrubking's sample size of 9 newspapers has me convinced now.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
The reason I'm not a big fan of Hillary is the same reason I didn't care for Kerry. I see them both as people that are in politics for their own selfish end. They only want to be in politics because they want the power trip, IMO.[/quote]

Would it be better if they wanted power so they could carry out gods will? :D
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']
Next you're going to tell me how white male Christians are oppressed, right? Please.[/quote]

You obviously haven't read his favorite website, frontpagemag. A lot of people believe that.

I didn't read the following posts where he actually said that himself.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking']These are the number of conservative vs. liberal op-ed columnists employed by these major newspapers according to the O'reilly factor tonight.

NY Times
4 liberals, 1 conservative

LA Times
3 liberals, 1 conservative

NY Daily News
5 liberals, 1 conservative

Washington post
11 liberals, 4 conservatives

NY Post
0 liberals, 10 conservatives

Chigaco Tribune
6 liberals, 1 conservative

Houston Chronicle
2 liberals, 0 conservatives

Boston Globe
4 liberals, 1 conservative

Atlanta General
3 liberals, 0 conservatives[/quote]

Wow. Scrubking's sample size of 9 newspapers has me convinced now.[/quote]

Wow, you people are real morons. I mean, I know you all are morons, but you guys have amazed me by your stupidity.

These are the top 9 papers in the country, but apparently you guys don't have the intelligence to deduct that info on your own.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']These are the top 9 papers in the country, but apparently you guys don't have the intelligence to deduct that info on your own.[/quote]

Are you implying that more liberals = better newspaper? If so, I would agree. :wink:
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Then again, O'Reilly's has been known just to make shit up:
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2664114[/quote]

You know I've often wondered how these TV and radio hosts magically have the statistics they need right on the fly like they do. There's no possible way people could memorize all the facts that they regurgitate. It really makes you wonder how many times this has happened before but no one has bothered checking.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Then again, O'Reilly's has been known just to make shit up:
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2664114[/quote]

You know I've often wondered how these TV and radio hosts magically have the statistics they need right on the fly like they do. There's no possible way people could memorize all the facts that they regurgitate. It really makes you wonder how many times this has happened before but no one has bothered checking.[/quote]

The statistics come from think tanks, the problem however is that most of the think tanks are baised towards one side or the other and so the statistics are often baised and this is just as true for a lot of the stuff you'll hear from hosts of other shows like crossfire.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Then again, O'Reilly's has been known just to make shit up:
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2664114[/quote]

You know I've often wondered how these TV and radio hosts magically have the statistics they need right on the fly like they do. There's no possible way people could memorize all the facts that they regurgitate. It really makes you wonder how many times this has happened before but no one has bothered checking.[/quote]

What do you mean? Isn't O'Reilly THEE source of all facts?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Then again, O'Reilly's has been known just to make shit up:
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2664114[/quote]

You know I've often wondered how these TV and radio hosts magically have the statistics they need right on the fly like they do. There's no possible way people could memorize all the facts that they regurgitate. It really makes you wonder how many times this has happened before but no one has bothered checking.[/quote]

What do you mean? Isn't O'Reilly THEE source of all facts?[/quote]

O'Reilly is nothing short of awesome. I mean that's why he gets to talk to women that work for him on the phone using language that would make Ron Jeremy blush. hmm, makes you wonder what O'Reilly's stance is on censorship....
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='CheapyD']Then again, O'Reilly's has been known just to make shit up:
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2664114[/quote]

You know I've often wondered how these TV and radio hosts magically have the statistics they need right on the fly like they do. There's no possible way people could memorize all the facts that they regurgitate. It really makes you wonder how many times this has happened before but no one has bothered checking.[/quote]

What do you mean? Isn't O'Reilly THEE source of all facts?[/quote]

O'Reilly is nothing short of awesome. I mean that's why he gets to talk to women that work for him on the phone using language that would make Ron Jeremy blush. hmm, makes you wonder what O'Reilly's stance is on censorship....[/quote]

He's always very careful to point out that he doesn't blame Clinton for fooling around with a 'tart', a 'strumpet' (his words, not mine), but for lying on the stands. I guess if a girl dresses slutty, she's just asking for it, huh O'Reilly?
 
What are you crying for Skrubking? Because the "liberal" bias is still saying bad things about the conservative followers? I guess even if what you state is true (neglecting all of the conservative view websites, papers, and magazines), you haven't addressed what the problem is with it, or why it bothers you. You have to learn some follow-up. You'll have to be a little more thorough to convince me to support your socialist party.
 
[quote name='neopolss']What are you crying for Skrubking? Because the "liberal" bias is still saying bad things about the conservative followers? I guess even if what you state is true (neglecting all of the conservative view websites, papers, and magazines), you haven't addressed what the problem is with it, or why it bothers you. You have to learn some follow-up. You'll have to be a little more thorough to convince me to support your socialist party.[/quote]


You need to learn what socialist is, or at least learn one form of socialism. You're just throwing that word around without any idea of what it means.
 
so·cial·ist Audio pronunciation of "socialist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lst)
n.

1. An advocate of socialism.
2. often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.


adj.

1. Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
2. Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.

so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
3. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

In other words, if you support the republican or democratic party, and support the platforms (of either side), for tax dollars to pay for national defense, public education, no child left behind, social security, and any other number of programs wherein the taxpayer has an obligation to pay for or support the program through their income - you support a socialist agenda.

Is the meaning more clear to you now?
 
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
3. A political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

In other words, if you support the republican or democratic party, and support the platforms (of either side), for tax dollars to pay for national defense, public education, no child left behind, social security, and any other number of programs wherein the taxpayer has an obligation to pay for or support the program through their income - you support a socialist agenda.
Click to expand...

So you think that definition of socialism fits simply any form of spending tax dollars on programs? I think you're reading something that isn't there.
 
Defined socialism in our case is any government program where all workers are taxed on a mandatory basis for social security and government programs for the entire populous, whether they use these programs or not. Your tax dollars pay for a public education system, if you have children or not, whether you home school or not. You must pay a certain portion of your wages into social security and medicare program, even if you do not support, endorse, or even collect from these programs. By definition, a collective group of individuals is being forced to hand over a portion of their earnings to the state to control the distribution of assetts. That is socialism, cut and dry.

Factor in also that the state controls all property. You do not own your home or vehicle. The state in essence charges you a yearly tax for use of that. Should you choose not to pay the taxes, the government will seize your property - property you purchased with your earnings, yet the state has entitlement to it. That is socialism.
 
[quote name='neopolss']Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [/quote]

The distribution of goods and services in this country is not owned by the government. While you do pay taxes you are the owner of your property and can "within reason" do whatever you want with it. That is the difference between capitalism and socialism. While we do have socialist programs do not confuse them will us being a socialist country, in fact we are the most capitalistic country in the world.
 
[quote name='neopolss']Defined socialism in our case is any government program where all workers are taxed on a mandatory basis for social security and government programs for the entire populous, whether they use these programs or not. Your tax dollars pay for a public education system, if you have children or not, whether you home school or not. You must pay a certain portion of your wages into social security and medicare program, even if you do not support, endorse, or even collect from these programs. By definition, a collective group of individuals is being forced to hand over a portion of their earnings to the state to control the distribution of assetts. That is socialism, cut and dry.

Factor in also that the state controls all property. You do not own your home or vehicle. The state in essence charges you a yearly tax for use of that. Should you choose not to pay the taxes, the government will seize your property - property you purchased with your earnings, yet the state has entitlement to it. That is socialism.[/quote]

No actually the governemnt can sieze your property because you owe them money from not paying taxes and property you own is considered an asset. Should you have the means to pay off the backed taxes, then they shouldn't seize your property. You have property rights to the property you've bought and paid for, the governemnt can not take that property without you oweing them money or paying you a fair market value for it, the state doesn't have entitlement to it. Should you owe money to other people, banks, etc., and have debt then they the right to take your property as well because it's an asset and you owe them money, so there's no government entitlement.

In socialism property would be owned by all the people and allocation of land and property is handled by the law/government to individuals or enterprises and it would likely be based on use of said property. You never actually own property under socialism and you still would likely pay what is more likened to rent and should you not pay that you probably won't be living there very long. As they have nearly full entitlement to your property and can take if they see fit most any reasons, they have the claim to it, that's entitlement.

I can see your point as it would seem similar as first glance, but you're problem lies in your idea of us never owning propertyand the idea of entitlement. If you look at it that way then you're wrong. You can buy and sell property in America, as much asyou can afford to do so and that's bascially the definition of owning something. In socialism you never own much of anything especially property. Entitlement means the government has a right to claim something at all times, and in America government has no entitlement to what you legally own.
 
It is not perhaps "exactly" socialism yet, but the system leans more and more in that direction everyday. Is it reasonable or fair that one should pay taxes on a car they have bought and paid for? Is it capitolistic in any sense for the government to want a percentage on your vehicle or home's value each year? Even if the house is one you built yourself?

Duo_Maxwell states that in socialism that land is owned by all people and that "allocation of land and property is handled by the law/government to individuals or enterprises." Is that not what we have now? Check your state laws, because if the city you live in wants your land, it can and will be taken from you, and a "reasonable value" given to you. In essence, the government owns all property and you in effect pay taxes for use of that land, however you will never own your property free and clear. You will always be required to pay taxes on it.

Duo, you are right in that one can buy property and sell at their leisure. What remains socialist about it is that your government does retian control of the land and can at any time fit, force you from that land. In other words, you will never OWN it.

While we may be "the most capitolistic country in the world," I simply draw attention that each and every individual needs to recognize that with each government program, and each taxed paycheck, we take a step into a more socialistic country. Note, that I never once stated that we ARE a socialist country. But also note that both major parties are in very strong support on one fence or the other with socialist programs - social security, medicare, national insurance coverage for all children, no child left behind, welfare, FCC regulation, phaermaceutical regulation, anti-monopoly laws, the list goes on and on.

Stop allowing the government to loot your pockets to pay for programs you don't use or need. Keep your hard earned income, and give it to charities that perform the services you want.
 
[quote name='neopolss']It is not perhaps "exactly" socialism yet, but the system leans more and more in that direction everyday.[/quote]
Really? It seems like the longer president Bush has been in office the more fascist we become. It's odd when the estate tax gets eliminated, taxes on the rich decrease yet you seem to think that we are becoming more socialist. :lol:

[quote name='neopolss']
Is it reasonable or fair that one should pay taxes on a car they have bought and paid for? Is it capitalistic in any sense for the government to want a percentage on your vehicle or home's value each year? Even if the house is one you built yourself?[/quote]
Besides the point, socialism deals with the lack of private property ownership. The US government taxes your property but you do own it and can do with it what you wish, within reason of course.

[quote name='neopolss']
Duo_Maxwell states that in socialism that land is owned by all people and that "allocation of land and property is handled by the law/government to individuals or enterprises." Is that not what we have now? Check your state laws, because if the city you live in wants your land, it can and will be taken from you, and a "reasonable value" given to you. In essence, the government owns all property and you in effect pay taxes for use of that land, however you will never own your property free and clear. You will always be required to pay taxes on it.[/quote]
That's a very silly argument, if the government owns all the land they why would they have to pay you for it? When a city tries to buy YOUR land they must offer a fair market value AND provide proof that your land is necessary for the betterment of your fellow citizens not the government.

[quote name='neopolss']
Duo, you are right in that one can buy property and sell at their leisure. What remains socialist about it is that your government does retain control of the land and can at any time fit, force you from that land. In other words, you will never OWN it.[/quote]
Again you own the land and for the state to take it they must pay you and have proven need.

[quote name='neopolss']
While we may be "the most capitalistic country in the world," I simply draw attention that each and every individual needs to recognize that with each government program, and each taxed paycheck, we take a step into a more socialistic country. Note, that I never once stated that we ARE a socialist country.[/quote]
No with each taxed paycheck we step a foot farther away from anarchy. Without funds a government cannot exist, if you assume that all governments are socialist in nature because they tax people then you are sadly mistaken. And while you might not have said "we are a socialist country" you've done a damn good job on implying.

[quote name='neopolss']
But also note that both major parties are in very strong support on one fence or the other with socialist programs - social security, medicare, national insurance coverage for all children, no child left behind, welfare, FCC regulation, pharmaceutical regulation, anti-monopoly laws, the list goes on and on.[/quote]
Socialist programs do not make a socialist government, sadly that list isn't even all socialist programs, the anti-monopoly law was created to promote capitalism the FCC promotes censorship.


[quote name='neopolss']
Stop allowing the government to loot your pockets to pay for programs you don't use or need. Keep your hard earned income, and give it to charities that perform the services you want.[/quote]
So lets see the government shouldn't tax me at all and all that will go away is some social programs. :roll: Without property and payroll taxes we wouldn't have roads, a military or and education system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top