Clinton, Boxer Want to Squash Conservative Radio Talk Shows

[Annie]

There are quite a few liberal talk shows out there that beat their conservative counterparts to death in the ratings when they play in the same markets. "The Stephanie Miller Show" and "Ed Shultz" to name just two.

Seriously, I've not heard of either. Are they syndicated?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

if the government wants to legislate fairness, lets start with msnbc and npr/kpbs, they are the most far left, on the board.

And lets have big brother in every news room, and radio station, to make sure everything is fair, rather then letting americans decide for themselves, what they want to watch and listen too.

Thanks liberals, for proving i cant think for myself, or make my own choices without the government wiping me a** first.

 

[Ninja]

But Snowman, can't the same thing be said about the TWO Senators that say Inhofe is not telling it like it was... 3 years ago in that elevator?

They are Senators and not "bloggers in the blogoshere"?

What makes you choose his "HE SAID" over their "SHE SAIDS" ???

I say 1-there is NO PROOF of such, 2-the two women he is quoting from 3 years earlier say it is simply not true,

therefore the allegation should not be believed, until something more than He said/she said shows up, and that is only fair imho.

care

I didn't say anything about the veracity of Inhofe's statements. I clarified where the allegations surfaced.

 

[maineman]

Fair enough, whatever, shouldn't have mentioned your wife.

Bottom line: The allegations were made by a US Senator, not "some blogger." James Inhofe may not be the most impartial source in the world, but he's not some swinging dick in the blogosphere trying to get his site more traffic.

bottom line: Senator Inhofe is, indeed, NOT the most impartial source in the world and his comments should not be republished as indisputed facts.

And your apology is gratefully and honestly accepted.

 

[Ninja]

Cool. I was out of line.

 

[maineman]

no sweat. You stepping over the line in the heat of an argument which I had taken very close to that same line is nothing compared to RSR's continued blathering.

I never should have included you in the analogy about the dog, and, instead, left it RSR alone, where it clearly was deserved.

 

[maineman]

But some one that has no proof that makes an allagation against Bush, YOU believe without question,,,, Got ya.

what allegation are you speaking of?

that he disobeyed a direct order to report for his annual physical and was never disciplined for it?

that he misled the country by repeated insinuation that Saddam was on the brink of collaborating with AQ and had, in fact, had a hand in 9/11?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

America in my judgment does not have an impartial media, and two very partisan parties, who care more about political gain, then whats best for americans. I sight two facts on this, one, congress's approval rating is 18%, the lowest ever, the second lowest was 1991-1994.

Second, a survery said that 90% of the 144 major news reporters gave money to the democratic party. Now, someone please explain, how you can be remain un-biased, when you give money to a political party, I dont think reporters should be able to do so. Why?, because they the most, need to remain free from even the presence of impro priatee (cant spell), and they are not. I almost think, the newsman's or newswoman's job is not to give you his opinion of an issue, of any issue, and present both sides fairly and objectively and let the viewer decide.

what allegation are you speaking of?

that he disobeyed a direct order to report for his annual physical and was never disciplined for it?

that he misled the country by repeated insinuation that Saddam was on the brink of collaborating with AQ and had, in fact, had a hand in 9/11?

 

[maineman]

asked and answered on numerous occasions.

Journalists are professionals. They report the news. BIll Simmons is a sports writer...AND he is a Boston Red Sox fan. That does not stop him from writing accurate stories about the New York Yankees.

I ask you again: if an ultra-liberal heart surgeon knew that his patient was an arch-conservative, do you think he would cut with any less care? Of course not...because he is a professional.

The vast majority of journalists are just as professional.

 

[Annie]

asked and answered on numerous occasions.

Journalists are professionals. They report the news. BIll Simmons is a sports writer...AND he is a Boston Red Sox fan. That does not stop him from writing accurate stories about the New York Yankees.

I ask you again: if an ultra-liberal heart surgeon knew that his patient was an arch-conservative, do you think he would cut with any less care? Of course not...because he is a professional.

The vast majority of journalists are just as professional.

I'm so confused?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I am not opposed to anything you just said, but I think something must be done, if a clear and deliberate bias is shown, where by, a reporter, lies, gives half truth, or omits facts. It doesnt matter if he is a republican, democrat, or socialist, for all i care. The truth is important, without spin lol.

asked and answered on numerous occasions.

Journalists are professionals. They report the news. BIll Simmons is a sports writer...AND he is a Boston Red Sox fan. That does not stop him from writing accurate stories about the New York Yankees.

I ask you again: if an ultra-liberal heart surgeon knew that his patient was an arch-conservative, do you think he would cut with any less care? Of course not...because he is a professional.

The vast majority of journalists are just as professional.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think bush and cheney, should be investigated, as every politician should be, and I think you would agree, we need nuetral people, to investigate.

 

[Gunny]

asked and answered on numerous occasions.

Journalists are professionals. They report the news. BIll Simmons is a sports writer...AND he is a Boston Red Sox fan. That does not stop him from writing accurate stories about the New York Yankees.

I ask you again: if an ultra-liberal heart surgeon knew that his patient was an arch-conservative, do you think he would cut with any less care? Of course not...because he is a professional.

The vast majority of journalists are just as professional.

As a former 4-year journalism student, I can assure you that journalists by the very nature of the beast are far more likely to be liberal than conservative, and their biases are reflected not so much in what they report as how they report it. "Yellow journalism" is not an imaginary beast.

Then, no matter what the journalist writes, at least one editor gets to put his two cents in, and editors are notoriously loyal to the agenda of he who signs the check. There are mouthes at home to feed.

 

[maineman]

I have learned not to argue too stenuously against you, Gunny....

I would only add that the people writing the checks for the editors are big big corporations.... not exactly an historical bastion of liberalism.

 

[Gunny]

I have learned not to argue too stenuously against you, Gunny....

I would only add that the people writing the checks for the editors are big big corporations.... not exactly an historical bastion of liberalism.

No, and I didn't mean to imply that the entire collective media was left-wing extremist liberal from head to toe. Journalism's marriage to the First Amendment is by far the most important factor in determining which side of the political aisle journalists fall under. It's only natural to support the idealism that supports you.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I have a question maineman. The corporations care about ratings, so if for example, as you say 70% of america is against the war, and if 90% of journalists give to the democrats who are way more opposed to the war, then republicans, how can you suggest the vast majority of reporters who are left wing, can be objective, im not saying all. But, lets face it, bias is out there, and i see it far more from the left, then i do from the right.

No, and I didn't mean to imply that the entire collective media was left-wing extremist liberal from head to toe. Journalism's marriage to the First Amendment is by far the most important factor in determining which side of the political aisle journalists fall under. It's only natural to support the idealism that supports you.

 

[maineman]

the corporations care about one thing and only one thing: maximizing shareholder wealth. period. If YOU wanted to maximize shareholder wealth in YOUR corporation, would you go out of your way to promote a liberal agenda, which, if republicans are to be believed, would serve to marginalize your ability to do just that?

 

[maineman]

my point being: giant media corporations either support liberal agendas or they do not. And liberal agendas are either bad for the economy of America or they are not. Republicans can't have it both ways. If they want to harp about media's liberal bias, then they will need to abandon this rhetoric that somehow the democratic party is anti-big business... because media in America IS big business....and their corporate interests are identical to the corporate interests of every other big business.

take your pick.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think the editors in the newsrooms of most rooms, do not care about stock holders. I think most reporters feel the same. I am not sure how much bias is out there, I think most of it is suttle, where you have to be paying attention to know. But, youre right that shareholders and corporations, only care about money. Which ruins news, because it then becomes bill o'reilly type news, and frankly, as much as i disagree with dan rather, I just want someone to tell me the news without the spin.

Its really a question of how much bias: I think there is no quesion its out there, but how much?, and who is organizing it, is it by default or a vast left-wing conspiricy

the corporations care about one thing and only one thing: maximizing shareholder wealth. period. If YOU wanted to maximize shareholder wealth in YOUR corporation, would you go out of your way to promote a liberal agenda, which, if republicans are to be believed, would serve to marginalize your ability to do just that?

 

[Gunny]

my point being: giant media corporations either support liberal agendas or they do not. And liberal agendas are either bad for the economy of America or they are not. Republicans can't have it both ways. If they want to harp about media's liberal bias, then they will need to abandon this rhetoric that somehow the democratic party is anti-big business... because media in America IS big business....and their corporate interests are identical to the corporate interests of every other big business.

take your pick.

I don't think it's an "either - or" choice. I agree with you that corporations sole function and intent is to increase shareholder wealth.

At the same time, the journalists themselves are not going to abandon their upbringing. And, as I stated previously but did not expand on, journalists can have a left-leaning POV that affects how they present the facts that does not necessarily mean they are raving left-wingnut loonies.