Folks who complain about what they feel is a left leaning media are so often criticized on here and other places.

We now have the President of the United States expressing his not being comfortable with the lack of positive press stories about him on FOX !

"Obama takes aim at Fox News"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...m-at-fox-news/

I would suppose that those on MSNBC (Olberman, Maddow, Schultz, etc) are just peachy keen to the President

If he's smart he'll split the difference just appear on CNN. Those other two cable networks have become too wacky to be of any good, except as entertainment(?).

The network evening news shows are brief, to the point and less biased IMO.

C'mon, Bucco. We all know that the "performers" on Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser degree on mainstream cable and broadcast channels, have only one thing as their objective--getting higher ratings than the other guy so they can profit more from advertising revenue. If twisting the news or presenting outrageous opinions can accomplish that, they'd do it in a New York minute.

If for even a minute any of us believe that we can or should rely solely on the likes of any of these information sources to form our political opinions, we'd be making a sad mistake.

I have no problem reading or watching any of the sources mentioned to get news and some opinion. But I try to take care to find a broad base of information sources representing different sides of political questions, so that I can consolidate and distill what I'm hearing in order to determine what I believe in and what I think should be done by our government. Having balanced information goes a long way when the time comes to listen to the campaign rhetoric and finally to actually make a voting decision. Choosing information sources to provide some balance is pretty easy. If a source says that one elected official, one candidate or one political party is always right or always wrong, it's pretty easy to figure out that one should seek some balance to that information source. In addition to getting slanted information from these sources, don;t forget that we're also being entertained!

What's scary is that too many people religiously rely on only one source for their knowledge and opinion of politics and foreign affairs. If that's what anyone is comfortable with, they might as well watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for political opinion. At least watching those shows, one can get a laugh or two along with the "news".

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

C'mon, Bucco. We all know that the "performers" on Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser degree on mainstream cable and broadcast channels, have only one thing as their objective--getting higher ratings than the other guy so they can profit more from advertising revenue. If twisting the news or presenting outrageous opinions can accomplish that, they'd do it in a New York minute.

If for even a minute any of us believe that we can or should rely solely on the likes of any of these information sources to form our political opinions, we'd be making a sad mistake.

I have no problem reading or watching any of the sources mentioned to get news and some opinion. But I try to take care to find a broad base of information sources representing different sides of political questions, so that I can consolidate and distill what I'm hearing in order to determine what I believe in and what I think should be done by our government. Having balanced information goes a long way when the time comes to listen to the campaign rhetoric and finally to actually make a voting decision. Choosing information sources to provide some balance is pretty easy. If a source says that one elected official, one candidate or one political party is always right or always wrong, it's pretty easy to figure out that one should seek some balance to that information source. In addition to getting slanted information from these sources, don;t forget that we're also being entertained!

What's scary is that too many people religiously rely on only one source for their knowledge and opinion of politics and foreign affairs. If that's what anyone is comfortable with, they might as well watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for political opinion. At least watching those shows, one can get a laugh or two along with the "news".

If ratings were a gauge then why have these cable "news" stations continue their slanted views as their ratings topple? Why do they make anti-war movies that nobody pays to see? Why do they seem not to care if they make money or not? If there is not some big agenda going on....Maybe I'm paranoid..

What's the story of ABC moving their news into the White House???

If it wasn’t for FOX, and AM radio the mainstream dive-by media at large would own America. It’s quite obvious that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, Hollyweird and a large number of news papers circled the wagons for OB a long time ago.

So what do we have now? Liberals with the fairness doctrine trying to shut down conservative talk radio. Maybe they will go after FOX next just to make sure the left has the total monopoly.

We are in the middle of the biggest takeover the USA has ever seen. First it is bail-outs, government control of banks, car industry. CZARS, Insurance etc. Seems they cannot concentrate on one thing at a time. Then BHO says we need deadlines to get this done, deadlines to get judge approved, deadlines for socialized health care....More CZARS.... ABC moving into the White House. Demonizing Vice President nominee...demonizing beauty queen because she believes in traditional marriage.etc.
The cultural battle is on every front. The laws and morals we have had in place that has worked for over 200 years is in jeopardy. Has anybody ever seen so much happening on so many fronts at one time????

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to get the juices flowing and blood boiling (referring to the cable news channel discussion).

Originally Posted by Keedy

What's the story of ABC moving their news into the White House???

God forbid!! If I recall correctly Bush picked a Fox News correspondent for his press secretary (Tony Snow). Then of course there was this White House tea Bush hosted for a wonderful group of fair and balanced "journalists". As noted in the attached link, it wasn't the first time a similar group met privately with Bush.

It's great to have a short term memory!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...o_the_w-2.html

Originally Posted by bimmertl

God forbid!! If I recall correctly Bush picked a Fox News correspondent for his press secretary (Tony Snow). Then of course there was this White House tea Bush hosted for a wonderful group of fair and balanced "journalists". As noted in the attached link, it wasn't the first time a similar group met privately with Bush.

It's great to have a short term memory!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...o_the_w-2.html

Yes, they had Tony Snow because he was smart and he could handle all the hard-ball questions that were thrown at him every day. And he did it with grace, intelligence and humor.
But of course they don't really need those qualities in press secretary anymore with these softball questions that are being asked by the adoring reporters who suddenly turned from lion to lambs.

would find cause to take over the broadcast news to assure we the people get "the message".

That was supposed to be a joke. And I don't think it contained anything to be measured by/for/against Bush.....but then again ...............

btk

adoring reporters who suddenly turned from lion to lambs

Ain't that the truth. I'll go one step further and say from lions to sheep.

Expected replies from the usual suspects, the angry white man crowd.

Thread closed. Getting to personal