The latest from Diversity Lane. I must say, I am disgusted that the liberal MSM is not all over the Acorn stuff. Thank God for Beck and O'Reilly. It's no wonder FOX News dominates the ratings, the liberal media are in the tank for liberalism and often fail to report the news that matters.
It's no wonder FOX News dominates the ratings, the liberal media are in the tank for liberalism…
And the conservative media are in the tank for conservatism. This is news?!
Not sure who you mean by the 'conservative media' – if you mean Rush, sure. If you mean Fox news, studies consistently show that Fox News is actually fair and balanced compared to the others.
Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM
Now, some of the commentary shows on fox might be a little slanted (not O'Reilly, but Hannity for sure), but the news? No.
But I'm glad you admit that the MSM is biased.
Hi Daniel:
The link you posted was the same as one from awhile back. I would argue that there were methodological issues that preclude you from drawing the conclusion you draw about Fox News vs. the other media outlets. I think a better indication of the bias of Fox News is how wrong people who get their news primarily from Fox were regarding basic facts about the Iraq War. But what I really want to talk about is ACORN. The right has misrepresented (perhaps unintentionally) the voter registration fraud issue. The right paints a picture of ACORN manufacturing votes for their preferred candidates. But there is no evidence that anything like that happened, nor any reason to even suspect it. What DID happen was that in a voter registration drive ACORN paid people to collect registration cards. They were paid by the card which is typical in voter registration. Some dishonest folks faked some of the registrations so they could be paid for people they didn't actually register. Among the newly "registered" were cartoon characters and public figures, none of whom actually tried to vote. ACORN informed the Registrars about these fakes but according to ACORN, law prevents them from throwing away collected registrations even if ACORN knows they are fakes (otherwise you'd have groups throwing away the other parties legitimate registration cards). ACORN was the victim of REGISTRATION fraud, not the perpetrator of VOTE fraud.
your friend
Keith
One's perceptions of "slanted" news media depends on where one stands I've noticed. My view of Fox is that it's horribly slanted to the right (O'Reilly too). After all, this is the station that broadcasts arch-reactionary nutjob Glenn Beck. You, being a right-winger, see buy its claims of "fair and balanced" and see everything else as bias to the left. Completely subjective.
>> LOUIS: My view of Fox is that it's horribly slanted to the right (O'Reilly too). After all, this is the station that broadcasts arch-reactionary nutjob Glenn Beck.
Actually, I think Glen Beck is on CNN. But he's wildly popular, esp. compared to CNN's other content. I personally believe that anyone who thinks O'Reilly is biased has not sampled enough of him to make that judgment – he's really a moderate. He almost ALWAYS has guests from both sides of the issues. He was fair to both Hillary and Obama in their interviews. He's never given the birthers ideas a place on his show, but had repudiated them.
But he does mention the serious news items that the liberal media avoid – their obvious liberal bias is an insult to journalism.
>> LOUIS: You, being a right-winger, see buy its claims of "fair and balanced" and see everything else as bias to the left. Completely subjective.
NO, the studies I refer to were OBJECTIVE and measured the coverage on the various outlets. Facts are against you in this case – they show that the MSM is grossly liberal, and those who think not are being biased. Unless you can show how their methods or conclusions were illogical.
>> KEITH: ACORN was the victim of REGISTRATION fraud, not the perpetrator of VOTE fraud.
I think that's mostly right, but my impression is that this organization is pretty much a front for liberal activism and funneling government money to partisan organizations. I think it stinks to high heaven, and I think that Obama is trying to distance himself from it, even though his administration and close assoicates are peppered with a significant number of tax cheats, communists, socialists, and racists.
I add that I think Obamanomics is cursing us to generations of economic deficits, inflation, and government waste pretending to solve social problems. I am genuinely thinking that Obama is largely a disaster. I hope to God we get a conservative congress next term.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: ACORN was the victim of REGISTRATION fraud, not the perpetrator of VOTE fraud.
I think that's mostly right, but my impression is that this organization is pretty much a front for liberal activism and funneling government money to partisan organizations.
A front? IMO that's a loaded term. I think ACORN is pretty open about being a liberal organization.
I think it stinks to high heaven, and I think that Obama is trying to distance himself from it, even though his administration and close assoicates are peppered with a significant number of tax cheats, communists, socialists, and racists.
Racists? I don't see it. Tax cheats? I doubt that Obama is more connected with tax cheats than any Republican. Socialists and communists? Please! Van Jones was a FORMER leftist to be sure, but that's not his position now. You might as well accuse the Republicans of being connected to communists because former leftist thinker David Horowitz is now a Republican. This McCarthyist streak in the Republican party doesn't advance political discourse, it poisons it.
I add that I think Obamanomics is cursing us to generations of economic deficits, inflation, and government waste pretending to solve social problems. I am genuinely thinking that Obama is largely a disaster. I hope to God we get a conservative congress next term.
It seems to me there is an unfair presupposition in the above comment. Here's the thing. The economy Obama inherited was incredibly sick, very close to falling into another Great Depression. It's analogous to a person suffering from advanced cancer. Suppose there are two doctors who disagree about the appropriate treatment. One doctor wants to institute chemotherapy, the other wants a less drastic procedure. The conservative approach might be the best option, but chemo is a REASONABLE thing to prescribe. This is how it is with the stimulus package. It's not like Obama just out of nowhere proposed spending huge sums of money–his proposal was based on text book economics. If it turns out to be the wrong approach then that will be terrible, but the same would be true of the conservative approach–if it's wrong following that policy would be a disaster. The unfair thing about your comment is IMO that you refuse to acknowledge that a large economic stimulus is a redspectable economic opinion, not a radical proposal out of Mao's Little Red Book. There is way too much hostile accusation in the political discussion, way too little respectfully considering our opponents' views. I of course blame Newt Gingrinch for this:-)
your friend
Keith
Beck is on Fox.
>> KEITH: This McCarthyist streak in the Republican party doesn't advance political discourse, it poisons it.
It is exacerbated by the MSM's failure to examine and report such things, and by the Obama administration's constant backpedaling over poorly chosen nominees, or more specifically, 'czars' that they think they can slide by us without congressional vetting.
It's not just paranoia and McCarthyism, it's a real stink in the DEM party that makes the cronyism and dirty deals of the GOP look tame. Such lack of self-examination is a field day for the conservative media, and gives them all the ammo they need to undermine confidence in Obama.
>> KEITH: The economy Obama inherited was incredibly sick, very close to falling into another Great Depression. It's analogous to a person suffering from advanced cancer.
I don't see it that way. First, it was sick because of lending practices that the liberals were mainly to blame for. I know you dispute that. Fine.
But the market really took a dive WHEN Obama was elected, and since. I don't think that he inherited something in freefall, but his election, which was accompanied by fears of over-regulation (can you say Carbon emission credits?) and liberal taxation of corporations, along with the continued promise of bailouts, basically sent it into freefall.
I do not buy his "it's better because we spent all that money" – recent books examining the efforts of FDR indicate that his similar efforts lengthened and perhaps deepened the depression, and I suspect that Obama's infusion of cash is merely delaying the inevitable correction, but making it much worse b/c it is saddling us with even more debt than we had.
>> KEITH: It's not like Obama just out of nowhere proposed spending huge sums of money–his proposal was based on text book economics.
Um, yeah, Keynsian economics mixed with socialist nonsense, i.e. liberal textbook economics. That's not the only game in town. Some textbooks are flat wrong.
>> KEITH: If it turns out to be the wrong approach then that will be terrible, but the same would be true of the conservative approach–if it's wrong following that policy would be a disaster.
The problem is, no one tried the conservative approach, so instead, Obama is doing the most radical thing of all, borrowing scads from the future, while attempting to treat other non-ailments like healthcare and global warming at the same time with the same money and same patient.
>> KEITH: . There is way too much hostile accusation in the political discussion, way too little respectfully considering our opponents' views. I of course blame Newt Gingrinch for this:-)
Yeah, and he's the one making sense this time :p
My bad, he was on CNN from May 8, 2006 to October 16, 2008. I didn't realize he had moved over a year ago.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: The economy Obama inherited was incredibly sick, very close to falling into another Great Depression. It's analogous to a person suffering from advanced cancer.
I don't see it that way. First, it was sick because of lending practices that the liberals were mainly to blame for. I know you dispute that. Fine.
Indeed I DO dispute it. Financial institutions made bad loans because there was profit in it for them. It was a classic example of speculation, the same as in the Great Depression. But that's actually beside the point. The POINT is a sick economy might well require stronger medicine than ordinarily would be advisable.
But the market really took a dive WHEN Obama was elected, and since. I don't think that he inherited something in freefall, but his election, which was accompanied by fears of over-regulation (can you say Carbon emission credits?) and liberal taxation of corporations, along with the continued promise of bailouts, basically sent it into freefall.
The market? You mean the Dow and NASDAC? That's more or less a big casino. The financial markets froze in September of last year, that was the beginning of the current economic troubles, that was when we could have easily fell into a second Great Depression. The economy could have collapsed entirely.
I do not buy his "it's better because we spent all that money" – recent books examining the efforts of FDR indicate that his similar efforts lengthened and perhaps deepened the depression, and I suspect that Obama's infusion of cash is merely delaying the inevitable correction, but making it much worse b/c it is saddling us with even more debt than we had.
I don't agree with those who suggest FDR lengthened the Depression; I think their arguments make no sense. But that's not really the point here. There are first rate economists who say the stimulus was needed and is helping the economy. The stimulus isn't left wing radicalism.
KEITH: It's not like Obama just out of nowhere proposed spending huge sums of money–his proposal was based on text book economics.
Um, yeah, Keynsian economics mixed with socialist nonsense, i.e. liberal textbook economics. That's not the only game in town. Some textbooks are flat wrong.
There you go again:-) The President is applying standard Keynsian economics which is not at all "socialism". I did say that Keynsianism is the only game in town, I just stated the fact that it's at least a legitimate competitor as an account of how the economy works.
KEITH: If it turns out to be the wrong approach then that will be terrible, but the same would be true of the conservative approach–if it's wrong following that policy would be a disaster.
The problem is, no one tried the conservative approach, so instead, Obama is doing the most radical thing of all, borrowing scads from the future, while attempting to treat other non-ailments like healthcare and global warming at the same time with the same money and same patient.
It is impossible to try economic stimulus AND the right wing "just let the economy adjust on its own". You seem to believe that it is unarguable that your right wing view of the climate, the economy, health care (how on earth can you suggest our health care system isn't ailing?) is the right one, that only a radical could see things the other way. Tbis is exactly the kind of unreasoning conservatism that Louis has been complaining about! There exist plenty of smart people who have studied the issues and disagree with you. You can accuse them of bad faith if you want, or you can call them crazy if you want, but IMO that reeks of an unwarranted arrogance. In my experience such is not your usual MO.
your friend
Keith
"…that reeks of an unwarranted arrogance. In my experience such is not your usual MO."
[GUFFAW]