fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And another example:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, no bias in media...check.
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Canceled my wife's subscription this morning. She'll understand.
Sent a letter to this biotch as well
Janice Min
Editor-in-Chief
1290 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Dear Janice,
I canceled my wife's subscription to your rag this morning after seeing your disgraceful cover of Gov. Palin. (My wife will now need to go back to using Tampax I guess).
You liberals will never learn.
I look forward to seeing your name counted in the unemployment statistics for October.
Have a great day wallowing in your own self hate.
Sincerely,
Sent a letter to this biotch as well
Janice Min
Editor-in-Chief
1290 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Dear Janice,
I canceled my wife's subscription to your rag this morning after seeing your disgraceful cover of Gov. Palin. (My wife will now need to go back to using Tampax I guess).
You liberals will never learn.
I look forward to seeing your name counted in the unemployment statistics for October.
Have a great day wallowing in your own self hate.
Sincerely,
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Well done, Bryan.
Would have been better if your wife had written the letter.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Why? I read it! I like the part where 2 women are caught wearing the same outfit and you get to decide who looks hotter in the outfit.
I'm glad I'm not the only one! I admit that I sometimes look through my wifes mags when doing my business in the bathroom. That statement will probably spark a scandal created by frenzied liberals if I ever run for office.Why? I read it! I like the part where 2 women are caught wearing the same outfit and you get to decide who looks hotter in the outfit.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I thought the corona emanating from Barry O was a nice touch. Almost a halo, y'know?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Courtesy of Michelle Malkin:
The cover of Us Weekly you didn't see.
The cover of Us Weekly you didn't see.
talk about bias... first you criticize that the media is being too positive. Now criticizing that it's being too negative. Make up your mind already!
It's politics, man. It's people exercising their 1st amendment rights. You wouldn't be whining if it were swayed the other direction.
It's politics, man. It's people exercising their 1st amendment rights. You wouldn't be whining if it were swayed the other direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
Cherry picking
I could probably make the opposite claim by citing Fox News or the Weekly Standard.
I could probably make the opposite claim by citing Fox News or the Weekly Standard.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Weekly Standard is not a news organization. It's a commentary.
Fox has far more liberal pundits on camera than any of the other networks have conservative pundits.
You guys want to tango? Fine. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me examples of bias toward conservatives from ALL networks, not just Fox. I guarantee you I can outdo you four to one.
And Us Weekly is...?
And you're right, that first comment I made was incorrect. It was shagdrum that was talking about Obama having more positive coverage than bad.
You tell me.
Do you expect to be subjected to a political message while reading US weekly?
Is it reasonable to expect a magazine like that to excercise neutrality and objectivity?
Let me also ask, did you see any of the editors or writers from US interviewed following that cover story. Did they ever answer, "Well, we're all liberals and we are overtly acting to support Barrak Obama in the '08 election" or did they backpedal and try to lie their way out of it, saying that the article is extremely fair and that the cover wasn't intentionally misleading.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's the interview of Us Weekly's editor done by Megyn Kendall of Fox News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJik26tDmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJik26tDmE
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And even if I did make the statement, positive coverage for Obama is consistent with negative coverage for his opponent. It's biased either way.
Duh.
You are oversimplifing things here and taking them out of context, which effectively is a straw man argument.
We were saying that they were being too positive in regards to Obama, while being too negative in regards to Palin. that shows a blatant double standard and strongly suggests a bias on the MSM's part.
There was never a first amendment issue here. No one is suggesting that the government come in and stifle political speech. This is nothing more then a red herring...
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
Moving the goal post
I believe we can argue on whether Us Weekly and Rolling Stones are true news organizations, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
This is about the media right? I still think your cherry picking.
Look I don't want to be antagonistic, so please don't lose your temper. I just want to be fair in our discussions. Nothing wrong with my challenging your assertions. You tend to do the same to any statements we make. Lets keep it civil, no need to tango, but we can discuss all you want.
I believe we can argue on whether Us Weekly and Rolling Stones are true news organizations, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
This is about the media right? I still think your cherry picking.
Look I don't want to be antagonistic, so please don't lose your temper. I just want to be fair in our discussions. Nothing wrong with my challenging your assertions. You tend to do the same to any statements we make. Lets keep it civil, no need to tango, but we can discuss all you want.
The Weekly Standard and Fox News are completely different formats, and USWeekly is another one entirely, as well. Also, we are talking about the mainsteam media, not the new media. Fox News and The Weekly Standard are not too relevant to that discuss. Try to compare apples to apples and stop distracting from the argument with red herrings...
Also, "astecknight", who specifically is "moving the goalposts", and how? It is easy to throw out that claim, but can you get specific about it? I don't see where you are gettin "moving the goalposts" from.
The cherry picking thing is not accurate either, but I think you know that. The evidence is not incedental, but rather all encompasing and overwhelming, when it comes to the MSM.
The cherry picking thing is not accurate either, but I think you know that. The evidence is not incedental, but rather all encompasing and overwhelming, when it comes to the MSM.
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
mainstream v. news
Changing the argument. Argument is about the media, never saw any other qualification. And as for formats, I don't think that was ever part of the discussion. I'm the one being accused of red herrings?
Regardless, lets say I buy the argument of mainstream vs. news media, how different is Us Weekly and Rolling Stone from The Weekly Standard? I thought it was agreed that The Weekly Standard was not news media. Still cherry picking, still moving the goal posts.
Changing the argument. Argument is about the media, never saw any other qualification. And as for formats, I don't think that was ever part of the discussion. I'm the one being accused of red herrings?
Regardless, lets say I buy the argument of mainstream vs. news media, how different is Us Weekly and Rolling Stone from The Weekly Standard? I thought it was agreed that The Weekly Standard was not news media. Still cherry picking, still moving the goal posts.
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
Its with a 'Z'
I was claiming that fossten was moving the goal posts, I submitted Fox News and The Weekly Standard as examples of the media not being liberally biased, and fossten dismissed my proof and demanded greater evidence.
For the purpose of this discussion I think calling cherry picking is true. The evidence presented here is cherry picking. Us Weekly and Rolling Stone are from from all encompassing and overwhelming.
I'll ask again that we keep it civil. Lets discuss like adults.
I was claiming that fossten was moving the goal posts, I submitted Fox News and The Weekly Standard as examples of the media not being liberally biased, and fossten dismissed my proof and demanded greater evidence.
For the purpose of this discussion I think calling cherry picking is true. The evidence presented here is cherry picking. Us Weekly and Rolling Stone are from from all encompassing and overwhelming.
I'll ask again that we keep it civil. Lets discuss like adults.
Well, McCain/Palin are getting way more coverage than Obama/Biden in the print media.
Who cares about magazine covers anyways? It's just fluff. It's just to get someone to buy a magazine.
I'm voting for myself for president. I don't like either party's choice in candidates. I suggest you write my name in too! I'm pro time travel, and will dedicate an entire multibillion dollar program to build a giant spinning black and white spiral. Which is why I'm a musician and not a politician.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nope. Wasn't cherry picking. If I had said, "THE ENTIRE MEDIA IS BIASED AND THIS LITTLE MAGAZINE IS THE TOTAL PROOF!" Then I'd be cherry picking.
Re read the title of my OP. It's sarcastic, not "all encompassing."
And while you're at it, do a search in this forum on media bias and note that I've already covered this subject ad infinitum. I'll give you a pass for being new to the forum this time, since you obviously aren't aware of the past history like so many of us are. If I weren't feeling generous I could accuse you of cherry picking my posts.
Furthermore, I didn't "demand greater evidence," as you put it. I simply picked up the gauntlet that you laid down when you said
In other words, you made a claim, and I said, wonderful, back it up.
That's not moving the goalposts. Sorry.
But hey, I'll go first, since you seem a bit gunshy:
1. Time Magazine has had seven covers with Barack Obama featured prominently in the last 12 months. Only two for McCain.
2. The New York Times recently published an Op-Ed by Barack Obama criticizing the surge. McCain sent them a rebuttal Op-Ed and they refused to print it.