Ukraine Riots

[zyxt9]

Why do you want a news channel to lean at all? I'd be happy if there was a 100% neutral news channel.

What you're basically asking for is a news outlet that leans right, but is not so obvious about it? :hmm:

Solely due to the apparent incapability for news to be neutral, it would be nice to have a channel with slightly right view as opposed to extreme right of Fox, which coupled with slight left lean of CNN would potentially provide a moderate view. If however a truly neutral channel could be created, that would be my first choice, yes.

Obviously my own views are not the exact same as another moderate person, so it would seem even a neutral station would need to present the views from right and left then leave it to the viewer to decide from there how they perceive the events.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . didn't blossom in the same way because lefties, being a bit more cerebral . . .

HA!!

Now the rest of you tree-huggers - don't get your panties all in a bunch - I don't put all that much stock in Fox News as a political source, I just like to give champ a hard time when he toots his own intelligence horn.

:*)

 

[biggunsbob]

I neutral news channel....

Could that ever really happen?

 

[deathroh]

The NewsHour on PBS?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I neutral news channel....

Could that ever really happen?

Are we just talking right/left?

I submit the Christian Science Monitor for consideration.

 

[Michchamp]

HA!!

Now the rest of you tree-huggers - don't get your panties all in a bunch - I don't put all that much stock in Fox News as a political source, I just like to give champ a hard time when he toots his own intelligence horn.

:*)

You apparently failed to realize that I was summarizing the argument made in the article I linked to, not asserting that myself.

 

[KAWDUP]

You apparently failed to realize that I was summarizing the argument made in the article I linked to, not asserting that myself.

Are you saying you didn't agree with it?

 

[Michchamp]

The NewsHour on PBS?

Are we just talking right/left?

I submit the Christian Science Monitor for consideration.

both of those are probably better than most.

some criteria to consider:
1.) how unbiased is their reporting? Do they use lots of weasel words? for example, do they fail to call the same action "terrorism" depending on who does it? do they allow anonymous quotes and sources? Do they give equal weight to sources or speakers who probably don't deserve it? e.g. that climate change debate a while ago that featured Bill Nye versus some GOP congresswoman.

2.) are they reasonably unbiased, but completely ignore stories that are controversial (itself is a source of bias)? Or that don't fit their narrative?

3.) do they have a reason to lie? if not, you can probably give their assertions more credence than others.

 

[Michchamp]

Are you saying you didn't agree with it?

Not at all. I think the people that listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mancow, Ziegler, or any other Right-Wing radio host are just as intelligent as anyone who listens to NPR, or Ed Shultz, or the handful of national or local left-leaning shows.

I don't think there's anyway you can distinguish between the two groups of listeners. Walk up such people on the street and you will find them equally well-informed, thoughtful, and articulate.

 

[KAWDUP]

Not at all.

We all know you feel the same way about everyone from the South, too. Your stereotypes are world renowned at this point.

Probably anyone, who is an elitist, pseudo academic, socialist, would also fall into that intelligent bucket, which you yourself admit to thinking you are part of (part of that "bucket", of course, not the other groups mentioned).

Can't imagine why I might call you out on that too - no siree.

 

[Michchamp]

We all know you feel the same way about everyone from the South, too. Your stereotypes are world renowned at this point.

Probably anyone, who is an elitist, pseudo academic, socialist, would also fall into that intelligent bucket, which you yourself admit to thinking you are part of (part of that "bucket", of course, not the other groups mentioned).

Can't imagine why I might call you out on that too - no siree.

No. I changed my opinion on everything yesterday.

I will categorically state for the record that I don't believe there are any broad regional or personal differences between the North and the South, or an average Northerner and average southerner, respectively.

Take the average Michigander: they match up against the average Georgian in every way, shape, and form.

I may have different views than the average southerner, but I harbor no beliefs that my views are any more well-founded or well-reasoned than them. No one could possibly argue that to begin with.

 

[KAWDUP]

No. I changed my opinion on everything yesterday.

I will categorically state for the record that I don't believe there are any broad regional or personal differences between the North and the South, or an average Northerner and average southerner, respectively.

Take the average Michigander: they match up against the average Georgian in every way, shape, and form.

I may have different views than the average southerner, but I harbor no beliefs that my views are any more well-founded or well-reasoned than them. No one could possibly argue that to begin with.

I rest my case mr. sarcasm.

 

[Michchamp]

I rest my case mr. sarcasm.

It is a very good case. you approached it from a well-informed position, and it is well-reasoned and thorough.

 

[KAWDUP]

It is a very good case. you approached it from a well-informed position, and it is well-reasoned and thorough.

Much more well-informed than your obvious ignorance. No less well-reasoned than any of the drivel you have to post on the subject.

So . . how's that angry sarcasm working for ya?

 

[Michchamp]

Much more well-informed than your obvious ignorance. No less well-reasoned than any of the drivel you have to post on the subject.

So . . how's that angry sarcasm working for ya?

Why are you saying such things? I am not angry and sarcastic, nor am I posting while using an angry sarcastic tone or method.

I merely took issue with the fact that you accused me of claiming left-leaning/leftie radio listeners are more cerebral than listeners of right-wing talk radio, when I merely pointed to an article that argued that point.

While I did say that the article "put things in perspective for me" I did not mean I agreed with it, simply that it put into perspective that right-wing-talk radio is a business.

I am not personally making the claim that the avg. NPR listener is any more well-informed or cerebral than the avg. Rush Limbaugh listener. In fact, I would be just as surprised as you would be to learn that it was true! Though I haven't seen any evidence to back up the claim, and if there was some evidence, such as "average educational level achieved of each audience," that itself would not be dispositive of the issue, since we all know that the more education one receives, the more foolish they become, especially when they are being instructed by teachers or college professors, who are uniformly incompetent liberal elitist buffoons. As they say, those who cannot do, teach.

 

[KAWDUP]

You should know, of course, that it is more your entire batch of political forum post work that leads me to believe you are perfectly comfortable with the notion that, in general, liberal thinkers, be they talk radio hosts, listeners, or otherwise, are generally more educated, and come from the smarter end of the gene pool. It certainly isn't just the fact that you pointed to said article.

It really doesn't take much to come to my conclusion either, and normally people of my ilk just end up dismissing you as an elitist, whether you are more intelligent or not.

As far as why I said those things. Isn't it obvious? I was attempting to hi-jack your already hijacked thread, something you seem to do on a regular basis to others, and bait you into a silly argument.

Not to say I wasn't calling you out on that stereotypical belief - I was. I can't imagine you can produce any real statistics, showing the actual IQ (or some other widely accepted indication of intelligence) of some representative group of listeners, that might take into account those that listen to both. You are using a common heuristic, basing the opinion off of some ridiculously small sample size. You spew it like it is true, when in reality, you know of no such thing, hence your ignorance that I always post about.

It seemed like you were angry due to the intense nature of the sarcastic response. I could have been wrong about that, but I never let that kind of thing bother me when I am on a roll.

 

[Michchamp]

...

I can't imagine you can produce any real statistics, showing the actual IQ (or some other widely accepted indication of intelligence) of some representative group of listeners, that might take into account those that listen to both. You are using a common heuristic, basing the opinion off of some ridiculously small sample size. You spew it like it is true, when in reality, you know of no such thing, hence your ignorance that I always post about.

All I did was mention Wallace made the argument in his article. I didn't actually claim it was true. jeez.

It seemed like you were angry due to the intense nature of the sarcastic response. I could have been wrong about that, but I never let that kind of thing bother me when I am on a roll.

Well, you were wrong about that, and I think you should apologize.

 

[KAWDUP]

All I did was mention Wallace made the argument in his article. I didn't actually claim it was true. jeez.

I know that, but is it really a great leap for me to attribute that same opinion to you, given that I have been reading your political forum posts for over a year now?

Well, you were wrong about that, and I think you should apologize.

I apologize for calling you an "angry sarcastic". So . . . are you saying you were just trying to be funny?

 

[Michchamp]

...


I apologize for calling you an "angry sarcastic". So . . . are you saying you were just trying to be funny?

No. And while I guess I can see how - given some of my past comments - you could think I may believe Right-Wing Talk Radio listeners are a bunch of ignorant, angry, racist cranks, not to mention impotent (as evidenced by the number of viagra and cialis ads on the shows), as I said I no longer believe such things.

I accept your apology.

 

[KAWDUP]

No. And while I guess I can see how - given some of my past comments - you could think I may believe Right-Wing Talk Radio listeners are a bunch of ignorant, angry, racist cranks, not to mention impotent (as evidenced by the number of viagra and cialis ads on the shows), as I said I no longer believe such things.

I accept your apology.

Well . . . um no . . . that isn't the belief we were talking about. We were talking about who is more cerebral. That is the belief that I attribute to you.

FYI: There isn't a person on this planet that doesn't know your opinion about Right-Wing radio talk show hosts. :*)

. . . and this statement "I said I no longer believe such things" isn't it an attempt by you to either be funny, or in some manner darkly sarcastic? So, you may not be angry, but aren't you still doing the same things I accused you of, without necessarily being angry?

So I ask the question to you again. Do you feel that is working for you in this discussion?