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.
"MM, you rattled a number of negative leftist news items over the past couple decades."
Without going back to check, I think I rattled off whitewater jennifer flowers travelgate vince foster filegate paula jones cumstained blue dress monica lewinsky house judiciary committee televised hearings televised impeachment proceedings televised senate trial... and to claim that that list was news items over the past couple decades and somehow just ignore the fact that it was a full court nonstop republican driven media onslaught on ONE democratic president from day one of his presidency and not ending until dubya was inaugurated eight years later is nothing but republican apologist SPIN. You should be ashamed.
If you read my response again you will see I never apologuized for anyone. Plus I'm not a republican. Who again is doing the spinning?
You certainly suggested that the 10:1 ratio applied to liberal versus conservative spin to the news.
And then you referred to my litany of non-stop action against Clinton as "some news stories over the past couple decades". That is clearly disingenuous.
I still wonder what percentage of fox news prime time talking heads donate only to republicans....
and as far as I can see...there is no meat on this "Hillary fundraising problems" bone....and the Pelosi support for the Fairness doctrine only comes from third hand reports of what went on in a democratic house caucus...
that's a great idea. Let's have the main stream media be a fucking gossip column. he said he said she said..... that's hard news to you?
and again...if you think that showing the gore in Iraq is some liberal news philosophy, you have never studied journalism. "If it leads it bleeds" has been around a long long time.
Actually if you go to that msnbc site, you'll find 0 'talking heads' from FOX. You will find several reporters and staff. I do believe that more gave to dems than republicans.
"I believe that to be accurate, yes"
do you sing a chorus of "I believe" while you type that? I believe that number is bullshit. So I guess we are at a standstill on THAT particular issue.
"again if you read my post I don't question if the above was reported. And a lot if it was before my time so I apologize for not understanding the context. I question though who reported it."
everybody reported it. It was Clinton bashing 24/7. Republicans have bitched about the fact that their children were continually inundated with lurid coverage about oral sex....do you think that was just on Faux? (and one wonders why, if the story was so repugnant to them, that they pursued it with such vigor) EVERY network, EVERY paper covered ALL of those stories ALL the fucking time.... so this idea that a "liberal press" would somehow protect and shield or even go easy on a democrat because he was a democrat is clearly bullshit.
I DID live through it. I lived through Watergate and the crimes that Nixon committed were WAY worse than the indiscretions of Bill Clinton yet the coverage of those "scandals" was nearly identical.
The myth of a liberal press is just that. Today's media is owned by BIG corporations. Do you think they are going to go out of their way to promote the democratic agenda, if it is, as you all claim, so bad for big corporations?
For many years the liberal media did not have any competition. They were the only game in town
Then along came talk radio, the internet, and Fox News. All of a sudden they had competition
They could no longer shape and slant the news - they had outlets to call them on it
Like with Dan Rather trying to tilt the election to Kerry with fake documents, without the competition he may have gotten away with it
your opinion. not supported by facts. ( no surprise!)
It is, on the other hand, a FACT that all the major mainstream media is operated by LARGE corporations who, if conservatives like you are to be believed, would NEVER be biased in favor of a political ideology that is against them.
To libs, facts never mean anything
"I believe that to be accurate, yes"
do you sing a chorus of "I believe" while you type that? I believe that number is bullshit. So I guess we are at a standstill on THAT particular issue.
everybody reported it. It was Clinton bashing 24/7. Republicans have bitched about the fact that their children were continually inundated with lurid coverage about oral sex....do you think that was just on Faux? (and one wonders why, if the story was so repugnant to them, that they pursued it with such vigor) EVERY network, EVERY paper covered ALL of those stories ALL the fucking time.... so this idea that a "liberal press" would somehow protect and shield or even go easy on a democrat because he was a democrat is clearly bullshit.
I DID live through it. I lived through Watergate and the crimes that Nixon committed were WAY worse than the indiscretions of Bill Clinton yet the coverage of those "scandals" was nearly identical.
The myth of a liberal press is just that. Today's media is owned by BIG corporations. Do you think they are going to go out of their way to promote the democratic agenda, if it is, as you all claim, so bad for big corporations?
all of a sudden you are not at all interested in the political donation of those in the (fox) media, eh?
WOW, SHOCKER.
poor guy, did you just get bitchslapped with strong logic?
that site didnt list it's total of 144 people surveyed so I hardly think it is accurate to say "0" talking heads from fox donate to republicans. It said that a producer for orielly donated to a dem.. that is hardly conclusive.