Americans continue to get a steady diet of liberal media
spin.


Example: On 01-07-08 only 2 days before the New Hampshire
primary, ABC's Good Morning America devoted 15 minutes to the Democratic Race and a scant 15 second blip to the Republicans!

People like Dharm and FT will deny it, but I would not expect anything else.

On 01-07-08 only 2 days before the New Hampshire
primary, ABC's Good Morning America devoted 15 minutes to the Democratic Race and a scant 15 second blip to the Republicans!

People like Dharm and FT will deny it, but I would not expect anything else.

?!?!

What??! Deny that one television station talking about the chances of the various Democrats in a primary election for 15 whole minutes longer than they talked about the Republicans chances in a primary election is clear evidence of America being fed a ""steady diet of liberal media spin""........................?!?!?

Never!

(rotflmfao)

Well, FT, you just haven't seen the numerous other non-issues that morons like gmsisko make into ridiculous conspiracies. If you had, the you would surely be convinced!

On 6th Jan, Fox News held a TV debate among Republican Candidates in Milford NH, whats the difference.

Whatever happened to Independent reporting.

On 6th Jan, Fox News held a TV debate among Republican Candidates in Milford NH, whats the difference.

Whatever happened to Independent reporting.
There have been plenty of debates, with Republican and Democratic candidates, on more than one channel... However, the Fox News debate did not include Ron Paul, so I didn't watch.

could have been that there was just more "mustard" on the democratic side than the republican side...

I still think, and claim some evidence to, that the media slants somewhat liberal.. but I don't think this is a quality example of it.

Oddly enough-I dont get Fox News :D.

But then again, after the first 2 votes, it seems the experts dont know shit.

could have been that there was just more "mustard" on the democratic side than the republican side...

I still think, and claim some evidence to, that the media slants somewhat liberal.. but I don't think this is a quality example of it.
It's possible, considering that journalist types tend to be more educated and more liberal. However, I don't think there's really a pervasive bias - I think that the biases are widely varied and that they change all the time.

considering that journalist types tend to be more educated and more liberal

We won't have a problem as long as you don't equate the two together... those being "more educated" and "liberal"...

It's already been proven that liberal journalists far outnumber conservative journalists.

There have been plenty of debates, with Republican and Democratic candidates, on more than one channel... However, the Fox News debate did not include Ron Paul, so I didn't watch.

Yep, way to go Fox. Somehow they don't include Paul when he was only 3 points behind Thompson/Giuliani in Iowa. Wonder why. :rolleyes:

Americans continue to get a steady diet of liberal media
spin.
C'mon, now.....even the inbred-population has their favorite-source (http://www.newshounds.us/). :rolleyes:

"I've been dealing with the media and politics for 25 years, but I've never had a more surrealistic day than January 8. Several times that day Fox News reported that I was joining Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was a big story - at least until the stunning election returns.

The only problem was, it wasn't true (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html)."

*

Gee......I guess that's why "conservative"-sources need to be given more consideration. :rolleyes:

On 6th Jan, Fox News held a TV debate among Republican Candidates in Milford NH, whats the difference.
The Democrats, who will one day have to face Ahmedinejad and Putin, refused to appear on Fox.

The Democrats, who will one day have to face Ahmedinejad and Putin, refused to appear on Fox.
What....you expect a Dem to consider dreamily gazing into Putin's eyes....like Lil' George? :rolleyes:

The Democrats, who will one day have to face Ahmedinejad and Putin, refused to appear on Fox.
Would it be anything to do with Fox being a Republican outlet, and not an actual news channel?

Originally Posted by Brooks
The Democrats, who will one day have to face Ahmedinejad and Putin, refused to appear on Fox.

Would it be anything to do with Fox being a Republican outlet, and not an actual news channel?

Exactly!

(not to mention that the Corporate-run mainstream Media --aka the GOP Spin/Smear machine-- poses far more danger to whatever Democrat is eventually elected than Pooty-poot will)

We won't have a problem as long as you don't equate the two together... those being "more educated" and "liberal"...

It's already been proven that liberal journalists far outnumber conservative journalists.
Actually, the more educated do tend to be more liberal. The higher you go up on the educational scale (master's degree, PhD, and so on), the higher the percentage of liberals. Perhaps liberals tend to seek out more education in the first place, or perhaps the education turns them liberal. I don't claim to know the reasons.

Actually, the more educated do tend to be more liberal. The higher you go up on the educational scale (master's degree, PhD, and so on), the higher the percentage of liberals. Perhaps liberals tend to seek out more education in the first place, or perhaps the education turns them liberal. I don't claim to know the reasons.
Isnt it a question of the better education the more reasonable you become.

Instead of taking a side and sticking with it, you look at how to solve a problem irrespective of what side your on.

Actually, the more educated do tend to be more liberal. The higher you go up on the educational scale (master's degree, PhD, and so on), the higher the percentage of liberals.

Naturally.

The conservative mindset is one that is far more grounded in dogma.....and in clinging to the *old ways*, the "traditional" ways, instead of logically assessing a situation or problem and proceeding from there. Conservative ideology all too often chooses its conclusion first, and then tries to make the facts fit their pre-conceived notions. (religious believers, die-hard dogmatists that they are, are a prime example of that phenomenon)

The liberal mindset is far more evolved and nuanced.

I consider myself very moderate, and I'm not sure I could say that I lean significantly one way or another. When I was younger I was much more liberal (that is, when I just took my mother's word for everything and really knew nothing about the issues). I wonder if more education will send me back that way. :p

you old socialist you

Whatever happened to Independent reporting.

It went away with the wave of media consolidation over the last 20 years.

yea, but as you go down the scale.. in the inner city, you see liberals all over the place. People who barely can put food on their table.

And FT, you act as if conservatives are against progression at all costs... Me, being a conservative, am for tons of new proposals.. but change for the sake of change is dumb

yea, but as you go down the scale.. in the inner city, you see liberals all over the place. People who barely can put food on their table.
Well, first of all, city people of all income levels tend to be more liberal. And also, minorities tend to be more liberal. If you look at the poor people in the country, who also can't put food on their tables, they tend to be more conservative. Notice how red states are less populated, more rural, while blue states are the ones with more cities.

Notice how Cleveland, the most economically depressed city in america, is solidly liberal and the rest of the state is republican.

And, there are many many rich and educated people in "red states"...

I think you have a pretty weird view of the educational levels of liberals and conservatives... It's kind of insulting to any conservative.

Notice how Cleveland, the most economically depressed city in america, is solidly liberal and the rest of the state is republican.

And, there are many many rich and educated people in "red states"...

I think you have a pretty weird view of the educational levels of liberals and conservatives... It's kind of insulting to any conservative.
Oh come on. I NEVER said that there are no educated conservatives. I just said (and it's a fact) that there are a higher percentage of liberals than conservatives among people with higher levels of education (as in higher than a bachelor's degree). This could be because of the more educated people's backgrounds, or because more educated people live in cities, and city people (no matter what their class or education level) tend to be more liberal. I think you're reading more into my comments than you should. I didn't say that red states were poor or uneducated - I said that they were less densely populated. Big difference.

yea, but as you go down the scale.. in the inner city, you see liberals all over the place. People who barely can put food on their table.

Most of the minorities I know do vote Democratic.......but virtually all of them are FAR from what i'd refer to as "liberals".

They vote Democrat because of the two wings of our one conservative political Party in America, the Democratic wing is slightly more predisposed to provide aid to the poor and underprivileged, and having something to eat and a roof overhead is priority number one...........but on numerous other issues such as the death penalty and military spending and allegiance to the flag and religious worship all the other God-Guns-and-Guts bullshit that is the bedrock stock and trade of Conservatism, the vast majority of the minorities (IOW, black people) I have ever known are much closer to a rightwing worldview than they are to having any "liberal" sensibility toward that group of issues.

Then, that too is a direct function of their intellectual capacity. Rich or poor, people who are of lesser intelligence and/or who have little education naturally gravitate toward the standard, dogmatic *God and Country* mindset that is the cornerstone of rightwing ideology.

They vote Democrat because of the two wings of our one conservative political Party in America, the Democratic wing is slightly more predisposed to provide aid to the poor and underprivileged, and having something to eat and a roof overhead is priority number one...........

That's what democrats bank on every year in the presidency.. if EVERY SINGLE STINKING PERSON took initiative and were motivated to make it in this world.. the democrats would be useless. They think we, as people, are helpless without a government to guide us and lead us. We are the government's pet.

but on numerous other issues such as the death penalty and military spending and allegiance to the flag and religious worship all the other God-Guns-and-Guts bullshit that is the bedrock stock and trade of Conservatism, the vast majority of the minorities (IOW, black people) I have ever known are much closer to a rightwing worldview than they are to having any "liberal" sensibility toward that group of issues.

That would be more extreme conservatism/fundamentalism.... I agree that anyone who preaches stubbornly about those topics is a moron.

Then, that too is a direct function of their intellectual capacity. Rich or poor, people who are of lesser intelligence and/or who have little education naturally gravitate toward the standard, dogmatic *God and Country* mindset that is the cornerstone of rightwing ideology.

You seem to be confused... the cornerstone of "rightwing ideology" is smaller government, "let us do our own damn thing, get out of our damn business". You are basically insulting anyone who believes in God there too... nice going.

Speaking of "God and Country".. I read an interesting book on how as hard as you can try and however many implications you put in place... it is nearly impossible to fully have "separation of church and state"... All governments are grounded with some sort of religious and ceremonial backgrounds. And religion will flow through the people into their political ideals... it's like asking a crackhead not to smoke crack LOL.

Oh come on. I NEVER said that there are no educated conservatives.

I never said you said there are NO educated conservatives... I just sensed a "liberals are smarter" tone.. maybe I was mistaken.

I just said (and it's a fact) that there are a higher percentage of liberals than conservatives among people with higher levels of education (as in higher than a bachelor's degree). This could be because of the more educated people's backgrounds, or because more educated people live in cities, and city people (no matter what their class or education level) tend to be more liberal.

Not that I'm doubting and denying your evidence, but i'd like to see the graph or data on the percentage of liberals with "higher levels of education"... if you could.

I think you're reading more into my comments than you should. I didn't say that red states were poor or uneducated - I said that they were less densely populated. Big difference.

They are less densely populated.. but higher population doesn't necessarily equal higher intelligence... If you want a case study.. this one is one of the most famous ever. the more people that are invovled in anything, the dumber the outcome... the intelligence goes down.

They (poor people and urban dwellers) vote Democrat because of the two wings of our one conservative political Party in America, the Democratic wing is slightly more predisposed to provide aid to the poor and underprivileged, and having something to eat and a roof overhead is priority number one...........

That's what democrats bank on every year in the presidency.. if EVERY SINGLE STINKING PERSON took initiative and were motivated to make it in this world.. the democrats would be useless. They think we, as people, are helpless without a government to guide us and lead us.

I cannot believe you're that ignorant.

The government trying to provide for poor and disadvantaged people is only a small part of what government does. To say that -- "if everyone took initiative and were motivated to make it in this world, the Democrats would be useless"" -- is so puerile as to be laughable.

on numerous other issues such as the death penalty and military spending and allegiance to the flag and religious worship all the other God-Guns-and-Guts bullshit that is the bedrock stock and trade of Conservatism, the vast majority of the minorities (IOW, black people) I have ever known are much closer to a rightwing worldview than they are to having any "liberal" sensibility toward that group of issues.


That would be more extreme conservatism/fundamentalism....

No...the issues I listed are an integral part of middle of the road, mainstream Conservatism.

You seem to be confused... the cornerstone of "rightwing ideology" is smaller government, "let us do our own damn thing, get out of our damn business".

Really? I'm ROTFL at the very thought that anyone would make such a preposterous statement.

Why did we just have --under the past eight years of extremely Conservative governance-- the LARGEST Government in the history of this country?!?!

It seems to me that ""smaller government, "let us do our own damn thing, get out of our damn business"" -- is the complete antithesis of what your precious *Conservatism* stands for these days. They have given us gigantic government, insanely huge deficits, immense war spending, gargantuan requests for the military budget, all while they snoop on the People and wiretap them and usurp their rights of privacy as Americans.

You have your fucking head on backwards, it seems to me.

You are basically insulting anyone who believes in God there too... nice going.

They're dogmatic morons who choose their conclusion first, and then try to make the facts fit their pre-conceived notions. If it insults them to be told so.........tough shit.

Not that I'm doubting and denying your evidence, but i'd like to see the graph or data on the percentage of liberals with "higher levels of education"... if you could.
Here's a chart (http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539)... My claim: More people with higher degrees (higher than bachelor's) are liberals than conservatives. This chart is divided by Republican and Democrat instead, but it's the best I could find...

The column relevant to my claim is the one labeled "graduate". It shows that slightly more than 50% of those surveyed in that category identified as Democrat or leaning Democrat. Almost 10% identified as completely independent, and the rest (about 40%) identify as Republican or leaning Republican. Also unsurprising is the fact that those at the lower end also tend to be Democrats.

Republicans apparently pull their support from those in the middle. However, in this survey, the Republicans did not make up more than about 46% of any category. In that category (those with a bachelor's degree), Democrats made up about 42%.

Here's another take (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56905-2001Mar25?language=printer), not a chart and more generalized of course. This is from an article about how the "Democrats for the working man, Republicans for the rich" stereotype has changed. (Bear with me here, quite a lot of this was relevant and interesting.)
some of the nation's best educated and highest income communities have become Democratic bastions, and some of the nation's poorest white counties -- especially in southern border states -- have turned into GOP strongholds.

In 2000, the voters in 17 out of 25 of the nation's most affluent counties -- all with high percentages of people with advanced degrees -- cast majorities for Al Gore, sometimes by more than 70 percent.

In nine out of the 10 poorest counties in Kentucky, for example, places where the Democratic Party of Harry S. Truman ran roughshod over Republican adversaries, George W. Bush won, frequently by margins the mirror image of Gore's in the nation's richest and best educated counties.

These new voting patterns are changing the composition of the House. According to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress of the 88 congressional districts that shifted from Democrat to Republican from 1994 to 2000, 59 had average incomes below the national norm, and in 68, the percentage of residents with college degrees was below the national average.

Conversely, of the 46 seats that went from Republican to Democratic, 29 were districts that had higher than average incomes.
...
The changes have not produced a full-scale reversal of the two parties' traditional constituencies. In the bottom half of the income levels, the Democratic Party remains strong among African Americans, Hispanics and white union members, while GOP support has swelled among nonunion whites. In the top half, there has been a realignment of white, well-educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics), now one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies. But Republican loyalties have strengthened among small-business men, managers and corporate executives.
...
Asked whether their views were "warm" or "cool" toward the two parties, white women without college degrees were decisively favorable to the GOP, 49 percent "warm" and 27 percent "cool," while their assessment of the Democratic Party was less positive, 46 percent warm to 34 percent cool. For non-college white men, the differences were more dramatic: Their positive view of the Republican Party was 54 percent to 27 percent, and their assessment of the Democratic Party was negative: 38 percent to 41 percent.

So what this article is saying is that a lot of poor whites have gone over to Republican, while minorities are voting Democrat. Businessmen, managers, and corporate types are Republicans, while academics (writers, scientists, etc.) tend towards Democrat.


They are less densely populated.. but higher population doesn't necessarily equal higher intelligence... If you want a case study.. this one is one of the most famous ever. the more people that are invovled in anything, the dumber the outcome... the intelligence goes down.
I never said that higher population equals higher intelligence. I would never claim that. The only thing I said that's even close to that is that highly educated people tend to live in urban areas, which is true, because there are more jobs for the highly educated in cities.

FT:
About conservatism... Neo-cons (like Bush) are so far from real Conservatism as to be laughable. They might be socially conservative, but they certainly aren't conservative in the fiscal department. :)

FT:
About conservatism... Neo-cons (like Bush) are so far from real Conservatism as to be laughable.

Well IF the bozos like B*sh and his co-conspirators are **so far from real Conservatism**, then I am here to tell you that *real Conservatism* no longer exists on this planet or in this nation............because the brand of extreme right CorporaConservatism that B*shCo peddles is the only thing in the vein of *Conservatism* that is being made available to the voters these days.


They might be socially conservative, but they certainly aren't conservative in the fiscal department.

Yep..................IOW, they embody the worst of both worlds.

Yep..................IOW, they embody the worst of both worlds.
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I certainly agree.

The conservative mindset is one that is far more grounded in dogma.....and in clinging to the *old ways*, the "traditional" ways, instead of logically assessing a situation or problem and proceeding from there. Conservative ideology all too often chooses its conclusion first, and then tries to make the facts fit their pre-conceived notions. (religious believers, die-hard dogmatists that they are, are a prime example of that phenomenon)
It still sounds like laziness, to me....maintaining (or, insisting-upon) a life free of challenges/risks/variation (of any kind)....and, no thinking involved!!

Is it any wonder hard-core conservatives seem (more often, than not) to be recipients of Alzheimers? :rolleyes:

yea, but as you go down the scale.. in the inner city, you see liberals all over the place. People who barely can put food on their table.
Whew....you actually monitor this situation, huh?

Do any-of-them mind, when you show-up around meal-time??? :rolleyes:

Notice how Cleveland, the most economically depressed city in america, is solidly liberal and the rest of the state is republican.
So, that explains all of the traditional-prosperity in California; their Republican-population!!! :rolleyes:

Rich or poor, people who are of lesser intelligence and/or who have little education naturally gravitate toward the standard, dogmatic *God and Country* mindset that is the cornerstone of rightwing ideology.
"A few weeks ago, during a phone conversation with a press person from one of the major presidential campaigns, I asked, "What creative policy is your candidate most proud of?" The operative paused a long moment and replied, "You know, I've taken hundreds of press calls over the last few weeks, and no one has asked me that."

This reflects both on the campaigns and on the media. Major policy addresses by the candidates have been rare, particularly on the Republican side, where innovation involving the federal government is sometimes viewed as ideological treason (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003238.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR)." :D

Major policy addresses by the candidates have been rare, particularly on the Republican side, where innovation involving the federal government is sometimes viewed as ideological treason.

Excellent point.

Is it any wonder hard-core conservatives seem (more often, than not) to be recipients of Alzheimers? :rolleyes:
What is your scientific data to support this? Or could it be you are just a loud mouthed bigot?

Your banal "correlation" makes me sick at my stomach.

Hack

Everyone ignored my super awesome post. :( I RESEARCHED, PEOPLE!!!

Everyone ignored my super awesome post. :( I RESEARCHED, PEOPLE!!!
Your simply not appreciated round here :(

Everyone ignored my super awesome post. :( I RESEARCHED, PEOPLE!!!
Sorry DF, that was a very nice and informative post.

:)

Sorry DF, that was a very nice and informative post.

:)
::bows:: Thank you, thank you... What a supportive audience. :D

Everyone ignored my super awesome post. :( I RESEARCHED, PEOPLE!!!I'm impressed. :)

I'm impressed. :)
Thanks... It's not often that I'm inspired to put so much work (and time) into a post, but when I do I go all the way... I think the most interesting conclusion is that class and education (among other things) are becoming less clear as indicators of political preference.

MSNBC Team Mock, Laugh at McCain Victory Speech
By Brad Wilmouth | January 10, 2008 - 01:38 ET

During Tuesday's live coverage of the New Hampshire primary, after Republican winner John McCain delivered his victory speech, MSNBC's election night team derided and laughed at the speech, with MSNBC's right-leaning analyst Joe Scarborough leading the charge. As the Arizona Senator's speech ended and anchor Keith Olbermann started to summarize it, Scarborough laughed, "That speech, oh, my God," prompting Olbermann to jokingly chide him: "Calm down. He's still on the stage. ... You can't boo a candidate while he's still on the stage the night he won, Joe." (Transcript follows)

Scarborough started to discuss the speech, commenting that "one thing I can teach, we were all talking about it over here, it is absolutely remarkable-" before Olbermann interrupted: "Don't read the speech?"

Scarborough agreed, and took McCain to task for looking down too much: "Yes, please. If this is your introduction to America in 2008, do not have your head looking straight down into a speech..."

Newsweek's Howard Fineman joked that "it looked like every advisor that he'd ever had had given him one paragraph," inspiring more laughter from Scarborough, and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson quipped that McCain had "dropped them on his way to the podium, and then resorted them in random order." Robinson added that "it was not a good performance."

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the liberal Nation magazine, contended that the speech "deflated his victory. That's not going to move him forward heading out."

Scarborough started to turn toward a more serious analysis of the speech as he asked Robinson, "But seriously, though, talk about John McCain's speech tonight." But any positive analysis of McCain's words was not pursued as Robinson merely responded that "we've kind of covered the speech...it was a chance to do what Mitt Romney did a few minutes ago," before moving on to give praise to Romney's concession speech.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday January 8 MSNBC coverage of the New Hampshire primary, from around 9:25 p.m.:







http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/01/10/msnbc-team-mock-laugh-mccain-victory-speech?rid=13255702

Maybe it's because most of the professors are very liberal.
Liberalism was drilled and drilled into them.
(just an idea)


Here's a chart (http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539)... My claim: More people with higher degrees (higher than bachelor's) are liberals than conservatives. This chart is divided by Republican and Democrat instead, but it's the best I could find...

The column relevant to my claim is the one labeled "graduate". It shows that slightly more than 50% of those surveyed in that category identified as Democrat or leaning Democrat. Almost 10% identified as completely independent, and the rest (about 40%) identify as Republican or leaning Republican. Also unsurprising is the fact that those at the lower end also tend to be Democrats.

Republicans apparently pull their support from those in the middle. However, in this survey, the Republicans did not make up more than about 46% of any category. In that category (those with a bachelor's degree), Democrats made up about 42%.

Here's another take (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56905-2001Mar25?language=printer), not a chart and more generalized of course. This is from an article about how the "Democrats for the working man, Republicans for the rich" stereotype has changed. (Bear with me here, quite a lot of this was relevant and interesting.)

So what this article is saying is that a lot of poor whites have gone over to Republican, while minorities are voting Democrat. Businessmen, managers, and corporate types are Republicans, while academics (writers, scientists, etc.) tend towards Democrat.



I never said that higher population equals higher intelligence. I would never claim that. The only thing I said that's even close to that is that highly educated people tend to live in urban areas, which is true, because there are more jobs for the highly educated in cities.

Please back your statement below with facts.

Don't try to list Hannity and Billie Bob as examples............... (they are opinion shows)


Would it be anything to do with Fox being a Republican outlet, and not an actual news channel?

Maybe it's because most of the professors are very liberal.
Liberalism was drilled and drilled into them.
(just an idea)
I'm in college, and only about 10% of my professors have given even a tiny hint towards their political leanings. Therefore, I hardly think this could be true. Perhaps liberals are more drawn to career fields that require a lot of degrees, or maybe (I think you'll like this one) liberals are afraid to go out into the real world and therefore choose to remain students for as long as possible. :thumbs:

You have to admit, McCain's "speech" was pitiful (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/08/john-mccains-less-than-victorious-victory-speech/), especially compared to Obama's.

Obama gave one of the best political speeches in modern history (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms). Especially the last 4 minutes. It will go down as a classic. The "Yes We Can" speech.

McCain reminds me of Reagan... after his second term in office.

You have to admit, McCain's "speech" was pitiful (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/08/john-mccains-less-than-victorious-victory-speech/), especially compared to Obama's.
McCain is not exactly a great speaker, I concur.

Obama gave one of the best political speeches in modern history (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms). Especially the last 4 minutes. It will go down as a classic. The "Yes We Can" speech.
He is a very good orator, while I don't agree with his politics... it is nice to see someone who actually CAN speak in public well.


McCain reminds me of Reagan... after his second term in office.
Ooooo... low blow. Seriously, McCain is a decent enough man, but his Senate reputation is too murky and pandering to be a really viable conservative candidate. I actually think the Dems would prefer him over any other Rep candidate... he will never build any excitement into the voters.

My wife is at Ga. State. Shw will tell you about the liberal slant amoung professors. My cousin went to Emory, same thing. The list goes on and on.


I'm in college, and only about 10% of my professors have given even a tiny hint towards their political leanings. Therefore, I hardly think this could be true. Perhaps liberals are more drawn to career fields that require a lot of degrees, or maybe (I think you'll like this one) liberals are afraid to go out into the real world and therefore choose to remain students for as long as possible. :thumbs:

My wife is at Ga. State. Shw will tell you about the liberal slant amoung professors. My cousin went to Emory, same thing. The list goes on and on.
I agree that more professors are probably liberal (like I said, academic type professions seem to attract them - maybe conservatives shy away because many such professions tend to mean less money), but most professors have the good sense to keep their politics out of their classes... unless they actually teach politics, I suppose. I just thought of something too - being a college professor requires quite a bit of schooling, advanced degrees and all. Perhaps a large percentage of people with higher degrees are teachers/professors, partially accounting for the liberal trend among those with advanced degrees.

Ooooo... low blow. Seriously, McCain is a decent enough man, but his Senate reputation is too murky and pandering to be a really viable conservative candidate. I actually think the Dems would prefer him over any other Rep candidate... he will never build any excitement into the voters.

I liked McCain back in 2000 and actually considered voting for him back then, but he really does seem too old now. Aside from all the pandering and ass-kissing he did to Bush since 2000, I just don't think the guy has it in him to do the job anymore.

I mean, seriously, look at the video of his speech, he looked confused on stage and kind of wandered around after he finished speaking like he was lost. I felt really bad for him.

What is gmsisko1 complaining about??

McCain, at least according to Limbaugh and Hannity, is a Liberal!!

MSNBC was showing a pro-conservative bias by bashing his speech!! :)

Please back your statement below with facts.

Don't try to list Hannity and Billie Bob as examples............... (they are opinion shows)

Only " opinion shows " eh.?
I suppose you are about to present us with firsthand doctoral
scientific evidence to the contrary on any given point.
Take " opinions " out of politics and there IS no Politics.
Take " opinions " out of our Justice system and one is left with
the letter of the law and no face or victim.
" Opinions " are what Built this country and keep us from
deconstructing into another Chavez/Castro mindset of redundant
maelstrom.

That WAS a good post Dark.. but let me combat you with this:

Here’re some 1990 Gallup poll numbers relating education to political affiliation:

Rep = Republican
Dem = Democrat
Ind = Independent/Unaffiliated

Grade school education:
23.4% Rep, 54.6% Dem, 22.5% Ind

Some High School:
22.8% Rep, 51.3% Dem, 26.0% Ind

High School Grad:
29.4% Rep, 40.5% Dem, 30.2% Ind

Some College and/or Tech:
36.0% Rep, 35.0% Dem, 29.3% Ind

College Grad:
42.0% Rep, 30.7% Dem, 27.7% Ind

(Source: The World Almanac of U.S. Politics, 1991-93 edition, p.25)

Is the source old as hell? yes... but it's not as if it's always been "liberals are smarter"... perhaps it's a cycle.. who knows. I got the info from the same page on your chart, and double checked it just to make sure it was legit.

Please back your statement below with facts.

Don't try to list Hannity and Billie Bob as examples............... (they are opinion shows)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

It's already been proven that liberal journalists far outnumber conservative journalists.
Proven, huh?

Lemme guess......this is another o' those "Everybody knows..."-factoids, right? :rolleyes:

Americans continue to get a steady diet of liberal media
spin.


Example: On 01-07-08 only 2 days before the New Hampshire
primary, ABC's Good Morning America devoted 15 minutes to the Democratic Race and a scant 15 second blip to the Republicans!

People like Dharm and FT will deny it, but I would not expect anything else.
Agreed! Republicans deserve more print (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/10/national/w075819S52.DTL&feed=rss.news)!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by paulc
Would it be anything to do with Fox being a Republican outlet, and not an actual news channel?

Please back your statement below with facts.

The list of Democrats and Republicans who were guests on **Special Report with Brit Hume**, which Fox calls its signature political news show.

{avowed conservatives are noted by the suffix "(con)".}

Democrats:
Bob Graham
Joe Lieberman
John Breaux
John Spratt
Jon Corzine
Richard Holbrooke

Republicans:
Abigail Thernstrom (con)
Andrew Card (con)
Angela Antonelli (con)
Bill Bennett (con)
Bill Kristol (con)
Bill Thomas (con)
Bradley Smith (con)
C. Boyden Gray (con)
Chester Finn (con)
Christine Todd Whitman
Chuck Hagel (con)
Connie Mack (con)
Dick Armey (con)
Don Nickles (con)
Donald Rumsfeld (con)
Doug Paal (con)
Ed Goeas (con)
Gale Norton (con)
George W. Bush (con)
Jack Kemp (con)
Jeb Bush (con)
Jim Wilson (con)
John Diulio (con)
Ken Blackwell (con)
Ken Kies (con)
Lionel Chetwynd (con)
Lynne Cheney (con)
Mitch Daniels (con)
Mitch McConnell (con)
Pat Toomey (con)
Paul Gigot (con)
Pete Domenici (con)
Randy Cunningham (con)
Rep. Christopher Shays
Richard Allen (con)
Sally Satel
Sen. Bill Frist (con)
Stephen Moore (con)
Trent Lott (con)
Bill Kristol (con)

On Special Report with Brit Hume, surveyed from January through May, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. The guest list was made up of 91 percent male and 93 percent white.

"Fair and balanced" my fucking ass.

Don't try to list Hannity and Billie Bob as examples............... (they are opinion shows)

The fact that O'Reilly and Hannity are opinion shows does not negate the fact that they are political shows, and that they are an integral part of Faux's programming and that they are 100% bend-over-backward propagandists working ceaselessly to spread their bias.......and with it, the Rightwing ideology.

Proven, huh?

Lemme guess......this is another o' those "Everybody knows..."-factoids, right? :rolleyes:

It's been cited multiple times on this site...

The fact that O'Reilly and Hannity are opinion shows does not negate the fact that they are political shows, and that they are an integral part of Faux's programming and that they are 100% bend-over-backward propagandists working ceaselessly to spread their bias.......and with it, the Rightwing ideology.
I don't necessarily believe they bend-over backwards. I'm thinkin' that appearance is (merely) from the momentum created, when they pull their heads outta their asses.

It's already been proven that liberal journalists far outnumber conservative journalists.
It's been cited multiple times on this site...
Show me..........the proof, I mean. :rolleyes:

Americans continue to get a steady diet of liberal media
spin.


Example: On 01-07-08 only 2 days before the New Hampshire
primary, ABC's Good Morning America devoted 15 minutes to the Democratic Race and a scant 15 second blip to the Republicans!

People like Dharm and FT will deny it, but I would not expect anything else.
Even FOX doesn't spend time on republicans, they are more worried about the Clintons and smearing them!

Bravo FT!
You laid quite the smackdown there.

The list of Democrats and Republicans who were guests on **Special Report with Brit Hume**, which Fox calls its signature political news show.

{avowed conservatives are noted by the suffix "(con)".}

Democrats:
Bob Graham
Joe Lieberman
John Breaux
John Spratt
Jon Corzine
Richard Holbrooke

Republicans:
Abigail Thernstrom (con)
Andrew Card (con)
Angela Antonelli (con)
Bill Bennett (con)
Bill Kristol (con)
Bill Thomas (con)
Bradley Smith (con)
C. Boyden Gray (con)
Chester Finn (con)
Christine Todd Whitman
Chuck Hagel (con)
Connie Mack (con)
Dick Armey (con)
Don Nickles (con)
Donald Rumsfeld (con)
Doug Paal (con)
Ed Goeas (con)
Gale Norton (con)
George W. Bush (con)
Jack Kemp (con)
Jeb Bush (con)
Jim Wilson (con)
John Diulio (con)
Ken Blackwell (con)
Ken Kies (con)
Lionel Chetwynd (con)
Lynne Cheney (con)
Mitch Daniels (con)
Mitch McConnell (con)
Pat Toomey (con)
Paul Gigot (con)
Pete Domenici (con)
Randy Cunningham (con)
Rep. Christopher Shays
Richard Allen (con)
Sally Satel
Sen. Bill Frist (con)
Stephen Moore (con)
Trent Lott (con)
Bill Kristol (con)

On Special Report with Brit Hume, surveyed from January through May, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. The guest list was made up of 91 percent male and 93 percent white.

"Fair and balanced" my fucking ass.



The fact that O'Reilly and Hannity are opinion shows does not negate the fact that they are political shows, and that they are an integral part of Faux's programming and that they are 100% bend-over-backward propagandists working ceaselessly to spread their bias.......and with it, the Rightwing ideology.

Even FOX doesn't spend time on republicans, they are more worried about the Clintons and smearing them!


They are also marketing to the low income bracket. Whenever I do put it on Fox News all I see is coverage on Anna Nicole Smith or Britney or something crappy!

But Fox News does hire the right babes though with the right dresses with the right lengths (better than CNN). :cool:

They are also marketing to the low income bracket. Whenever I do put it on Fox News all I see is coverage on Anna Nicole Smith or Britney or something crappy!
Yeah, because none of the other networks (be it ABC, NBC, CBS, or cable television) pander to the monosyllabically speaking, knuckle-dragging fucknuts in our country. :rolleyes: Sometimes, I wonder if you people would actually register brainwaves if hooked up to an EEG. Low income bracket aside, I wonder what that means for your incredibly heady, inner-city brethren. Hmmmmmm.

Piss off, you condescending cock.

Gee... proving that one show on one network has a conservative bias must mean that all media has a conservative bias!

And yes Shaman, It is a well known fact, if i get the time I'll post the multiple links for you.

It is a well known fact that the corporate media has become very conservative in America over the last 27 years, but that they are just now starting to target liberal market segments the way they have already been targeting conservative market segments for years.

It is a well known fact that the corporate media has become very conservative in America over the last 27 years.......

LOL.

Somewhat akin to noting -- "Yes, some people who have studied it have surmised that the surface of the sun is indeed "hot"......".

Is there any media network in The United States of America, who are politically neutral and have the interests of the nation at heart, irrespective
of who is in Government.????????????????????????

Is there any media network in The United States of America, who are politically neutral and have the interests of the nation at heart, irrespective
of who is in Government.????????????????????????

Yes, paul.....................there is one that strives to do just that.

(naturally, the Conservatives absolutely despise it because it pulls no punches and exposes the politicians for their wrongdoings. What they will not admit is that this media outlet does it to politicians no matter what letter is by their name or what party happens to be in power)

It is Democracy Now, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.


http://www.democracynow.org/

Yes, paul.....................there is one that strives to do just that.

(naturally, the Conservatives absolutely despise it because it pulls no punches and exposes the politicians for their wrongdoings. What they will not admit is that this media outlet does it to politicians no matter what letter is by their name or what party happens to be in power)

It is Democracy Now, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.


http://www.democracynow.org/

um, i'm a conservative.. and I havn't really visited the site (I'll check it out now that you mention it)... but I don't deny that politicians have been doing multiple wrongdoings... I think our gov't wastes boatloads of money and our whole system is corrupt. Votes are bought, interest groups control politicians.. it's crap.

So your little denotation in parentheses is wrong when you say "the conservatives".... now SOME conservatives might be a better claim ;)

I think he meant the Conservatives in the government, Decka.

I think he meant the Conservatives in the government, Decka.

You never quite know with FT

It is Democracy Now, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.

(naturally, the Conservatives absolutely despise it because it pulls no punches and exposes the politicians for their wrongdoings..........)

I think he meant the Conservatives in the government, Decka.

No, DF, actually I did mean the Conservatives in this country.

But I did not mean that it included every Conservative in America..........I just said 'the Conservatives'.

What I meant by that was -- "an indeterminate number of the members of that group of people who make up *the Conservatives* in America".

Sheesh.

well, you come off as a high-horse, bigot when you talk like that FT...

Its ironic seeing a conservative making a liberal post a disclaimer LOL

No, DF, actually I did mean the Conservatives in this country.

But I did not mean that it included every Conservative in America..........I just said 'the Conservatives'.

What I meant by that was -- "an indeterminate number of the members of that group of people who make up *the Conservatives* in America".

Sheesh.
I always preferred the term "conservatives".......i.e. Fascists in Conservative-clothing.

I always preferred the term "conservatives".......i.e. Fascists in Conservative-clothing.

Oh so we are all just a bunch of fascists huh shaman?

Its ironic seeing a conservative making a liberal post a disclaimer LOL

It was not a conservative making a liberal post a disclaimer.

It was simply an attempt to explain to a rightwing buffoon what was said.

Riiiiiggghhhhttt.....

http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/dr_evil_1_small.jpg

Gee... proving that one show on one network has a conservative bias must mean that all media has a conservative bias!

And yes Shaman, It is a well known fact, if i get the time I'll post the multiple links for you.



Yep!!!