No. You must have imagined it. I'm happy to debate the topic if you like. We could do it one of three ways. We could take turns naming newsworthy stories that the bulk of the media ignored, distorted or minimized. I'm willing to bet the majority would be stories on something that would have shed a bad light on liberals or their agenda. Or we could take turns naming mainstream news sources that are biased. You name one you think has a conservative bias, then I'll name one that has a liberal bias. Both of us should be prepared to defend our assertions. And we'll go back and forth. You will run out of names long before I do. Or we can start linking studies done on media bias. I bet you run out of ones that support your views long before I do.
There's not much point in making these comparisons with you. I believe most major news organizations like ABC, CBS, NBC news (not msnbc) CNN, and C-SPAN give their best to be moderate, if anything.. But you'd just turn around and call them liberal. We can't have a credible debate that's based largely on opinion. If you really want to see a liberal news source, check out my local paper -
Williamette Weekly or the
Revolution.
No, that's not what I said at all. What I said is that folks voted for Obama because they never heard the other side of the story ...
All of your crazy smear topics that came out about Obama being this nutty radical liberal was spammed in everyone's email for two years. You're just parroting that Sean Hannity line of rubbish "You don't know the REAL BARACK OBAMA!!".. You and Hannity should get a room together..
Conservative stations dominate the radio dial because they are interesting. The reason they are interesting is because conservative outlets have no problem letting liberals on to be interviewed or letting them call in to give their opinions
Dude, you live in some unreality..
Unfortunately, talk radio has only a relatively small, but faithful, following ... compared to TV, Cable and printed media, where liberals by far dominate the number of outlets and viewership.
I take that as a concession that conservatives are a minority.
Yeah.. right...
Let me try to lead you through the logic once more. You claimed the US is becoming more secular. I pointed out that if that's true, it's curious that Obama made a big deal out being religious the last two elections. [detour] There is also a relevance to the issue of media bias so I noted that Obama bragged about attending Reverend Wright's sermons EVERY week during the election in 2004 yet claimed during the Presidential election that he never really knew Wright's extreme views because he didn't hear the sermons. [/detour] The liberal mainstream media let him get away with that dishonesty
No they didn't. Who told you about it? The mainstream media did!! Duh!! It was TIRELESSLY played in the news...
It was easy to "demonize" given the unwise and illogical actions and opinions of liberals. And their inability to defend themselves in real give and take. I predict the same thing will eventually happen to "progressive". Then what will you call yourselves?
It was easy to demonize because conservatives are hypocritical loud mouthed bullies..
Is it depraved to point out that Clinton lied to literally every person he could possibly have lied to
And Bush told the truth to everybody??
and democrats still adored him?
They did? This country has a lot of people that continue to adore Clinton because there were no major wars during his presidency, the economy was doing well, he left with a budget surplus, and Seinfeld and Friends were still putting out new episodes.
I think that's rather significant, especially given the fact that his wife, a co-dependent liar, is in Obama's administration.
It's not significant, you're just looking for anyway you can, to keep the Clinton lynch mob mentality, fresh.. Clinton has become the "easy win" button in the minds of conservatives, and they don't want to let it go.
And I'm talking about how dangerous secularism has been in modern times. It's no coincidence that most of the modern tyrannies in the non-islamic world have started out as secular movements which identified themselves with flowery language like "progressive".
Yes, progressive is so flowery.. It couldn't possibly just be a word that represents what it means. Basically you're suggesting that godlessness = tyranny.. What a stupid blurring of facts one has to go through to make that conclusion seem credible.
I gave you a specific example. Can't you do the same? Or is vagueness all you have to offer?
You gave me a specific example with no citation. Do I REALLY have to pull up one specific example of right wing talking head buffoonery? Do you have any idea how easy this is? Just off the top of my head, one of my all time favorite examples of it:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=128349&title=Headlines---Secular-Central
Not at all. Modern extreme liberals, like Maddow and Olberman, seem to lack any real sense of humor.
I'm really frightened of what you deem as a "real sense of humor"..
I'm thinking it's somewhere along the lines of "Barack the Magic Negro"..
They are all around you. Ann Coulter is one. With great legs. But you take yourselves too serious to appreciate her genius.
ROFL!! her "genius".. wow, are you out there.. The only thing funny about Ann Coulter is her adams apple.
How about Ben Stein? Or Paul Shanklin? They are all around you but you take yourself too serious to see them for what they are.
Ben Stein is such a break out big time comedian... Who could forget him in Ferris Bueller's Day Off?? How many emmies has he won now, for his satire? None?? Oh, but he has that farce documentary "Expelled".. And that really relevant tv show that he hosts... oh wait.. he doesn't have a show, anymore..
Paul Shanklin?
This is the best you've got? Weak..
Oh now I remember you, you're that nutcase that uses "ROTFLOL" all the time and the stupid
face to act like you're being smug, and who gets riled up by everything Rush Limbaugh tells him to get riled up about.
Well name some of the conservative guests she's had on her show and the issue they were discussing. I know she's had Pat Buchanan on, but I don't consider Pat Buchanan to be representative of conservative views. I'm talking about conservatives who aren't stark raving lunatics or already viewed that way by most of the public thanks to the portrait the liberal media has successfully painted of them in people's minds. I'm talking about conservatives that on the inside of the mainstream conservative movement, not on the fringes or outside it.
Off the top of my head, there's her interview with David Frum (former speech writer for Bush).
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015173.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/rachel-maddow-battles-dav_n_134508.html
Just like in your ACORN, chicken little, thread, you continue to source blogs.. gj
