Bailout, Fox-style

[jyoshu]

Why is it that people like Foundit who rail about conservative bias on FoxNews won't say much about the obvious liberal bias on MSNBC? I mean seriously. Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann?? It's not like these people aren't as biased as Hannity and O'Reilly. At least admit it goes both ways.

[jyoshu]

Originally Posted by foundit66

Also, I don't know what Obama himself has claimed.
If he just claimed that the AARP has seen the need for change, then that is very true.
If he has claimed the AARP endorsed his plan, I don't see the evidence of that yet.

Yes. He clearly indicated they had endorsed the plan. He got busted.
You know, believe it or not, it really is ok for you to not always give Obama and Democrats the benefit of the doubt everytime.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Why is it that people like Foundit who rail about conservative bias on FoxNews won't say much about the obvious liberal bias on MSNBC? I mean seriously. Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann?? It's not like these people aren't as biased as Hannity and O'Reilly. At least admit it goes both ways.

You know Jyoshu, nobody has ever asked me if I think MSNBC is biased.
NOBODY has ever brought up those examples before with me.
I have never argued against them either.

So now that you actually raise the issue, I'll be happy to say that MSNBC, Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann are biased towards the left.

It would be really nice if you could be more honest in these things and not raise a question FOR THE FIRST TIME and treat it like other people have been presenting (or avoiding) a position that they haven't hinted at before that...
Can you try that?

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Yes. He clearly indicated they had endorsed the plan. He got busted.
You know, believe it or not, it really is ok for you to not always give Obama and Democrats the benefit of the doubt everytime.

Wow Jyoshu.
Thanks for posting that.
It REALLY sums up your bias quite well, especially when you habitually try to accuse others of bias...

You presented the evidence, and I agree with CUNxTime's assessment.
I simply wanted to see the evidence first.

But you? Insisting that Obama and the Democrats shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt???
You just proved your bias.

My response was a simple request for substantiation of a claim.
YOU just proved that when it comes to Obama and Democrats, you often don't need substantion...
I guess that's why you were repeating Palin's junk in the other thread, without even bothering to check it.
But when you were challenged to substantiate it, you dropped it like a hot potato...

[jyoshu]

Originally Posted by foundit66

So now that you actually raise the issue, I'll be happy to say that MSNBC, Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann are biased towards the left.

Good. We agree.
The fact remains however, that I've never seen you start threads related to bias on the part of MSNBC, as this one does about FoxNews. Or even discuss it, that I recall. You didn't seem to need someone to ASK you about Foxnews to give your opinion on THEM. And one of the favorite things for anti-conservatives to talk about is FoxNews bias. We rarely hear about MSNBC bias.

Originally Posted by foundit66

But you? Insisting that Obama and the Democrats shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt???
You just proved your bias.

No, you misunderstood what I meant. It would be different if you gave both Democrats AND Republicans the benefit of the doubt. I'm talking about people taking a guilty-till-proven-innocent approach with Repubs, and an innocent-till-proven guilty approach with Dems. The fact you even came up with the idea that this might be nothing more that Obama indicating "AARP has seen the need for change" (rather than a politician being [GASP!] ... dishonest) is a case of giving the benefit of the doubt.
The approach I prefer is to hold politicians, period, to scrutiny and not assume automatic good intentions on their part ..... because they are seeking positions of power. Obama has a silver tongue, for sure. But he's still a politician.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Good. We agree.
The fact remains however, that I've never seen you start threads related to bias on the part of MSNBC, as this one does about FoxNews. Or even discuss it, that I recall. You didn't seem to need someone to ASK you about Foxnews to give your opinion on THEM. And one of the favorite things for anti-conservatives to talk about is FoxNews bias. We rarely hear about MSNBC bias.

"anti-conservatives"???
Please. Tone down your victim-hood complex.

And how many threads have I started on the bias of Fox News?
(let me guess. another question you don't answer?)

You're just digging for some way to complain, even when we agree...
Amazing!

Originally Posted by jyoshu

No, you misunderstood what I meant. It would be different if you gave both Democrats AND Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

No. I understood perfectly what you meant.
And I do give both the benefit of a doubt, when it's warranted.
It's just in some cases (on both sides of the fence), prior history demonstrates its not warranted.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

I'm talking about people taking a guilty-till-proven-innocent approach with Repubs, and an innocent-till-proven guilty approach with Dems. The fact you even came up with the idea that this might be nothing more that Obama indicating "AARP has seen the need for change" (rather than a politician being [GASP!] ... dishonest) is a case of giving the benefit of the doubt.

Wow.
I explicitly laid out two SEPARATE scenarios.
Too often, I have seen people twist and misrepresent Obama's words.
The fact that I gave two SEPARATE scenarios, one where Obama was irrefutably wrong, was an example of me giving the benefit of a doubt to a conservative.
I simply wanted proof, rather than have just a claim.

Let me repeat that again, cause I know you'll ignore it.
Me waiting on substantiation, acknowledging the scenario where Obama was wrong, WAS giving a conservative the benefit of a doubt.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

The approach I prefer is to hold politicians, period, to scrutiny and not assume automatic good intentions on their part ..... because they are seeking positions of power. Obama has a silver tongue, for sure. But he's still a politician.

And I was happily waiting for substantiation of that scrutiny.
Cause like I said, there have been TOO MANY TIMES where Obama has been mindlessly and grotesquely inaccurately bashed to just assume somebody accurate in their condemnation of Obama.

You just refuse to give me credit, cause all you're doing at this stage is trying to make ME the focus of discussion instead of an issue...

And BTW, I really have to thank you for that term PFOPIOI.
It really allows me to shorten things down...

[DrNo]

Originally Posted by foundit66

I'm sorry, but in an issue of Fox having conservative bias, any study that denies that is just plain nuts.
Fox's conservative news bias is just too well documented to deny.



It's not the only study out there.

Just out of curiousity, are you actually denying Fox has a blatant conservative bias?
Cause if not, our dispute is probably primarily semantical.
I have no problem acknowledging some other news stations have a liberal bias.

But when you have something like Dan Rather happen, people get called out on it.
I see the original post of this thread as little more than that. Calling a news station on something that is ridiculous.

This thread has thoroughly devolved from any discussion on what that video clip actually was. Fox News (or specifically an anchor) didn't like how the interview was going after they tried to skewer their interviewee on a biased approach, and so they cut it short for a ridiculous excuse.
Nobody seems to want to discuss that, which I guess is similar to nobody can deny that.

I don't know why you are saying nobody wants to discuss the issue. Everyone has pretty much responded by saying that this behavior is not unique to Fox News. Therefore, this is a problem with the media as a whole, not just Fox News. Perhaps others think it is somewhat pointless to single out one instance on Fox News as an indictment of the entire cable channel when ALL cable channels are guilty of the same thing. I know I do. Anyway, yes, Fox News is biased. Are you happy?

Here's a revealing clip from CNN back in the first Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZh1nm8Lzg

Open your eyes. They are all liars.

PS - Dan Rather was just a fall guy. If they expose somebody every once in a while it will keep Americans thinking the media is actually honest.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by DrNo

PS - Dan Rather was just a fall guy. If they expose somebody every once in a while it will keep Americans thinking the media is actually honest.

A "fall guy"? Perhaps.
Perhaps not in the way you would probably want others to think...

Dan Rather was forced, improperly, to fall on his sword.
He is pursuing a lawsuit on the issue, challenging CBS's assessment of his situation.
In Lawsuit Against CBS, Victories for Dan Rather - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

Dan Rather won significant victories Tuesday in his lawsuit against his former network, CBS, winning access to more than 3,000 documents that his lawyer said were expected to reveal evidence that CBS tried to influence the outcome of a panel that investigated his much-debated “60 Minutes” report about former President George W. Bush’s military record.

[DrNo]

Originally Posted by foundit66

A "fall guy"? Perhaps.
Perhaps not in the way you would probably want others to think...

Dan Rather was forced, improperly, to fall on his sword.
He is pursuing a lawsuit on the issue, challenging CBS's assessment of his situation.
In Lawsuit Against CBS, Victories for Dan Rather - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

Dan Rather won significant victories Tuesday in his lawsuit against his former network, CBS, winning access to more than 3,000 documents that his lawyer said were expected to reveal evidence that CBS tried to influence the outcome of a panel that investigated his much-debated “60 Minutes” report about former President George W. Bush’s military record.

Interesting article. Although the case doesn't appear to actually have anything to do with the actual allegations Rather made on the air, so I don't really see what the point is.

"Mr. Rather filed suit against CBS in September 2007, charging that his career had been damaged by what he called a politically biased report from the panel, which consisted of a former chief executive of The Associated Press, Louis J. Boccardi, and a former Republican attorney general, Richard Thornburgh.

The panel said that CBS violated its standards in the report, which claimed to have found evidence that President Bush got favorable treatment in order to get into the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The report stirred a political firestorm with conservative backers of Mr. Bush denouncing it as fallacious. Four CBS news employees were ousted in the aftermath, and Mr. Rather left his position as CBS anchor.

He has charged that CBS promised him further work and then reneged."

So he's not actually saying that his allegations were true. He's just saying that the panel was "politically biased." He's claiming his career was tarnished. Good luck with that case.

Either way, all the news networks are still garbage.

[foundit66]

Originally Posted by DrNo

Interesting article. Although the case doesn't appear to actually have anything to do with the actual allegations Rather made on the air, so I don't really see what the point is.

Before I continue, do you have any idea what "panel" they are referencing in the lawsuit, and what that panel's job was and what that panel's conclusion was?

Originally Posted by DrNo

So he's not actually saying that his allegations were true. He's just saying that the panel was "politically biased." He's claiming his career was tarnished. Good luck with that case.

Wow.
Do you think it's viable to just sue somebody who has a panel that concludes something you don't like, and force them to change their conclusion???

HE HAS NO RECOURSE in suing them to make them say "his allegations were true".
He is doing what he can LEGALLY. This is as close as he can get.

As for your comment "he's not actually saying that his allegations were true" ???
Just wow.
I didn't realize you didn't know that Dan Rather DOES believe his story was true.
Dan Rather vs. CBS, and the truth about George W. Bush | Salon

[DrNo]

Originally Posted by foundit66

Before I continue, do you have any idea what "panel" they are referencing in the lawsuit, and what that panel's job was and what that panel's conclusion was?


Wow.
Do you think it's viable to just sue somebody who has a panel that concludes something you don't like, and force them to change their conclusion???

HE HAS NO RECOURSE in suing them to make them say "his allegations were true".
He is doing what he can LEGALLY. This is as close as he can get.

As for your comment "he's not actually saying that his allegations were true" ???
Just wow.
I didn't realize you didn't know that Dan Rather DOES believe his story was true.
Dan Rather vs. CBS, and the truth about George W. Bush | Salon

Of course he believes his story is true. He wouldn't have much of a case if he said anything else, regardless of the actual truth. In the article you posted here, it says he will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his story was true and the papers were authentic. I guess we'll see.