« Why is our director of national intelligence letting terrorists roam free? | Main | Ring the bells -- survival. »

December 11, 2007


And then there are the CNN debates, which are obviously contrived. Enough so that once caught, CNN apologizes and removes "Hillary's gay General" segment.

Gee, Fox News calls Democrats "fools." I wonder why in the world they're not taken seriously as a news outlet.

Why do your weak-willed Republican candidates go on CNN then, Jodi?

And when will the FOX Nutwork apologize and remove its mislabeling of Republicans as Democrats when they get in trouble or cross the president?

Still waiting on that.

lack of self awareness ain't pretty

don't let this happen to your children

shit stain, you should ask your momma for an apologu

I take Wallace at his his word, that he means everything he says,

“At this point, it has become kind of a loyalty test inside the Democratic Party, ... pandering to the far-left-wing,” Wallace added. “

That must be it Mike, loyalty-test and pandering both, because god knows they have no other reason to avoid subjecting themselves to riducule dolled up by "news men" like you, hannity, o'reilly, coulter etc.

Fox owns as much responsibility for misleading the american public into war in Iraq as Judy Miller and the New York Times.

Foxs News conflates news and opinion without compunction and editorializes news stories more often than not.

Help make Fox NEWS feel the pain, support the boycott of Fox News advertisers HERE

Evidently no one bothered to tell Chris that Fox argued in a Florida court of law that they are under no obligation to be fair. Yep, it's a liberal media world out there.

Many of us here in Minnesota think one good reason to elect Al Franken to the Senate is because he actual won a lawsuit against FOX -- on the grounds that it was not a violation of Copyright Law to make Irony in print of their "Fair and Balanced" logo. Now while I don't expect him to run on that premise, I do expect him, as a Senator, to go on Fox as often as possible, and make Irony.

Obviously our News Media ought not to be a managed and biased venue of political conflict, as opposed to a reasonably trustworthy source of information. But that is going to take very heavy duty legislative work -- How, indeed, do we come up with a fairness doctrine that can replace the one that Reagan's anti-regulators abolished? How to do that in the world of blogs and Networked video's? The public good is that citizens are exposed to contradictory evidence when it exists, and a fairly wide scope for analysis and interpretation -- and that the citizen comprehend as something of a duty reasoning out the valid from the propaganda or spin. (much the way a Jury is to have access to all relevant evidence, and the construction that can be put on it in closing argument.)

Can anyone scope out a workable legislative solution?

Somewhere along the line a mercenary mentality took hold of the US - seems to me like mostly during the corp raider days in the 80's. Itegrity stops at the door you your employer. If he's paying you say what he says to say, you do what he says to do.

You'd think Wallace would have enough money by now to be able to afford his integrity - guess not.

Keeping news media honest may turn out to be simply a job for readers, not legislators. One naive idea is to allow every story on the major news websites (nytimes, wapo, cnn) to be rated by users for left- or right-wing bias. This would be similar to the rating system sites like yahoo use, but instead of rating it from 1-5 stars in newsworthiness, one would rate it from red to blue in bias. (The sites themselves need not implement this; an aggregator like google could do it.) I say it's a naive idea, though, because undoubtedly what would happen is that righties would rate stories they dislike as "liberally biased," and vice versa. For example, I bet that BOTH an anti-Obama pro-Clinton AND a pro-Obama anti-Clinton story would end up being rated as right-wing biased by Democratic supporters of the disparaged candidates expressing their disapproval (yet no matter where you think each candidate lies on the spectrum, they can't each be to the right of each other). News writers would likely respond by relying even more heavily on false equivalences ("Fox lies and fabricates daily, but on the other hand CNN had a gay general ask a fair question without vetting him").

I think these problems point to some of the circularity of keeping news fair: to judge if it's fair, you need to already know the story; and if you already know the story, then you don't need the news.

as to the Franken comment, I've been sorely missing the lack of The Daily Show and Colbert Report and feeling that the damage their absence does to having a well-thought-out primary season is not made up for by the support they lend to the unions (in fact, one might even try to argue that having them back on the air would put MORE pressure on the major networks to end the strike, as late-night viewers would increasingly be sucked away from the networks to basic cable, from which they may never return!).

Too bad Mike's old lady wasn't on the pill when this schmuck was conceived. What a disgrace.

Wasn't FOX the first choice of General Petraeus, or of a superior (if the General was only taking orders)? If so, did not that illustrious choice establish FOX as an anointed, pure-hearted crusader for good news as well as truth?

there is a kind of a loyalty test in the Democratic Party

it's not like the repuglitard party,where you actually have to sign a loyalty oath to vote (or did the repuglitard party decide to ditch the loyalty oath thingy ???)

but hey, give the man credit

he actually used the words "DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

who says the repuglitards are incapable of learning ???

call em repuglitards long enough and they're all bound to learn how to speak the fucking language at some point,in a vain attempt to shed the title "repuglitard" no doubt

Repuglitard!!! ROTFLMFAO!
Love it.

Reminds me of the cartoon that some smart-ass dem made, and then the Repuglitards dug from a dumpster, AND which I still have on my fridge.

You know the one, Bush's head on a clumsy kid running with the caption, "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded."

Oh, so wrong. But still so funny. I'm going to hell.

The Republicans will go on CNN and FOX without any fear. I am waiting for Democrats to
do the same. Wallace is right and you know it.

There is a website where you might want post some of your consistenly brilliant commentary.
There you will find other voices similar to yours...(half-baked)


the Jodi at 15:16 is a FAKE JODI!

They have been over at FDL, and EMPTYWHEEL's also.
There I am JodiDog.

There is no identification check here at TNH.

Do you see nuremburg!

jodi puppy -either way you cut it (evil twin or not), your comments are consistently vapid and wholeheartedly without merit. please go back to kansas.

Then we can all be Jodi.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad