So much for "liberal media".

[rdean]

One show is evidence that there is no 'liberal bias' in the media.

That shows such a lack of understanding of the word 'evidence' that it is laughable... particularly when the one making the claim also claims to value education, science, and academic thought.

It is equivalent to me providing a link to Rachel Madcow ranting a bunch of lies about the GOP and calling that proof that there is a liberal bias across the media.

What lies are you talking about?

What do you mean by that?

Where is your passion for science rdean? Where is the respect for honesty evidence?

What lies? Do you have an example? Simple question.

 

[California Girl]

What lies are you talking about?

What do you mean by that?

Where is your passion for science rdean? Where is the respect for honesty evidence?

What lies? Do you have an example? Simple question.

Yes, I do. But... the salient point is not Madcow's lies. It is your claim that one interview proves there is no liberal bias in the media. I'm interested in that - given that it's the point of your thread. You started it, you clearly give the impression with the title 'so much for liberal bias' and claim one interview as 'evidence'. You are the one who claims to respect education, science, statistics, and academic thought. So, address my point. Where is the evidence of your respect for those subjects in your OP?

Don't try and deflect this on to an inconsequential comment (which I can prove - with far more 'evidence' than you have submitted for your assertion).

 

[NoNukes]

What's an MSNBC?

Something intelligent adults watch, go back to your bike.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

I'd be most amused to see what you consider a "grilling", Deanie. Care to provide a link? The day that MSNBC attacks progressives and coddles conservatives is the day that pigs fly.

NBC Meet the Press (video)

 

[California Girl]

What's an MSNBC?

Something intelligent adults watch, go back to your bike.

Really?

Sorry. That's as ludicrous as saying the same for FNC. You guys (and by 'you guys' I mean hacks that take either MSNBC or FNC as legitimate) crack me up.

Thanks for laughs.

 

[Truthseeker420]

What's an MSNBC?

Something intelligent adults watch, go back to your bike.

Really?

Sorry. That's as ludicrous as saying the same for FNC. You guys (and by 'you guys' I mean hacks that take either MSNBC or FNC as legitimate) crack me up.

Thanks for laughs.

I don't think there is any doubt MSNBC is more credible than FNC. MSNBC ignores issues that might not be in their best interest as a corporation with some slight spin on the facts but Fox News outright distorts the facts.

 

[California Girl]

Something intelligent adults watch, go back to your bike.

Really?

Sorry. That's as ludicrous as saying the same for FNC. You guys (and by 'you guys' I mean hacks that take either MSNBC or FNC as legitimate) crack me up.

Thanks for laughs.

I don't think there is any doubt MSNBC is more credible than FNC. MSNBC ignores issues that might not be in their best interest as a corporation with some slight spin on the facts but Fox News outright distorts the facts.

You don't think.

MSNBC is no more credible than FNC. That is not my opinion. It is the view of researchers from non-partisan institutions. That research reaches very different conclusions to your opinions. Whether it suits you or not, it is what it is.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

You think one example dispels 50 years of liberal bias???

Every once in a great while folks like David Gregory, who was picked to host Meet The Depressed because of his grilling of the Bush Administration during press conferences, attempts to gain some of his credibility back by acting tough with a Democrat. This was his attempt to appear non-biased.

Harry Reid isn't doing shit these days. I figure he had it coming to him, but Gregory has made his bed already. That's why he is where he is today. If he didn't keep carrying the Democrats' water he'd be back in the 5th row at the White House pressroom or in Arizona as a correspondent. He and Katie Couric got their gigs from bringing down Republicans. I don't want to hear this nonsense about them not being biased.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Really?

Sorry. That's as ludicrous as saying the same for FNC. You guys (and by 'you guys' I mean hacks that take either MSNBC or FNC as legitimate) crack me up.

Thanks for laughs.

I don't think there is any doubt MSNBC is more credible than FNC. MSNBC ignores issues that might not be in their best interest as a corporation with some slight spin on the facts but Fox News outright distorts the facts.

You don't think.

MSNBC is no more credible than FNC. That is not my opinion. It is the view of researchers from non-partisan institutions. That research reaches very different conclusions to your opinions. Whether it suits you or not, it is what it is.

interesting... I would love to see that research.

 

[California Girl]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

You think one example dispels 50 years of liberal bias???

Every once in a great while folks like David Gregory, who was picked to host Meet The Depressed because of his grilling of the Bush Administration during press conferences, attempts to gain some of his credibility back by acting tough with a Democrat. This was his attempt to appear non-biased.

Harry Reid isn't doing shit these days. I figure he had it coming to him, but Gregory has made his bed already. That's why he is where he is today. If he didn't keep carrying the Democrats' water he'd be back in the 5th row at the White House pressroom or in Arizona as a correspondent.

That does appear to be the case - that one example is sufficient.

So much for rdean's claim of respect for education, science, statistics, or even vaguely rational thought. He is, by his own measure, nothing more than a partisan hack.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

Your perceptions are horribly skewed. You think The Onion is a legitimate news source, and a musical by the South Park guys is a serious documentary.

So, I expect your idea of Gregory "attacking" Reid was something like this in reality:

Gregory: So, Senator Reid -- just exactly how awesome ARE you?! The American people have a right to know!!

You've made those delusional accusations before. Proves you are very, very right wing. With all their "insight" and "rationality". It's pretty funny.

Laugh at people like Dave. It's the best defense against their bizarre attacks. Being laughed at is the one thing they can't take. Why? Because they want to be taken "seriously" and you just can't.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was laughed at at Columbia University when he spewed his bullshit. Proves how to handle people like Mahmoud and Dave. You just laugh in their faces. They can't handle it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sC26wpUGQ]In Iran, we don't have homosexuals - YouTube[/ame]

You would think for for Ivy League students they would have a little more understanding and intelligence.

 

[daveman]

That's because reality has a well-known liberal bias, which in turn is because the right is not fact-based.

Oddly enough, it's only liberals that "know" this.

Sheer coincidence, I'm sure.

I suspect it's not only liberals that know it. But it is only liberals who are prepared to acknowledge it. And that's NOT a coincidence.

Seriously, the mainstream media are driven by two things: the political agenda of their corporate owners, which involves protecting corporate privilege, and the business agenda of those owners, which involves ratings and advertising revenue. The first gives the media a right-wing bias (but only on economic issues), while the second gives it a what-will-sell bias. The only reason why members of the "conservative" movement HONESTLY believe in the myth of the "liberal media" is because their views are so out there that, compared to THEM, it's true. But then, compared to them, Ronald Reagan had a liberal bias.

Yet more opinion being paraded as fact.

You leftists and your magical thinking. So childlike. It would be charming if you weren't fucking up the country with it.

 

[daveman]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

Your perceptions are horribly skewed. You think The Onion is a legitimate news source, and a musical by the South Park guys is a serious documentary.

So, I expect your idea of Gregory "attacking" Reid was something like this in reality:

Gregory: So, Senator Reid -- just exactly how awesome ARE you?! The American people have a right to know!!

You've made those delusional accusations before. Proves you are very, very right wing. With all their "insight" and "rationality". It's pretty funny.

Laugh at people like Dave. It's the best defense against their bizarre attacks. Being laughed at is the one thing they can't take. Why? Because they want to be taken "seriously" and you just can't.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was laughed at at Columbia University when he spewed his bullshit. Proves how to handle people like Mahmoud and Dave. You just laugh in their faces. They can't handle it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sC26wpUGQ]In Iran, we don't have homosexuals - YouTube[/ame]

You laugh at me because you can't refute what I say.

Now, don't you have some polluted Chinese rivers you can claim are in Texas?

 

[daveman]

You would think for for Ivy League students they would have a little more understanding and intelligence.

Poor Dinnerjacket. So misunderstood.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really?

Sorry. That's as ludicrous as saying the same for FNC. You guys (and by 'you guys' I mean hacks that take either MSNBC or FNC as legitimate) crack me up.

Thanks for laughs.

I don't think there is any doubt MSNBC is more credible than FNC. MSNBC ignores issues that might not be in their best interest as a corporation with some slight spin on the facts but Fox News outright distorts the facts.

You don't think.

MSNBC is no more credible than FNC. That is not my opinion. It is the view of researchers from non-partisan institutions. That research reaches very different conclusions to your opinions. Whether it suits you or not, it is what it is.

Provide us a list of those institutions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals dominate the commercial media?

If so, wouldn't that be because they're better at it?

Maybe if conservatives took the trouble to develop some business acumen, they might be able to dominate the commercial media.

 

[daveman]

Liberals dominate the commercial media?

If so, wouldn't that be because they're better at it?

Maybe if conservatives took the trouble to develop some business acumen, they might be able to dominate the commercial media.

I gotta admit, the Air America business plan was sheer genius.

1. Screech incoherently 24/7 about BOOOOOSH!!

2. ?????

3. Profit!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals dominate the commercial media?

If so, wouldn't that be because they're better at it?

Maybe if conservatives took the trouble to develop some business acumen, they might be able to dominate the commercial media.

I gotta admit, the Air America business plan was sheer genius.

1. Screech incoherently 24/7 about BOOOOOSH!!

2. ?????

3. Profit!!!

Are you saying that liberals don't dominate the media? I guess all your rightwing pals are full of shit then.

That's what we've been trying to tell them.

 

[Truthmatters]

I'm watching Meet the Press with David Gregory.

I'm amazed watching him grill Harry Reid. Attacking, Attacking, Attacking.

But then when Lindsey Grahame and other Republicans are on, no interruptions, all softball questions and he lets them go on endlessly with their message.

MSNBC can have "opinion anchors" like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, but when it comes to the "serious" interviews, like with David Gregory, it's all "conservative" and "fluff". Unless you're a Democrat.

And the right is always screaming about "liberal bias". I just don't see it.

they are always being attacked in their heads.

reality is a whole nuther matter

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't think there is any doubt MSNBC is more credible than FNC. MSNBC ignores issues that might not be in their best interest as a corporation with some slight spin on the facts but Fox News outright distorts the facts.

You don't think.

MSNBC is no more credible than FNC. That is not my opinion. It is the view of researchers from non-partisan institutions. That research reaches very different conclusions to your opinions. Whether it suits you or not, it is what it is.

Provide us a list of those institutions.

She won't do it, because she doesn't have anything to back up her statement.

However...........there IS a study from a non partisan institution about Fox news viewers.....

If Fox News viewers want to be informed about current events, they might as well turn off the TV.


A poll released by Fairleigh Dickinson University on Monday found that people who get their news from Fox News know significantly less about news both in the U.S. and the world than people who watch no news at all.


In a survey of 612 New Jersey natives, Fox News fans flunked questions about Egypt and Syria when compared with people who don't watch the news. Fox viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians toppled their government and 6 points less likely to be aware that Syrians have not yet overthrown theirs.

Fox News viewers less informed than those who don?t watch news at all: study - New York Daily News