Nothing like UNBIASED and PROFESSIONAL journalism on the REAL NEWS NETWORKS...

 

"So when the anti-tax "tea party" protests were held Wednesday across the country, cable anchors and guests -- who for weeks had all but ignored the story -- covered the protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

 

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper interspersed "teabagging" references with analyst David Gergen's more staid commentary on how Republicans are still "searching for their voice."

 

"It's hard to talk when you're teabagging," Cooper explained. Gergen laughed, but Cooper kept a straight face.

 

MSNBC's David Shuster weaved a tapestry of "Animal House" humor Monday as he filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann.

 

The protests, he explained, amount to "Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it."

 

He described the parties as simultaneously "full-throated" and "toothless," and continued: "They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." Shuster also noted how the protesters "whipped out" the demonstrations this past weekend."

 

There's plenty more at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/cable-anchors-guests-use-tea-parties-platform-frat-house-humor/

 

But, I guess that since they didn't put a banner at the top of the screen proclaiming, "CNN's (or MSNBC's) viewpoint of Americans who think they're being taxed too highly" they are more legitimate? :lol: :lol: :lol:

How have I ignored anything? I've stated very clearly that (at the very least) I respect Fox for being up front with their agenda.

 

MSNBC is just as obvious to anyone with half an intellect. Just because they don't put a caption over the screen expressing their political support of the "MSNBC Cindy Sheehan 24/7 Political Soap Box" or the "MSNBC Keith Olberman Pseudo News Anchor Propaganda Engine" or the "MSNBC Immigration Protest" does not somehow make their agenda less evident or one bit more legitimate.

 

The fact that an uncomfortable percentage of their mentions of the tax protests were in the form of sophomoric wisecracks involving "tea bagging" rather than simply reporting a news event did a lot to offset my criticism of their clear agenda... not.

 

100% rationalization.

 

Others have already stated that individuals such as Hannity, KO, etc can say what they want as they are "infotainment." I agree. So, KO can say what he wants as we saw during the election. Same with Matthews.

 

Where you still can't argue the point is in the fact that no network ACTIVELY promoted an agenda in such a brazen manner. That's the point. FNC said "we're not a news organization. We're infotainment and a mouthpiece."

 

That's cool. We already knew that. They just can't use their "Fair and balanced" crap anymore.

100% rationalization.

 

Others have already stated that individuals such as Hannity, KO, etc can say what they want as they are "infotainment." I agree. So, KO can say what he wants as we saw during the election. Same with Matthews.

 

Where you still can't argue the point is in the fact that no network ACTIVELY promoted an agenda in such a brazen manner. That's the point. FNC said "we're not a news organization. We're infotainment and a mouthpiece."

 

That's cool. We already knew that. They just can't use their "Fair and balanced" crap anymore.

 

Well, Matthews and Olberman was the anchors of MNBC and were so brazenly supportive of Obama that NBC actually had to remove them cause they were too much over the top.

They just can't use their "Fair and balanced" crap anymore.

You've completely lost me on how it is not "fair" to make clear which way a "news" network leans. That IMO is the epitome of fair.

 

No one... let me clarify that... no one with any degree of intellect is truly "unbiased". Everyone has a worldview and an opinion. It affects how we absorb and communicate information to one degree or another.

 

I think one of the great myths of our age is the notion of "impartiality" in journalism. Those who truly come close to being "impartial" in our current divisive culture are rare indeed. :thumb:

Well, Matthews and Olberman was the anchors of MNBC and were so brazenly supportive of Obama that NBC actually had to remove them cause they were too much over the top.

Come on LBBC... admitting having a "tingle" running up one's leg when the democrat candidate for president is speaking is nothing at all like supporting average American citizens protesting high taxes and irresponsible government spending...

 

 

 

 

... is it?

Well, Matthews and Olberman was the anchors of MNBC and were so brazenly supportive of Obama that NBC actually had to remove them cause they were too much over the top.

 

I don't know how to simplify my point anymore than I have.

 

You're either intentionally missing the point or I've failed to distinguish between "infotainers" and the actual darn network.

 

Am I speaking Chinese?

You've completely lost me on how it is not "fair" to make clear which way a "news" network leans. That IMO is the epitome of fair.

 

No one... let me clarify that... no one with any degree of intellect is truly "unbiased". Everyone has a worldview and an opinion. It affects how we absorb and communicate information to one degree or another.

 

I think one of the great myths of our age is the notion of "impartiality" in journalism. Those who truly come close to being "impartial" in our current divisive culture are rare indeed. :thumb:

 

Why did you ignore than 2nd part of the FNC mantra?

Clyde, aren't you one of the ones who is constantly telling everyone how they blow things President Obama does out of proportion?

Why did you ignore than 2nd part of the FNC mantra?

I guess I am typing in Mandarin or something... :lol:

 

To summarize my posts 29, 31, 34 and 49 in which I totally address the "2nd part of the FNC mantra"...

 

I don't think any news source or "infotainment" is truly "balanced" if you define "balance" as being absolutely "neutral". Everyone and every source (populated by everyones) has a point-of-view that skews one way or another away from dead center neutrality.

 

If one defines "balance" in real-world terms, it means reporting the viewpoints on both sides of the story. In this regard, Fox News is as "balanced" as any other news source out there.

 

The fact that they express an opinion or admit a political leaning does nothing to invalidate their claim of "balance" if indeed they do "fairly" report divergent opinions.

 

This of course is merely my "opinion". :thumb:

I don't know how to simplify my point anymore than I have.

 

You're either intentionally missing the point or I've failed to distinguish between "infotainers" and the actual darn network.

 

Am I speaking Chinese?

 

Who made them the anchors for their political coverage? The network. So, wouldn't that then mean the network was condoning their statements, actions, views. Heck, they let the two of them run Brokaw away from political coverage because he wanted to be a news agency for NBC and they wouldn't let him.

So...we are agreeing that FoxNews is no longer unbiased, correct?

So...we are agreeing that FoxNews is no longer unbiased, correct?

 

 

 

I couldn't imagine anyone would think any of them were, let alone Fox.

I do not want it both ways. I want my news to be factual, without someones opinion. Bottom Line. I do not watch more than one story a day as I cannot handle ANY of the organizations propaganda. I don't want it. I wnat the who, what and where. When they getting in to the speculative "why" they all lose me. Give me the why from the principals mouth, not them or their experts that are not even there.

 

Where do you get unbiased televison news? Seriously, it no longer exists.

I couldn't imagine anyone would think any of them were, let alone Fox.

 

I agree. It's just that so many on here have long claimed that Fox was the only reputable cable news source.

Where do you get unbiased televison news? Seriously, it no longer exists.

 

Hasn't for many years.