Originally Posted by Guest

On the other hand the alphabet stations MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC clearly show their bias by ignoring news that they view is unfavorable for liberals or rewrit its history. People who gt their news from alphabet stations would do as well to get news from The Today Show, The View or The Talk

so doesn't it make sense that if you have news people who throw soft pitches questions as if they were celebrity reporters rather than than news people looking for the truth that something is wanting. ....So Mr. Obama what's your favorite color? do you really floss after every meal?

Personal Best Regards:

There are two aspects to news organizations: hard news and opinion. The Fox hard news (Bret Baier for example) is clearly the best of cable and broadcast as they are unbiased. The CNN, MSN, and broadcast (NBC, CBS, and ABC) hard news is clearly biased towards the left. The Fox opinion is right leaning but certainly fairer than MSN and CNN as they almost always provide a left wing perspective (The Five, for example, always has a left-winger on the panel). MSN and CNN opinion is pure left wing. Network opinion is left wing leaning but better than MSN and CNN. FOX totally dominates MSN and CNN in the cable news ratings. This is because MSN and CNN have weak programming that only appeals to the extreme left-wingers.

Originally Posted by Guest

MSNBC deserves to die, as does fox news. Both present totally slanted and biased views which confuse issues and tend to feed into their viewers prejudices. Neither network serves the public good. If one has to hear and see only that which fits their worldview, they will remain blissfully ignorant of the broad issues that confront us.

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually quite the opposite. I'm pretty much up to date on all the broad issues because I read or watch all types of media from across the spectrum -- with the exception of msnbc because it's just too mind numbing

When you read all sources you can readily tell where the ideological emphases or preferences are. It's pretty obvious actually.

Question-- do you actually ever watch fox or read national review .. or do you just attack them? Not trying to be pointed about it btw ... just asking.

My guess....what they do not realize is their response is so pervasive....so automatic....so unexpected...NOBODY pays any attention to the empty ongoing catharsis of opposition to Fox news commentary.

Originally Posted by Guest

There are two aspects to news organizations: hard news and opinion. The Fox hard news (Bret Baier for example) is clearly the best of cable and broadcast as they are unbiased. The CNN, MSN, and broadcast (NBC, CBS, and ABC) hard news is clearly biased towards the left. The Fox opinion is right leaning but certainly fairer than MSN and CNN as they almost always provide a left wing perspective (The Five, for example, always has a left-winger on the panel). MSN and CNN opinion is pure left wing. Network opinion is left wing leaning but better than MSN and CNN. FOX totally dominates MSN and CNN in the cable news ratings. This is because MSN and CNN have weak programming that only appeals to the extreme left-wingers.

Originally Posted by Guest

My guess....what they do not realize is their response is so pervasive....so automatic....so unexpected...NOBODY pays any attention to the empty ongoing catharsis of opposition to Fox news commentary.

Who will ever forget Karl Rove roaming the halls of Fox News studios on election night 2012 saying "no, no, no it can't be over", but credit goes to the vote counters who said "yes Karl, we are 99.9% sure Ohio is going to Obama".

How can one network get it so wrong when they actually thought Mitt Romney was going to win when he lost in a landslide?

Originally Posted by Guest

Who will ever forget Karl Rove roaming the halls of Fox News studios on election night 2012 saying "no, no, no it can't be over", but credit goes to the vote counters who said "yes Karl, we are 99.9% sure Ohio is going to Obama".

How can one network get it so wrong when they actually thought Mitt Romney was going to win when he lost in a landslide?

You likely know you're making a specious argument so this response is probably not needed but ... a commentator got it wrong, not the entire network.

Why would you logically try to extrapolate from one specific instance to a broad generalization?

You do have to admit that Fox News does have some mighty good looking babes working as their commentaters. They are somewhat in the fluff department and have been paid well to act as conservative as they are bodacious.

As for Fox's "The Five" having a liberal on the panel, that is true - although the liberal will make a point (valid or not) and then the remaining four will gang up on the liberal and talk over him - oftentimes changing the subject - so the original topic is lost.

All in all, Fox News does provide a basically entertaining news commentary and, as I said before, the babes are a good feature. That woman former prosecuter, Perino, is an exception to that statement. How can anyone stand her screeching and grating voice?

Originally Posted by Guest

...
All in all, Fox News does provide a basically entertaining news commentary and, as I said before, the babes are a good feature. That woman former prosecuter, Perino, is an exception to that statement. How can anyone stand her screeching and grating voice?

Be careful, very very careful, when using the terms "screeching and grating voice" when describing ANY female lest the reader naturally assume you are talking about Hillary Clinton.

After all, what difference does it make??

Several women on Fox have law degrees. Also, Perino is a former Press Secretary in the Bush administration. She is not a former prosecutor. Also, they aren't paid to be conservative, they are conservative. Your comments about woman are insulting. I would be willing to guess that they have all accomplished more in their lives than you.

Originally Posted by Guest

You do have to admit that Fox News does have some mighty good looking babes working as their commentaters. They are somewhat in the fluff department and have been paid well to act as conservative as they are bodacious.

As for Fox's "The Five" having a liberal on the panel, that is true - although the liberal will make a point (valid or not) and then the remaining four will gang up on the liberal and talk over him - oftentimes changing the subject - so the original topic is lost.

All in all, Fox News does provide a basically entertaining news commentary and, as I said before, the babes are a good feature. That woman former prosecuter, Perino, is an exception to that statement. How can anyone stand her screeching and grating voice?

Originally Posted by Guest

Be careful, very very careful, when using the terms "screeching and grating voice" when describing ANY female lest the reader naturally assume you are talking about Hillary Clinton.

After all, what difference does it make??

Cute, but I made it very clear that the screeching and grating voice was Jeannine Perino.

By the way, the "what difference does it make" remark was regarding the fact that 4 people had been killed and it really made no difference if it was by a well-planned attack or a spur of the moment one caused by a film. Sec. Clinton was angry at the grandstanding of the panel. Her outburst of anger was what any reasonable person would have done.

I have no affection for Sec. Clinton as leader of the country but she does have an excellent chance unless we are able to find an electable candidate. That has not been done yet.

Originally Posted by Guest

Who will ever forget Karl Rove roaming the halls of Fox News studios on election night 2012 saying "no, no, no it can't be over", but credit goes to the vote counters who said "yes Karl, we are 99.9% sure Ohio is going to Obama".

How can one network get it so wrong when they actually thought Mitt Romney was going to win when he lost in a landslide?

Because nobody would have ever thought a person from obscureity with NO experience in anything but social organization would win.

Totally underestimated how many republicans did not go to the poles to vote.

Totally underestimated how many Americans would buy into the Obama smoke job.

And as far as who got it wrong or right? That really isn't determined until after the election is it?

I have several democratic friends who did not vote for Obama (OMG they did what?). These same folks predicted he would lose.

Someone from within the party that does not buy what they are selling! OK you name callers, what label do you have for your fellow democrats with an opposing view?

Originally Posted by Guest

Cute, but I made it very clear that the screeching and grating voice was Jeannine Perino.

By the way, the "what difference does it make" remark was regarding the fact that 4 people had been killed and it really made no difference if it was by a well-planned attack or a spur of the moment one caused by a film. Sec. Clinton was angry at the grandstanding of the panel. Her outburst of anger was what any reasonable person would have done.

I have no affection for Sec. Clinton as leader of the country but she does have an excellent chance unless we are able to find an electable candidate. That has not been done yet.

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about who actually, and literally, screeches. It hurts my ears, and head, to listen to her

tape of hillary screeching - Bing Videos


tape of hillary screeching - Bing Images

Oh, you mean Jeanine Perino, not Dana Perino. Yes, she is a former prosecutor and she does not have a grating voice. You probably need a hearing exam.

Originally Posted by Guest

Cute, but I made it very clear that the screeching and grating voice was Jeannine Perino.

By the way, the "what difference does it make" remark was regarding the fact that 4 people had been killed and it really made no difference if it was by a well-planned attack or a spur of the moment one caused by a film. Sec. Clinton was angry at the grandstanding of the panel. Her outburst of anger was what any reasonable person would have done.

I have no affection for Sec. Clinton as leader of the country but she does have an excellent chance unless we are able to find an electable candidate. That has not been done yet.

It is actually Pirro.

Originally Posted by Guest

Oh, you mean Jeanine Perino, not Dana Perino. Yes, she is a former prosecutor and she does not have a grating voice. You probably need a hearing exam.

Originally Posted by Guest

Cute, but I made it very clear that the screeching and grating voice was Jeannine Perino.

By the way, the "what difference does it make" remark was regarding the fact that 4 people had been killed and it really made no difference if it was by a well-planned attack or a spur of the moment one caused by a film. Sec. Clinton was angry at the grandstanding of the panel. Her outburst of anger was what any reasonable person would have done.

I have no affection for Sec. Clinton as leader of the country but she does have an excellent chance unless we are able to find an electable candidate. That has not been done yet.

There were and still are a lot of us who do think it made and still makes a difference. For those who think not they either missed the point or like Clinton trying to make it seem trivial in the overall.