The Left Controls the Media

[Gadawg73]

The Left Controls the Media

Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.

Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.

First, it would seem to be more efficacious to discuss same with someone who has knowledge of the subject.

Second, are you aware of the the numbers of viewers of broadband vs. cable?

If the three nightly network newscast audiences in November 2003 were combined, a total of 29.3 million viewers, it would be more than 12 times the prime time audience for cable, 2.4 million viewers, during the same period.
Cable Audience | State of the Media same period.

So, your post kind of falls apart right there, huh?

Merry Christmas.

Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
"All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.

 

[edthecynic]

The Left Controls the Media

"We have the media now."
- Ann Coulter to Brent Bozell on the 7/26/2005 Sean Hannity Show

 

[Gadawg73]

On Thanksgiving Day, November 1999, five year old Elian Gonzalez was one of three survivors fleeing Castro’s Cuba. Included in the deaths of the sinking boat were Elian’s mother and her boyfriend. Miami relatives took the boy in. For the liberal press, it was an opportunity to demonstrate absolute feasance to the wishes of this Communist dictator. And the Clinton administration proved abundantly willing to permit Castro to control events in America:

a. The media made it clear that the Cuban-American community in Miami was nothing but extremists and fanatics. "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans."
-- Headline over April 11 New York Times story.

b. "Some suggested over the weekend that it’s wrong to expect Elian Gonzalez to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. They were talking about Miami” NBC’s Katie Couric opening the April 3 Today.

c. “In Miami, it’s impossible to overestimate how everything here is colored by a hatred of communism and Fidel Castro. It’s a community with very little tolerance for those who might disagree.”
— ABC correspondent John Quinones on World News Tonight, April 4, 2000

d. “Cuban-Americans, Ms. Falk, have been quick to point fingers at Castro for exploiting the little boy. Are their actions any less reprehensible?”
— Early Show co-host Bryant Gumbel to CBS News consultant Pam Falk, April 14, 2000

Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.

How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.

The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.

a. NYTimes’ Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population. But Guenter Lewy, in “America in Vietnam,” revealed that “Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting…borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, “Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City…” Lewy, p. 400-401

b. One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: “These boat people… "Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center

c. And the LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people..."Peter Rodman, “More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World,” p.186.

d. NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this, published on the front page April 13, 1975: “for the ordinary people of Indochina…it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.” So, communist victory was nothing to dread.

e. "it would be tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com


Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.

I am proud to be a ass.
Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
You are a dumb ass.

 

[Gadawg73]

I just read A Christmas Carol by Dickens again for about the 20th time.
Accordingly, I am now biased and sending checks to the needy. Message me with your names and addresses and how much you need.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
"All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.

If presentation had no effect on the reader/viewer, if only hard fact were considered, then no one would ever buy a Macintosh computer. But we know that hype, spin, and packaging are often more important than facts and reality, thus Macs sell and the media shapes opinions.

 

[Trajan]

you are partly right in that liberals will not name each other as liberal generally as, they know that only 21% of the country IDs themselves as such. so they avoid it.

Only 40% of the country IDs as con. yet they use it with such preponderance compared to the term liberal, you would think thats who makes up the country as a large majority, let alone they use it derisively which is also the point as well.
They have figured out that 79% of the country is not what they are , 60% isn't what cons are, so they just use con., kind of unfair isn't it? They are supposed to be objective.

and of course that begs another comment- so, liberals are to shy to make know their ideology and affiliation? Why?

and of course you just answered my question, in that yes there is a bias on that issue, thank you.

It's nice that you can give assent to your reply but you realize that is a sign of hubris or insanity, take your pick.

Still not a single example of leftist MSM, none. Given your assumptions that should have been easy, but you know too what they say of assumptions. I actually saw something on MSM this past weekend which would classify partly as leftist in my definition of the concept. Anyone know what it was?

As for the words conservative or liberal, you are removing them from the discussion by relying on surveys rather than behaviors. If I were to define conservative as supporting America, working hard, succeeding economically, raising first rate children, being married forever, buying American, paying all my taxes, voting, then I am conservative. But you see conservative in terms of its negatives: anti all sorts of things including government and personal freedom and rights. Most people when asked the question today define it through my behavioral definition rather than the political partisanship you seem to represent. I think asking the question isn't relevant outside of context, and context doesn't exist in these surveys. Consider the low rating of the tea party and Christian right as examples of American sentiment. http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/199539-tea-party-sinking-fast.html

Liberal is a four letter word today and your use of it with MSM is a demonstration of that fact. You seem to miss that obvious connection completely. When PC or others call MSM liberal they are only engaging in rhetoric and not thought. MSM is corporate owned, operated, and supported, it cannot by its very nature be anything but boring pablum.

Please note that I have never shied away from the use of liberal.

"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls

1) meandering gobbledygook thats all over the place, try and focus please,
2) it appears to me either you barely glanced at my answer or just chose to ignore it, see no. 1
3) I told you why they don't use liberal, yes it is not a popular phrase /term outside the 79% of the country that doesn't feel the way they do, there I said it again, and I told you why they refrain from using it.......
4) you are repeating yourself.

you have been provided with an example across every medium of the media. its not a secret, left of center orgs have acknowledged the identity disparity.

I was apparently right, it was to tough for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell us how that influenced you in any way to believe it.
Again, how is ANYONE influenced by media WHEN THEY DO NOT READ IT OR WATCH IT?
Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric and The New York Times may be your best source for information but as a professional purveryor of information and the analysis of it they do not make my cut.

How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.

The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.

a. NYTimes’ Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population. But Guenter Lewy, in “America in Vietnam,” revealed that “Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting…borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, “Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City…” Lewy, p. 400-401

b. One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: “These boat people… "Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center

c. And the LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people..."Peter Rodman, “More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World,” p.186.

d. NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this, published on the front page April 13, 1975: “for the ordinary people of Indochina…it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.” So, communist victory was nothing to dread.

e. "it would be tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com


Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.

I am proud to be a ass.
Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
You are a dumb ass.

1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.

2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
been forced to administer.

3. How do I prove that?
This is your post #103...
"Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want."

This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.

Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
Leftist views.

4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
this the first time you've done so- is the reason
why my contempt for you is immaculate.

5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
mending your ways.

 

[daveman]

You know PC, as I continue to read your dire attempts to do what conservatives do and have always done; create some form of an aristocracy, I can't help thinking that your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man—the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, And nothing to look forward to with hope."

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me

No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king. The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.

I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...

Nonsense. You desperately want to be a subject of government.

Me, I'm a citizen. The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
George W. Bush

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama

 

[Bfgrn]

No, you CAN'T annoint Obama as king. The Constitution which you hold in such contempt won't allow it.

I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...

Nonsense. You desperately want to be a subject of government.

Me, I'm a citizen. The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
George W. Bush

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama

Oh yea, I talked to thousands of you 'citizens' when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP about less government, debts, deficits, or overreaching government. No mention of the 'Constitution' when the Patriot Act was passed. And I see how you 'citizens' wrap your arms tightly around little despots like Scott Walker, Rick Scott and other right wing governors. And never a PEEP when government wants to invade your body fluids. You TRUST government then, don't you?

 

[Gadawg73]

Under your logic if every media source that you view that offers their political perspective as conservative now all of a sudden went on air today on broadband and stated:
"All of us were wrong on all of our conservative opinions since we started. We know that the liberal position was right all along"
And you would then change your opinion IMMEDIATELY, become a liberal and go lock step with their opinions and bias.
That is what you claim, that the liberal bias of current media AFFECTS those that view it and make them liberals.

If presentation had no effect on the reader/viewer, if only hard fact were considered, then no one would ever buy a Macintosh computer. But we know that hype, spin, and packaging are often more important than facts and reality, thus Macs sell and the media shapes opinions.

Never said it had no effect.
Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
That shit simply does not happen.
Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Never said it had no effect.
Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
That shit simply does not happen.
Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.

Really?

So people are just sort of born with an opinion, and it never changes?

I mean, it's not like Oprah was spending hours a day touting Obama as the savior of man kind to the mindless fools who drooled over her show each day - or if she was, she had no influence on them (as her advertisers would attest..)

ROFL

Dude, drop the shit. Most of the American people are sheep led around by a cynical media, believing every bit of crap these clowns tell them. Yes, the flat-out propaganda by the leftist media DOES form the opinions of the the viewers, particularly in the case of television.

 

[daveman]

I don't want to anoint Obama king. I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, and Obama is not George W. Bush...

Nonsense. You desperately want to be a subject of government.

Me, I'm a citizen. The government works for me...not the other way around, the way you want it.

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking."
George W. Bush

"You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama

"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." -- Barack Obama

Oh yea, I talked to thousands of you 'citizens' when Bush was in office...there was not a PEEP about less government, debts, deficits, or overreaching government. No mention of the 'Constitution' when the Patriot Act was passed. And I see how you 'citizens' wrap your arms tightly around little despots like Scott Walker, Rick Scott and other right wing governors. And never a PEEP when government wants to invade your body fluids. You TRUST government then, don't you?

Odd. I heard plenty of criticism from the right about all those issues.

Perhaps you're just lying.

Say, have you signed the petition to put Obama's likeness on Mount Rushmore? How many times?

 

[Gadawg73]

How about we stick to the subject and continue you prove what an ass you are.

The press toed the Lefts anti-Vietnam line.

a. NYTimes’ Harrison Salisbury traveled to North Vietnam in 1966-67, and reported that the US was deliberately targeting the civilian population. But Guenter Lewy, in “America in Vietnam,” revealed that “Only after the articles had appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and the New York Times printed it as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting…borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, “Report on US War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City…” Lewy, p. 400-401

b. One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: “These boat people… "Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though this country stole large parts of their country from them in the first place." Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center

c. And the LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people..."Peter Rodman, “More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World,” p.186.

d. NYTimes Sydney Schanberg, wrote this, published on the front page April 13, 1975: “for the ordinary people of Indochina…it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.” So, communist victory was nothing to dread.

e. "it would be tendentious to forecast [genocide] as a national policy under a Communist government once the war is over." A year later, Mr. Schanberg was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, though not for tendentiousness. Stephens: From WikiLeaks to the Killing Fields - WSJ.com


Still want to contend that the press isn't Leftist?
Or...throw in the towel, Dullard.

I am proud to be a ass.
Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
You are a dumb ass.

1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.

2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
been forced to administer.

3. How do I prove that?
This is your post #103...
"Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want."

This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.

Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
Leftist views.

4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
this the first time you've done so- is the reason
why my contempt for you is immaculate.

5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
mending your ways.

Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
One is left and the other is a blow hard.
Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE.
Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters.
Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
31 + 29 = 60%.
Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.

 

[Gadawg73]

Never said it had no effect.
Most Americans know shit from shinola but of course pro wrasslin is Exhibit A how mass media hype is believed by many a fool
Just like many a fool believe Obama is .a Kenyan secret agent and not born in Hawaii.
Hype, spin and packaging gave us Bush II and Obama so I agree with your premise.
However, those folks were sold before the marketing.
Media NEWS and opinion of the news has little effect to CHANGE ones' opinion. No one watches the news and hears a talking head talk up a politician that is from the OTHER party they are from and WALLAH, change parties.
That shit simply does not happen.
Media is controlled by THE VIEWERS be they liberal, conservative or the majority, INDEPENDENT.
Note: MOST MEDIA has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, ideology or agendas.

Really?

So people are just sort of born with an opinion, and it never changes?

I mean, it's not like Oprah was spending hours a day touting Obama as the savior of man kind to the mindless fools who drooled over her show each day - or if she was, she had no influence on them (as her advertisers would attest..)

ROFL

Dude, drop the shit. Most of the American people are sheep led around by a cynical media, believing every bit of crap these clowns tell them. Yes, the flat-out propaganda by the leftist media DOES form the opinions of the the viewers, particularly in the case of television.

Weak attempt at a come back.
Your side states media CHANGES voters.
To date you have provided NOTHING to prove that.
All you offer is the "influence" argument which I clearly stated 100009 times I agreed with.
So you would change your vote and political party based on media. At least you admit and I admire your honesty.

I have dropped the shit. The last time I saw something like your post, I flushed it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am proud to be a ass.
Where did I ever claim the left was not majority left?
You are a dumb ass.

1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.

2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
been forced to administer.

3. How do I prove that?
This is your post #103...
"Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want."

This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.

Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
Leftist views.

4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
this the first time you've done so- is the reason
why my contempt for you is immaculate.

5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
mending your ways.

Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
One is left and the other is a blow hard.
Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE.
Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters.
Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
31 + 29 = 60%.
Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.

Oooo......
Angry, huh?

That must mean that I've skewered you.

My work here is done.

 

[Gadawg73]

1. I assume that you are contending that the media is majority leftist.

2. Clearly, this change in your position is due to the spanking that I've
been forced to administer.

3. How do I prove that?
This is your post #103...
"Those THAT WATCH the media control the media.
ALL advertising budgets of every entity that runs ads on media go by ratings.
And to those that have no clue how the free market works $$$$$ controls media.
And media gives it's customers what they want."

This nation is a center-right nation, with exit polls regularly
collecting data of 40% conservative vs. 20% liberal.

Thus, viewers, rather than controlling the media, are subject to their
Leftist views.

4. Your dishonest attempt to change and fabricate information-nor is
this the first time you've done so- is the reason
why my contempt for you is immaculate.

5. Have a Merry Christmas, and use that time to think about
mending your ways.

Never changed my opinion of the media or you.
One is left and the other is a blow hard.
Media goes after RATINGS and gets paid accordingly. Why do you think Rush, Sean, Glenn and my favorite Neal Boortz get paid the big bucks?
A little lesson for you as you have no clue how economics work:
The more people that listen or watch them the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE.
Why is that? Because the sponsors, THE FOLKS THAT KEEP MEDIA IN BUSINESS, pay based on ratings.
Polls are for dumbasses like you. Those of us that have to provide facts for jury trials as a living know that registered voters are a little more Democratic than Republican with the majority of the voters as independent.
77% of American adults are registered to vote. 31% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans.
I know facts are an area you shy away from and avoid but those are REGISTERED voters.
Since I am responding to you I will give you a hand and do the math:
31 + 29 = 60%.
Your contempt is the only thing about you that is immaculate. Those of us that have been beat up, shot at and left for dead do not sweat the small stuff like you do.
I am sure you attempts at feminine charm may work at times in your neck of the woods as there are many a desperate man around these days. However, I have seen your kind before and no matter how hard any man could try, a turd can never be polished.
And a Merry Christmas to you also. I am headed to Cozumel. Someone has to do it and it might as well be ME.

Oooo......
Angry, huh?

That must mean that I've skewered you.

My work here is done.

I am having fun. You remind me of 5 year old T ball. There is no score so the little goobers make it up.
Who is the sponsor of your imaginary score board? Depends.
Got to go. The Cougar P Baron is fueled.

 

[edthecynic]

The Left Controls the Media

"We have the media now."
- Ann Coulter to Brent Bozell on the 7/26/2005 Sean Hannity Show

PC has cut and run.

That must mean that I've made you eat your programmer's words and you do not like the taste.

My work here is done.

 

[daveman]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/potus-has-coffee-with-progressive-media-stars/

Those there included the Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, MSNBC anchors Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Hayes, the Nation’s editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, the New York Times‘ Frank Bruni, and stars of the interwebs Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress and Joy Reid of The Reid Report.
-Jake Tapper​

Getting the marching orders.

 

[xotoxi]

The Left Controls the Media

Your argument will only have validity if Fox News is somehow silenced.

Come back to me when this happens and we will discuss the problem.

First, it would seem to be more efficacious to discuss same with someone who has knowledge of the subject.

Second, are you aware of the the numbers of viewers of broadband vs. cable?

If the three nightly network newscast audiences in November 2003 were combined, a total of 29.3 million viewers, it would be more than 12 times the prime time audience for cable, 2.4 million viewers, during the same period.
Cable Audience | State of the Media same period.

So, your post kind of falls apart right there, huh?

Merry Christmas.

November 2003...hmmm...

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Weak attempt at a come back.
Your side states media CHANGES voters.

There is no question of that. No way someone with the politics of Barack Obama gets in office without a media campaign to market him and his radical views as mainstream. Few other than Oprah could pull it off.

To date you have provided NOTHING to prove that.

You're just not paying attention.

Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All you offer is the "influence" argument which I clearly stated 100009 times I agreed with.
So you would change your vote and political party based on media. At least you admit and I admire your honesty.

I'm a Libertarian, which is to say contrarian. Still, I'm influenced by what I read and hear.

I have dropped the shit. The last time I saw something like your post, I flushed it.

Yeah, but not until you ate it and passed it.