The Fox Effect.....

[cawacko]

Anti-privatization tripe? Try picking up a history book and learning how well privatization worked before there was SS and Medicare and welfare and other social programs. The problem when discussing social programs is the programs have been in effect for many people's life time (50 or 75 years) so they have nothing to which to compare them. The common refrain is, "The government program isn't perfect so let's privatize it." Unfortunately, privatization was, and is, much worse.

Education, like SS and Medicare, needs to be reformed but kept under government control. In fact, that's precisely what Obama is doing regarding medical care. There were and are more powerful interests fighting against medical care reform than there are fighting against education reform, however, Obama has made the first move. If government can take on the established medical care financial interests it can come up with a solution to reform education and privatization is not the answer.

Privatization has never been the answer for social programs and education is a social program.

So the long and short of it is you like change if it is change you like.

 

[apple0154]

So you have no answer for education reform. I didn't say a word about privitizing education. But it is damn near impossible to make real reform within education without the consent of the teachers union which they do not want to give. I'm talking real issues. You don't have an answer for that.

With private schools able to pick and choose which students they'll take of course education will differ from public schools.

As for "real issues" can you be more specific? To what, exactly, is the Teacher's Union not consenting?

 

[apple0154]

This Conservative has consistently supported change of the status quo. From a government that continues to grow and incrementally takes away our freedom to one that is slashed and burned to a short nub of its present size. That's real change, and you pussy liberals can't handle it.

Here we go again.

The government started out as a "short nub" and as time passed the people saw the nub needed to grow. As I've explained many times social programs left to individuals or communities or "private" do not do an adequate job. While the government system isn't perfect it's vastly superior to the days when the elderly were left to die without any form of income or people and children starved.

That's why there's SS and Medicare and Medicaid and welfare. That's why Obama has taken the first steps towards government (universal, one payer, national) medical care. It's been shown, over and over, the government has to run social programs.

 

[apple0154]

so your saying the fact we get a liberal slant from the mainstream media is because liberals are less likely to grasp the significance of news events?.........plausible......

Thank-you for being the perfect example of one whom is grasp-challenged.

 

[apple0154]

So the long and short of it is you like change if it is change you like.

I like change if the present arrangement is not working but not change that involves going back to a way that has proven to be faulty.

Again, this is what Obama said about the medical care discussions. Privatizing or taking the government out of the picture are old, tired, worn-out ideas. Everything, and I mean literally every thing, started out as a private for-profit endeavor and because of failure the government stepped in.

The very nature of private, for profit enterprise means some people will be left out and that's exactly what social policies are designed to prevent. Social policies operate on "need" being the only requirement. Rather than "So the long and short of it is you like change if it is change you like" the long and short of it is people who are against such change must not like helping others.

 

[Good Luck]

(Excerpt from posted link) Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see."(End)

Wrong. Changes makes news and Liberals are for change so it's natural for news to be liberal. From gay marriage to entitlement programs society progresses, or changes. Conservatives tend to want things to stay the same and the same is not news.

For example, the population of Manhattan is approximately 1.5 million. If there was a Gay Pride parade and 2,000 people showed up what would be considered news: 2,000 people attended the Gay Pride parade or 1,498,000 people didn't attend the Gay Pride parade?

The same can be said whether it's a demonstration/"parade' concerning pro-choice or gay marriage or medical care or welfare or housing or ......The news is the people who attend, not the ones who stay home. It's the event. Non-events are non-news.

The news is people demonstrating against what is established and demonstrating is how changes come about and change is progress, be it women's right to vote or women's right to choose or all the other issues facing people today.

It's not as simple as what is covered determining "liberal" or "conservative" news, but how it is covered. For instance, it is easy to see a profound difference in the way the MSM covers an anti-Iraq-War protest, and the manner a TEA party event is covered. When the media takes it on themselves to openly approve of one type of demonstration while openly ridiculing another, THAT is bias: not what is covered, but how.

And while Fox may be heavily biased in favor of the Republican party (I will not dispute their bias), CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, are without a doubt a visible and readily apparent (though to differing degrees) propaganda arm of the Democratic party. With a factor of 4-1, liberals have absolutely nothing to bitch about when it comes to media bias.

 

[charver]

It's not as simple as what is covered determining "liberal" or "conservative" news, but how it is covered. For instance, it is easy to see a profound difference in the way the MSM covers an anti-Iraq-War protest, and the manner a TEA party event is covered. When the media takes it on themselves to openly approve of one type of demonstration while openly ridiculing another, THAT is bias: not what is covered, but how.

And while Fox may be heavily biased in favor of the Republican party (I will not dispute their bias), CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, are without a doubt a visible and readily apparent (though to differing degrees) propaganda arm of the Democratic party. With a factor of 4-1, liberals have absolutely nothing to bitch about when it comes to media bias.

I know i often sound like i'm being incredibly sarcastic (and often i am) but, honestly, not in this case.

How would you regard the reporting of foreign media (generally European print press and BBC and, maybe, AL-Jazeera) in regards to bias?

 

[Bfgrn]

This Conservative has consistently supported change of the status quo. From a government that continues to grow and incrementally takes away our freedom to one that is slashed and burned to a short nub of its present size. That's real change, and you pussy liberals can't handle it.

You right wingers have completely swallowed one of the biggest public relations campaigns of human history. You folks can no longer even think in logical ways or reasonable terms.

While you are hiding under your bed frothing in fear, ask yourself a simple question: WHO is most likely to cause my demise? Will the government try to swindle me out of all my savings with scurrilous credit card hidden terms? Will government try to persuade grandma to sign over her mortgage? Will government cause me to go bankrupt because of outrageous medical bills my policy denied to cover?

Seriously, you need to think man.

 

[NOVA]

It's not as simple as what is covered determining "liberal" or "conservative" news, but how it is covered. For instance, it is easy to see a profound difference in the way the MSM covers an anti-Iraq-War protest, and the manner a TEA party event is covered. When the media takes it on themselves to openly approve of one type of demonstration while openly ridiculing another, THAT is bias: not what is covered, but how.

And while Fox may be heavily biased in favor of the Republican party (I will not dispute their bias), CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, are without a doubt a visible and readily apparent (though to differing degrees) propaganda arm of the Democratic party. With a factor of 4-1, liberals have absolutely nothing to bitch about when it comes to media bias.

Maybe what you view as Fox being heavily biased in favor of the Republican party, is the perception of bias caused by a real fair reporting of the news by Fox,....including the news that the other msm outlets are openly biased in favor of the liberal perspective.....

MSM doesn't even deny their bias....their reporters openly admit to being liberals and its natural that their reporting is slanted....

 

[Good Luck]

Maybe what you view as Fox being heavily biased in favor of the Republican party, is the perception of bias caused by a real fair reporting of the news by Fox,....including the news that the other msm outlets are openly biased in favor of the liberal perspective.....

MSM doesn't even deny their bias....their reporters openly admit to being liberals and its natural that their reporting is slanted....

I watched Fox give Dubya way too many passes, especially his first term, to think the bias is only in relation to the majority of MSM. Fox does cover issues MSM prefers to bypass (ie: those which are critical or damaging to the jackass party) but I have also seen Fox bypass or minimize events whicch are damaging to the reputation of the republican party. But, overall, as I said, the real crux is not what is reported, but how it is reported. Fox shows a distinct favor to the republican platform coupled with an anti-liberal flavor to their reporting, while the big 3 and CNN practically write political campaigns for the democrats and hammer republicans when ever they look cross eyed. NONE of them simply report facts. They all add in their little asides, jokes, comments, etc.

 

[Good Luck]

Well, in many cases it's hard to describe foreign press as biased one way or the other with respect to the two major sides of American politics. But that is pretty much because the flavor of foreign press is anti-U.S. of A. no matter who is being reported on, varying from highly critical to, shall we say, amused condescension. (They all seem to think we're a lost cause, like a hopelessly learning-disabled poor cousin.

However, I also see the foreign press using, on a regular basis, a distinct liberal bias when reporting domestic (to them) stories.

There is one exception to that generality, though. The TEA Party movement in the U.S. has been denigrated in foreign press to a degree CBS, et.al. only dreams about doing.

 

[NOVA]

I watched Fox give Dubya way too many passes, especially his first term, to think the bias is only in relation to the majority of MSM. Fox does cover issues MSM prefers to bypass (ie: those which are critical or damaging to the jackass party) but I have also seen Fox bypass or minimize events whicch are damaging to the reputation of the republican party. But, overall, as I said, the real crux is not what is reported, but how it is reported. Fox shows a distinct favor to the republican platform coupled with an anti-liberal flavor to their reporting, while the big 3 and CNN practically write political campaigns for the democrats and hammer republicans when ever they look cross eyed. NONE of them simply report facts. They all add in their little asides, jokes, comments, etc.

Don't confuse shows like Hannity or O'Reilly with "news programs", they're not.......nor was Olbermann nor is Chris Matthews or Maddow.....

and even these programs are quite different ..... O'Reilly and Hannity, discuss the issues and the news, almost all time with representatives presenting both sides....
Olbermann and Matthews and Maddow are completely one sided with little no dicussion and almost never present opposing views of an issue....

Not trying to be argumentative, I do see your point....

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Fox News should be banned, and all of it's reporters and owners executed for being traitors to the human race. I will not be happy until I get the honor of putting their heads on pikes and hoisting them outside of Washington DC to show the enemies of humanity how we feel about your monsters.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, in many cases it's hard to describe foreign press as biased one way or the other with respect to the two major sides of American politics. But that is pretty much because the flavor of foreign press is anti-U.S. of A. no matter who is being reported on, varying from highly critical to, shall we say, amused condescension. (They all seem to think we're a lost cause, like a hopelessly learning-disabled poor cousin.

However, I also see the foreign press using, on a regular basis, a distinct liberal bias when reporting domestic (to them) stories.

The USA has done nothing worthy of being reported positively on, thanks to the strangelhold that non-human conservative monsters have on it. Once we distribute justice to you bastards and kill all of you, as you justly deserve, then we can talk.

There is one exception to that generality, though. The TEA Party movement in the U.S. has been denigrated in foreign press to a degree CBS, et.al. only dreams about doing.

Reporters at CBS should be executed for being traitors to the human race as well. We will show no undeserved mercy towards the enemies of humanity and their fellow travellers.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I watched Fox give Dubya way too many passes, especially his first term, to think the bias is only in relation to the majority of MSM. Fox does cover issues MSM prefers to bypass (ie: those which are critical or damaging to the jackass party) but I have also seen Fox bypass or minimize events whicch are damaging to the reputation of the republican party. But, overall, as I said, the real crux is not what is reported, but how it is reported. Fox shows a distinct favor to the republican platform coupled with an anti-liberal flavor to their reporting, while the big 3 and CNN practically write political campaigns for the democrats and hammer republicans when ever they look cross eyed. NONE of them simply report facts. They all add in their little asides, jokes, comments, etc.

You're just so crazy and biased that you can't tolerate reporting that isn't loaded with references and clear favoritism towards your twisted and evil anti-human value system. I shall be glad when I set your head upon a pike - GLORY, GLORY, HALLELUJAH!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I like change if the present arrangement is not working but not change that involves going back to a way that has proven to be faulty.

Again, this is what Obama said about the medical care discussions. Privatizing or taking the government out of the picture are old, tired, worn-out ideas. Everything, and I mean literally every thing, started out as a private for-profit endeavor and because of failure the government stepped in.

The very nature of private, for profit enterprise means some people will be left out and that's exactly what social policies are designed to prevent. Social policies operate on "need" being the only requirement. Rather than "So the long and short of it is you like change if it is change you like" the long and short of it is people who are against such change must not like helping others.

All conservative economics is simply an elaborate denial of macroeconomics. They sit in their chair, come up with ideas, and declare them valid without justification, to the detriment of humanity. Liberal economists are the ones who justify their work with facts.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This Conservative has consistently supported change of the status quo. From a government that continues to grow and incrementally takes away our freedom to one that is slashed and burned to a short nub of its present size. That's real change, and you pussy liberals can't handle it.

The poor have the right to eat, all humans have a rights to medical coverage, workers have a right to a fair wage, children have a right to education, seniors have a right to their social security. I am perfectly willing to kill any evil non-human who would deny them these freedoms. The opponents of freedom and humanity will one day all die in the socialist revolution, and I shall stand over their corpses smiling.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Outside of your anti-privitization tripe I noticed you didn't address education. "Everyone should have a good education" is a saying. That does nothing to address reality which is the teachers union (and the political party which is a wholly owned subsidiary of them) fight reform every single step of the way. I would love for you to show me I'm wrong.

It has been conservatives, not teachers unions, who have stood in the way of education for children.

 

[Liberty]

It has been conservatives, not teachers unions, who have stood in the way of education for children.

Just ten more posts to get to 40,000.

Oh, and I believe that reps, dems, and teachers unions are to blame. And many parents.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[DamnYankee]

You right wingers have completely swallowed one of the biggest public relations campaigns of human history. You folks can no longer even think in logical ways or reasonable terms.

While you are hiding under your bed frothing in fear, ask yourself a simple question: WHO is most likely to cause my demise? Will the government try to swindle me out of all my savings with scurrilous credit card hidden terms? Will government try to persuade grandma to sign over her mortgage? Will government cause me to go bankrupt because of outrageous medical bills my policy denied to cover?

Seriously, you need to think man.

Why do you hate personal responsibility?