|
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Wed 07 Apr 2004 01:23:07p, Larry Ozarow wrote in message : We disagree about whether these networks really display a "liberal" bias. I listen to both Morning Edition and All Things Considered on a regular basis and I don't think they are biased. True I might be brainwashed, or biased myself, but that could be true of anyone, even you. And even if NPR and PRI and PBS were liberal mouthpieces, and supported heavily by foundations, (which is not strictly true - the news programs which I assume is what you are talking about are overwhelmingly supported by subscriptions from member stations) this would not negate the fact that it's done on both sides, which is all I was saying. I think the bias is there, but subtle. I like FOX on the television and I readily admit I can see the slant to the right. When on the road, I like NPR and I can see the slant to the left. Neither bias bothers me because I believe they are not there to alter facts. There is enough "peer-pressure" (for lack of a better term) for both to keep the basic facts accurate. They both know that if they slip- up, someone is going to catch it. They will earn a black-eye and the one catching them will get to count coup. As far as the bias, I do not see outright Rep or Dem bashing. What I see is subtle biases like differences in descriptive terminology. Like, NPR may refer to a terrorist as a suicide-bomber, while FOX calls them homicide-bombers. Also, you may notice that NPR pretty-much tows the "politically-correct" line, while FOX is not that observant. FOX always refers to Bush as "President Bush" while I have heard NPR refer to him as "Mr. Bush". I know all of that sounds minor, if not out-right petty, but like I said, it's subtle differences that I see indicating bias. But I really don't mind it either way and I don't really focus on it. Other folks may really take offense at some of that stuff and blow it out of proportion. If the truth was known, I would bet the folks who vigorously complain about the media being (Left/Right) are either hyper-sensitive to it, or scrutinizing every bit looking for it... -=jd=- Well said! |
Telamon wrote: I said they could be. It's obvious that this is an election destabilizing tacit. An attempt to defeat the incumbent is not a "destabilizing tactic." It is what the rules call for every four years. More often in the House and less in the Senate. My parents are Democrats and I like them. I don't know if I would like the Democrats you know. Oooh. that was nasty. Communists or Democratic party dirty tricks, take your pick. First of all, I don't really think the two are equivalent, do you? Are you saying that Democrats are as bad as Communists? Your parents for God's sake? Or is this some sort of kettle logic all-purpose denunciation of the network because it disagrees with what you believe? I'll stand by my contention that Liberal Democrats have a right to air our opinions. And that's the next turn in your position, by the way; now it's the Democratic party, and not just shadowy forces? Oh goody, if Ashcroft can get the goods on them we can shut the whole evil enterprise down and get down to some serious one-party democracy. I fear that talk radio will go back to what is was when I was teenager. Just this morning I awoke to the soothing tones of a voice from NPR telling me that we all know the world is two complicated a place to be looked at as black and white but shades of gray. Not a good way start to the day. Because the liberals might take over, and drive the right-wingers off the air? It was during the Clinton Soviet that it prospered. Have no fear, comrade. You're the one who's opposed to vigorous debate over the air. None of the Democrats I know, whether you would like them or not, are interested in silencing Conservative talk radio. It's too easy an enemy. |
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote: On Wed 07 Apr 2004 11:21:38p, Telamon wrote in message : {snippage} The backers are not revealed. The mouth pieces personified as the leading talent Franken and CEO Walsh are quoted as stating the main purpose of the startup network is to influence the election for the Democrats. Walsh is already changing that tune by the way. I Like Rush, but I also recognize that Rush would, and probably will, do everything within his abilities as a broadcast personality to sway voters. In that regard, I don't see Air America any different than Rush. Being honest about it, I have to agree that turn-about is fair-play. Even if Franken and his cohorts openly admit to starting up Air America primarily to reach out to voters while endeavoring to boot Bush out of office, what standing does anyone have to complain when there's Rush, Hannity, et.al. reaching out to voters endeavoring to prevent a Democrat from taking office? It's a two-way street whether we like it or not. Also, I honestly don't believe a registered Democrat is going to switch their vote based on a Conservative talk-show host's opinions anymore than a registered Republican voter will switch based on a Liberal talk-show host's opinions. As for those voters sitting on the fence, I think despite the efforts of either talk-show format, the practical result will be a wash when it's all said and done. That presumes that Air America takes off and starts garnering listeners. If they don't, the advantage remains with the Conservative formats. At least, that's the way I see it. -=jd=- And, of course, you're correct. Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
Leonard Martin wrote in message ...
Of course, I'll have to do that on the web. AM stations nown here in the Benighted South broadcast "All Right Wing--All The Time". Does anyone here want to take the time to tell me what happened to the old "fairness doctrine", which used to keep this kind of junk silent? The Supreme Court threw it out, around 1987. Not because it was against the Constitution, but because it was done by the FCC and exceeded the bounds of their enabling legislation. A fair minded Congresscould reinstate it. (Sigh, fat chance ...) Mark Zenier Washington State resident |
"Mark Zenier" wrote in message om... The Supreme Court threw it out, around 1987. Not because it was against the Constitution, but because it was done by the FCC and exceeded the bounds of their enabling legislation. A fair minded Congresscould reinstate it. (Sigh, fat chance ...) I hope the fairness doctrine won't be reinstated, and I think it's less likely now that there's a Democratic biased talk network. I can see why alot of politicans might prefer using a group of bureaucrats and judges to keep radio stations in line, rather than leaving it to popular choice. After all, they have a better chance of cutting deals that way. And this isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. The Nixon administration was talking about using the fairness doctrine to go after licenses of stations owned by CBS and the Washington Post. Frank Dresser |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: I said they could be. It's obvious that this is an election destabilizing tacit. An attempt to defeat the incumbent is not a "destabilizing tactic." It is what the rules call for every four years. More often in the House and less in the Senate. It's a destabilizing tactic to not play by the election rules through deceit and subterfuge. My parents are Democrats and I like them. I don't know if I would like the Democrats you know. Oooh. that was nasty. What do you mean nasty? I don't know who you are talking about so how am I supposed to know if I would like the people you know. I have Democrats for friends and family big deal. You would not be trying to portray me as an isolated narrow minded thinker that does not tolerate other points of view would you. No you wouldn't try that. A nice touchy feely Liberal / Democrat like yourself would respect my point of view and not try to demonize me right? That would be a dirty tactic to marginalize what I had so say. I don't like nasty such as a "mean streak a smile wide." The thought of being that way actually makes me sick. Communists or Democratic party dirty tricks, take your pick. First of all, I don't really think the two are equivalent, do you? Are you saying that Democrats are as bad as Communists? Your parents for God's sake? Or is this some sort of kettle logic all-purpose denunciation of the network because it disagrees with what you believe? I'll stand by my contention that Liberal Democrats have a right to air our opinions. And that's the next turn in your position, by the way; now it's the Democratic party, and not just shadowy forces? Oh goody, if Ashcroft can get the goods on them we can shut the whole evil enterprise down and get down to some serious one-party democracy. Ashcroft is not the all purpose bad guy you and others on the left try without success to make him out to be. The Federal elections commission should go after Air America. The most left of the Democrats are Communists but not all of them are. Some are moderate and some are more to the right than some of the Republicans. Either party is comprised of a range of people. So which ones are backing Air America; the most left Democrats or the Communists? I fear that talk radio will go back to what is was when I was teenager. Just this morning I awoke to the soothing tones of a voice from NPR telling me that we all know the world is two complicated a place to be looked at as black and white but shades of gray. Not a good way start to the day. Because the liberals might take over, and drive the right-wingers off the air? Yeah, I'm for choice remember. It was during the Clinton Soviet that it prospered. Have no fear, comrade. You're the one who's opposed to vigorous debate over the air. None of the Democrats I know, whether you would like them or not, are interested in silencing Conservative talk radio. It's too easy an enemy. No I'm for debate. I'm for having the backers of Air America to come out of the closet and declare their intentions. I'm for Walsh when he was telling the truth and Franken if he still is. You on the other hand are stuck looking for a fight with someone that does not share your view of the world and forgiving the transgressions of the people who do. I posit that you are of narrower mind than I am. Nice try though. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Telamon wrote:
It's a destabilizing tactic to not play by the election rules through deceit and subterfuge. Both sides violate the rules. Fox news and various right-wing talk radio personalities electioneer just as blatantly as AA does. The term "destabilizing" connotes more than just bending the rules, more like a basic attack on the system itself. What do you mean nasty? I don't know who you are talking about so how am I supposed to know if I would like the people you know. I have Democrats for friends and family big deal. You would not be trying to portray me as an isolated narrow minded thinker that does not tolerate other points of view would you. No you wouldn't try that. A nice touchy feely Liberal / Democrat like yourself would respect my point of view and not try to demonize me right? That would be a dirty tactic to marginalize what I had so say. Your statement that you don't know if you would like any of the Democrats I know was gratuitous in its context, and therefore I inferred that it was intended as a nasty remark. My apologies if this was not the case. Communists or Democratic party dirty tricks, take your pick. First of all, I don't really think the two are equivalent, do you? Are you saying that Democrats are as bad as Communists? Your parents for God's sake? Or is this some sort of kettle logic all-purpose denunciation of the network because it disagrees with what you believe? I'll stand by my contention that Liberal Democrats have a right to air our opinions. And that's the next turn in your position, by the way; now it's the Democratic party, and not just shadowy forces? Oh goody, if Ashcroft can get the goods on them we can shut the whole evil enterprise down and get down to some serious one-party democracy. Ashcroft is not the all purpose bad guy you and others on the left try without success to make him out to be. I only mentioned Ashcroft because he is the Attorney General and it would be his job to prosecute them if they were in violation of the election laws. The Federal elections commission should go after Air America. The most left of the Democrats are Communists but not all of them are. Some are moderate and some are more to the right than some of the Republicans. Either party is comprised of a range of people. So which ones are backing Air America; the most left Democrats or the Communists? You earlier provided a list of Socialists in the Democratic party. Could you do the same for Communists? Could you provide at least some basis for your belief that Communists are behind AA? If you are calling for an investigation, the least you should do is provide at least some reason for your suspicions (i.e. probable cause) other than than that they are clearly anti-Bush. No I'm for debate. I'm for having the backers of Air America to come out of the closet and declare their intentions. I'm for Walsh when he was telling the truth and Franken if he still is. You on the other hand are stuck looking for a fight with someone that does not share your view of the world and forgiving the transgressions of the people who do. I posit that you are of narrower mind than I am. Nice try though. Telamon, you forgot that you were the one who started this exchange by accusing the backers of AA of being Communists. I've never called for investigating the backers of Sean Hannity or the Murdoch family or the Weekly Standard or any other right-wing outlet, to uncover their "real" motives. Why can't you just accept that the real motives of the poeple behind AA are to provide an outlet for liberal talk radio, and implicit in this would be support of Democratic candidates, and that that is the way our system works? Calling liberals "Communists" or crypto-communists, or accusing them of having their heads in the sand if they aren't is hardly a sign of open-mindedness, or the trademark of someone who's not spoiling for a fight. Larry |
In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: It's a destabilizing tactic to not play by the election rules through deceit and subterfuge. Both sides violate the rules. Fox news and various right-wing talk radio personalities electioneer just as blatantly as AA does. The term "destabilizing" connotes more than just bending the rules, more like a basic attack on the system itself. No they are not. They are viable media enterprises. They are out in the open. Fox was not started up to throw the election but Air America was according to Walsh and Franken. What do you mean nasty? I don't know who you are talking about so how am I supposed to know if I would like the people you know. I have Democrats for friends and family big deal. You would not be trying to portray me as an isolated narrow minded thinker that does not tolerate other points of view would you. No you wouldn't try that. A nice touchy feely Liberal / Democrat like yourself would respect my point of view and not try to demonize me right? That would be a dirty tactic to marginalize what I had so say. Your statement that you don't know if you would like any of the Democrats I know was gratuitous in its context, and therefore I inferred that it was intended as a nasty remark. My apologies if this was not the case. Communists or Democratic party dirty tricks, take your pick. First of all, I don't really think the two are equivalent, do you? Are you saying that Democrats are as bad as Communists? Your parents for God's sake? Or is this some sort of kettle logic all-purpose denunciation of the network because it disagrees with what you believe? I'll stand by my contention that Liberal Democrats have a right to air our opinions. And that's the next turn in your position, by the way; now it's the Democratic party, and not just shadowy forces? Oh goody, if Ashcroft can get the goods on them we can shut the whole evil enterprise down and get down to some serious one-party democracy. Ashcroft is not the all purpose bad guy you and others on the left try without success to make him out to be. I only mentioned Ashcroft because he is the Attorney General and it would be his job to prosecute them if they were in violation of the election laws. The Federal elections commission should go after Air America. The most left of the Democrats are Communists but not all of them are. Some are moderate and some are more to the right than some of the Republicans. Either party is comprised of a range of people. So which ones are backing Air America; the most left Democrats or the Communists? You earlier provided a list of Socialists in the Democratic party. Could you do the same for Communists? Could you provide at least some basis for your belief that Communists are behind AA? If you are calling for an investigation, the least you should do is provide at least some reason for your suspicions (i.e. probable cause) other than than that they are clearly anti-Bush. No I'm for debate. I'm for having the backers of Air America to come out of the closet and declare their intentions. I'm for Walsh when he was telling the truth and Franken if he still is. You on the other hand are stuck looking for a fight with someone that does not share your view of the world and forgiving the transgressions of the people who do. I posit that you are of narrower mind than I am. Nice try though. Telamon, you forgot that you were the one who started this exchange by accusing the backers of AA of being Communists. I've never called for investigating the backers of Sean Hannity or the Murdoch family or the Weekly Standard or any other right-wing outlet, to uncover their "real" motives. Why can't you just accept that the real motives of the poeple behind AA are to provide an outlet for liberal talk radio, and implicit in this would be support of Democratic candidates, and that that is the way our system works? Calling liberals "Communists" or crypto-communists, or accusing them of having their heads in the sand if they aren't is hardly a sign of open-mindedness, or the trademark of someone who's not spoiling for a fight. Sean Hannity is a conservative who criticizes the Republicans and Democrats alike when they exhibit liberal policies. That will not happen with Air America. The backer of Hannity is free enterprise not some wealthy conservatives with deep pockets. I've don't read the Weekly Standard so I can't comment on it. I know who Hannity is and his bias. My problem with Air America is they won't do the same. I'll accept the motives of Air America if they don't fold up shortly after the election and not before. Why can't you just accept that some group of wealthy liberal, communist or extreme left Democrats who can't legally spend their money on negative campaign TV and radio commercials this year start up a network instead in an attempt to utilize large quantities of soft money in an anti Bush campaign. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article
, Telamon wrote: In article , Larry Ozarow wrote: Telamon wrote: It's a destabilizing tactic to not play by the election rules through deceit and subterfuge. Both sides violate the rules. Fox news and various right-wing talk radio personalities electioneer just as blatantly as AA does. The term "destabilizing" connotes more than just bending the rules, more like a basic attack on the system itself. No they are not. They are viable media enterprises. They are out in the open. Fox was not started up to throw the election but Air America was according to Walsh and Franken. What do you mean nasty? I don't know who you are talking about so how am I supposed to know if I would like the people you know. I have Democrats for friends and family big deal. You would not be trying to portray me as an isolated narrow minded thinker that does not tolerate other points of view would you. No you wouldn't try that. A nice touchy feely Liberal / Democrat like yourself would respect my point of view and not try to demonize me right? That would be a dirty tactic to marginalize what I had so say. Your statement that you don't know if you would like any of the Democrats I know was gratuitous in its context, and therefore I inferred that it was intended as a nasty remark. My apologies if this was not the case. Communists or Democratic party dirty tricks, take your pick. First of all, I don't really think the two are equivalent, do you? Are you saying that Democrats are as bad as Communists? Your parents for God's sake? Or is this some sort of kettle logic all-purpose denunciation of the network because it disagrees with what you believe? I'll stand by my contention that Liberal Democrats have a right to air our opinions. And that's the next turn in your position, by the way; now it's the Democratic party, and not just shadowy forces? Oh goody, if Ashcroft can get the goods on them we can shut the whole evil enterprise down and get down to some serious one-party democracy. Ashcroft is not the all purpose bad guy you and others on the left try without success to make him out to be. I only mentioned Ashcroft because he is the Attorney General and it would be his job to prosecute them if they were in violation of the election laws. The Federal elections commission should go after Air America. The most left of the Democrats are Communists but not all of them are. Some are moderate and some are more to the right than some of the Republicans. Either party is comprised of a range of people. So which ones are backing Air America; the most left Democrats or the Communists? You earlier provided a list of Socialists in the Democratic party. Could you do the same for Communists? Could you provide at least some basis for your belief that Communists are behind AA? If you are calling for an investigation, the least you should do is provide at least some reason for your suspicions (i.e. probable cause) other than than that they are clearly anti-Bush. No I'm for debate. I'm for having the backers of Air America to come out of the closet and declare their intentions. I'm for Walsh when he was telling the truth and Franken if he still is. You on the other hand are stuck looking for a fight with someone that does not share your view of the world and forgiving the transgressions of the people who do. I posit that you are of narrower mind than I am. Nice try though. Telamon, you forgot that you were the one who started this exchange by accusing the backers of AA of being Communists. I've never called for investigating the backers of Sean Hannity or the Murdoch family or the Weekly Standard or any other right-wing outlet, to uncover their "real" motives. Why can't you just accept that the real motives of the poeple behind AA are to provide an outlet for liberal talk radio, and implicit in this would be support of Democratic candidates, and that that is the way our system works? Calling liberals "Communists" or crypto-communists, or accusing them of having their heads in the sand if they aren't is hardly a sign of open-mindedness, or the trademark of someone who's not spoiling for a fight. Sean Hannity is a conservative who criticizes the Republicans and Democrats alike when they exhibit liberal policies. That will not happen with Air America. The backer of Hannity is free enterprise not some wealthy conservatives with deep pockets. I've don't read the Weekly Standard so I can't comment on it. I know who Hannity is and his bias. My problem with Air America is they won't do the same. I'll accept the motives of Air America if they don't fold up shortly after the election and not before. Why can't you just accept that some group of wealthy liberal, communist or extreme left Democrats who can't legally spend their money on negative campaign TV and radio commercials this year start up a network instead in an attempt to utilize large quantities of soft money in an anti Bush campaign. My thanks to them, if that's the case! Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com