The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Liberals doing their part to support free speech (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14921)

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf (Post 369045)
I know that's confusing to a lot of people, given that O'Reilly was once a reporter. Think of it as being analogous to Madonna having once been a virgin.

That was great...:D

elSicomoro 07-28-2007 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf (Post 369045)
Beyond that, O'Reilly makes it clear that his show is Commentary

that he wants you to take as news. Rush, Hannity, etc. are guilty of the same thing. Most commentators of any political stripe seem to be that way..."My thoughts on the subject are the last word on the subject." They want you to buy in to their schtick to keep them on the air or in print more easily. I prefer to listen to them for purely entertainment value. :D

elSicomoro 07-28-2007 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 369053)
Soros is the only embarrassment in the news now days.

Really? Wow! I thought Alberto Gonzales was making a pretty good ass of himself recently...but it's only Soros? Really?! Fuck...where the hell have I been? I haven't heard his name in a while, except for some conservative folks that grumble about him.

*listens for Soros...hears crickets and faint murmurs*

Oh...forgot...drive-by media conspiracy...media controlled by Soros and moveon.org...etc. etc. Newsmax is our friend...FoxNews...ommm...

:D

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 04:35 PM

It still is not news. Some people tune in to laugh at the talking heads or some tune in to laugh at their punching bags and how stupid they look defending a losing position. Either way it is not news. Like you say entertainment for some, thought provoking for others. If you don't like it or don't agree don't watch.

piercehawkeye45 07-28-2007 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 369034)
Without taking sides here, I'm very interested to know who you think the "news outlets who truly do try to fairly report the news" are.

No commercial ones. You would have to look at independent sources and those are usually better in some aspects but worse in others, mainly unbiasedness.

elSicomoro 07-28-2007 04:47 PM

I don't think there is any truly "unbiased" news source...it's all about perception in the end. Pray to God that He gave you some good sense.

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 369095)
No commercial ones. You would have to look at independent sources and those are usually better in some aspects but worse in others, mainly unbiasedness.

Even the so called independent news sources are individuals on the ground trying to make a living getting the next big scoop. It is like a hunt where they are all trying to hunt the same thing but no one really knows what that is, yet. So what is their motivation? An attempt to bring the news to the world during the next big sensationalized crisis or the attempt to make a buck?

piercehawkeye45 07-28-2007 08:23 PM

I know a few independent sites that aren't that bad and only ask for donations. Some do it for the money, some do it because they are fed up with commercial.

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 369159)
I know a few independent sites that aren't that bad and only ask for donations. Some do it for the money, some do it because they are fed up with commercial.

The point I was trying to make is that even AP reporters are in competition to make a living and these so called independent news agencies are not always so independent. I just read it all, right, left, middle, weird, and try to make some sense of it. Good luck.

piercehawkeye45 07-28-2007 08:29 PM

Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2007 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 369028)
To bad O'Reilly is right.

Well, there's your credibility gone.

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 369162)
Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

I wasn't really comparing them, I was just talking about the original sources for all news and the motivation of the guy on the ground.

TheMercenary 07-28-2007 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 369166)
Well, there's your credibility gone.

WOW, now there is an opinion I was worried about.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2007 09:38 PM

Likewise, I'm sure. Can you find something O'Reilly said about DailyKos that was actually true?

piercehawkeye45 07-28-2007 09:42 PM

Sorry to derail this topic but I would like to see O'Reilly go on a debate where a buzzer would go off everytime he raised his voice, lied, deceived (taking part of a quote out of context for example), or used an argument flaw (stickman, ad hominem, etc). That would be interesting.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.