Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Alot of truth to that, being libertarian fox tends to strike more of a chord with me.

Are you one of those "libertarians" who has voted a straight republican ticket for the last 15 straight elections?

Well...I have yet to vote for a president being 17 during the 08 election , and no, I honestly vote for who I like. For instance a democrat was running for sherrif where I live and I voted for him because the Republican who had been sherrif for the past 10 years whose policies had quite frankly irked me. But admittedly I will probably commonly vote for republicans unless I like the oppositions policies(For instance I am against Illegal immigration, yet both the incumbent and the lead runner for Governor were both pretty much pro-illegal immigration, hence I refused to vote for either).

or
Are you one of those straight "libertines" who has voted a gay republican ticket for the last 15 elections?

Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:or
Are you one of those straight "libertines" who has voted a gay republican ticket for the last 15 elections?

I think I already established who I vote for

Wardragoon wrote:For instance a democrat was running for sherrif where I live and I voted for him because the Republican who had been sherrif for the past 10 years whose policies had quite frankly irked me.

As a side note, I've never understood why a law enforcement figure, which should in theory be a non-political position, even requires a party affiliation.

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:For instance a democrat was running for sherrif where I live and I voted for him because the Republican who had been sherrif for the past 10 years whose policies had quite frankly irked me.

As a side note, I've never understood why a law enforcement figure, which should in theory be a non-political position, even requires a party affiliation.

Agreed, its friggin rediculous.....

Ouze wrote:As a side note, I've never understood why a law enforcement figure, which should in theory be a non-political position, even requires a party affiliation.

Hey, the rest of us are trying to figure out why you guys vote for those positions....

Ouze wrote:

sebster wrote:Funny thing is, I'm not sure Nixon would even be able to get the Republican presidential nomination these days. He wanted universal healthcare and accepted that Keynesian economics were a central pillar of the modern world, he'd be far too leftwing for the current GOP.

Nixon ended Vietnam, created OSHA, created the EPA, signed the Clean Air Act, created the CPSC, and signed SSI. Nixon was far and away the most successful president in terms of advancing what would not be considered a liberal agenda. If it hasn't been for Watergate, I think he might have been the greatest American president in the last 50 years.

Nixon was a happy progressive president, an iron-fist-inside-a-velvet-glove president. He's more Woodrow Wilson than Calvin Coolidge.

There's only been three modern Conservative Republican Presidents in the last 120 years. Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower. Grover Cleveland was a Conservative by modern standards.

Stormrider wrote:Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower. Grover Cleveland was a Conservative by modern standards.

Reagan doesn't belong on that list if you're considering Cleveland to be a modern conservative. Reagan's foreign policy was deeply interventionists, he used deficit spending to increase the US military budget, and actually signed into law the largest single increase in taxes by revenue in US history at that time (necessary to maintain federal revenue after his income tax cuts). Eisenhower would also probably not be considered a conservative today, given his expansion of the New Deal.

Compare this to Cleveland, who vetoed more spending bills than nay President in history at that time, including appropriations for veteran pensions and Texas seed relief. He was also a staunch isolationist. Coolidge was also significantly more conservative than Reagan, though probably more conservative than the present Republican Party; especially in terms of foreign policy.


I think your standards for what constitutes a conservative President are too inflexible. Reagan was a conservative President, but so were Nixon, Ford. and GHWB. The reality is that most Presidents tend towards the center of the political forces that exist around them, and only very rarely make bold moves; generally coinciding with national crises.

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Alot of truth to that, being libertarian fox tends to strike more of a chord with me.

Are you one of those "libertarians" who has voted a straight republican ticket for the last 15 straight elections?

Totally unprovoked ad-hominim attack. You must be a Democrat.

It's your bag babbeeee yeah!

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower. Grover Cleveland was a Conservative by modern standards.

Reagan doesn't belong on that list.

Que?...

Connor McKane wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Alot of truth to that, being libertarian fox tends to strike more of a chord with me.

Are you one of those "libertarians" who has voted a straight republican ticket for the last 15 straight elections?

Totally unprovoked ad-hominim attack. You must be a Democrat.

It's your bag babbeeee yeah!

I find it better to ignore Democrat trolls, its like they don't have eyes or ears....

FITZZ wrote:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower. Grover Cleveland was a Conservative by modern standards.

Reagan doesn't belong on that list.

Que?...

I edited to elaborate.

dogma wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower. Grover Cleveland was a Conservative by modern standards.

Reagan doesn't belong on that list.

Que?...

I edited to elaborate.

Appreciated...and you do make some very interesting points.

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Wardragoon wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Alot of truth to that, being libertarian fox tends to strike more of a chord with me.

Are you one of those "libertarians" who has voted a straight republican ticket for the last 15 straight elections?

Totally unprovoked ad-hominim attack. You must be a Democrat.

It's your bag babbeeee yeah!

I find it better to ignore Democrat trolls, its like they don't have eyes or ears....

Then I saw this, and I laughed even harder.

Keep blocking any reform that the Democrats put forth just because they're a Democrat, buddy.

Karon wrote:

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Wardragoon wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:Alot of truth to that, being libertarian fox tends to strike more of a chord with me.

Are you one of those "libertarians" who has voted a straight republican ticket for the last 15 straight elections?

Totally unprovoked ad-hominim attack. You must be a Democrat.

It's your bag babbeeee yeah!

I find it better to ignore Democrat trolls, its like they don't have eyes or ears....

Then I saw this, and I laughed even harder.

Keep blocking any reform that the Democrats put forth just because they're a Democrat, buddy.

Hey if its a reform that shrinks the government then I would happily let it through

Karon wrote:

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Calling Fox "no worse than CNN" is the type of false equivalence that "independents" love to throw out there as an attempt to compromise. "Yes, side A is wrong, but so is side B."

Bulldrek. Have some principles. I would respect someone more for devoutly believing MSNBC is an unbiased news source than someone who believes that all news is equally bad.

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Calling Fox "no worse than CNN" is the type of false equivalence that "independents" love to throw out there as an attempt to compromise. "Yes, side A is wrong, but so is side B."

Bulldrek. Have some principles. I would respect someone more for devoutly believing MSNBC is an unbiased news source than someone who believes that all news is equally bad.

So people have to pick one? It can't be possible that they are all biased?

Toastedandy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Calling Fox "no worse than CNN" is the type of false equivalence that "independents" love to throw out there as an attempt to compromise. "Yes, side A is wrong, but so is side B."

Bulldrek. Have some principles. I would respect someone more for devoutly believing MSNBC is an unbiased news source than someone who believes that all news is equally bad.

So people have to pick one? It can't be possible that they are all biased?

Of course they're all biased, all news companies have one agenda or another. It's just that some are obviously more biased than others, and Fox is the best example of such a news company.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Karon wrote:

CageUF wrote:Fox is no worse than CNN or any of the other news channels, they all have their own agenda these days. Special interest groups suck.

I saw this, I laughed and moved on.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Calling Fox "no worse than CNN" is the type of false equivalence that "independents" love to throw out there as an attempt to compromise. "Yes, side A is wrong, but so is side B."

Bulldrek. Have some principles. I would respect someone more for devoutly believing MSNBC is an unbiased news source than someone who believes that all news is equally bad.

So people have to pick one? It can't be possible that they are all biased?

Of course they're all biased, all news companies have one agenda or another. It's just that some are obviously more biased than others, and Fox is the best example of such a news company.

That's why I watch Nationwide. The most controversial story they ever do is tidy towns.

Toastedandy wrote:So people have to pick one? It can't be possible that they are all biased?

You don't have to pick one, you can say that they're all biased (and they are). But have some convictions and be willing to say which ones are more biased than others.

Compare CNN's unceasing shilling for the present administration to the coverage of Bush over the last 10 years and you'll see a stark difference. Fox was willing to go against President Bush when they thought he was wrong. CNN spins relentlessly for Obama and rarely shows dissenting opinion.

MSNBC is obviously in a league of their own. Tingly legs and all.

I guess Fox is pretty much Sky? It shows endless repeats of family comedies with an openly right-wing news channel?
The only neutral news broadcaster I know is BBC, and they're still slightly liberal. Everyone operates on different levels of bias.

biccat wrote: You don't have to pick one, you can say that they're all biased (and they are). But have some convictions and be willing to say which ones are more biased than others.

Compare CNN's unceasing shilling for the present administration to the coverage of Bush over the last 10 years and you'll see a stark difference. Fox was willing to go against President Bush when they thought he was wrong. CNN spins relentlessly for Obama and rarely shows dissenting opinion.

MSNBC is obviously in a league of their own. Tingly legs and all.

so, you want people to have bias over bias. clearly you must have forgotten Fox's slobber-fest over GWB. they're just better at hiding their tingles i guess.

alarmingrick wrote:so, you want people to have bias over bias. clearly you must have forgotten Fox's slobber-fest over GWB. they're just better at hiding their tingles i guess.

Bias over bias? No, I expect people to have the intellectual honesty to say what their beliefs are, not to hide behind some non-partisan "third way" while taking cheap shots at the opposition (see, e.g., the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.). Come out and say what you believe.

Slobber fest? I don't think so. I recall Fox reporting pretty heavily on Katrina and laying it at the fault of the Bush Administration. Of course, they also had on opposing points of view, because that's what legitimate news sources do.

And either they're better at hiding the tingles, or they aren't there. You can either believe a conspiracy theory or accept the plain truth. I think the former is easier, but less honest.

Just to throw a bit more fuel on the fire, here is just one example of FNC not only showing bias, but actually censoring facts as to skew public opinion:

http://www.dailypaul.com/169900/morning-joe-censorship-on-rons-q2-push

I can't post the picture itself, as I have no idea how the whole thing works, but if you follow the link you will be shown a picture fom one of "Morning Joe's" latest programs. Essentially Joe was reporting the recent 2nd Quarter fund raising stats for the Republican primary, reading off and giving his opinion on each candidate as he went.

Ron Paul garnered 4.6 million, making him 2nd place on the list, yet somehow he is NOT listed or even mentioned during Joes show, even though every single other candidate was given a "run down" when it came to Joe's opinion.

Whether or not you like Paul, its very clear that FNC does not like him and does everything that they can to keep him as censored as possible. Normally I find MJ to be a bit refreshing and more balanced that the rest of the network, but its clear that the orders came down hard on him recently.

Fox News is not news, it is a 24 hour a day soap opera drama machine that was engineered for a "conservative" audience.

Manstein wrote:Just to throw a bit more fuel on the fire, here is just one example of FNC not only showing bias, but actually censoring facts as to skew public opinion:
...
Fox News is not news, it is a 24 hour a day soap opera drama machine that was engineered for a "conservative" audience.

biccat wrote:
You don't have to pick one, you can say that they're all biased (and they are). But have some convictions and be willing to say which ones are more biased than others.

I don't see why convictions are necessary. There is no reason that you have to form a belief regarding the varying degrees of bias of the various news agencies. It is perfectly acceptable to claim that they are all biased and leave it at that, or that they are all biased to roughly the same degree making a specific claim pointless given the relative nature of what is being described.

biccat wrote:
Compare CNN's unceasing shilling for the present administration to the coverage of Bush over the last 10 years and you'll see a stark difference. Fox was willing to go against President Bush when they thought he was wrong. CNN spins relentlessly for Obama and rarely shows dissenting opinion.

News agencies aren't supposed to make normative judgments of any sort, not if the purpose of news agencies is to relay information.

biccat wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:So people have to pick one? It can't be possible that they are all biased?

You don't have to pick one, you can say that they're all biased (and they are). But have some convictions and be willing to say which ones are more biased than others.

Compare CNN's unceasing shilling for the present administration to the coverage of Bush over the last 10 years and you'll see a stark difference. Fox was willing to go against President Bush when they thought he was wrong. CNN spins relentlessly for Obama and rarely shows dissenting opinion.

MSNBC is obviously in a league of their own. Tingly legs and all.

1. MSNBC and Fox are equally biased and equally opposite. Hard left/right
2. At the next tier is NBC and ABC, and CNN. Left
3. At the next tier is NPR, and BBC. left but cover it better

Is there even a CBS broadcast any more?

Your mileage may vary.

Manstein wrote:Just to throw a bit more fuel on the fire, here is just one example of FNC not only showing bias, but actually censoring facts as to skew public opinion:

As I said to biccat, if news agencies are only about relaying information, then they shouldn't make normative judgments of any sort. The problem is that news has never been about only relaying information, that's why newspapers have almost always included editorials, and journalists aren't limited to qualitatively neutral terminology. News is as much about conveying the opinion of the person relaying, regardless of bias in any particular direction, as it is about listing a set series of facts.

This isn't just because their opinions are important (and they are, because most people will know nearly nothing about any given topic of discussion), but because their opinions are entertaining. Its this entertainment component that draws in people that wouldn't read the news simply for its informative merit, and its also this entertainment capacity which will help convince an uninformed (and sometimes informed) person of what is being said. Its not just news that does this either. Even in the academy you'll see scholars who write particularly well gain more attention than those who produce amazing work.

Anyway, once you accept that news is, at the very least, swaying people to continue reading it, effectively manipulating the public opinion of the news source, then its a lot easier to accept that they would do the same regarding politics. After all, people don't tend to read stories they don't like the content of, not unless they're particularly engaged with a given issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
1. MSNBC and Fox are equally biased and equally opposite. Hard left/right
2. At the next tier is NBC and ABC, and CNN. Left
3. At the next tier is NPR, and BBC. left but cover it better

Is there even a CBS broadcast any more?

Your mileage may vary.

I would put CNN in the 3rd tier, but otherwise that's about right. I'd also say that they, regarding domestic issues, tend to favor whomever happens to be popular as opposed to having a particular bias towards the left or right. Their political analysts also tend to focus on the political effects of any particular story, as opposed to whether or not it was good or bad in any other sense. Most of that normative crap is saved for HLN.