[Damn True]

LOL, are you kidding?

NPR is every bit as biased as Fox and the rest of the networks.

Oh wait, I get it......it's not bias if you agree with it right?

 

[golgiaparatus]

if indeed the facts prove your argument to be incorrect, WHY WOULD anyone be stupid enough to keep pushing the argument?

Thats exactly what I think, why keep going, like repetition can change someone's opinion? Restating something doesnt make it true.

Sheez. I'm sorry I even ventured over here.

Seriously, its just how I feel when discussing issues with a lot of conservatives. Its like selective hearing of something. Maybe you shouldnt venture over here if you are bothered by hearing people's opinions?

 

[Damn True]

Page 15 is interesting...

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

I would expect the networks to report things incorrectly more often FOX, CNN, and the regular networks are in a constant battle for "breaking news" as such they often report any info they have, as soon as they have it, only to come along later with different or conflicting info.

NPR dosen't broacast real-time so they have more time to get facts (when they are actually reporting fact and not opinion) right.

The thing they ALL have in common is that they are ALL biased. NPR is every bit as biased to the left as FOX is to the right and you can say the same about individual shows on any of the other networks.

Regardless if you agree with it or not, its still bias.

 

[Silver]

LOL, are you kidding?

NPR is every bit as biased as Fox and the rest of the networks.

Oh wait, I get it......it's not bias if you agree with it right?

Did you read that .pdf? Seriously...bias or no, that's not really what I'm arguing. Talking head or not, your average Fox viewer is seriously misinformed compared to your average NPR listener. You really think that PBS and NPR are out to get you?

Apparently, the bigger problem is that if you happen to be a Bush supporter the facts have had a liberal bias for the last 4 years.

 

[ohio]

To be fair, and despite the fact that I can't stand Carlsson and am a huge fan of Stewart, it is a fair point that Stewart has missed opportunities to "hold feet to the fire."

If he's going to claim that he's a comedian, and it's not his job, than it IS somewhat hypocritical to decide suddenly he's not a comedian but a critic of the media. To argue with myself, he has held some lower-level feet to the fire on his show, but he really coddled both Clinton and Kerry. It is hard to criticize a comedian for not grilling a former President and a potential President, especially when he has openly partisan stances, but then it puts him in an odd situation to suddenly confront the media.

Anyway, I DO side with Stewart and agree with his point of view. But I think for his criticism to be accepted he would have to remove some of the partisanship from his show, AND remind the political world that his show's PURPOSE is to critique the media.

 

[Silver]

I've also seen him coddle Ed Gillespie and the Republican governor who is head of Bush's re-election campaign. He's not really a tough interviewer, probably due to the lust of a comedian to be liked.

 

[ohio]

Also, it's not about far left or right versus mainstream, it's the wholesale acceptance by the media of whatever they're fed by either side. Critical journalism just doesn't exist anymore. Delving into real issues, rather than following the sensationalism, will cost journalists their access. Stewart actually had a great series of interviews and sessions on the DS about "talking points," and the like. See his interviews with Wolf Blitzer and some Rep Congressman, as well as the "talking points" clips.

I just wish Factcheck.org was a primetime news show... sigh.

 

[Damn True]

Did you read that .pdf? Seriously...bias or no, that's not really what I'm arguing. Talking head or not, your average Fox viewer is seriously misinformed compared to your average NPR listener. You really think that PBS and NPR are out to get you?

Apparently, the bigger problem is that if you happen to be a Bush supporter the facts have had a liberal bias for the last 4 years.

LOL, lemme guess, you are a NPR listener. Careful you don't hurt your arm while patting yourself on the back.

I'll say it again....I guess it isn't bias if you happen to agree with what they are saying.

The fact that you agree with the editorial that NPR is spraying dosen't make it any less biased than the editorial that FOX is spraying.

 

[Silver]

LOL, lemme guess, you are a NPR listener. Careful you don't hurt your arm while patting yourself on the back.

I'll say it again....I guess it isn't bias if you happen to agree with what they are saying.

The fact that you agree with the editorial that NPR is spraying dosen't make it any less biased than the editorial that FOX is spraying.

Hell no, I almost never listen to the radio.

Seriously though, have you read that link I posted earlier, or do I need to extract some graphs out of it for you?

 

[Damn True]

Yeah, I read it, which is how I knew that FOX and the other networks screw up more often which is to be expected based on how they present their editorial as opposed to the way NPR and PBS present theirs.

 

[Silver]

Yeah, I read it, which is how I knew that FOX and the other networks screw up more often which is to be expected based on how they present their editorial as opposed to the way NPR and PBS present theirs.

Which means...what exactly?

 

[Damn True]

It means nothing.

I would expect the networks to report things incorrectly more often FOX, CNN, and the regular networks are in a constant battle for "breaking news" as such they often report any info they have, as soon as they have it, only to come along later with different or conflicting info.

NPR dosen't broacast real-time so they have more time to get facts (when they are actually reporting fact and not opinion) right.

The thing they ALL have in common is that they are ALL biased. NPR is every bit as biased to the left in its editorial disquised as news as FOX is to the right in their editorial disguised as news and you can say the same about individual shows on any of the other networks.

Regardless if you agree with it or not, its still bias.

 

[Silver]

We're not arguing the same thing.

Bias or not, NPR doesn't hit you over the head with "Fair and Balanced!!!" or "We report (yeah, hmmm...) you Decide!!!"

And the results speak for themselves. NPR/PBS consumers are much less mis-informed than Fox viewers. Possibly selection bias, yes, but that isn't good for you either, is it?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Regardless if you agree with it or not, its still bias.

So who to listen to? I guess one can listen to either side and filter into one useless opinion...



Most people don't lean all the way to the "left" or the "right" anyway, there are more directions than that. I lean toward the "You're All Full of Sh*t" side of things. Vote for lesser evil, then pray.

BTW: the Ham Sandwich argument is totally lame, as we all know that Turkey Pastrami Wrap is a better candidate.

 

[Damn True]

If it makes you feel better about yourself then ok.

 

[Silver]

If it makes you feel better about yourself then ok.

It doesn't, because even though I know (and knew) that Bush's arguments for war were bullsh!t, I don't get to vote.

I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about you in your echo chamber.

 

[Silver]

BTW: the Ham Sandwich argument is totally lame, as we all know that Turkey Pastrami Wrap is a better candidate.

Turkey Pastrami is too close to the Israeli lobby to be a viable candidate, although I do like his position on the drug war...

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Turkey Pastrami is too close to the Israeli lobby to be a viable candidate, although I do like his position on the drug war...

Aw reeahlly? Iz thayut wut yoo reed in dem books and lissen to on dat dehr En Pee Arr?

Commy Pinkoh scum!