Liberals doing their part to support free speech - Page 2

TheMercenary · 07-28-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

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...

elSicomoro · 07-28-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

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.

elSicomoro · 07-28-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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...

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

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

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

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

To bad O'Reilly is right.

Well, there's your credibility gone.

TheMercenary · 07-28-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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

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.

07-28-2007, 04:35 PM	#19
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

07-28-2007, 09:38 PM	#29
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Likewise, I'm sure. Can you find something O'Reilly said about DailyKos that was actually true? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-28-2007, 04:47 PM	#21
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	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.

07-28-2007, 08:23 PM	#23
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	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.

07-28-2007, 08:29 PM	#25
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	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.

07-28-2007, 09:42 PM	#30
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)