Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Time to Get Rid of Glenn Beck?

MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:10:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Tyranny! Socialism! Nazism! Big-scary-black-guyism!

Am I the only one who feels that this sort of dangerous, offensive and moronic banter has to go? I don't mean 'has to go' as in 'the government should get rid of him', but rather isn't it time FOXNews finally says 'enough is enough.'?

The dangerous this guy is posing is becoming more and more apparent. Unlike, say, violent video games, this guy is advocating rebellion and revolution in real life. That may be fine if, say, he was do so based on evidence and fact. Instead he is a very well payed sophist; a man who will say anything to get a rise from his poorly educated, easily susceptible viewers. This sort of thing has never been seen before on a news network, and for good reason. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus; none of them can approach the utter insanity that Glenn Beck.

His constant and offensive distortions of the issues have, in one fell-swoop, destroyed the national dialog of America. No longer is this a debate healthcare, it's a debate about Obama wanting to kill your families because he's a communist Hitler who hates old white people. It's a product of Obama derangement syndrome.

So what do you think; does the Beckster have to go?

But, to be fair, he provides good fodder for Jon Stewart
http://mediamatters.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:18:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Glenn Beck is on a news station that panders to the less educated working class bible belt. He started off as a conservative and a humorist, which is all right, but to give him a show which is advertised as being 100% serious is just misinformation.

The truth is if Fox pulled the show, Beck would claim Obamas administration but Fox news network under pressure, which in turn would have them even more up in arms. There is no easy solution, and any attempt by Fox to quell Beck will result in him leaving and easily getting hired on some other conservative show.

But if the Fox's network expressed any concern with Glenn Beck initially, it owuldn't have degraded to the current standard, he would have been stopped. Fox wants ratings, not the truth.

In short, Glenn Beck sums up the GOP, willing to stoop to any level to oppose Obama on anything.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:27:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 9:10:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Tyranny! Socialism! Nazism! Big-scary-black-guyism!

Am I the only one who feels that this sort of dangerous, offensive and moronic banter has to go? I don't mean 'has to go' as in 'the government should get rid of him', but rather isn't it time FOXNews finally says 'enough is enough.'?

The dangerous this guy is posing is becoming more and more apparent. Unlike, say, violent video games, this guy is advocating rebellion and revolution in real life. That may be fine if, say, he was do so based on evidence and fact. Instead he is a very well payed sophist; a man who will say anything to get a rise from his poorly educated, easily susceptible viewers. This sort of thing has never been seen before on a news network, and for good reason. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus; none of them can approach the utter insanity that Glenn Beck.

His constant and offensive distortions of the issues have, in one fell-swoop, destroyed the national dialog of America. No longer is this a debate healthcare, it's a debate about Obama wanting to kill your families because he's a communist Hitler who hates old white people. It's a product of Obama derangement syndrome.


So what do you think; does the Beckster have to go?

But, to be fair, he provides good fodder for Jon Stewart
http://mediamatters.org...

Na, Glenn Beck is good for all.
Everyone needs a contrast to show the people a different view of things.

When bush was in office, no one was calling for CNN reporters heads, or any of the mainstream medias head.

Plus, you would think glenn beck would not be your first target... what about rush or ann.

You must see glenn beck as the closest to the truth for you to attack him first.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:33:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 9:27:54 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/6/2009 9:10:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Tyranny! Socialism! Nazism! Big-scary-black-guyism!

Am I the only one who feels that this sort of dangerous, offensive and moronic banter has to go? I don't mean 'has to go' as in 'the government should get rid of him', but rather isn't it time FOXNews finally says 'enough is enough.'?

The dangerous this guy is posing is becoming more and more apparent. Unlike, say, violent video games, this guy is advocating rebellion and revolution in real life. That may be fine if, say, he was do so based on evidence and fact. Instead he is a very well payed sophist; a man who will say anything to get a rise from his poorly educated, easily susceptible viewers. This sort of thing has never been seen before on a news network, and for good reason. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus; none of them can approach the utter insanity that Glenn Beck.

His constant and offensive distortions of the issues have, in one fell-swoop, destroyed the national dialog of America. No longer is this a debate healthcare, it's a debate about Obama wanting to kill your families because he's a communist Hitler who hates old white people. It's a product of Obama derangement syndrome.


So what do you think; does the Beckster have to go?

But, to be fair, he provides good fodder for Jon Stewart
http://mediamatters.org...

Na, Glenn Beck is good for all.
Everyone needs a contrast to show the people a different view of things.

Yeah, a contrast, but not someone who is a humorist trying to get ratings rather than give a proper viewpoint.


When bush was in office, no one was calling for CNN reporters heads, or any of the mainstream medias head.

No one on CNN advocated revolution.


Plus, you would think glenn beck would not be your first target... what about rush or ann.

They're nothing compared to Beck. Plus, Beck reaches a wider audience, and a more susceptible audience too.


You must see glenn beck as the closest to the truth for you to attack him first.

Ur, no.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 9:47:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agreed. My local radio station just picked him up and now I get to hear him every morning on my way to school, so it doesn't appear that conservative media are headed in this direction... Given what we know about Fox news, that it is the most heavily biased mainstream news source that the world has ever imagined, with a slogan that boasts "fair and balanced", I doubt they are seeing it your way. As far as shutting these people up, I say let them spew their nonsense. We only legitimize them with efforts to shut them up. They are successful in what they do, while liberals are not. And for obvious reasons, if you think about it: would you tune in to a liberal talking about saving the planet every day, or would you rather hear a guy that's provocative and controversial? Beck is a ratings-grabber. People tune in to try to catch him making a "Obama is a racist" comment, or something else that will cause a stir; it's not much different than the fact that the Fort Hood shooting got a lot of ratings, while another, more philanthropist news story, would get shelved to make room for the blood and excitement. I think the best thing to do, from a liberal perspective, is to let them spew their nonsense and make a55es out of themselves like these videos show.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:32:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda...

Your nutts.

He is exercising a very american tradition of capitalism.
Let his do what ever he wants, who are we to silence him.
If you don't like him, then turn him off, that is freedom.
You can make a choice not to listen to him, as obama seems to have done.
No need to call for his resignation, he holds nothing of importance to our way of life.

And sorry to break it to you, but i watch him everyday... most of what he quotes and says is true.
Radical, but true.

And he does not make prclomations, he just asks questions like...

"Look at the facts america. Is Obama socialist? It sure does look that way on paper. Anita, call me if i am wrong, please, explain it to me."

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority." - Benjamin Franklin
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 10:50:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:46:39 AM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Don' get rid of him, hes too humorous

Your right... this guy is funny!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:19:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yeah, a contrast, but not someone who is a humorist trying to get ratings rather than give a proper viewpoint.
First, Beck is a dramatist more than a humorist.

Second, all news pursues ratings, unless it pursues stolen money. I'd rather it pursue the former.

Third, what is a "Proper viewpoint?" Liberalism I presume.

Fourth, revolution should always and everywhere be on everyone's minds, even if it is a poorly made case.

Fifth, why the hell would Fox give a damn? Advocating that they stop this, even if justified, is like advocating that the cat promote vegetarianism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:22:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:32:08 AM, comoncents wrote:
He is exercising a very american tradition of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic theory. Glenn Beck, by having the ability to say something, is not exercising "capitalism" - he is exercising free speech.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority." - Benjamin Franklin

One thing to question authority, another completely to act completely bonkers.

On that note, who thinks Glenn Beck is just a satirist like Stewart overall? I mean, for the things he claims (like the Rockefellers being Communist, wtf?), there is no way he can be serious.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 11:33:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 11:22:18 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/6/2009 10:32:08 AM, comoncents wrote:
He is exercising a very american tradition of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic theory. Glenn Beck, by having the ability to say something, is not exercising "capitalism" - he is exercising free speech.


YEs, but not allowing him to make a living on whatever works... I was talking about the people saying his show should be shut down... i agree it is exercising free speech, but also Capitalistic to allow him to make a living this way.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority." - Benjamin Franklin

One thing to question authority, another completely to act completely bonkers.

Yep, but question authority while being bonkers is still ok.

On that note, who thinks Glenn Beck is just a satirist like Stewart overall? I mean, for the things he claims (like the Rockefellers being Communist, wtf?), there is no way he can be serious.

He has to make a living some how... He is like jerry springer (in terms of not being a reporter, just a crazy guy doing his thing.)... he is not a reporter or reports on daily news, he just gives his point of view.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:13:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Comoncents, the problem is not that Beck is talking at all and opposing the Administration. If that was all it would be great. I think we can both agree that opposition is healthy.

The problem is his method of distorting the facts and using insinuation to lead his viewers to conclusions that are just wrong. He even did it to you, causing you to say things like "Why do you oppose Beck the most? Because he is the closest to truth?" This is precisely the kind of rubbish insinuation that I have seen Beck make over and over again. And to answer your question: Quite the opposite. We oppose Beck the most because he doesn't care about fact. He distorts the facts to fit his version of truth (a version full of dangerous communists and nazis everywhere).

Fox should be punished for parading him around as a journalist and news anchor. Those things imply that he is required to tell you the truth. They get around this by calling them pundits. To their credit, at least the officially declare Beck as such. I would be fine if they made a point of reminding the viewers of this. Instead, Fox often subtitles Beck and the others as news anchors or journalists - which is not true.

As for fox getting rid of Beck? Don't get your hopes up. He brings in high ratings. They are about as likely to get rid of him as they are to through a hundred million dollars out of their window. The only reason they will ever get rid of him is if people stop tuning in.

To be clear: I don't oppose him airing his freedom of speech. I am fine with him airing his bs, so long as it is not paraded as real news.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:20:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:13:46 PM, JBlake wrote:
Comoncents, the problem is not that Beck is talking at all and opposing the Administration. If that was all it would be great. I think we can both agree that opposition is healthy.

Yep.

The problem is his method of distorting the facts and using insinuation to lead his viewers to conclusions that are just wrong. He even did it to you, causing you to say things like "Why do you oppose Beck the most? Because he is the closest to truth?" This is precisely the kind of rubbish insinuation that I have seen Beck make over and over again. And to answer your question: Quite the opposite. We oppose Beck the most because he doesn't care about fact. He distorts the facts to fit his version of truth (a version full of dangerous communists and nazis everywhere).


I can see that.

Fox should be punished for parading him around as a journalist and news anchor. Those things imply that he is required to tell you the truth. They get around this by calling them pundits. To their credit, at least the officially declare Beck as such. I would be fine if they made a point of reminding the viewers of this. Instead, Fox often subtitles Beck and the others as news anchors or journalists - which is not true.

I don't think they parading him as a journalist or a news anchor... he says he is not on his show.

As for fox getting rid of Beck? Don't get your hopes up. He brings in high ratings. They are about as likely to get rid of him as they are to through a hundred million dollars out of their window. The only reason they will ever get rid of him is if people stop tuning in.

To be clear: I don't oppose him airing his freedom of speech. I am fine with him airing his bs, so long as it is not paraded as real news.

I agree with ya.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:20:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:57:26 AM, comoncents wrote:
this is funny!
This is great!
Best ever!



I still think this is great radio/tv....
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:21:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 11:19:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yeah, a contrast, but not someone who is a humorist trying to get ratings rather than give a proper viewpoint.
First, Beck is a dramatist more than a humorist.


Well, similar professions. I guess Colbert would classify as a humorist.

Second, all news pursues ratings, unless it pursues stolen money. I'd rather it pursue the former.

Obviously.


Third, what is a "Proper viewpoint?" Liberalism I presume.

No, something which isn't blatantly distorting the facts.


Fourth, revolution should always and everywhere be on everyone's minds, even if it is a poorly made case.

Always? I disagree. It's often better to have something else on ones mind.


Fifth, why the hell would Fox give a damn? Advocating that they stop this, even if justified, is like advocating that the cat promote vegetarianism.

Exactly, Fox doesn't give a damn
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:26:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 10:32:08 AM, comoncents wrote:
I-am-a-panda...

Your nutts.

I would be inclined to think the "nuts" one would be the one unable to spell nuts properly.


He is exercising a very american tradition of capitalism.

A bad example of capitalism at any rate.

Let his do what ever he wants, who are we to silence him.

I never said the government should silence him. Free speech and that.

If you don't like him, then turn him off, that is freedom.

Right, I just think a lot more people shoudl do that, but sadly he appeals to a less informed audience.

You can make a choice not to listen to him, as obama seems to have done.
No need to call for his resignation, he holds nothing of importance to our way of life.

Oh, I do call for his resignation. He's distorting the facts, and Fox is doing damn all about it. There's voicing you opposition to a government, and then there is blatantly distorting the facts.


And sorry to break it to you, but i watch him everyday... most of what he quotes and says is true.

Such as? He's a dramatist, very little of what he says is meant to be true, but some people are stupid enough to believe him that he comes off as truthful.

Radical, but true.

No.


And he does not make prclomations, he just asks questions like...

"Look at the facts america. Is Obama socialist? It sure does look that way on paper. Anita, call me if i am wrong, please, explain it to me."

Yeah, after distorting facts to fit his little stories.


"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority." - Benjamin Franklin

Exactly, but not to lead the masses to revolution over lies.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:32:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:26:22 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Exactly, but not to lead the masses to revolution over lies.

What lies?
I really would like to know where it is you think he is just lying?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:39:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:32:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/6/2009 12:26:22 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Exactly, but not to lead the masses to revolution over lies.


What lies?
I really would like to know where it is you think he is just lying?

We've already discussed this several times. Beck rarely outright lies. He leads people through insinuation to believe what would be a lie if he came out and directly said it. For instance, he insinuated that the Rockefellers are communists. He did so by using mostly irrelevant evidence to lead the viewers to believe it (i.e. that V.I. Lenin appeared in a painting commissioned by Rockefeller [that was actually taken down due to this very fact, but Beck won't tell you that]). If he would have outright said the Rockefellers are communist, it would have been a lie, because they are not. But to insinuate it and let the viewers take the last step to accept it as truth is not a lie -- but just as bad.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:44:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:39:25 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 11/6/2009 12:32:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/6/2009 12:26:22 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Exactly, but not to lead the masses to revolution over lies.


What lies?
I really would like to know where it is you think he is just lying?

We've already discussed this several times. Beck rarely outright lies. He leads people through insinuation to believe what would be a lie if he came out and directly said it. For instance, he insinuated that the Rockefellers are communists. He did so by using mostly irrelevant evidence to lead the viewers to believe it (i.e. that V.I. Lenin appeared in a painting commissioned by Rockefeller [that was actually taken down due to this very fact, but Beck won't tell you that]). If he would have outright said the Rockefellers are communist, it would have been a lie, because they are not. But to insinuate it and let the viewers take the last step to accept it as truth is not a lie -- but just as bad.

Ok, i agree... with that... but they are not outright lies (or at least to my knowledge) which people seem to be claiming here.
Not you... but others.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:47:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you admit that he does these things, why do you condone them by supporting him? Those are just as bad as lying. He might as well be lying, it produces the same result for his viewers.

Why do you condone such dishonesty and irresponsible journalism?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:53:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
FOX IS BIASED TOWARDS CONSERVATIVES!!1! DON'T WATCH IT!!!!

CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC aren't biased at all, they just report the news.

^^^What happens when the liberals hijack a Glenn Beck thread.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:56:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:13:46 PM, JBlake wrote:

The problem is his method of distorting the facts and using insinuation to lead his viewers to conclusions that are just wrong. He even did it to you, causing you to say things like "Why do you oppose Beck the most? Because he is the closest to truth?" This is precisely the kind of rubbish insinuation that I have seen Beck make over and over again. And to answer your question: Quite the opposite. We oppose Beck the most because he doesn't care about fact. He distorts the facts to fit his version of truth (a version full of dangerous communists and nazis everywhere).
You wish to empower a state to determine what constitutes distortion?


Fox should be punished for parading him around as a journalist and news anchor.
Punished by whom, and under what new unconstitutional powers?

Those things imply that he is required to tell you the truth.
Where on earth did you get that idea? That would outlaw journalism under the modern mainstream view of Karl Popper, and I don't want a state running around with it's pick of the mill for other epistemologies.

To be clear: I don't oppose him airing his freedom of speech. I am fine with him airing his bs, so long as it is not paraded as real news.
So you also wish for all other forms of news parades to be outlawed (Colbert and Stewart)? Unless they have a disclaimer, which I don't think they do, I think it's more of an understood thing.

No, something which isn't blatantly distorting the facts.
Who is to determine this?

Always? I disagree. It's often better to have something else on ones mind.
One can have more than one thing on one's mind.

Beck rarely outright lies. He leads people through insinuation
Well, I'm sure other networks have INSINUATORS too. All he talk about global warming "Consensus" in the tones it is talked about amounts to insinuating "Dissent from consensus is always and everywhere unjustified."

This doesn't mean you shouldn't criticize insinuations you find false (Though blatant and constant craziness on a show that never presents itself differently is probably useful in that in calls to mind just what can be insinuated and provokes thought about whether the occasional insinuation, say, the Van Jones situation has any truth to it). But it does mean that it would be very bad, even for your viewpoint, to try to stop them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:56:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:47:40 PM, JBlake wrote:
If you admit that he does these things, why do you condone them by supporting him? Those are just as bad as lying. He might as well be lying, it produces the same result for his viewers.

Why do you condone such dishonesty and irresponsible journalism?

Well, i see your concern, but i really do not condone exactly what he is doing.
I think he does provide a different opinion on things.
It is like Thomas Jefferson dissecting the new testament to take out the name jesus or any form of a deity, some things are worth listening to.
Some of the people he allows on his show, do have go things to say.
I feel the same way about watching Bill Maher, i don't agree with everything he says but some times there is something worth listening to.

I say i watch beck, but really i listen to him while i clean or work out.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 12:58:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:53:43 PM, Nags wrote:
FOX IS BIASED TOWARDS CONSERVATIVES!!1! DON'T WATCH IT!!!!

CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC aren't biased at all, they just report the news.

^^^What happens when the liberals hijack a Glenn Beck thread.

Of course the all of the above sources are biased somewhat, it's just Fox denies it vehemently and has people like Beck on it.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:02:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:53:43 PM, Nags wrote:
FOX IS BIASED TOWARDS CONSERVATIVES!!1! DON'T WATCH IT!!!!

CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC aren't biased at all, they just report the news.

^^^What happens when the liberals hijack a Glenn Beck thread.

That is because Fox IS biased towards conservatives to a much greater degree. The others aren't really biased at all. I hope you will point out where CBS, ABC, and CNN are biased. MSNBC has Olberman and Maddow, but what else makes them biased?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:11:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 12:58:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Of course the all of the above sources are biased somewhat, it's just Fox denies it vehemently and has people like Beck on it.

Tell me when any of the other organizations have denied being liberal biased - or otherwise. Moot point.

At 11/6/2009 1:02:27 PM, JBlake wrote:
That is because Fox IS biased towards conservatives to a much greater degree. The others aren't really biased at all. I hope you will point out where CBS, ABC, and CNN are biased.

Are you seriously claiming that CNN is not liberally biased, this is pretty much universally accepted. CBS and ABC are in love with Obama and constantly advance issues such as health care, global warming, and the Obama agenda.

MSNBC has Olberman and Maddow, but what else makes them biased?

Lol, that's like saying FOX has Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, but what else makes them biased?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:15:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/6/2009 1:11:10 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/6/2009 12:58:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Of course the all of the above sources are biased somewhat, it's just Fox denies it vehemently and has people like Beck on it.

Tell me when any of the other organizations have denied being liberal biased - or otherwise. Moot point.

At 11/6/2009 1:02:27 PM, JBlake wrote:
That is because Fox IS biased towards conservatives to a much greater degree. The others aren't really biased at all. I hope you will point out where CBS, ABC, and CNN are biased.

Are you seriously claiming that CNN is not liberally biased, this is pretty much universally accepted. CBS and ABC are in love with Obama and constantly advance issues such as health care, global warming, and the Obama agenda.

Universally accepted by whom? You? You are going to need a bit more evidence than that, sir. As for a "love affair" with Obama, that is easily explained by the so-called "honeymoon phase" that EVERY president gets when elected to their first term.

Either prove a Liberal Media bias or admit that it is a myth.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2009 1:19:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Chris Matthews MSNBC = Biased
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."