' Journalist ' RIck Sanchez says the news.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Saturday, April 11, 2009 18:14
VIEWED: 4573
PAGE 1 of 1

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:43 AM

No, not hardly.

CNN's Rick Sanchez Draws Link Between Shooting and Fox News' Alarmist Rhetoric

April 9, 2009
Rob Kuznia--HispanicBusiness.com

CNN news anchor Rick Sanchez is accusing Fox News and conservative commentators of stoking unfounded fear among right-wing gun-control extremists, saying it probably contributed to a rash of recent shootings.

In a recent report on CNN Newsroom, Sanchez drew a link, for example, between the "alarmist" rhetoric of conservative commentators and the April 4 killing of three Pittsburgh police officers. The suspect is 22-year-old Richard Poplawski, who believed that a growing left-wing government was conspiring to take away his rights.

"That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, 'Our rights were being infringed upon,'" Sanchez said.

Poplawski's Internet activities reveal that he was a frequent visitor of extreme-right Web sites, such as Stormfront -- a neo-Nazi site, according to Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

PENGUIN

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:46 AM

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:54 AM

So did Sanchez allowing himself to be tasered lead to the recent rash of taser incidents?

Just wondering.

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:56 AM

Quote:

Poplawski's Internet activities reveal that he was a frequent visitor of extreme-right Web sites, such as Stormfront -- a neo-Nazi site...

Certainly THAT couldn't have had anything to do with it...

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 2:08 AM

Sanchez editorializes while he's supposedly an 'unbiased' reporter.

He has zero evidence to support his claims and accusations. I believe these remarks are actionable, as in , he SHOULD face legal action by all manner of folks.

And folks say the MSM is 'down the middle' ?

ANTHONYT

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:30 AM

Hello,

I never much cared for that reporter. I remember seeing him often as a teen and young adult when I lived in South Florida. He carries the same cache with me as Geraldo Rivera.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:05 AM

Or Glenn Beck, another CNN alumnus...

CITIZEN

Friday, April 10, 2009 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks say the MSM is 'down the middle' ?

No, it's pretty solidly right wing, in America at least.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or Glenn Beck, another CNN alumnus...

Glenn Beck isn't a reporter. THATS the point here.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks say the MSM is 'down the middle' ?

No, it's pretty solidly right wing, in America at least.

Proof solid that you're nothing but a complete and total troll.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 10, 2009 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AUTroll:
Proof solid that you're nothing but a complete and total troll.

Yeah, because when someone said something I disagreed with, I immediately attacked them with a personal insult! Hold on, no wait, that was, that was you! How many threads of yours have ended up in troll country recently? None of mine have, just wondering how many yours have.

Proof solid that the American media is right leaning, and you're a foolish troll. As always AURaptor, thanks for proving me right!

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AUTroll:
Proof solid that you're nothing but a complete and total troll.

Yeah, because when someone said something I disagreed with, I immediately attacked them with a personal insult! Hold on, no wait, that was, that was you! How many threads of yours have ended up in troll country recently? None of mine have, just wondering how many yours have.

Proof solid that the American media is right leaning, and you're a foolish troll. As always AURaptor, thanks for proving me right!

All you're doing is taking what ever I say and taking the opposite view. The fact that an ANCHOR on CNN, goes off on an editorial tirade ( which reporters aren't suppose to do, because it discredits their objectivity in their work ) and goes on to make charges which aren't remotely supported by fact or evidence, and in fact are COUNTER to anything that's known about a story,. The fact that he goes on and names names, w/ out ANY scintilla of evidence, and accuses the Right of in any way being a root cause for why crazy folks have acted crazy.

You see, CNN is generally considered LEFT of center. ( Founded by commie admirer and solo nut case , Ted Turner ) An ANCHOR, who is suppose to report FACT, goes on air and accuses named individuals and FOX NEWS for things he himself has ZERO evidence for. Those folks he names are Right of centre.

Following along ?

So, I post that story here, and your reply is to point out that it's proof the media is 'RIGHT' of centre ? Thats the complete inverse of what the facts are, yet you , once again, are bent on playing the contrarian, for the sole purpose of being a troll. Because that's what trolls do. You ignore the point of an issue, and carry on with childish antics and petty insults. Like you always do.

ANTHONYT

Friday, April 10, 2009 12:44 PM

Hello fellas,

As a third party observer, I'd like to say that your exchanges are both routinely comical.

"I say Up"

"You say Down"

"I say its Great"

"You give a Frown"

"Up, Down, Great, Frown, let's call each other a troll!"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All you're doing is taking what ever I say and taking the opposite view. The fact that an ANCHOR on CNN, goes off on an editorial tirade ( which reporters aren't suppose to do, because it discredits their objectivity in their work ) and goes on to make charges which aren't remotely supported by fact or evidence, and in fact are COUNTER to anything that's known about a story,. The fact that he goes on and names names, w/ out ANY scintilla of evidence, and accuses the Right of in any way being a root cause for why crazy folks have acted crazy.

You see, CNN is generally considered LEFT of center. ( Founded by commie admirer and solo nut case , Ted Turner ) An ANCHOR, who is suppose to report FACT, goes on air and accuses named individuals and FOX NEWS for things he himself has ZERO evidence for. Those folks he names are Right of centre.

Following along ?

So, I post that story here, and your reply is to point out that it's proof the media is 'RIGHT' of centre ? Thats the complete inverse of what the facts are, yet you , once again, are bent on playing the contrarian, for the sole purpose of being a troll. Because that's what trolls do. You ignore the point of an issue, and carry on with childish antics and petty insults. Like you always do.

Whatever helps you ignore reality best. How many threads of yours have ended up in troll country again? How many of mine? Exactly.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:20 PM

How is stating facts = ignoring reality ?

I don't care how many threads you've jacked w/ your buddies, or petitioned to have moved, that doesn't in the least bit change the fact that you're a troll.

* And now we see you've included subject line changing to the mix. Bravo.

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:

All you're doing is taking what ever I say and taking the opposite view. The fact that an ANCHOR on CNN, goes off on an editorial tirade ( which reporters aren't suppose to do, because it discredits their objectivity in their work ) and goes on to make charges which aren't remotely supported by fact or evidence, and in fact are COUNTER to anything that's known about a story,. The fact that he goes on and names names, w/ out ANY scintilla of evidence, and accuses the Right of in any way being a root cause for why crazy folks have acted crazy.

You see, CNN is generally considered LEFT of center. ( Founded by commie admirer and solo nut case , Ted Turner ) An ANCHOR, who is suppose to report FACT, goes on air and accuses named individuals and FOX NEWS for things he himself has ZERO evidence for. Those folks he names are Right of centre.

Now wait a minute here. First, you say that Glenn Beck isn't a reporter. Now you say that Rick Sanchez is AN ANCHOR at CNN. You even used all-caps to highlight your point. Isn't Beck now an anchor at Fox? And doesn't he editorialize all the time?

I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around is the part where the two are radically different, where what one talking head says is "actionable" and he should be sued over it, while what the other talking head says is just opinion, and means nothing because he's not a reporter but rather an entertainer.

I'm just curious as to exactly where you see the differences. OTHER than just in their political leanings, I mean. Similarly, you've defended O'Reilly more than once as being "an entertainer", while he himself claims that he's a "journalist". Seems you can't have it both ways.

Can an anchor be a reporter? Can an entertainer be a journalist? Are such people only allowed to "editorialize" and state outlandish opinions ONLY if those opinions are right-of-center?

I'm not trying to be a prick here; I'm really trying to find out what your standards are, where you draw the line.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:26 PM

Glen Beck is an commentator, like Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reily. Sanchez does a NEWS program, not an editorial show. Big difference.
He's worked as a reporter in the field, and is known as being a JOURNALIST.

Chris Wallace is a journalist. When he reads the news, he's not editorializing. There's no " having it both ways" in the least. You're just not familiar w/ the difference, it seems.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How is stating facts = ignoring reality ?

Posting lies and calling them facts = ignoring reality = what you do.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't care how many threads you've jacked w/ your buddies, or petitioned to have moved, that doesn't in the least bit change the fact that you're a troll.

In other words, you've had your troll threads moved to troll country, proving you're a troll, and I haven't, rather indicating the opposite. You started insulting people for no reason other than you viciously can't except other people having a different opinion to you, and I only respond with insults to people who insult me. In other words your actions prove you're a troll, mine prove I'm not, and no matter how much you scream otherwise, you can't change those facts.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
* And now we see you've included subject line changing to the mix. Bravo.

I changed it back to original after someone had deleted it. I'm guessing you're attempting to claim I changed the title to some insult, but not only did I not do so, but I suspect you probably did it yourself in order to slur me. At any rate you were, and have always been the worst, and possibly only, person changing thread titles.

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Glen Beck is an commentator, like Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reily. Sanchez does a NEWS program, not an editorial show. Big difference.
He's worked as a reporter in the field, and is known as being a JOURNALIST.

Chris Wallace is a journalist. When he reads the news, he's not editorializing. There's no " having it both ways" in the least. You're just not familiar w/ the difference, it seems.

So Beck doesn't do a news program? Do O'Reilly and Olbermann not cover news stories?

Have none of them ever worked as reporters in the field?

Also, has Chris Wallace never voiced an opinion? He's never done anything but read the news?

I'm curious, really. I'm just wondering where YOU see the differences.

It SEEMS like you tend to give a wide benefit of the doubt to those who cover news stories from a right-leaning perspective, while slamming those who may cover the same story, but from a left-leaning perspective.

That may be my skewed perception, but that's the way it seems from where I sit, and from what I've seen in your past posts on the matter.

That's not an attack, but rather an illustration of how hard it can be to see our own biases, and how easily we seem to see those of others. I have them, too; I know this. I try to examine them. I'm the first to admit - and have pointed out many times - that MSNBC is definitely left-leaning. Hell, if you watch it for any amount of time, you'll see that not only do MSNBC's commentators, personalities, news-readers, or talking heads (whichever you'd like to call them, they're the ones on your screen) have a left-wing bias, but you can even pick out WHICH Lefties they're biased towards and against. For instance, Chris Matthews, early on, was a very vocal Hillary supporter. It was clear from his reporting, his words, his emphasis, and the stories he reported and the way he reported them that he liked Hillary, and liked Obama less. With Olbermann, it was just the opposite. There was a palpable sense of distaste whenever he spoke of Hillary as opposed to how he spoke of Obama. That's just a simple "f'rinstance".

My point is, we often have a way of assigning OUR biases to those we watch or listen to; we project our opinions onto them, and either we see what we agree with or disagree with reflected in them - "I like the way he does news; he's a JOURNALIST!" or "I hate this guy - he's just an asshole talking head!"

To me, Brian Williams is a news anchor. Walter Cronkite was a news anchor; that didn't stop him from voicing an opinion now and again, did it? Does Chris Wallace just anchor Fox News's national news? If so, he's a news anchor. But that doesn't stop him from "editorializing". You can editorialize with the way you say something, your facial expression while you say it, the inflection you put on your words. There can be a clear bias even while the words you say may read as being clearly unbiased.

By the way, I remember Chris Wallace's interview with Bill Clinton, and it clearly seemed like he was "editorializing" when he sneeringly claimed that Clinton "did nothing" to ever try to get Bin Laden. His distaste for the former President was palpable.

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 2:36 PM

Citizen ,
You are a troll. The events posted about Sanchez happened. You are an idiot and liar.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 10, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen ,
You are a troll. The events posted about Sanchez happened. You are an idiot and liar.

Thank you for proving me right.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:42 PM

It's so-called reporters like him and that buzzard looking old fart Jack Cafferty that CNN has fallen behind MSNBC in the ratings, which by the way is fine with me

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:55 PM

http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/foxnews_f_1.php
Greta VanSusteren,
http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/foxnews_m_1.php
Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera are all listed as FOX news anchors.

Those 'so-called reporters' are an embarassment to the profession.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/foxnews_f_1.php
Greta VanSusteren,
http://www.gogomag.com/talkingheads/foxnews_m_1.php
Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera are all listed as FOX news anchors.

Those 'so-called reporters' are an embarassment to the profession.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

What about Keith Olberman? As you know he's stupid, and a douchebag, and has a small penis, and is ugly, and hates puppys.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:13 PM

Citizen
You can't explain you comments, how I proved YOU right. You can't / won't explain because you're nothing but a pure troll. Thanks for proving ME right.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:24 PM

Citizensky isn't a pure troll, he's a fucking troll.

Just another obtuse liberal twit, too stupid to know the difference between news reporting and news commentary. Explains a lot about how they form their so-called intelligent opinions. A real sad and pathetic lot.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:43 PM

"What about Keith Olberman?"

Since I don't watch MSNBC, I have no opinion on him.

"As you know he's stupid, and a douchebag, and has a small penis, and is ugly, and hates puppys."

I'm really curious how it is you know so much, er, personal information about Olberman. Especially the penis part. And, does this have anything to do with your love of bagels ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:46 PM

"Just another obtuse right-wing twit, too stupid to know the difference between news reporting and news commentary."

You mean like Bill O'Reilly ? Laura VanSusteren ? Like those people ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"What about Keith Olberman?"

Since I don't watch MSNBC, I have no opinion on him.

"As you know he's stupid, and a douchebag, and has a small penis, and is ugly, and hates puppys."

I'm really curious how it is you know so much, er, personal information about Olberman. Especially the penis part. And, does this have anything to do with your love of bagels ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It's a well known fact in the industry he has a small penis, and hates puppys.....and bagels

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:55 PM

And YOU know this --- how ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And YOU know this --- how ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I'm surpised YOU don't know.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:06 PM

Ah !

I can see you don't want to answer the question - how DO you know about Olberman's penis ?

I gotcha'. It'll be our secret.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:09 PM

S'wenyways

No comment about Greta VanSusteren, Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera being listed as FOX NEWS anchors ?

No OUTRAGE ! over the fiction they are objective reporters ?

C'mon folks. You can do it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
S'wenyways

No comment about Greta VanSusteren, Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera being listed as FOX NEWS anchors ?

No OUTRAGE ! over the fiction they are objective reporters ?

C'mon folks. You can do it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Nope, I'm good.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:16 PM

Another one bites the dust.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another one bites the dust.

Why don't you bite me? And then shove your false pretenses of debate up your smug bum.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:30 PM

And another one gone.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And another one gone.

Bitch, ya think? Yanno I'm gonna try to drive YOU and all your vile friends off this board just like you've driven dozens of conservatives away. I'm having a real hoot of a time here today. Yippee cay yea mudderfoooker.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:55 PM

S'wenyways

No comment about Greta VanSusteren, Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera being listed as FOX NEWS anchors ?

No OUTRAGE ! over the fiction they are objective reporters ?

C'mon folks. You can do it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:57 PM

Eh, I was talking about you, Jong. Gone - as in over the edge. No more pretending for you now - eh? Trying to be human, intelligent, rational - was that too much of an effort ? Too painful ? Well, enjoy your trip into nowhere.

I won't say it comes as a surprise. Nor will I say it causes me any grief.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:58 PM

Jong, you're so funny when you sputter!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:07 PM

You're just two hopelesss idiots, Sig & Rude. I wouldn't wish that you both get run over by cars this weekend, because that would be a tragedy, especially if the cars were cool.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:11 PM

Quote:
Jongsstraw wrote:
Friday, April 10, 2009 09:07
You're just two hopelesss idiots, Sig & Rude. I wouldn't wish that you both get run over by cars this weekend, because that would be a tragedy, especially if the cars were cool.

I just had to save this. The irony is priceless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:11 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:12 PM

Back on topic -

No comment about Greta VanSusteren, Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera being listed as FOX NEWS anchors ?

No OUTRAGE ! over the fiction they are objective reporters ?

C'mon folks. You can do it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Jongsstraw wrote:
Friday, April 10, 2009 09:07
You're just two hopelesss idiots, Sig & Rude. I wouldn't wish that you both get run over by cars this weekend, because that would be a tragedy, especially if the cars were cool.

I just had to save this. The irony is priceless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

You create your own ironies, and then your lapdog bitch cackles at it. What a duet of douchebags you two are. Why don't you just go fuck eachother. You might like it!

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:18 PM

"You create your own ironies, and then your lapdog bitch cackles at it. What a duet of douchebags you two are. Why don't you just go fuck eachother. You might like it! "

And this. A model of intelligence, wit and skillful riposte. (:irony:)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Jongsstraw wrote:
Friday, April 10, 2009 09:07
You're just two hopelesss idiots, Sig & Rude. I wouldn't wish that you both get run over by cars this weekend, because that would be a tragedy, especially if the cars were cool.
I just had to save this. The irony is priceless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Barry's budget; 4 trillion

Barry's war; 89 billion

RUE's irony; priceless

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:20 PM

Zit's cream cheese on a bagel - you can't PAY to have it taken away !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
S'wenyways

No comment about Greta VanSusteren, Sean Hannity, Bit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Geraldo Rivera being listed as FOX NEWS anchors ?

Fox doesn't list them all as news anchors, just Gogomag.com.

For their official Fox bios, after a bit of google, I found this.
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/index.html

Per the Fox bios:

- Van Susteren hosts a "news an interview" show, and did news and analysis for CNN prior to coming to Fox.

- Hannity's current show "offers a mix of news, commentary, interviews and branded segments..."

- Hume "currently serves as a senior political analyst for FOX News Channel (FNC) and contributes to all major political coverage. Hume also is regular panelist on FOX's weekly public affairs program, "FOX News Sunday."

- O'Reilly's show is "a blend of news analysis and hard-hitting investigative reporting".

- Rivera "is currently host of "Geraldo at Large" on FOX News Channel."

Pretty much all these folks have their own shows where they deliver analysis and commentary, identified as such, and any news would appear to be just a lead-in to the analysis and commentary.

Hardly "News anchors" in the Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, McNeil-Lehrer, Rather vein. However, several do have long and distinguished careers on other networks before coming to Fox.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 8:10 PM

And Olbermann is also described as a news anchor and commentator.

If this is not a problem when practiced by the right-wing, why should it be a problem for anyone else ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Friday, April 10, 2009 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Jongsstraw wrote:
Friday, April 10, 2009 09:07
You're just two hopelesss idiots, Sig & Rude. I wouldn't wish that you both get run over by cars this weekend, because that would be a tragedy, especially if the cars were cool.

I just had to save this. The irony is priceless.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

You create your own ironies, and then your lapdog bitch cackles at it. What a duet of douchebags you two are. Why don't you just go fuck eachother. You might like it!

Tell us all again how full we are of vile hatred, because that particular brand of irony NEVER gets old!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RIPWASH

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And Olberman is also described as a news anchor and commentator.

If this is not a problem when practiced by the right-wing, why should it be a problem for anyone else ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I think some of that could be, admittedly, my own ignorance much like Kwicko's questions above. I saw Olbermann and Matthews as news anchors because I rarely, if ever watch them. I've only heard segments of what they say (like Matthew's "flutter up my leg" comment after Obama's speech) and have only seen them in what I can assume as roles as MSNBC anchors. In fact, didn't MSNBC have acknowledge the bias of these two at one point and released a notice that their responsibilities at the network had changed? That's what I recall anyway.

But I do listen to and watch Conservative commentators like Hannity and Beck and I feel I can say with confidence that they are, indeed just commentators. Not anchors. They relay news stories and then expand on them with their own views ("Here's what the news is reporting and here's what I find silly" kind of thing). The difference is that they actually say what they are. They say proudly that they are Conservatives with grave concerns about what the other side is doing. They don't claim to be non-partisan. Anything but. A journalist is supposed to look at a story from both sides an report that information to the public and try their best not to leave anything out.

I know this has probably been beaten to death before I came here, but one reason why people say the media IN AMERICA leans left (had to make that clarification for Citizen

) is because of the treatment of the two political candidates in the recent election. On the one hand, Time magazine features Obama on it's cover several times in a flattering manner. Pictures of McCain and Palin, not so much and not even really on the cover that I can recall (maybe one). McCain is scrutinized about how many homes he owns and Palin about her pregnant, unwed daughter and her wardrobe. Obama's links to Ayers and Kahlid Rashidi were barely given a glance. For Tom Brokaw to say AFTER the election that he didn't even really know who Barack Obama is should speak volumes as to how much in-depth coverage the current President was actually given. I firmly believe, just my personal opinion ("just because"), that if John McCain had a history of hanging out with one of the former leaders of the Weather Underground and announced his entry into politics at the man's house OR attended and spoke at the retirement party of a former spokesman for Hammas . . . that would have been the end of McCain's political career and he would have been torn apart over it. Can I prove that? No. But Palin was given the stink eye because of a video welcome she recorded for a convention of Alaskan separatists. One is definitely worse than the other dontcha think? Even just a little bit? Can I get a little bit of intellectual honesty on that one?

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

**EDIT**
And you guys have NO idea how nervous I get when I hit the "Post" button. You guys have been decent to me and I appreciate that.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:22 AM

RIP< the difference as I see is was that Palin gave a speech to the separatists as separatists while Bill Ayer's stint as a WU member had ended decades ago, and he was at the time involved in something else.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:32 AM

Quote:
In fact, didn't MSNBC have acknowledge the bias of these two at one point and released a notice that their responsibilities at the network had changed? That's what I recall anyway.

Did MSNBC *have to* acknowledge the bias of Olbermann and Matthews? I rather doubt it - those two freely acknowledge their biases themselves!

What MSNBC did was restrict them to their own shows, doing COMMENTARY, which is what their shows are - commentary on news stories. Pretty much the exact same format as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. They were pulled from some of the convention coverage, which they probably should never have been doing in the first place. They can be there to offer their opinions and editorials, but they almost certainly should not be anchoring the coverage.

Quote:
But Palin was given the stink eye because of a video welcome she recorded for a convention of Alaskan separatists. One is definitely worse than the other dontcha think? Even just a little bit? Can I get a little bit of intellectual honesty on that one?

Are you really sure you want to get into this? If so, can you be intellectually honest about it, even if it's just a little bit?

1) How much coverage did you actually hear in the "mainstream media" about Palin's "video welcome" for Alaskan separatists?

2) Was she really just welcoming a few separatists, or is she married to one of them? How many times has she addressed that group? What do you know about the group's founder and his views?

3) How much of ANY of that got into mainstream coverage? How many minutes of coverage do you think ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox gave that story on their nightly newscasts? Compare that to how many minutes of Obama's preacher or his "terrorist pal" you saw. Now compare how many pages of Time magazine coverage you saw on those stories, and how many newspaper column-inches were devoted to each.

Honesty isn't always pretty.

Oh, and the reason you've been treated in a civil manner here? Easy - you've BEHAVED in a civil manner. It really is just that simple.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And Olberman is also described as a news anchor and commentator.

Where? Is the source for this as reliable (or not) as gogomag.com?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:21 AM

I dunno - Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And Olberman is also described as a news anchor and commentator.

Where? Is the source for this as reliable (or not) as gogomag.com?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Wiki?

Quote:
From the Wikipedia page on Keith Olbermann:

Keith Theodore Olbermann (born January 27, 1959) is an American news anchor,[3] sportscaster, writer, and political commentator. He hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an hour-long nightly news and commentary program on MSNBC. Starting with the 2007 NFL season, Olbermann also has served as a co-host of NBC's Football Night in America.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?

Quote:
Anchor Olbermann counts on commentary to boost MSNBC's ratings
Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Keith Olbermann frequently needles Bill O'Reilly on the air.
Click photo for larger image. MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann can do sarcasm -- tinged with rage -- very effectively. He does it, in fact, every night on his cable channel's top-rated show, "Countdown," where he systematically eviscerates President George W. Bush, his policies, and assorted members of America's conservative political establishment.

MSNBC itself?

Quote:
Olbermann addresses the Military Commissions Act in a special comment

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'

Google is your friend. Just a quick search with the keywords "Keith Olbermann anchor commentator" turns up these results on just the first page.

Apparently more than a few people consider Olbermann a commentator AND an anchor. I myself see him as a commentator only.

But I have to ask the question: If a "reporter" or "anchor" gives an "opinion" or "editorial", does that person then lose the right to ever cover the "news" again? Are they at that point ONLY a commentator?

So with someone like, say... Bill O'Reilly. Since he offers opinion and commentary, is he no longer able to recount news stories on his show? Or if Tom Brokaw reports the news headlines - is he now not allowed to voice an opinion on any issue?

I'm just trying to understand where AuRaptor draws his boundaries. They seem to shift so often.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RUE

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:39 AM

"KEY FINDINGS:

The Washington Post published two news articles and one opinion piece that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, compared to 58 news articles and 35 editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Ayers.
ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News, and NBC's Nightly News all failed to air a single report that mentioned McCain's association with Liddy, but collectively aired 25 reports mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
The New York Times published one article and one editorial that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals compared to 16 news articles and two opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Rezko.
ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News, and NBC's Nightly News all failed to air a single report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but collectively aired five reports mentioning Obama and Rezko."

You'd have to be really, really hard up to say that somehow MSM ignored Obama's 'connections' (however tenuous or ancient) with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko, and was unfairly critical of McCain's close ties with Hagee and Liddy, or critical of his quid pro quo land deals with donors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
RIP< the difference as I see is was that Palin gave a speech to the separatists as separatists while Bill Ayer's stint as a WU member had ended decades ago, and he was at the time involved in something else.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Are you talking about the video message she gave a group holding a convention in her town ? THAT " speech " ? It was a chamber of commerce variety , and not an in person speech. As for Ayers, he's a terrorist who never repented.

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:52 PM

This is a little off topic, but maybe good for a chuckle;

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97F3F1G0&show_article=1

GEEZER

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wiki?

Keith Theodore Olbermann (born January 27, 1959) is an American news anchor,[3]...

Follow the [3].

"Keith Olbermann is host of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.” “Countdown,” a unique newscast that counts down the day’s top stories with Keith’s particular wit and style, telecasts weeknights, 8-9 p.m. ET on MSNBC."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/

Quote:
Apparently more than a few people consider Olbermann a commentator AND an anchor. I myself see him as a commentator only.

Yep. I'd say that straight news reportage and "partcular wit and style" don't really go together. Olbermann is in the same 'soft news' class with Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.

Quote:
But I have to ask the question: If a "reporter" or "anchor" gives an "opinion" or "editorial", does that person then lose the right to ever cover the "news" again? Are they at that point ONLY a commentator?

Depends on where and how they present it. Old-line hard news broadcasts sometimes had well-defined editorial or commentary sections, usually done by someone other than the anchors/news readers. Nowadays, with the 24 hour news cycle and lots of airtime to fill, many 'news' shows are almost all commentary and opinion and the lead person on the show usually does no reporting; leaving that to folks in the field who provide news articles for the host to pontificate upon.

From Rick Sanchez's bio on CNN, he seems to be identified as more of the old-line news anchor, leading a 'hard' news show.
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/sanchez.rick.html

Compare with the Fox bios I provided for the Fox personalities Rue cited and the description of Olbermann above, who have mostly 'soft' news, commentary, and discussion shows.

Actually, my dog on this fight isn't much about which talking head did what. I was just responding to Rue's usual tactic of throwing up bogus information, and, when called out on it, dropping that line of bull with no comment or apology and producing more unsubstantiated claims.

The fact that I can google doesn't remove Rue's responsability, both as a debator and as a courteous person, to provide references for facts cited.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"KEY FINDINGS:

From where?

Google, google, google.

Oh, yeah.

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

http://mediamatters.org/index

Now I understand why you didn't provide a cite for this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

WHOZIT

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"KEY FINDINGS:

From where?

Google, google, google.

Oh, yeah.

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

http://mediamatters.org/index

Now I understand why you didn't provide a cite for this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Isn't Media Matters one of those George Soros backed propaganda sites?

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen
You can't explain you comments, how I proved YOU right. You can't / won't explain because you're nothing but a pure troll. Thanks for proving ME right.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Citizensky isn't a pure troll, he's a fucking troll.

Just another obtuse liberal twit, too stupid to know the difference between news reporting and news commentary. Explains a lot about how they form their so-called intelligent opinions. A real sad and pathetic lot.

And thus, with your actions and desperation, you both continue to prove me right.

Nice to see you trolls stick together though, very sweet

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You create your own ironies, and then your lapdog bitch cackles at it. What a duet of douchebags you two are. Why don't you just go fuck eachother. You might like it!

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Why don't you bite me? And then shove your false pretenses of debate up your smug bum.

Two completely on topic, totally un-troll like and above all uninsulting posts, a fantastic return to form for our JS.

It's so much more fun when they prove you right for you isn't it? Ahh, feel the hate radiating off of this one! It's Browncoat JS, not Brownshirt, I know you need that pointing out

.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:11 PM

I just noticed the title changed right after I wrote the last two posts, at this time I'd like to take the opportunity to ask AUCraptor to stop being so pathetic as to try to frame me for his actions, thanks so much.

The thread title has been returned to it's original format, by me.

Anyway:

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
And you guys have NO idea how nervous I get when I hit the "Post" button. You guys have been decent to me and I appreciate that.

Might be something to do with:
This is how you talk to people:

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I think some of that could be, admittedly, my own ignorance much like Kwicko's questions above. I saw Olbermann and Matthews as news anchors because I rarely, if ever watch them.

And this is how others do:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen
You can't explain you comments, how I proved YOU right. You can't / won't explain because you're nothing but a pure troll. Thanks for proving ME right.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Citizensky isn't a pure troll, he's a fucking troll.

Just another obtuse liberal twit, too stupid to know the difference between news reporting and news commentary. Explains a lot about how they form their so-called intelligent opinions. A real sad and pathetic lot.

That's a rough guess. It's probably just my fault

.

Quote:
Obama's links to Ayers and Kahlid Rashidi were barely given a glance.
...
But Palin was given the stink eye because of a video welcome she recorded for a convention of Alaskan separatists. One is definitely worse than the other dontcha think? Even just a little bit? Can I get a little bit of intellectual honesty on that one?

His connection to Ayers is living near the guy, as far as I'm aware, while Palin is married to a separatist organisation. Even still, from what I saw of the American media it was Obama's 'links' that were blown out of all proportion, while Palin's were largely ignored. I still can't see what all the fuss was about with Reverend Wrights comments. Seemed like his sin was to say "America has social and racial problems", which is true, whether it's nationalistically acceptable to say so or not. I remember little of the other candidates links to far right churches being mentioned. In fact "fair and balanced" Fox News, which I believe has the biggest market share, was definitely have been easier on the Republican candidates, if not down right singing their praises.

In the end, honestly, having acquaintance level contact due to proximity of a man who wasn't convicted of terrorism years ago, isn't as bad as being married to a separatist, no.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:20 PM

Whozit - Media Matters was founded, in large party, by Hillary Clinton, I do believe.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:24 PM

*NOTE*

Citizen still has not, nor likely ever will, explain how I proved "him" right, when all I did was relay the accurate information.

Folks, the actions of a troll would be to continue to avoid responding in any sincere, coherent or honest manner, and offer irrelevant, and often childish insults instead. Just witness what happens, and judge for yourself.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
*NOTE*

Citizen still has not, nor likely ever will, explain how I proved "him" right, when all I did was relay the accurate information.

Folks, the actions of a troll would be to continue to avoid responding in any sincere, coherent or honest manner, and offer irrelevant, and often childish insults instead. Just witness what happens, and judge for yourself.

As proven above folks

Notice how it's come up with no evidence to prove it's case, yet says it's proven

Also, please note that the thread title was changed (something Crapo has already accused me of) right after I posted, in a blatant attempt at framing, but right before he did. I wish that to remain on record.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
*NOTE*

Citizen still has not, nor likely ever will, explain how I proved "him" right, when all I did was relay the accurate information.

Folks, the actions of a troll would be to continue to avoid responding in any sincere, coherent or honest manner, and offer irrelevant, and often childish insults instead. Just witness what happens, and judge for yourself.

As proven above folks

Notice how it's come up with no evidence to prove it's case, yet says it's proven

Also, please note that the thread title was changed (something Crapo has already accused me of) right after I posted, in a blatant attempt at framing, but right before he did. I wish that to remain on record.

You're still not answering the question. That evidence alone proves ME right.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen still has not, nor likely ever will, explain how I proved "him" right, when all I did was relay the accurate information.

For the record I didn't need too, you're proving me right that you're a troll with every post. I don't need to help you at all.

If you're referring to the bias thing, I'll provide evidence (which you'll ignore, like all evidence) which is more than you have done:
Report on media bias that found a John McCain slant sparks fierce debate
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/media-bias-repo.htm
l

Quote:
"Beyond the 2000 Election, this conservative media tilt has become a dominant reality in modern U.S. politics. The imbalance also was not an accident. It resulted from a conscious, expensive and well-conceived plan by conservatives to build what amounts to a rapid-response media machine. This machine closely coordinates with Republican leaders and can strongly influence - if not dictate - what is considered news."
...
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95
...
"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."
Noan Chomsky, in FSTV's documentation The Myth Of The Liberal Media

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You're still not answering the question. That evidence alone proves ME right.

I've backed up my case that the American media leans to the right. You've proven you are a troll I am not. You've never (not just here but anywhere) backed up you're continue mantra of left wing bias in the US media.

As usual you prove me right

RIPWASH

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
In fact, didn't MSNBC have acknowledge the bias of these two at one point and released a notice that their responsibilities at the network had changed? That's what I recall anyway.

Did MSNBC *have to* acknowledge the bias of Olbermann and Matthews? I rather doubt it - those two freely acknowledge their biases themselves!

What MSNBC did was restrict them to their own shows, doing COMMENTARY, which is what their shows are - commentary on news stories. Pretty much the exact same format as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. They were pulled from some of the convention coverage, which they probably should never have been doing in the first place. They can be there to offer their opinions and editorials, but they almost certainly should not be anchoring the coverage.

Quote:
But Palin was given the stink eye because of a video welcome she recorded for a convention of Alaskan separatists. One is definitely worse than the other dontcha think? Even just a little bit? Can I get a little bit of intellectual honesty on that one?

Are you really sure you want to get into this? If so, can you be intellectually honest about it, even if it's just a little bit?

1) How much coverage did you actually hear in the "mainstream media" about Palin's "video welcome" for Alaskan separatists?

2) Was she really just welcoming a few separatists, or is she married to one of them? How many times has she addressed that group? What do you know about the group's founder and his views?

3) How much of ANY of that got into mainstream coverage? How many minutes of coverage do you think ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox gave that story on their nightly newscasts? Compare that to how many minutes of Obama's preacher or his "terrorist pal" you saw. Now compare how many pages of Time magazine coverage you saw on those stories, and how many newspaper column-inches were devoted to each.

Honesty isn't always pretty.

Oh, and the reason you've been treated in a civil manner here? Easy - you've BEHAVED in a civil manner. It really is just that simple.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

In all honesty, I declare I don't know MUCH about the separatist group, but what I do believe is that a connection with a group of people who wish to separate themselves from America and a group of people involved in terrorist activities . . . there's a world of difference there.

Differences I see:
Rev. Wright - Obama was a member of the man's church for 20 years and yet claims to have NEVER heard the man talk like he did in the released audio tapes or even to have heard a hint of that type of rhetoric EVER is a little unbelievable. If wasn't such a big deal, why deny it so much and then distance himself from the man the way he did?
Hagee - McCain was never a member of his church that I'm aware of and can thus distance himself from the man's views that way. Right or wrong, that's the way I see it.

Liddy - a crook who did his time for his crime. His sentence commuted by Carter.
Ayres - a TERRORIST who was involved in the setting of several bombs, was never sentenced or did time for his crimes, is not sorry for what he did, wished he could have done more, said that civilian casualties are acceptable in times of revolution. "Free as a bird, guilty as sin. America is a great country" - Bill Ayres.

I see the huge differences (crook vs. terrorist - terrorist[b/]s if you count Rashid Kalidi) for example) there and if you guys don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. I think (and again, my memory of anything pre-Clinton is shady 'cause I didn't care one flip about politics then) McCain's history with Liddy and Hagee had already been done to death in the past. I could be wrong here. I freely admit that.

As for MSNBC, I think enough stink was raised about Olbermann and Matthews that, yes, they did have to make a big deal out of restricting them to their own shows and keepi

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:51 PM

You've missed the point, again. Intentionally, I suspect, so as to drag this thread on so you can submit it to Haken and whine " they're trolls! " .

At issue is Rick Sanchez's claim that another news channel, FOX, is to be held responsible for the shootings of 3 police officers. Sanchez makes this on air claim , in pure editorial fashion, w/ out a SINGLE BIT OF PROOF, what so ever, and then goes on to name names , like former CNN commentator Glenn Beck as part of some vast Right Wing propaganda machine, and there's no POSSIBLE way the disturbed 22 yr old man could have formed his views any other way, OR THAT THOSE VIEWS HAD ANY THING TO DO W/ THE MURDERING OF 3 COPS, than getting his marching orders from 'conservative' talk radio and t.v. !

*edit*This is EXACTLY the same sort of shit Clinton tried to pull after the O.K. city bombing, where he insinuated that Rush Limbaugh is on the air so many hours a week, and he, THE PRESIDENT, can't defend anything he does (No, all he has is the ENTIRE PRESS CORPS TO THE WESTERN WORLD in the W.H. Basement.

Avoid, evade, deflect away. That's ALL you're doing, but you STILL haven't explained how a NEWS REPORTER ON CNN basically libeling others is in ANY way what so ever proof that the MSM here in the USA leans ' RIGHT '. It actually shows the OPPOSITE of what you said.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've missed the point, again. Intentionally, I suspect, so as to drag this thread on so you can submit it to Haken and whine " they're trolls! " .

At issue is Rick Sanchez's claim that another news channel, FOX, is to be held responsible for the shootings of 3 police officers. Sanchez makes this on air claim , in pure editorial fashion, w/ out a SINGLE BIT OF PROOF, what so ever, and then goes on to name names , like former CNN commentator Glenn Beck as part of some vast Right Wing propaganda machine, and there's no POSSIBLE way the disturbed 22 yr old man could have formed his views any other way, OR THAT THOSE VIEWS HAD ANY THING TO DO W/ THE MURDERING OF 3 COPS!

Avoid, evade, deflect away. That's ALL you're doing, but you STILL haven't explained how a NEWS REPORTER ON CNN basically libeling others is in ANY way what so ever proof that the MSM here in the USA leans ' RIGHT '. It actually shows the OPPOSITE of what you said.

No evidence, mad foaming at the mouth and statements of fact that aren't?

Thus my I am proven correct.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:00 PM

you're the one not giving evidence, again, as I predicted.

which statements aren't factual ? List them. Explain to us all which ones, and why

Just answer the question.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you're the one not giving evidence, again, as I predicted.

Just answer the question.

I provided evidence, you haven't. As anyone scanning this thread can see. Lying now will just make you look like a delusional idiot.

So go ahead, if you really want to prove me right more than you have already.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you're the one not giving evidence, again, as I predicted.

which statements aren't factual ? List them. Explain to us all which ones, and why

Just answer the question.

Provide evidence for your claim, and ask a question (I can't answer a question you haven't asked).

Which news services are left leaning in the states? List them. Explain to us all which ones and why.

Or do you have nothing?

Just provide some evidence, and answer the question.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
you're the one not giving evidence, again, as I predicted.

Just answer the question.

I provided evidence, you haven't. As anyone scanning this thread can see. Lying now will just make you look like a delusional idiot.

So go ahead, if you really want to prove me right more than you have already.

You've given nothing w/ respect to the specific issue. All you've done is tried to CYA w/ regard ot the broader question of whether or not the MSM leans left ( it undeniably does ) or right here in the US. But that's not at issue here. You refuse to address the issue because you don't want to admit to things you wish weren't true.

It's really that simple.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You've given nothing w/ respect to the specific issue. All you've done is tried to CYA w/ regard ot the broader question of whether or not the MSM leans left ( it undeniably does ) or right here in the US. But that's not at issue here. You refuse to address the issue because you don't want to admit to things you wish weren't true.

It's really that simple.

You claimed that the entire US media is liberally biased based on the comments of a single person. I refuted that claim, and only that claim. If you wanted the thread to not include discussion of the bias of the US media, YOU shouldn't have brought it up. YOU did bring it up, thus it is now part of the issue. Crying about that now proves nothing other than you know you've been proven wrong, and that you know you are unable to back up your unsupported statements made earlier. Trying to dismiss my comments simply because they refute an off topic statement you made earlier, is nothing but a sign of your desperation and inability to back up word one of your mad ravings.

You refuse to back up your baseless claim, and demand the scope is limited (the debate is framed) into a narrow specific point, after you've had your say on extraneous issues, because YOU refuse to admit things you wish weren't true.

That's how you've proven me right.

It's really as simple as that.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:03 PM

If there needed to be any more proof of the bias of the MSM, then this would be it. Yet you focused on a throw away remark, something which is as undeniable as the rising and falling as the tide, ignored the entire POINT of the thread, just so you could avoid agreeing with me. That's how I see this. If you wanted to start your own thread on the tired old argument of whether the MSM here in the U.S. leans left or right, start your own thread.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:39 PM

Still no counter-evidence to back up your assertions I see. Not that I expect any, I'm just pointing it out while you equivocate and spin, hoping that no one will notice how hopeless your position has become.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If there needed to be any more proof of the bias of the MSM, then this would be it. Yet you focused on a throw away remark, something which is as undeniable as the rising and falling as the tide, ignored the entire POINT of the thread, just so you could avoid agreeing with me. That's how I see this. If you wanted to start your own thread on the tired old argument of whether the MSM here in the U.S. leans left or right, start your own thread.

This proves nothing. It at best proves one thing about one guy. Your desire to expand that to proving everything about all the media proves only that you are hopelessly incapable of factoring evidence. The fact that you went so vehemently and rabidly personal over a throw away remark in response to your own, the fact that you snipe at me for doing no more than you yourself did, says nothing about me and everything about you. You wanted to start a thread about your tired and baseless old argument that the US media is liberally biased, and as usually you spat the dummy and demand people go start their own threads because they dare to speak out against your baseless RapFacts™.

How you see it is evidently, and totally wrong. No matter how much you wish to play the victim, the evidence, and your actions speak for themselves. That you're likely the only person who doesn't see it that way is hardly anything new.

If you hate the idea of someone saying something you disagree with on one of your threads so much, just don't post, because that's the only way you'll stop it happening. I get that you, like many of your right wing buddies passionately hate freedom of speech, but you can't stop it, sorry.

You're wrong in the initial statement I argued against. Crying that your bullshit has flaked apart and attempting to frame the debate does nothing but prove me right. So please, do continue.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
It at best proves one thing about one guy

And that ONE guy is the one you keep dodging away from talking about. Amazing!

There's nothing else left for me to do but just laugh at you!

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
It at best proves one thing about one guy
And that ONE guy is the one you keep dodging away from talking about. Amazing!

There's nothing else left for me to do but just laugh at you!

Uhuh.

As I said, you've got nothing. Your case has collapsed, and now all you have got left is to lie and insult, and claim you think the actions of others are funny, in the hopes some one'll mistake that stench of desperation for something else.

Still no evidence to back up your claims I see. Not that I expect any. Trying to dodge the fact that this one thing that nobody except you cares about, because it proves nothing but it's all you've got, only goes to show you're wrong, and you're not man enough to admit it.

I guess we'll all just carry on laughing at the angry little monkey: AUCrapo.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:03 PM

I'll pay 500$ to your favourite charity if you show me where you discussed what Rick Sanchez did , how it was wrong ( or right ) and where I lied per this topic.

Go for it, dude.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll pay 500$ to your favourite charity if you show me where you discussed what Rick Sanchez did , how it was wrong ( or right ) and where I lied per this topic.

Go for it, dude.

No evidence to back up your claims still I see. Nothing but a sad pathetic attempt to frame the debate to prevent all the evidence that proves you wrong being submitted. Such it is with authoritarian propagandists.

I'll discuss Rick Sanchez as soon as you show how his comments prove word one about your lies about the whole American media. The moment you show how he is relevant to the over arching lie you tried to promulgate, I'll discuss him, but you have to do that first.

Because right now all you're doing is trying to focus on one tiny little part of a case you attempted to make, and force everyone to do the same so you can pass on your lie.

So go for it girl. Or just lie again, try to frame the debate, and insult me, thereby proving you've got nothing.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:24 PM

Wow. How utterly selfish and petty are you, that you won't even admit you're wrong. Even with 500 $ possibly on the line.

Oh, wait....that's not on the line, as we both know you NEVER discussed anything about the subject of this thread.

Oh well. Thanks for proving my point, once again.

* Want to start your own thread on another topic ? Maybe about the bias of the MSM ? Go for it, if you've got the guts.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wow. How utterly selfish and petty are you, that you won't even admit you're wrong. Even with 500 $ possibly on the line.

Oh, wait....that's not on the line, as we both know you NEVER discussed anything about the subject of this thread.

Oh well. Thanks for proving my point, once again.

* Want to start your own thread on another topic ? Maybe about the bias of the MSM ? Go for it, if you've got the guts.

Hmm, ok. It still proves nothing, but then nothing is what you usually have. I didn't take your offer seriously, but by this I assume it was a serious offer, and since it's such a simple thing to do:

He's probably got a point. If Fox News is screaming "he's taking away your rights" all the time, and someone takes that and starts killing folk, then well it's an indication to stop being so baselessly alarmist. They're not to blame though, no one is to blame but the guy who started shooting.

Does it prove he has a liberal bias though? Nope, disagreeing with Fox News, even claiming they're irresponsible reporting was at fault for a violent incident, in no way proves any bias whatsoever.

As for where you lied about this topic? Well you claimed through inference that this one incident proves the entire America media is liberally biased (proven by your vicious reaction when I mentioned it might be biased to the right). Well, that's a comment on this topic, and it's blatantly untrue. Anyone with half a brain can tell that Rick Sanchez's comments say nothing about anyone's biases, except Rick Sanchez's. Beyond that, there's nothing whatsoever liberal about any bias he's shown.

Not to mention that he's attacking another media outlet (fox news), something you well know since you're the one claiming bias because he did so. Now, the only way you could really accept his attack on Fox News as a liberal bias, is if we accept that Fox News is the unquestioned voice of the right. Or in other terms not liberally biased at all. In which case the very premise that whole of the American media is liberally biased, is self defeating when based on the ground work you submitted.

Thus I have commented on Rick Sanchez, and I have shown where you lied about this topic (when you claimed that it proved the US Media is liberally biased).

My chosen charity is Care which you can find here:
http://www.careinternational.org.uk/

I expect you to put up an image (with any personal details admitted of course) of the receipt for your donation, to the sum of $500 US. Thank you.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:58 PM

Quote:
I'll pay 500$ to your favourite charity if you show me where you discussed what Rick Sanchez did , how it was wrong ( or right ) and where I lied per this topic.

Sorry pal, you didn't live up to the rules of the challenge. I asked you to prove that you HAD already discussed ( past tense ) the thread topic. Doing it ex post facto doesn't count. So sorry.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Sorry pal, you didn't live up to the rules of the challenge. I asked you to prove that you HAD already discussed ( past tense ) the thread topic. Doing it ex post facto doesn't count. So sorry.

Or in other words you're so petty and selfish that you use a lie about making charitable donations to attack other posters, while having no desire to ever donate to any charity (like most people of the far right).

That's sick

I note for the record I've proven AURaptor dead wrong with one of his earlier statements, and his only defence and argument has been to try to claim that it's off topic so doesn't count. I also note that evidently YOU don't want to discuss this topic, since every opportunity you've had to do so, has been ignored in preference to trying to claim things about other posters. Thus you further prove that I proved you wrong.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:09 PM

Not a lie in the least. Just your inability to -

Follow along in a thread

Read the rules of a challenge enough to know what you're agreeing to in the first place.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not a lie in the least. Just your inability to -

Follow along in a thread

Read the rules of a challenge enough to know what you're agreeing to in the first place.

Uhuh, Selfish petty and wrong to the last. Just as we've all come to expect of you. I knew you'd Nixon out of giving any money to charity, people with no morals and no human decency don't give to charity is the general rule. They often claim they're willing to, but when it comes down to it, they've always a reason not to. The only thing you've proven here is that the US Media has a right wing bias, and that you use charities to make yourself look good, but won't ever contribute. That you talk big, but act small (if at all). We have a saying here:
All mouth and no trousers. Fits you well.