The Left Controls the Media

[edthecynic]

And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.

How do you know that's not him?

Oh...you don't. Kerry on.

And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.

Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.

Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal. Period. End of story.

Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.

Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.

 

[JoeDirt]

So, what is going on? Capital Research Center (op. cit.) explains it this way: Create a media outlet that will produce left-wing “investigative” hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost. NBC…AP…wherever you get your news….The Left has a well-funded effort underway.

The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups. The CRC was founded in 1984 by Willa Johnson. Prior to founding CRC Johnson had been Senior Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, then worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel in the first Reagan administration

Good to find people talking about the resurrected Opposition studies but I wonder if it isn't nonpartisan.

 

[JoeDirt]

The Pro-Republican News Media

The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.

that's a pretty good bet. Hi, bored newbie, can't post much of anything until I have a few others in, trying to work my way.

 

[daveman]

And as a result of using the incomplete name you got a completely different person, but that didn't stop you from using the invalid info, after all, that's what CON$ do.

How do you know that's not him?

Oh...you don't. Kerry on.

And the fact that he testified against his boss, Tanaka, proves he's not only a Republican, but also a CON$ervative. CON$ will sell out their own mother if it gives them some benefit, like staying out of jail.

Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.

Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal. Period. End of story.

Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.

Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.

What's your evidence? That he was a Republican's chief of staff?

Weak. Pathetic. Not unlike yourself.

Now you get to explain why a Republican would found an extreme-left talk radio network.

And you also get to explain Cohen's own words:

With Walsh's departure, Cohen has become the liberal network's key spokesman and public advocate. He has an unlikely past for the role: He began his career as a Republican operative in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a pro-life Republican legislator.

Tanaka pleaded guilty to corruption charges last year.

"I am a progressive," said Cohen, adding that Guam's political climate is quite different from the mainland's. "Republicans in Guam are to the left of [late Democratic Senator] Paul Wellstone," he said.​

I suppose you'll go with the tried and true albeit desperate "He's LYING!!"

Because you'll never admit you were wrong. Never.

 

[edthecynic]

How do you know that's not him?

Oh...you don't. Kerry on.

Pointing to your bigotry against and hatred of conservatives as proof of an assertion only proves that you're a hateful bigot.

Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a liberal. Period. End of story.

Because he has a different name, the burden is on YOU to prove they are the same person using two different names.

Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP Governor Tanaka, is a Republican CON$ervative. Period. End of story.

What's your evidence? That he was a Republican's chief of staff?

Weak. Pathetic. Not unlike yourself.

Now you get to explain why a Republican would found an extreme-left talk radio network.

And you also get to explain Cohen's own words:

With Walsh's departure, Cohen has become the liberal network's key spokesman and public advocate. He has an unlikely past for the role: He began his career as a Republican operative in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a pro-life Republican legislator.

Tanaka pleaded guilty to corruption charges last year.

"I am a progressive," said Cohen, adding that Guam's political climate is quite different from the mainland's. "Republicans in Guam are to the left of [late Democratic Senator] Paul Wellstone," he said.​

I suppose you'll go with the tried and true albeit desperate "He's LYING!!"

Because you'll never admit you were wrong. Never.

If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.

Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.

 

[madasheck]

The Pro-Republican News Media

The media are controlled by the profit motive, nothing more.

that's a pretty good bet. Hi, bored newbie, can't post much of anything until I have a few others in, trying to work my way.

Much of the newspaper industry these days has corporate interests. Ain't like it used to be.

 

[daveman]

If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.

Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.

You're looney tunes, ed.

Cohen's a progressive crook. Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality. Deal with it.

 

[NoNukes]

If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.

Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.

You're looney tunes, ed.

Cohen's a progressive crook. Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality. Deal with it.

Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.

 

[daveman]

If you want to believe that a GOP pro-life governor is to the Left of Wellstone, then you are the most gullible person in the universe.

Your own pull quote reveals Cohen best, he's a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE obviously out to sabotage any alternate voice to GOP hate radio. He's a CON$ervative MOLE whose only purpose was to destroy Air America from within and line his pockets in the process. A true CON$ervative skunk.

You're looney tunes, ed.

Cohen's a progressive crook. Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality. Deal with it.

Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.

Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?

Ed utterly failed. And you're dumber than he is.

 

[edthecynic]

You're looney tunes, ed.

Cohen's a progressive crook. Your fevered fantasies have no bearing on reality. Deal with it.

Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.

Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?

Ed utterly failed. And you're dumber than he is.

YOUR own pull quote says Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP governor Tanaka, is a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE, and somehow I failed!

 

[daveman]

Interesting photo of a family watching FOX News.

Hey, you want to make the case the Cohen, the founder of Air America, is a Republican?

Ed utterly failed. And you're dumber than he is.

YOUR own pull quote says Cohen, the Chief of Staff for GOP governor Tanaka, is a REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE, and somehow I failed!

My own quote shows Cohen saying he's a progressive.

You lose.

 

[Trajan]

Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Rather than admit the rating system is not just flawed, but moronic on its face, you choose to misrepresent what I said. I pointed out the the authors are CON$ and not Libs because they are from UCLA as presented by CON$. Rather than admit your fellow travelers were deliberately misrepresenting the authors as Libs, you misrepresent me. No surprise there from a typical CON$ervative.

And it is the "study" you are worshiping that lists the ACLU as a CON$ervative think tank, so you have unwittingly exposed yet another flaw in their "study."
Thank you, keep it up.

And don't change the subject with questions from more phony data to deflect from the stupidity of the "study" in question.

here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.

I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.

You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;

The Left Controls the Media


so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-

Question 1; in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?



and to your point ala the aclu;

here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;

The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.

WheretodoResearch

WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites

American Civil Liberties Union


I found this interesting to;

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.


I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.



So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.

CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."

You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, "any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted," BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.

So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????

I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop using it as a crutch.

do I need to post the questions again?

 

[Meister]

here, Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

I never argued many of the points you are refuting. read what I write not what you want me to say so as to fashion your own answer making yourself right. see the course above for help.

I am not arguing the merits of the studies mechanics merely pointing out flaws in your characterizations and the particulars ala Hume etc. you chose to highlight as proof the study was cooked, that was your assertion.

You didn't read the report, you went to media matters et al and they told you what to say, and, you parrot it here. Thats why I asked you that question at the end of my last post- the topic of the thread is;

The Left Controls the Media


so frankly, your choosing now to laud your sheepish brilliance by attempting to close off debate is the usual, so again, I will ask-

Question 1; in light of the following I am curious-

85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001.

what slant would you expect of the media in general? As further studies have shown newsrooms, networks etc. have approx. the same ideological make up?



and to your point ala the aclu;

here is the quote from their study, with the sublinks you would have seen IF you had actually read the report ;

The web site, WheretodoResearch lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks and policy groups in the U.S.

WheretodoResearch

WheretodoResearch.com - Directory of 200 Think Tanks and Policy Groups Sites

American Civil Liberties Union


I found this interesting to;

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.


I noticed you didn't comment on the Rand corp. blurb from the study either.



So, lets clear things up,it appears in your opinion any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted, so, again;

Question 2- ergo; any study too, that is performed by left leaning self identified authors is slanted left, that is what you inferred very strongly vis a vis goreclose and his being a 'righty'.

is that correct?


yes, or no.

so please answer my 2 questions, it would clear things up.

It's always the case that the most arrogantly condescending CON$ comprehend the least.

CON$ tried to pass off the CON$ervative authors of the phony "study" as Libs from the bastion of Liberalism, UCLA. It is my contention that even CON$ knew just how slanted the phony "study" was and and tried to pass the authors off as Libs in a feeble attempt to preempt the obvious Right-wing bias in the phony "study." The dishonesty of the CON$ in representing the authors as Libs telegraphs the CON$ own awareness of the phoniness of the "study."

You are too dishonest to admit that your fellow travelers were deliberately deceptive in presenting the phony "study" as a study by Libs, so you create a straw man, "any study can be characterized as slanted if one starts out with the premise that the authors are slanted," BTW the exact argument CON$ use to reject any study from a Liberal, rather than acknowledge that passing off the authors as Libs is an obviously red flag to any honest person.

So my question is, if the "study" was so solid, why did the CON$ervative who posted it feel obligated to misrepresent the authors as Libs from UCLA????

I don't care who passed off what, answer the questions please, we don't even need the study, stop using it as a crutch.

do I need to post the questions again?

It was me, Trajan. eddie couldn't even get past the criteria that they used in the study. He just started blabbering like he actually knew something.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

My Grandmother believed that UPC symbols were the mark of the Beast and proof that Jesus was returning.

She saw no control of the 700 Club by the fringe fanatics of Christianity.

I'm just sayin.....

 

[Meister]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

 

[edthecynic]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

There is nothing positive about CON$ervatism, therefore any positive article about the Right, no matter where the location, shows a Right-wing bias.

 

[madasheck]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

 

[freedombecki]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

So glad you missed them. The leftist media appears directly after any political speech telling you what you should think about it, and it's always an obfuscated pitch to vote Democrat, who are always the good guys, not Republicans, who are always the bad guys. Just read around here. They're everywhere there is a home audience after an opportunity to make someone conservative look like an ass.

And they distribute putty to leftist audiences to cement those blinders in place.

 

[daveman]

I have read a lot of good articles all over in the recent week on Republican politics.
I see no control by the left wing media in any of them.
How could this be? Have we finally broke through the entanglement and web of total control of the media by the left wing boogeymen?

The msm leans to the left, Gad....it didn't fall off the cliff.
Next time you do your scientific study, why don't you count the number of positive articles towards the right, and then count the number of positive articles towards the left.
Also, when you do your extensive scientific study with the newspapers, look to which page the positive articles for the conservative articles are located and do the same with the positive liberal articles are located.
Then get back to us, okay?

When you have fruitcakes like Buchanan, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann and Paul on the right, you expect positive articles? The wingnuts are the ones off the cliff. The media shouldn't be expected to jerk them back to the other side.

It's supposed to be reporting of fact, not political activism.

There's your problem. Well, one of them, at least.