The AP is the ACLU of the media

[faceking]

I'll post the myriad of ultra-liberal guilt ridden articles later.. but this rings so true of the AP.


"Is America ready for a gay Idol?"

Is America ready for a gay 'Idol'? - Yahoo! News

Who fucking cares... it's a TV show. We all knew/know that Clay Aiken kid was a 70/30. The quote: "Or will it be "Idol" business as usual?"

Huh... what next... going after "Queer Eye" because they aren't having gay men as their subject... spare me silly. America... please quit ridding yourself of guilt and move on with everyone and everyone vs everyone vs everyone...

Believe it or not, the think the BULK of American citizens are aware and adept about the diversity of our collective socio-backgrounds... but don't' need it reminded to them day-in-day-out, and then guilt ridden.. thusly the guilt of "if you don't like Hillary you are anti-feminism, if you don't like Barack, you are a racist... ". What the bulk of your fellow American citizens realllllllllllllly cares about has little to do with whatever sociological issue you have at the top of your own agenda.

a la ... if a an openly-gay American Idol contestant doesn't win , then the system is clearly homophobic... this is crap and the AP is getting worse by the year. it's not said out-loud, but if you reply over schematics, than I feel that's naivety in it's finest hour.

reminds me when Brokeback didn't win Best Picture... great flick.. but the fact that it didn't win, didn't mean for funking hundreds of peeps to cry foul (amidst the hundreds of Oscar parties here in SF ... where attendees cried at the moment of the announcement)...

the best picture won, and even if it didn't, it is no different than the reason of what happens every other year when ppl shake their head... attaching an agenda is "countercause".... IMHO



Sorry, I'm sure this is pissing many off.. but the MORE YOU IDENTIFY AND SINGULARIZE demographics groups for the sake of integration/equality/etc... the more you do to divide... when will ppl freakin' get this for christ's sake.

at what point do you stop keeping tabs.. especially with American Idol... are you f'ing kidding me??? calling out American Idol????? maybe in the government or corporate america.. but given the complete "no-holes-barred" of entertainment.. you are calling out American Idol as homophobic.. talking about two-steps back...

i knew.. when I saw this headline... and i'm correct now about 19 out of 20 times.... when I see the headline and click thru:

a> it's the AP
b> written by a female

the latter, I'm not sure why that is.... not an anti-feminist point,... but counter me.. and I can pull up 33 anti-white/corporate/Iraq/etc... articles, and it rings true...

 

[D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead]

Oh.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Just for fun the other day I was counting the number of "mainstream Liberal media" articles I found online, just by browsing news sites (including purported bastions of liberal bias like CNN.com, washington post, etc.), reading the ones that I would normally click on anyway or that were at the top of the popularity rankings, and noting how many of them were saying favorable things about McCain, slamming Obama or Clinton, etc. It was almost all of them that day. This is a myth.
Also, interesting you bring up feminism, same day I read something extremely anti-feminist and mysoginistic published at the washington post's website.

 

[Qua]

One of TIME's latest issues has a very good editorial about the counter-productivity of newspaper endorsement of candidates. I think you'd like it as a condemnation of the population's ever increasing desire for a more objective, unopinionated press. There's enough spin in business, politics and the like already. I don't need the spin to be further spun by an agenda-driven (or rather, confusing mishmash of agendas) media. But unfortunately, too many individuals and groups recognize the opinion-forming power of the media, and for that reason an objective press will never happen. It would be viewed as squandered marketing potential for ideas.

Oh.

I'm sorry that someone posting opinions you disagree with is a troll.

 

[JC8]

As an expert, I did learn teh journalism in college, this liberal media thing is a myth as NIC says.

Media is a corporate game, whatever pushes copy will print. (Or today, whatever causes clicks)

Hand-in-hand: The biggest threat to free speech is a threat to pull advertising money.

 

[Qua]

(Or today, whatever causes clicks)

I'm still a fan of the dead tree editions.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

All media is biased.
As Kathleen Jameson and Karlyn Campbell wrote in The Interplay of Influence, "News is gathered, written, edited, produced, and disseminated by people", therefore, no matter how unbiased we want it to be, a person's values and beliefs color the presentation.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

everything is biased. granted. That doesn't mean that every media outlet that is not Fox News is controlled by Communists. In general CNN does a pretty good job of being as objective as possible.

 

[faceking]

Just for fun the other day I was counting the number of "mainstream Liberal media" articles I found online, just by browsing news sites (including purported bastions of liberal bias like CNN.com, washington post, etc.), reading the ones that I would normally click on anyway or that were at the top of the popularity rankings, and noting how many of them were saying favorable things about McCain, slamming Obama or Clinton, etc. It was almost all of them that day. This is a myth.
Also, interesting you bring up feminism, same day I read something extremely anti-feminist and mysoginistic published at the washington post's website.

you ... i clearly wasn't trying to go the feminist route vs asking/beggin the question.. it's like clockwork, and will pick any story at random and be validated 95%+ of the time.... just curious

[edited for fawning]

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

what's a nork?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

everything is biased. granted. That doesn't mean that every media outlet that is not Fox News is controlled by Communists. In general CNN does a pretty good job of being as objective as possible.

Haha, is that the OP's position?
CNN is OK. Again, not free of bias, but pretty straightforward in presentation of the news.

 

[faceking]

Oh god.. this is immense fodder.. via the "guise" that is mainstream media....

why in the world do you (and everyone else here whom is in complete denial) think that the "right" outlets do SO DARN WELL ... yet there's no LEFT outlets and the one that tried Air America, replete with the pussy hypocrite Al Gore's $$$ failed/fails miserably?

It's because the "mainstream" media for years, no... make that ...decades, has been your leftist outlet...

The funniest retort came from my best friend of 35 years who said the reason why Rush/Hannity/et al were doing so well, was that Republicans listen to talk radio more than Democrats.


yeah... depsite the fact that for years, here in SF, as well as LA... the nunmber one stations were "talk radio" filled with un-described leftist hosts whom chose liberal issues as the forefront and and left stances as paramount....


yet the same host and listeners that scoff at Fox's "fair and balanced" stance as pathetic.... ummm.... the "mainstream" media has been living under the guise of fair and balanced for three decades...

that's why Fox News is so successful... payback is a bitch, I suppose.

everything is biased. granted. That doesn't mean that every media outlet that is not Fox News is controlled by Communists. In general CNN does a pretty good job of being as objective as possible.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

What liberal media?

 

[Principessa]

I'll post the myriad of ultra-liberal guilt ridden articles later.. but this rings so true of the AP. "Is America ready for a gay Idol?"

What do you mean? We have already had a gay idol in Clay Aiken.

Is America ready for a gay 'Idol'? - Yahoo! News

Who fucking cares... it's a TV show. We all knew/know that Clay Aiken kid was a 70/30. The quote: "Or will it be "Idol" business as usual?" ROTFLMAO Clay Aiken, 70/30? :rofl: On what planet? I don't think Clay Aiken has seen a vagina since he left the birth canal.

Sorry, I'm sure this is pissing many off.. but the MORE YOU IDENTIFY AND SINGULARIZE demographics groups for the sake of integration/equality/etc... the more you do to divide... when will ppl freakin' get this for christ's sake.

at what point do you stop keeping tabs.. especially with American Idol... are you f'ing kidding me??? calling out American Idol?????

maybe in the government or corporate america..

Keeping tabs on miniorities in the government or corporate america is no more acceptable than it is on AI. It is however more prevalent and apt to be accepted as the status quo. but given the complete "no-holes-barred" of entertainment.. you are calling out American Idol as homophobic.. talking about two-steps back...

i knew.. when I saw this headline... and i'm correct now about 19 out of 20 times.... when I see the headline and click thru:

a> it's the AP
b> written by a female

the latter, I'm not sure why that is.... not an anti-feminist point,... but counter me.. and I can pull up 33 anti-white/corporate/Iraq/etc... articles, and it rings true...

So what's your point?
A) The AP is not to be trusted,
B) they shouldn't hire female reporters,
C) female reporters are too conservative,
D) All of the above

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Oh god.. this is immense fodder.. via the "guise" that is mainstream media....

why in the world do you (and everyone else here whom is in complete denial) think that the "right" outlets do SO DARN WELL ... yet there's no LEFT outlets and the one that tried Air America, replete with the pussy hypocrite Al Gore's $$$ failed/fails miserably?

It's because the "mainstream" media for years, no... make that ...decades, has been your leftist outlet...

The funniest retort came from my best friend of 35 years who said the reason why Rush/Hannity/et al were doing so well, was that Republicans listen to talk radio more than Democrats.


yeah... depsite the fact that for years, here in SF, as well as LA... the nunmber one stations were "talk radio" filled with un-described leftist hosts whom chose liberal issues as the forefront and and left stances as paramount....


yet the same host and listeners that scoff at Fox's "fair and balanced" stance as pathetic.... ummm.... the "mainstream" media has been living under the guise of fair and balanced for three decades...

that's why Fox News is so successful... payback is a bitch, I suppose.

Am I on ignore? :frown1:
So you see a distinct "liberal" and "conservative" media, right?
Do you think there is a way people can move beyond labels and bridge these media differences in favor of pluralism? Or, do you think for the most part it is a zero sum, either/or, issue that separates into one of two contesting groups?

off topic: your avatar makes me think of zankou chicken.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

FK,

it's exactly that "payback" mentality that makes Faux News such a huge joke. They have a deliberate, specific, well-documented and painfully apparent agenda, namely peddling conservative propaganda, and yet have the gall to call themselves "fair and balanced." We all know it. When conservatives stop being defensive and attacking the "liberal" media for a minute, they admit that this is baloney, too. The only reason Fox News was possible in the first place is because of the repeal of laws requiring an equal presentation of both sides of an issue on an opinion program. It's no secret that Fox News is a propaganda factory, the only people who try to claim that it's fair and balanced are those with enormous right-wing bias themselves who are using the term as an insult toward all other media outlets that don't pander to their biases. The unspoken logic being: if Fox News is fair and balanced, that means that every single other news outlet, because they are to the left of ridiculously far-right Fox News, must be themselves biased. To someone completely out of touch with objectivity, that feels good.

Real newsmen, traditionally, historically, are supposed to at least attempt to present the news in a fair and objective way, giving as many facts as possible, avoiding interjecting their own opinions whenever possible. Of course everything from headline placement to word choice will be colored by the biases of individuals... but to claim to amount of bias that conservative pundits claim in other media outlets is ABSURD. Further, it's vociferously appallingly abysmally nauseatingly stupidly offensively obscenely hypocritical for these 24-hour propaganda machines to point at bias in anyone before examining themselves. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, and even Rush Limbaugh knows that, as he (in a rare moment of honesty) admitted to his listeners after the 2006 midterm elections. I don't see Andersen Cooper breaking down after some vitriolic rant and declaring "you know what, I'm tired of shilling for liberals." but that's exactly what Rush did.

News presented in a fairly objective and reasonable way is going to appear biased to those who are extremely biased and out of touch themselves. To my schizophrenic aunt, it was everyone else in the world that was crazy who didn't understand that her gynecologist Dr. Weaver was secretly controlling the world. Fox News doesn't even ATTEMPT to be fair and objective and reasonable. Nor do the conservative ideologues like Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, etc that get so much more air time than they deserve. When they point to the evils of The New York Times, which is supposed to be the worst of the worst, the best they can come up with is that they printed an article examining the question of whether McCain was technically a natural-born citizen or not. That seems like something worth considering to me. This was after the newspaper publicly endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination. and the article states clearly that it was the opinion of the writer that the issue of McCain's birth should not matter and that he should be able to be president. However, to these (what's a stronger word for fucktard?)s on the right, even mentioning the mere possibility is a crime against humanity. Presumably just because it was printed in the NYT, too, as Limbaugh and Hannity were smearing McCain 10 times an hour saying far worse things about him, but on their programs it's perfectly kosher. When the NYT prints an article IN FAVOR of McCain, it's because of their liberal bias??? To these cunts, we're not even allowed to CONSIDER issues or have any debate at all. We must all acquiesce to the righteousness of the Wizard of Oz... Karl Rove hiding behind the curtain and the giant green head of Ronald Reagan projected on the Jumbotron... go to sleep little sheep... trust that everything is right with the world... yell and scream and piss and moan whenever anyone DARE so much as challenge your worldview. That's the philosophy that they are espousing.

It wouldn't be quite as stupid if they didn't try to include EVERYONE that was to the left of them. If they only went after Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Maureen Dowd.... fine... fair targets. But attacking CNN? every network news channel? NPR? every single international news outlet in the world? it gets absurd.

To any SANE person, the comparison between how the pundits on the right and the so called biased liberals in the middle handle the news should be painfully obviously skewed. Fox and the conservative pundits don't even attempt to play fair. They are all propaganda all the time, and blatantly so. Like I said, you see plenty of news stories in the so-called "liberal" media saying nice things about Bush and McCain, saying mean things about Hillary, pointing out successes in Iraq, etc etc etc. Balanced out with a few HEAVEN FORBID stories about failures in Iraq, about administrative or ethical failures of the current administration, about the good side of Obama or Clinton. Then the idiots on the right sit and tally and skew and distort to try and make their point. Statistics are lies. But that's ALL they've got to work with. Statistics. That's the ONLY thing that any study that has ever studied this can point to to show any kind of evidence that there is liberal bias. and I know damn well that you know just as well as I how much statistics are worth. If Fox is supposed to "balance" out the "liberal bias" of the "mainstream" media... I would expect that it would be equally difficult to prove their bias and require some equal number crunching and statistics generating. But it doesn't. All you have to do is listen for a minute to Sean Hannity's radio program, or worse, to Limbaugh or Levin who aren't on Fox but whom Hannity openly adulates and admires. Not obscure sources like moveon.org but big media personalities that dominate the public discourse... anyway that's all it takes and you can see that they're not even trying to be fair or reasonable. As a balance to the rest of the "liberal media" they are failing miserably. If there is ANY truth to the assertion that the media in general is liberally biased, and often I doubt that, then Fox and conservative talk radio is not a reasonable balance to it. An appropriate analogy would be trying to correct the tilt of a daisy by tying it to a Buick and dropping said Buick off a cliff on the opposite side of the tilt.

The conservative Pundits like Limbaugh et al. hide behind this fascade of being editorialists and entertainers and therefore free to opine all they like without presenting any real facts or any real news and it sickens me. There are editorial pieces in centrist newspapers and editorial segments on certain news programs that present unobjective opinion. But they are short, they are clearly labeled as editorial, and they don't pretend to be something else other than editorial. The conservative pundits, on the other hand, have 4 or 6-hour long shows, act as if their whacky opinions on everything are the unchallengeable word of God, commonly refer to themselves as great and bastions of truth etc ad nauseum, and there are millions of people out there who look to them as their sole source of news. This is sad. So very very very sad. and it ought to be against the law. It's false advertising. They note that they are here to entertain, like the "for entertainment purposes only" legal scrawl at the bottom of a bogus fortune-teller hotline, and because of that they aren't held accountable and aren't expected to be in any way fair because they are entertainers. and yet... people look to their shows not just for entertainment but for information and that is sad. They should be liable for this because their "entertainment" programs are wrapped up in all the trapping of a real news show and they act as if they are giving real news, when all they may be doing is reading off a list of talking points they printed from whitehouse.org. It SHOULD be criminal to so openly and blatantly deceive so many stupid and impressionable people.

The reasons for talk radio not taking off with Liberals? I don't know, it's a complex issue. Air America may not have succeeded because it started with the same deplorable premise as Fox News: namely, let's create a news outlet with absolutely no semblance of intellectual integrity, the sole purpose if which is to peddle biased propaganda in order to BALANCE out the fact that other media outlets don't subscribe to our biases. The failure of Air America, if anything, PROVES that the centrist media is not liberal-biased. Liberal-biased media (Air America) was attempted, and it failed. People don't want it. They see through it. Maybe liberals want intellectual honesty in their media coverage, while conservatives don't mind being lied and talked down to as long as the lies match up with their biased ideologies.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Also, your friend was right, Liberals don't get all their news from the radio. Conservatives are a bit more old skool, that only makes sense. They're conservative, after all. Radio is pretty old skool. You can't point to the success of a Liberal station in San Francisco as evidence contrary to this. Come on, man, you live in San Francisco. 'nuff said. The liberal bias there can't be denied.
Studies have been done that show Liberals tend to get their information from much more varied sources. They might watch a bit of cable news and listen to a bit of talk radio, but they also (on average) have a tendency to look to other sources. Print media including newspapers and magazines, niche media, online sources, variety shows, blogs, podcasts, professional journals, etc. There's no serious demand for more liberal talk radio. also, they tend to tune in to the conservative blowhards for the same reason a lot of people listen to Howard Stern- just to hear what stupid thing they'll say next. simplest explanation.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

[edited for fawning]

thanks, that was embarrassing. wouldn't want to fawn too much.

love you, too.

 

[faceking]

FK,

it's exactly that "payback" mentality that makes Faux News such a huge joke. They have a deliberate, specific, well-documented and painfully apparent agenda, namely peddling conservative propaganda, and yet have the gall to call themselves "fair and balanced." We all know it.

THAT my friend.. is a GOOD thing. I'd rather know EXACTLY where my news media outlet/writers/editorial stands... vs the guise that the NY Times, CBS, etc... are un-biased when they are CLEARLY not.

The reason why.... and it astounds me that many liberals don't get this....

The reason why Rush took off, and why Fox has tremendous ratings, is that the "mainstreams" were clearly, and ever growing, left outlets.... so some counterpoint was ripe for the picking.

Why did Air America fail.... because the liberal thought and rhetoric already exists on "standard" news talk radio stations.

The math is simple, IMHO.

I know Katie Couric is ultra liberal, as is Dan Rather. Just say it, and it will make it so much better. Quite feeding dumb America your rhetoric under the guise of "unbiased"... the whole Fox "fair and balanced" is meant as tongue in cheek...

 

[Mem]

Faceking, your homophobia is equal to your self hatred.