Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People in the media have more information than most. They know the facts and they know when they are being lied to.
This is why, I believe, they seem to you to be biased toward the left.
Could you actually be this ignorant?
I suppose...if you attended government schools, read only the dinosaur media, and live in the Liberal echo chamber.
An excellent book to begin actual education would be Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."
1. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.
From Bork's book:
2. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51
3. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53
I will spend some time mocking you. You think way too much of yourself.
You wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in one of my college study groups. Pulling bits and pieces from the mind of that hack Bork as though anyone gives a shit. The shit you reference doesn't address my claim at all.
Try harder.
Obama-Romney campaigns are 'nastier than normal', Pew study finds | World news | guardian.co.uk
A survey by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that the "master narrative" of Obama is negative in 72% of coverage about his character and record.
The study also found that Romney's master narratives were negative in some 71% of coverage of the former Massachusetts governor.
I've often heard that Americans are fair, that they support the underdog...
...and if that is true, people seeing the bias of the media will react to same.
This will, in fact play out exactly opposite to the blatant attempts to support the Left.
I think it will depend on how Romney acts during the debates. If the "moderators" do a lousy job of hiding their agendas and Romney reacts, he'll be in danger of appearing to be whining. It might be more effective if he lightly mocks the proceedings, I dunno.
And I don't agree with those who say that most of America sees the media's bias. I won't burn bandwidth on examples, and there are many, of people I speak with buying everything the media says out of hand. Still. When I point out bias (drawing from my 20 years in that industry in a former life), you can see the light go on. But not until then.
And I can tell you this: It may be true that the GOP has an "excitement advantage" with its base, but the media is very motivated. Maybe even more motivated than in 2008, and I ain't kidding.
.
What do you mean?
I think it will depend on how Romney acts during the debates. If the "moderators" do a lousy job of hiding their agendas and Romney reacts, he'll be in danger of appearing to be whining. It might be more effective if he lightly mocks the proceedings, I dunno.
And I don't agree with those who say that most of America sees the media's bias. I won't burn bandwidth on examples, and there are many, of people I speak with buying everything the media says out of hand. Still. When I point out bias (drawing from my 20 years in that industry in a former life), you can see the light go on. But not until then.
And I can tell you this: It may be true that the GOP has an "excitement advantage" with its base, but the media is very motivated. Maybe even more motivated than in 2008, and I ain't kidding.
.
What do you mean?
I have several friends in the media after my two decades there, they've always been very representative of "the media" in general, and they're simply on a different plane this time around. In 2008, aside from being The Democrat Candidate, which automatically put him on their side, there was the racial component. They were very willing participants in his cult of personality.
For 2012, they've cooled on him a bit, but they still love him. But their hatred of the Tea Party and its antics have them every bit as animated as they were in 2008, plus significantly fearful of what a GOP victory would look like. Chris Matthews is a perfect example. Sure, he had the thrill up his leg in 2008, but this time around he has completely gone mental.
.
I'm sorry. You are talking about liberal pundits? Then we agree. But the "media" is just a bit more than Matthews and the cast of The Daily Show. I do not buy the assertion that the "media" has any pro-Obama agenda.
People in the media have more information than most. They know the facts and they know when they are being lied to.
This is why, I believe, they seem to you to be biased toward the left.
Could you actually be this ignorant?
I suppose...if you attended government schools, read only the dinosaur media, and live in the Liberal echo chamber.
An excellent book to begin actual education would be Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."
1. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.
Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.
From Bork's book:
2. The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
3. [The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53
I'm sorry. You are talking about liberal pundits? Then we agree. But the "media" is just a bit more than Matthews and the cast of The Daily Show. I do not buy the assertion that the "media" has any pro-Obama agenda.
I know.
.
Did I miss what? You are not making sense.
You need a reading list? You are ridiculous.
I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed.
Please. Try harder.
I'm sorry. You are talking about liberal pundits? Then we agree. But the "media" is just a bit more than Matthews and the cast of The Daily Show. I do not buy the assertion that the "media" has any pro-Obama agenda.
I know.
.
And....neither does Pew. In case you missed it.
Obama-Romney campaigns are 'nastier than normal', Pew study finds | World news | guardian.co.uk
Did I miss what? You are not making sense.
You need a reading list? You are ridiculous.
I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed.
Please. Try harder.
"I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed."
I actually went to a college where we learned to have a basis for critiquing an author, an expert such as Judge Bork, was a familiarity with his/her work.
You sure you went to college?
That line of yours about me lasting not ten minutes in your 'college study group'???
I didn't realize that they gave a degree at Clown College.
'Try harder' at what? Exposing you for the dunce that you are???
Why?
You've done a pretty good job all by your lonesome.
Youre probably the right one to ask this .do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?
Did I miss what? You are not making sense.
You need a reading list? You are ridiculous.
I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed.
Please. Try harder.
Rabbi.
You supported Rick Perry for President.
Please. Know your place.
Rabbi,
Please think for a moment.
Think of all the well known people in this world....past and present....who you believe to be hacks, idiots, losers. liars, brilliant statesmen, great leaders, innovators, or role models. Please omit any of them who you know have not written a book.
Got a nice list?
Good.
Now......have you read the works of all of them?
Yeah. That is what I thought.
Now.......fuck off.
Did I miss what? You are not making sense.
You need a reading list? You are ridiculous.
I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed.
Please. Try harder.
"I have never read Bork. I don't have to to know he is a hack. He has been exposed."
I actually went to a college where we learned to have a basis for critiquing an author, an expert such as Judge Bork, was a familiarity with his/her work.
You sure you went to college?
That line of yours about me lasting not ten minutes in your 'college study group'???
I didn't realize that they gave a degree at Clown College.
'Try harder' at what? Exposing you for the dunce that you are???
Why?
You've done a pretty good job all by your lonesome.
Youre probably the right one to ask this .do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?
