I dare someone to defend Keith Olbermann

[captainhampton]

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy.

this is as pathetic as it gets.

[unwritten]

I only move on double doggie dares.

[kwsqd]

LOL @ Keith
LOL @ Fox News
/thread

[aminorthreat55]

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy.

this is as pathetic as it gets.
If this is so indefensible, where was your thread for this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8a_zxnzM38

[Justin_stacy]

It was an ignorant thing to say.....But Olberman’s sole claim to fame is his attacking of fox and his political exact opposite Bill. So I doubt it was as much a heartfelt belief as it was a chance to garnish attention and shock value at the expense of his more successful rival.

[captainhampton]

It was an ignorant thing to say.....But Olberman’s sole claim to fame is his attacking of fox and his political exact opposite Bill. So I doubt it was as much a heartfelt belief as it was a chance to garnish attention and shock value at the expense of his more successful rival.

if NBC recognized this and had any integrity they'd can him. he has one of the worst cases of FDS ever. but i feel he will get a pass from the press for his using such shock value while someone like Ann Coulter (who i am not defending) gets villified for similar shock tactics.

[captainhampton]

If this is so indefensible, where was your thread for this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8a_zxnzM38

because the daily kos is a hateful site. but don't change the subject. defend olbermann. try it.

[aminorthreat55]

because the daily kos is a hateful site. but don't change the subject. defend olbermann. try it.
You're a joke.

[thejetstolehome]

i think i see what he's getting at.

[captainhampton]

You're a joke.

good defense there. brilliant. you want to start a dailykos O'Reill thread do it, this is a thread for trying to defend Olbermann.

[captainhampton]

i think i see what he's getting at.

explain

[thejetstolehome]

explain

i think he's saying while Al-Queda and terrorism in general can hurt us in one big blow, bad news and bad information can hurt us gradually over time, which he is saying is just as bad.

[deadstar]

I can see what captain hampton is getting at. God forbid a conservative compare the other side to such hateful groups (although it does seem to happen more often for whatever reason).

However, neither side is right for making these claims. The focus should not be on attacks directed at the other side.

[captainhampton]

i think he's saying while Al-Queda and terrorism in general can hurt us in one big blow, bad news and bad information can hurt us gradually over time, which he is saying is just as bad.

yes but i don't think it's fair to compare a news network which may have bad information (which is debatable) to an organization that murders innocent civilians. and to say it's more dangerous is absurd in my opinion. if he wants to criticize Fox, which has almost become an obsession for him, he should do it in a better way and stop making silly comparisons.

[thejetstolehome]

yes but i don't think it's fair to compare a news network which may have bad information (which is debatable) to an organization that murders innocent civilians. and to say it's more dangerous is absurd in my opinion. if he wants to criticize Fox, which has almost become an obsession for him, he should do it in a better way and stop making silly comparisons.

well, to him it's fair, i guess. :shrug:

[aminorthreat55]

yes but i don't think it's fair to compare a news network which may have bad information (which is debatable) to an organization that murders innocent civilians. and to say it's more dangerous is absurd in my opinion. if he wants to criticize Fox, which has almost become an obsession for him, he should do it in a better way and stop making silly comparisons.
I don't think you're familiar with Murdoch's managing history.

[captainhampton]

I don't think you're familiar with Murdoch's managing history.

again, you can't defend Keith so you are resorting to changing topic

www.olbermannwatch.com would refer to you as an OlbyLoon

[ides of march]

maybe he can't defend keith, but you also do not have answers to his questions

[captainhampton]

maybe he can't defend keith, but you also do not have answers to his questions

which one in particular, the dailykos/o'reilly feud? there's been a thread on that one. he requested i make one for that. why would i do that if there already was one? Read the title of this thread. I want people here who will comment on the issue and not people who are going to display their FDS by changing the subject to O'Reilly. got it?

[thatwasamoment]

It was an ignorant thing to say.....But Olberman’s sole claim to fame is his attacking of fox and his political exact opposite Bill. So I doubt it was as much a heartfelt belief as it was a chance to garnish attention and shock value at the expense of his more successful rival.Bingo. Statements like this may be the reason why he finally beat Bill O in the ratings last week.

[ides of march]

which one in particular, the dailykos/o'reilly feud? there's been a thread on that one. he requested i make one for that. why would i do that if there already was one? Read the title of this thread. I want people here who will comment on the issue and not people who are going to display their FDS by changing the subject to O'Reilly. got it?
ok, to be honest, the only way i can think of defending keith in this situation is by saying that his quote is from a Playboy interview. i don't think many of the readers focus on the interviews.

[captainhampton]

Bingo. Statements like this may be the reason why he finally beat Bill O in the ratings last week.
no he didn't

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/09/10/fridays-numbers-65/

[captainhampton]

ok, to be honest, the only way i can think of defending keith in this situation is by saying that his quote is from a Playboy interview. i don't think many of the readers focus on the interviews.

haven't you heard, everyone reads the articles haha.

[thatwasamoment]

no he didn't

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/09/10/fridays-numbers-65/Ha, Keith said otherwise. I'd like to think the numbers he referred to were correct, but you never know.

[captainhampton]

Ha, Keith said otherwise. I'd like to think the numbers he referred to were correct, but you never know.
theyre not, in fact when O'Reilly had Michelle Malkin subbing for him when he was on vacation, she still crushed keith in the ratings. those are the official numbers, the numbers aren't even close.

olbermannwatch.com will inform you

[ides of march]

haven't you heard, everyone reads the articles haha.
the titties are a nice complement to the wonderful prose.

[Spewk]

If this is so indefensible, where was your thread for this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8a_zxnzM38
heres another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

[captainhampton]

heres another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

another olbyloon (see http://www.olbermannwatch.com ) changing the subject. stay on topic.

[aminorthreat55]

again, you can't defend Keith so you are resorting to changing topic

www.olbermannwatch.com would refer to you as an OlbyLoon
Hahaha, you're such a hack. I could probably defend him up and down, left and right, but the fact is that I don't give a fuck about Keith; in fact I've never even seen his show. I think the last time I watched something with him was when he worked for ESPN in the early 90s. The idea is that for me, it is simply more entertaining to watch you act like a six year old plugging his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs in a pitiful attempt to avoid the truth of your own hypocrisy. In the end, what is the point of me crushing you in defeat if you won't even give the time of day toward the irony of your own lack of self-awareness?

[captainhampton]

Hahaha, you're such a hack. I could probably defend him up and down, left and right, but the fact is that I don't give a fuck about Keith; in fact I've never even seen his show. I think the last time I watched something with him was when he worked for ESPN in the early 90s. The idea is that for me, it is simply more entertaining to watch you act like a six year old plugging his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs in a pitiful attempt to avoid the truth of your own hypocrisy. In the end, what is the point of me crushing you in defeat if you won't even give the time of day toward the irony of your own lack of self-awareness?

because you can't defend him perhaps? cmon, you're so smart, defend those comments. please tell me the last time Fox News used airplanes to topple buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? When was the last time Rupert Murdoch was responsible for the murder of thousands of American civilians on American soil? When was the last time Fox News or Murdoch burned a cross on anyone's front yard? Answer? Never. Not one.

[Justin_stacy]

if NBC recognized this and had any integrity they'd can him. he has one of the worst cases of FDS ever. but i feel he will get a pass from the press for his using such shock value while someone like Ann Coulter (who i am not defending) gets villified for similar shock tactics.

Bill’s said equally repulsive things, and his job’s in no threat. Why would MSNBC can Olbermann, their sole bright spot in an other wise lackluster line up, for saying what they pretty much encourage him to say?

Prior to Olbermann’s “feud” with Bill and Fox News no one cared about him. His ratings were laughable, no one knew who he was, and he carried no weight as a pundit. Now he’s the poster boy of the far left, who love the fact he daily attacks Bill and Fox News.

I don't think you're familiar with Murdoch's managing history.
Which is no different from that of the New York Times, or The Gaurdian, or CNN........all have a history of "manipulating" stories to fit their predisposed agendas.

[aminorthreat55]

because you can't defend him perhaps? cmon, you're so smart, defend those comments. please tell me the last time Fox News used airplanes to topple buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? When was the last time Rupert Murdoch was responsible for the murder of thousands of American civilians on American soil? When was the last time Fox News or Murdoch burned a cross on anyone's front yard? Answer? Never. Not one.
because you can't defend him perhaps? cmon, you're so smart, defend those comments. please tell me the last time Markos Moulitsas lynched and murdered thousands of innocent people? When was the last time Markos Moulitsas was responsible for the murder of millions of Jewish people? When was the last time Markos Moulitsas burned a cross on anyone's front yard? Answer? Never. Not one.

You're clearly trying to establish a paradigm that this is an egregious lie under the false pretense of journalism; which is logically consistent with the O'Reilly/Daily Kos incident, which you refuse to admit.

[captainhampton]

Bill’s said equally repulsive things, and his job’s in no threat. Why would MSNBC can Olbermann, their sole bright spot in an other wise lackluster line up, for saying what they pretty much encourage him to say?

Prior to Olbermann’s “feud” with Bill and Fox News no one cared about him. His ratings were laughable, no one knew who he was, and he carried no weight as a pundit. Now he’s the poster boy of the far left, who love the fact he daily attacks Bill and Fox News.

name something as repulsive.

[captainhampton]

because you can't defend him perhaps? cmon, you're so smart, defend those comments. please tell me the last time Markos Moulitsas lynched and murdered thousands of innocent people? When was the last time Markos Moulitsas was responsible for the murder of millions of Jewish people? When was the last time Markos Moulitsas burned a cross on anyone's front yard? Answer? Never. Not one.

You're clearly trying to establish a paradigm that this is an egregious lie under the false pretense of journalism; which is logically consistent with the O'Reilly/Daily Kos incident, which you refuse to admit.

he compared the hatred of the Kos to the hatred of the KKK. he never said the Kos was more dangerous than Al Qaeda or responsible for the lives of American citizens. he never made any of those accusations. nice try.

[Justin_stacy]

name something as repulsive.

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'"

[captainhampton]

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'"

nope not as bad. he was saying that to make a point too, it's not like he wanted it to happen. he's explained that many times. I'd be interested to hear Keith's explanation for his quote.

[x togepi x]

the nationalist mindset perpetuated by Rupert Murdoch's media empire overseas fuels Islamic fundamentalism, which disaffected people in the middle east decide to support in a misguided attempt to topple American post-colonialism. Terrorist groups, like Al Queda, capitalize on this, pointing to the images and extremist rhetoric of Americans shown on Murdoch's television shows as models for how all Americans act, to recruit followers. Thus, one could make the claim that the reason Al Queda is still relevant is because of the actions of those like Rupert Murdoch. Keith's logic is that those who fuel terrorism are worse than terrorists themselves since they're the root causes that will exist even if we destroy the groups themselves.

I thinkthe argument above overexaggerates the media's power. However, before whining about Keith Olbermann, i'd ask if captainhampton would whine about all the conservatives in academia who make equally overexaggerated claims about the media's power. it's common in media theory studies for people to make claims about the media's power, like Keith's. It was an entire media paradigm that still holds power in media theory circles today. Is Keith a bad person for buying into that? That would be like claiming a psychologist is a bad person for buying into Lancanian psychoanalysis instead of Freudian.

Notice that he didn't whine everytime Dick Cheney or random conservative commentors claimed that democrats or liberals were worse than the terrorists. this shows that this post is merely partisan bullshit, and not a real critique of Keith's show. He just is pissed off that people respect Keith because he's actually good at what he does. wah.

More importantly, I'd point out to good old CH that if he's going to whine about Keith making light of the threat of Al-Queda, he should recognize that it is through the policies and rhetoric of people like him, ie: rampant neo-conservativism pushing us into conflicts like Iraq, that has led to their resurgence. Had we not gone through with Bush's stupid middle east plan, we could have captured Osama and destroyed al-queda's infastructure. Unfortunately, as many foreign policy analysts from all parts of the political spectrum will point out, we chose to attack iraq and this has taken away critical resources from the Afghanistan conflict. I guess what I'm saying is, this thread should be renamed I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND CAPTAINHAMPTON!

[ides of march]

the nationalist mindset perpetuated by Rupert Murdoch's media empire overseas fuels Islamic fundamentalism, which disaffected people in the middle east decide to support in a misguided attempt to topple American post-colonialism. Terrorist groups, like Al Queda, capitalize on this, pointing to the images and extremist rhetoric of Americans shown on Murdoch's television shows as models for how all Americans act, to recruit followers. Thus, one could make the claim that the reason Al Queda is still relevant is because of the actions of those like Rupert Murdoch. Keith's logic is that those who fuel terrorism are worse than terrorists themselves since they're the root causes that will exist even if we destroy the groups themselves.

I thinkthe argument above overexaggerates the media's power. However, before whining about Keith Olbermann, i'd ask if captainhampton would whine about all the conservatives in academia who make equally overexaggerated claims about the media's power. it's common in media theory studies for people to make claims about the media's power, like Keith's. It was an entire media paradigm that still holds power in media theory circles today. Is Keith a bad person for buying into that? That would be like claiming a psychologist is a bad person for buying into Lancanian psychoanalysis instead of Freudian.

Notice that he didn't whine everytime Dick Cheney or random conservative commentors claimed that democrats or liberals were worse than the terrorists. this shows that this post is merely partisan bullshit, and not a real critique of Keith's show. He just is pissed off that people respect Keith because he's actually good at what he does. wah.

More importantly, I'd point out to good old CH that if he's going to whine about Keith making light of the threat of Al-Queda, he should recognize that it is through the policies and rhetoric of people like him, ie: rampant neo-conservativism pushing us into conflicts like Iraq, that has led to their resurgence. Had we not gone through with Bush's stupid middle east plan, we could have captured Osama and destroyed al-queda's infastructure. Unfortunately, as many foreign policy analysts from all parts of the political spectrum will point out, we chose to attack iraq and this has taken away critical resources from the Afghanistan conflict. I guess what I'm saying is, this thread should be renamed I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND CAPTAINHAMPTON!
victory

[captainhampton]

the nationalist mindset perpetuated by Rupert Murdoch's media empire overseas fuels Islamic fundamentalism, which disaffected people in the middle east decide to support in a misguided attempt to topple American post-colonialism. Terrorist groups, like Al Queda, capitalize on this, pointing to the images and extremist rhetoric of Americans shown on Murdoch's television shows as models for how all Americans act, to recruit followers. Thus, one could make the claim that the reason Al Queda is still relevant is because of the actions of those like Rupert Murdoch. Keith's logic is that those who fuel terrorism are worse than terrorists themselves since they're the root causes that will exist even if we destroy the groups themselves.

I think it's overexaggerating the media's power, however, before whining about Keith Olbermann, i'd ask if captainhampton would whine about all the conservatives in academia who make equally overexaggerated claims about the media's power. it's common in media theory studies for people to make claims about the media's power, like Keith's.

Notice that he didn't whine everytime Dick Cheney or random conservative commentors claimed that democrats or liberals were worse than the terrorists. this shows that this post is merely partisan bullshit, and not a real critique of Keith's show. He just is pissed off that people respect Keith because he's actually good at what he does. wah.

More importantly, I'd point out to good old CH that if he's going to whine about Keith making light of the threat of Al-Queda, he should recognize that it is through the policies and rhetoric of people like him, ie: rampant neo-conservativism pushing us into conflicts like Iraq, that has led to their resurgence. Had we not gone through with Bush's stupid middle east plan, we could have captured Osama and destroyed al-queda's infastructure. Unfortunately, as many foreign policy analysts from all parts of the political spectrum will point out, we chose to attack iraq and this has taken away critical resources from the Afghanistan conflict. I guess what I'm saying is, this thread should be renamed I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND CAPTAINHAMPTON!

that would make sense if terrorist attacks just started happening when republicans were in office. they dislike us no matter what our policy is and it doesn't matter to them if a democrat or republican is in office. that's what you do not understand. the news network fuels nothing. they could care less what foxnews has to say, they will hate us no matter what O'Reilly says, so this "foxnews fuels the hate for america therefore it makes the station worse than the terrorists" logic doesn't work. sorry.

[Love As Arson]

Notice how Captain will explain away O'Reilly's comment, but hasn't the ability to apprehend Olbermann's statement.

[captainhampton]

Notice how Captain will explain away O'Reilly's comment, but hasn't the ability to apprehend Olbermann's statement.

i understand it just fine.

[Love As Arson]

After reading this thread, I'm not sure you willing to give it the context you would O'Reilly's comment. The point is, as Togepi said, this is merely partisan rhetoric, on par with what of the moronic pundits on Fox news spew forth on a daily basis.

[captainhampton]

After reading this thread, I'm not sure you willing to give it the context you would O'Reilly's comment. The point is, as Togepi said, this is merely partisan rhetoric, on par with what of the moronic pundits on Fox news spew forth on a daily basis.

hopefully we get an explanation from Keith, I'd be interested in hearing his "context." and it is not on par with any rhetoric of someone on foxnews.

[Love As Arson]

hopefully we get an explanation from Keith, I'd be interested in hearing his "context." and it is not on par with any rhetoric of someone on foxnews.
Your criticism is on par with that of Fox News is what I mean, as it ignores the right i.e. your defense of O'Reilly's comments, which could be taken as offensive, then attacks the left. It is intellectually dishonest.

[Justin_stacy]

nope not as bad. he was saying that to make a point too, it's not like he wanted it to happen. he's explained that many times. I'd be interested to hear Keith's explanation for his quote.

Olbermann is attempting to make a point too, all be it an ignorant one, about what he percieves to be the bias nature of Fox news.

[x togepi x]

it's cute how you don't actually respond to any of my arguments.

that would make sense if terrorist attacks just started happening when republicans were in office.

A few responses:

1) This is completely irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter when terrorist attacks started happening. Here and now, the media theory states that Fox is fueling terrorism. This would make them a bigger threat. it doesn't claim that fox started terrorism at all, so it's still valid. it's a timeless media theory.

2) Your quote from Keith is completely out of context. We're told it was "in playboy" without a date. This means that Keith could have been making the statement during the time that media outlets like Newsweek or Time were declaring Al-Queda all but dead. This would make his statement not all that controversial.

3) As I pointed out, and you chose to ignore, many foreign policy analysts have stated that Al-Queda's resurgence is because we've reallocated resources to Iraq. Fox has justified and helped manufacture the consent for that war. It's partially to blame.

4) Nothing in your response at all takes into consideration that Al-Queda has changed between 2001 and now. The argument that I put out (which is my attempt to explain Keith's quote) takes this change into consideration. Your weak talking points do not. Why exactly should we take your logic over that one? The Republicans in office are directly responsible for the foreign policy blunders that have allowed Al Queda's resurgence.

they dislike us no matter what our policy is

This is a neocon talking point and it isn't even true.

I say talking point because you don't elaborate on your logic, you're just stating this "fact". it's the same thing bush has said over and over.

I say it's not true because radical muslims haven't always hated America. they used to love us in the 80s. they just disagree with our foreign policy as of late. Even then, there isn't a homogenous "they". In Iran, the student population was overwhelmingly pro-American. They were trying to overthrow the government there until the US ignored their protests. Without this support, as well as with the increased threats from the US to Iran, the populace turned more anti-American.

There's nothing inherent in being from the Middle East that forces people to hate America. It's our policies. Is this a bad thing? I'm not going to claim either way. I just know that there's a specific cause that you ignore.

and it doesn't matter to them if a democrat or republican is in office.

that's because the democrats are equally as hawkish towards the middle east as the republicans. they just hide it in "antiwar" clothes.

that's what you do not understand. the news network fuels nothing. they could care less what foxnews has to say, they will hate us no matter what O'Reilly says, so this "foxnews fuels the hate for america therefore it makes the station worse than the terrorists" logic doesn't work. sorry.

It's interesting that I explained that Fox News's rhetoric is used in the Middle East to recruit terrorists, and you ignore it by just saying "they'll hate us no matter what". Once again, you're completely unresponsive to my argument. You act as if "they" hate us for no reason. Colonialism is part of the reason, and Fox News helps colonialism out.

You also ignored how I proved you were just being partisan (you know, how you ignored when conservatives say liberals are worse than terrorists?)



Much like you do, I'm going to repeat myself to end this:

More importantly, I'd point out to good old CH that if he's going to whine about Keith making light of the threat of Al-Queda, he should recognize that it is through the policies and rhetoric of people like him, ie: rampant neo-conservativism pushing us into conflicts like Iraq, that has led to their resurgence. Had we not gone through with Bush's stupid middle east plan, we could have captured Osama and destroyed al-queda's infastructure. Unfortunately, as many foreign policy analysts from all parts of the political spectrum will point out, we chose to attack iraq and this has taken away critical resources from the Afghanistan conflict. I guess what I'm saying is, this thread should be renamed I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND CAPTAINHAMPTON

lol

[aminorthreat55]

he compared the hatred of the Kos to the hatred of the KKK. he never said the Kos was more dangerous than Al Qaeda or responsible for the lives of American citizens. he never made any of those accusations. nice try.
Curious you forgot to mention the comparison to the Nazis, who killed hundreds of thousands of Spaniards and millions of Eastern European Jews.

[aminorthreat55]

the nationalist mindset perpetuated by Rupert Murdoch's media empire overseas fuels Islamic fundamentalism, which disaffected people in the middle east decide to support in a misguided attempt to topple American post-colonialism. Terrorist groups, like Al Queda, capitalize on this, pointing to the images and extremist rhetoric of Americans shown on Murdoch's television shows as models for how all Americans act, to recruit followers. Thus, one could make the claim that the reason Al Queda is still relevant is because of the actions of those like Rupert Murdoch. Keith's logic is that those who fuel terrorism are worse than terrorists themselves since they're the root causes that will exist even if we destroy the groups themselves.

I thinkthe argument above overexaggerates the media's power. However, before whining about Keith Olbermann, i'd ask if captainhampton would whine about all the conservatives in academia who make equally overexaggerated claims about the media's power. it's common in media theory studies for people to make claims about the media's power, like Keith's. It was an entire media paradigm that still holds power in media theory circles today. Is Keith a bad person for buying into that? That would be like claiming a psychologist is a bad person for buying into Lancanian psychoanalysis instead of Freudian.

Notice that he didn't whine everytime Dick Cheney or random conservative commentors claimed that democrats or liberals were worse than the terrorists. this shows that this post is merely partisan bullshit, and not a real critique of Keith's show. He just is pissed off that people respect Keith because he's actually good at what he does. wah.

More importantly, I'd point out to good old CH that if he's going to whine about Keith making light of the threat of Al-Queda, he should recognize that it is through the policies and rhetoric of people like him, ie: rampant neo-conservativism pushing us into conflicts like Iraq, that has led to their resurgence. Had we not gone through with Bush's stupid middle east plan, we could have captured Osama and destroyed al-queda's infastructure. Unfortunately, as many foreign policy analysts from all parts of the political spectrum will point out, we chose to attack iraq and this has taken away critical resources from the Afghanistan conflict. I guess what I'm saying is, this thread should be renamed I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND CAPTAINHAMPTON!
I swear you've said all of these things to him a dozen times before and will say them all again. I don't know why you still bother with this kid.

[x togepi x]

it's funny. Bill claims Dkos is hateful, because he took a Jewish poster's comments out of context to show Dkos is anti-semetic (and actually had to apologize to the poster for it).

[captainhampton]

it's cute how you don't actually respond to any of my arguments.



A few responses:

1) This is completely irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter when terrorist attacks started happening. Here and now, the media theory states that Fox is fueling terrorism. This would make them a bigger threat. it doesn't claim that fox started terrorism at all, so it's still valid. it's a timeless media theory.

2) Your quote from Keith is completely out of context. We're told it was "in playboy" without a date. This means that Keith could have been making the statement during the time that media outlets like Newsweek or Time were declaring Al-Queda all but dead. This would make his statement not all that controversial.

3) As I pointed out, and you chose to ignore, many foreign policy analysts have stated that Al-Queda's resurgence is because we've reallocated resources to Iraq. Fox has justified and helped manufacture the consent for that war. It's partially to blame.

4) Nothing in your response at all takes into consideration that Al-Queda has changed between 2001 and now. The argument that I put out (which is my attempt to explain Keith's quote) takes this change into consideration. Your weak talking points do not. Why exactly should we take your logic over that one? The Republicans in office are directly responsible for the foreign policy blunders that have allowed Al Queda's resurgence.



This is a neocon talking point and it isn't even true.

I say talking point because you don't elaborate on your logic, you're just stating this "fact". it's the same thing bush has said over and over.

I say it's not true because radical muslims haven't always hated America. they used to love us in the 80s. they just disagree with our foreign policy as of late. Even then, there isn't a homogenous "they". In Iran, the student population was overwhelmingly pro-American. They were trying to overthrow the government there until the US ignored their protests. Without this support, as well as with the increased threats from the US to Iran, the populace turned more anti-American.

There's nothing inherent in being from the Middle East that forces people to hate America. It's our policies. Is this a bad thing? I'm not going to claim either way. I just know that there's a specific cause that you ignore.



that's because the democrats are equally as hawkish towards the middle east as the republicans. they just hide it in "antiwar" clothes.



It's interesting that I explained that Fox News's rhetoric is used in the Middle East to recruit terrorists, and you ignore it by just saying "they'll hate us no matter what". Once again, you're completely unresponsive to my argument. You act as if "they" hate us for no reason. Colonialism is part of the reason, and Fox News helps colonialism out.

You also ignored how I proved you were just being partisan (you know, how you ignored when conservatives say liberals are worse than terrorists?)



Much like you do, I'm going to repeat myself to end this:



lol

you have one of the worst cases of FDS, I've ever seen. I guess I could say that you also have CHDS. you realize you are just typing pure garbage trying to equate the actions of a news network to a terrorist organization that murders the innocent worldwide. you are a pathetic human being.

[captainhampton]

I swear you've said all of these things to him a dozen times before and will say them all again. I don't know why you still bother with this kid.

every single one of those dozen times he was wrong, and he will continue to be.

[aminorthreat55]

every single one of those dozen times he was wrong, and he will continue to be.
With all those facts and strong counter-points you're presenting, I can see why.

[x togepi x]

you have one of the worst cases of FDS, I've ever seen. I guess I could say that you also have CHDS. you realize you are just typing pure garbage trying to equate the actions of a news network to a terrorist organization that murders the innocent worldwide. you are a pathetic human being.

so you can't respond to a word i say, and decide to just call me pathetic? I'm fucking awesome. I'm pretty. I have a kitten and I play in a decent band. That's not pathetic at all.

Now, if you feel like actually substantiating any of your claims or actually responding to any of my arguments, go ahead. I feel like you can't. You've run out of things to say, so you just decided to attack me.

[captainhampton]

With all those facts and strong counter-points you're presenting, I can see why.

you realize you are the side of a person who thinks a news network causes the same damage as a terrorist network responsible for the deaths of thousands worldwide? how does it feel to have no common sense?

[x togepi x]

you realize you are the side of a person who thinks a news network causes the same damage as a terrorist network responsible for the deaths of thousands worldwide? how does it feel to have no common sense?

actually, if you took the time to read my response, i said that this was keith's argument and that i thought it over exaggerated the media's power.

so i guess if he went to your side, he'd be on the side of a whiny person who lacks reading comprehension.

[aminorthreat55]

you realize you are the side of a person who thinks a news network causes the same damage as a terrorist network responsible for the deaths of thousands worldwide? how does it feel to have no common sense?
Common sense is inherently flawed as it assumes the face value of all things is a perfect representation of their actual nature. The downfall of humanity will be the reliance on so-called common sense rather than actual intellectual progress. I mean after all, why bother wasting time being educated when you can just assume truths in seconds?

[Lueda Alia]

it's funny. Bill claims Dkos is hateful, because he took a Jewish poster's comments out of context to show Dkos is anti-semetic (and actually had to apologize to the poster for it).
His comment about DailyKos was pretty amusing.

[x togepi x]

His comment about DailyKos was pretty amusing.

it was funny..especially when he had to apologize and refused to say Dailykos. I guess you can slander a website, but it's bad to mention their name in an apology.

[Lueda Alia]

it was funny..especially when he had to apologize and refused to say Dailykos. I guess you can slander a website, but it's bad to mention their name in an apology.
Haha that's even more amusing.

I still can't get over what he said about DailyKos being a hateful site. How does one even come to that conclusion?

[x togepi x]

Haha that's even more amusing.

I still can't get over what he said about DailyKos being a hateful site. How does one even come to that conclusion?

it's liberal and makes fun of him?

[thebestkylever]

that magazine has boobs ya know.

[x togepi x]

haha

[captainhampton]

Haha that's even more amusing.

I still can't get over what he said about DailyKos being a hateful site. How does one even come to that conclusion?

gee i don't know

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/12/214150/522

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/9/15815/59484

that's just a start, i'll find more if you want.

[x togepi x]

so, two posts made by users make an entire site bad?

I could find some pretty offensive posts on Ap.net. I guess that makes this site hateful.

[captainhampton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/15/33917/5714

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/19/131818/824

[captainhampton]

so, two posts made by users make an entire site bad?

I could find some pretty offensive posts on Ap.net. I guess that makes this site hateful.

i'll find hundreds if you want, i can go on. the last story had a poll for who is your favorite nazi. the mods there have the power to delete this filth, yet it is still displayed. fuck you.

[captainhampton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/3/172547/2745

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/14/6248/96025

how could anyone think the Kos is hateful?

[x togepi x]

Do it. find hundreds. I want a list. (all in one post please)

You're full of it. Those posts are isolated situations. Dkos is an extremely huge website, and posts like that slip through. Especially when there are people who join just to make inflammatory posts (just like they do here and every other public forum)

Respond to the rest of my arguments in this thread.

[captainhampton]

Do it. find hundreds. I want a list. (all in one post please)

You're full of it. Those posts are isolated situations. Dkos is an extremely huge website, and posts like that slip through. Especially when there are people who join just to make inflammatory posts (just like they do here and every other public forum)

Respond to the rest of my arguments in this thread.

slip through, keep spinning it any way you want. hate is hate.

[x togepi x]

slip through, keep spinning it any way you want. hate is hate.

So Ap.net is a hateful site? They didn't delete the 9/11 joke thread.

i still don't see a list of hundreds of posts.

You're obviously ignorant as to what it's like to run a successful website. there's no way the mods can get rid of all those posts. but, what you're ignoring, is all the posts on daily kos that condemn posts like you have shown.

and you still didn't answer any of my other arguments...but we both know you're a liberal in disguise, so whatev.

[captainhampton]

http://www.cybercastnewsservice.org/cns/photo/2007/kos5.jpg

http://www.cybercastnewsservice.org/cns/photo/2007/kos1.jpg

http://www.cybercastnewsservice.org/cns/photo/2007/kos6.jpg

[x togepi x]

wait, those are pictures of things posted on kos? why didn't you post the actual link to the site?

is it because the mods deleted the thread because the site isn't actually hateful?

[captainhampton]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RhXZtbrrudI/AAAAAAAADHM/nigpwfIZ2Pw/s1600-h/kos+zionism.JPG

http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1154413675_gYHmGnTQ

[x togepi x]

answer my question. why are a few of these posts not from the site themselves, but mirrors of them?

isn't it because the mods delete the posts like i said?

[captainhampton]

answer my question. why are a few of these posts not from the site themselves, but mirrors of them?

isn't it because the mods delete the posts like i said?

perhaps.

name one legit conservative blog that has anything close to this kind of hate?

and do you condemn the examples i've shown so far?

[captainhampton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/02141/51818

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/94215/72624

[captainhampton]

how could anyone think daily kos is hateful? it's just a great community and such a legitimate site.

[x togepi x]

perhaps.

this proves me right. if they've been deleted, that shows that the mods try to clean things up and posts slip through.



name one legit conservative blog that has anything close to this kind of hate?

this is a loaded statement. if i link you links, you're going to claim they're not "legit". since i disagree with the politics of Dkos, I could also claim that they're not legit.

Free Republic and Little Green footballs have just as offensive posts from time to time. I am too lazy to actually go to said websites and find links to specific ones.

I would claim that ANY big website that allows posters from the public to sign up is going to have offensive posts, as I have pointed out with my example of the 9/11 jokes thread on AP.net. the fact that offensive posts pop up doesn't make a site offensive or not. It depends on what the staff posts. Just like the staff here isn't offensive, Markos and his staff aren't posting hateful threads either.



and do you condemn the examples i've shown so far?

i'm not reading the links you post so i'm not going to condemn anything. I've already admitted that horrible posts slip through...but I've pointed out that there are other posts condemning said posts (something you ignore)

[captainhampton]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/19/174344/103

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/18/171549/289

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/19/173211/744

[captainhampton]

Haha that's even more amusing.

I still can't get over what he said about DailyKos being a hateful site. How does one even come to that conclusion?

got it now?

[x togepi x]

you're spamming this thread. they might ban you for that.

[captainhampton]

you're spamming this thread. they might ban you for that.

fuck you, i could care less you anti-semite.

[x togepi x]

Where have i said anything anti-semitic?

[captainhampton]

Where have i said anything anti-semitic?

you have yet to condemn many of the anti-semitic articles that I posted from the Daily Kos, until you do, that's what I consider you to be.

[x togepi x]

you have yet to condemn many of the anti-semitic articles that I posted from the Daily Kos, until you do, that's what I consider you to be.

So...because i refuse to read anti-semitic articles...i'm anti-semitic?

wow.

[Justin_stacy]

show me.

Michael Savage, alone, has said equally “hateful” things......and he’s the third highest rate political shock jock in the nation.

“turd world nations”

“intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.’ I mean … would you rather us die than them?”

“Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage, and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls?...I don't care about these bums; they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."

"Were the ballot machines homophobic because some weak-wristed types had insufficient strength to press hard enough to register a vote?”

[Lueda Alia]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/02141/51818

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/94215/72624
What are those supposed to be? I'm skimming through the articles and I don't get what you're trying to say. Either way, you would have to be ignorant to think that DailyKos is a hateful site. Yeah, they don't like your kind around there, but that doesn't make them "hateful."

[Lueda Alia]

Man, I'm just reading through the previous pages now. For someone that hates the site, you sure do visit it a lot, eh?

[youcomebeforeyo]

yes but i don't think it's fair to compare a news network which may have bad information (which is debatable) to an organization that murders innocent civilians. and to say it's more dangerous is absurd in my opinion. if he wants to criticize Fox, which has almost become an obsession for him, he should do it in a better way and stop making silly comparisons.

Read 1984 :)

[captainhampton]

Man, I'm just reading through the previous pages now. For someone that hates the site, you sure do visit it a lot, eh?

i found those with a simple search in about 5 minutes. you don't think those articles are hateful?

[captainhampton]

Michael Savage, alone, has said equally “hateful” things......and he’s the third highest rate political shock jock in the nation.

“turd world nations”

“intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.’ I mean … would you rather us die than them?”

“Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage, and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls?...I don't care about these bums; they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."

"Were the ballot machines homophobic because some weak-wristed types had insufficient strength to press hard enough to register a vote?”

Michael Savage is terrible. but no one tries to act like he is a legitimate voice. they aren't having Michael Savage host any presidential debates are they?

[atticus1492]

fuck you, i could care less you anti-semite.

Racist pedophile.

[captainhampton]

Racist pedophile.

so you don't have a problem with any of the articles i posted?

[IAmNietzche]

The misinformation reported by Fox News and their complicity with the administration is a major reason we are in Iraq.

[IAmNietzche]

because you can't defend him perhaps? cmon, you're so smart, defend those comments. please tell me the last time Fox News used airplanes to topple buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? When was the last time Rupert Murdoch was responsible for the murder of thousands of American civilians on American soil? When was the last time Fox News or Murdoch burned a cross on anyone's front yard? Answer? Never. Not one.
Stop quoting that OlbermanWatch site, it makes you look like a fucking drone.

[captainhampton]

Stop quoting that OlbermanWatch site, it makes you look like a fucking drone.

yes i should only post from i love keith sites instead of a site that points out his idiocy and hypocrisy on a daily basis.

[IAmNietzche]

yes i should only post from i love keith sites instead of a site that points out his idiocy and hypocrisy on a daily basis.
Sorry I mistyped. What I meant to say is, stop quoting from the site as if it came from your head.
I understand that you are in a tough position being one of the only conservative voices on these boards... but some of the things you say and the argument tactics you use just reinforce what some of the hardcore liberals think about conservatives.

[captainhampton]

Sorry I mistyped. What I meant to say is, stop quoting from the site as if it came from your head.

yeah they said it better than i could have i guess

[IAmNietzche]

yeah they said it better than i could have i guess
I've always had a problem with Olberman (as I have a problem with anyone who tries to shock people into excepting their views), but I'm able to look past his sensational comments and get at the heart of what he's saying... which has truth to it.

[aminorthreat55]

yeah they said it better than i could have i guess
Or you're just a hack who parrots empty rhetoric all day long.

[captainhampton]

IOWBnkaitd8

[Justin_stacy]

Michael Savage is terrible. but no one tries to act like he is a legitimate voice. they aren't having Michael Savage host any presidential debates are they?

Savage is the third most listened to voice on Republican radio.

You have a point about allowing pundits host debates, but remember Hannity hosted the post debate show on Fox, which is different yes, but still in the same ball park. See the problem your having is you fail to grasp that Olbermann is a pundit, a political shock jock, and an entertainer. He’s not a journalist nor does he work in hard news.

[captainhampton]

Savage is the third most listened to voice on Republican radio.

You have a point about allowing pundits host debates, but remember Hannity hosted the post debate show on Fox, which is different yes, but still in the same ball park. See the problem your having is you fail to grasp that Olbermann is a pundit, a political shock jock, and an entertainer. He’s not a journalist nor does he work in hard news.

but Countdown is advertised as a newscast, which is why I have a problem.

[Justin_stacy]

but Countdown is advertised as a newscast, which is why I have a problem.

no its advertised as an opinion-oriented political show, much like O'reilly, Moyers or Beck.

[Lueda Alia]

i found those with a simple search in about 5 minutes. you don't think those articles are hateful?
As I said, I skimmed through some of them. Either way, were they posted on the front page? If they weren't, then they do not represent DailyKos. That's like saying "Whatever the users of AP post, is what AP stands for," which is not true at all. Yeah, I'm sure DailyKos has some hateful members, but the site as a whole is not hateful at all.

And you had to have known the articles were there in the first place to do the search, because you made the statement ("DailyKos is a hateful site") before looking up anything. So yeah, you do visit the site.

[captainhampton]

no its advertised as an opinion-oriented political show, much like O'reilly, Moyers or Beck.

is it? on MSNBC website they call it a newscast? i dunno. he also contributes to NBC nightly news as well and that is also considered a newscast. can you find me an official MSNBC site claiming it is an opinion show?

[Lueda Alia]

Sorry I mistyped. What I meant to say is, stop quoting from the site as if it came from your head.
I understand that you are in a tough position being one of the only conservative voices on these boards... but some of the things you say and the argument tactics you use just reinforce what some of the hardcore liberals think about conservatives.
Pretty much.

[captainhampton]

As I said, I skimmed through some of them. Either way, were they posted on the front page? If they weren't, then they do not represent DailyKos. That's like saying "Whatever the users of AP post, is what AP stands for," which is not true at all. Yeah, I'm sure DailyKos has some hateful members, but the site as a whole is not hateful at all.

And you had to have known the articles were there in the first place to do the search, because you made the statement ("DailyKos is a hateful site") before looking up anything. So yeah, you do visit the site.

the only time i visit the site is to find articles pointing out hatred. do not compare it to AP.net either. Presidential Candidates do not view this site as a legitimate site do they? they do for the Kos. and when they endorse the Kos, they are endorsing a community with consistent hatred. and the worst part are that they and people like you do not have the guts to say when something is wrong. anti-semitism is wrong. if someone on the right says something anti-semitic, I will criticize them because I have guts. If National Review posts something that is wrong, I will criticize it. you and the others who fail to criticize these articles (these are articles by the way not idiot user comments) show that you are truly gutless and how you turn a blind eye to real hatred.

[Justin_stacy]

is it? on MSNBC website they call it a newscast? i dunno. he also contributes to NBC nightly news as well and that is also considered a newscast. can you find me an official MSNBC site claiming it is an opinion show?

I've never seen it advertised as a hard news show anywhere, and that includes the web. Every commercial clearly depicts it as a commentary or opinion oriented telecast.

Can you show me what separates these two pages?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

[Khaos]

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy.

this is as pathetic as it gets.

Its true.. I don't see what you don't get. Fox is a big propaganda machine. The war on terror is blown way way out of proportion. They have people believing they are going to get attacked everywhere. People are so god-damn gulible. I love how all the folks who live in East Bumblefuck, US think there is a terrorist around every freaking corner. Maybe if you lived in a major city like NYC or LA it would affect you, but not much Al Qaeda in middle America or America for that fact, just American made terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh (and yes he was Christian).

[captainhampton]

I've never seen it advertised as a hard news show anywhere, and that includes the web. Every commercial clearly depicts it as a commentary or opinion oriented telecast.

Can you show me what separates these two pages?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

Countdown,” a unique newscast that counts down the day’s top stories with Keith’s particular wit and style, telecasts weeknights, 8-9 p.m. ET on MSNBC.

that is how the show is advertised on the msnbc website. but honestly, whether it is or isn't really is not the issue right now, it's the ignorant comments about Foxnews and comparisons to al-qaeda and the KKK.

[captainhampton]

Its true.. I don't see what you don't get. Fox is a big propaganda machine. The war on terror is blown way way out of proportion. They have people believing they are going to get attacked everywhere. People are so god-damn gulible. I love how all the folks who live in East Bumblefuck, US think there is a terrorist around every freaking corner. Maybe if you lived in a major city like NYC or LA it would affect you, but not much Al Qaeda in middle America or America for that fact, just American made terrorists e.g. Timothy McVeigh (and yes he was Christian).

you bringing up McVeigh only proves the point that even our own can be terrorists. the WOT is against all forms of terrorism. it can happen anywhere, not just major cities. please tell me the last time foxnews flew a plane into a building killing thousands or when Rupert Murdoch blew up embassies? did foxnews cause the train bombings in Madrid?

[Shatter590]

al qaeda may be in the news, but they are hardly the only terrorists in the world. they have a ways to go before they outstrip the IRA.

that said, I agree that FOX news does spew propaganda. while it does report the news well, a lot of its programming is extremely conservative (as opposed to the liberal CNN), and doesn't help calm fears, only makes them worse. Fear is not a very good motivator for action, as it leads to uninformed or impulse reactions that usually end badly.

[Lueda Alia]

the only time i visit the site is to find articles pointing out hatred. do not compare it to AP.net either. Presidential Candidates do not view this site as a legitimate site do they? they do for the Kos. and when they endorse the Kos, they are endorsing a community with consistent hatred. and the worst part are that they and people like you do not have the guts to say when something is wrong. anti-semitism is wrong. if someone on the right says something anti-semitic, I will criticize them because I have guts. If National Review posts something that is wrong, I will criticize it. you and the others who fail to criticize these articles (these are articles by the way not idiot user comments) show that you are truly gutless and how you turn a blind eye to real hatred.
That still doesn't change the fact that you visit this so called hateful site. Yeah, you can do a little search, but I'm sure you didn't read all those articles at once. You knew they existed because you've read them before, which proves my point.

Also, you completely missed the point I made about AP's users. No, AP is not on the same level as DailyKos but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. What certain members of this site do, doesn't represent the whole website - just like those hateful articles don't represent DailyKos as a whole. Get it?

And please drop the Anti-Semitism BS. It's stupid.

[captainhampton]

That still doesn't change the fact that you visit this so called hateful site. Yeah, you can do a little search, but I'm sure you didn't read all those articles at once. You knew they existed because you've read them before, which proves my point.

Also, you completely missed the point I made about AP's users. No, AP is not on the same level as DailyKos but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. What certain members of this site do, doesn't represent the whole website - just like those hateful articles don't represent DailyKos as a whole. Get it?

And please drop the Anti-Semitism BS. It's stupid.

but these are hate articles that i'm using, i'm not even talking about the comments. it'd be like AP.net posting stories on the front page that were hateful. Ap.net does not do this, most of the hate from this site is from user comments. On the KOS they are displayed as articles on the front page.

pointing out anti-semitism is not BS. what is bullshit is the fact that you will not criticize the Kos for not removing the anti-semitic articles that are still on the site. you are gutless if you will not criticize that.

i don't see what the problem is visiting the site or monitoring the site. is mediamatters endorsing Bill O'Reilly when they monitor him? no. they are simply trying to catch him saying something they don't like. weak argument you are making.

[x togepi x]

This is the best political forum thread ever. Someone sticky this for posterity.

captainhampton is the best bush republican ever. anytime someone comes up with facts that discount his predetermined world view, he either ignores them or calls them anti-semitic (or terrorist or baby whatever).

He's so dreamy. Ap.net needed a big strong man to condemn all the evils of the world like trolls posting on other websites.

[Lueda Alia]

but these are hate articles that i'm using, i'm not even talking about the comments. it'd be like AP.net posting stories on the front page that were hateful. Ap.net does not do this, most of the hate from this site is from user comments. On the KOS they are displayed as articles on the front page.

pointing out anti-semitism is not BS. what is bullshit is the fact that you will not criticize the Kos for not removing the anti-semitic articles that are still on the site. you are gutless if you will not criticize that.

i don't see what the problem is visiting the site or monitoring the site. is mediamatters endorsing Bill O'Reilly when they monitor him? no. they are simply trying to catch him saying something they don't like. weak argument you are making.
Were these articles posted on the front page or were they simply on the front page at the time they were made just like threads are on AP? The most recent threads/posts will show up on the front page, but that doesn't mean that AP posted them - its users did.

No, pointing out Anti-Semitism is not BS, but the way people are always looking for it, is. Yeah, it's depressing to think about what happened to the Jewish people, but pretty much every other race/all people on this planet has been screwed over at some point, so I don't know why people are more sensitive when it comes to Anti-Semitism than anything else. I'm not saying we should ignore it, because we shouldn't, but come on, one can't even make a comment about Israel or Jewish people without being called out for being "Anti-Semitic." So stop telling me I'm "gutless" because I'm not criticizing DailyKos. Sure, I think people posting such things are idiots, but they don't represent the site. Unlike you, I actually visit the site regularly, not to look out for the negative stuff like you do. So I like to think I know the site a little better than you do because of that little fact.

I'm making a weak argument because I'm pointing out an obvious lie? "I don't visit the site, I just did a little search"? Yeah... OK.

[Lueda Alia]

This is the best political forum thread ever. Someone sticky this for posterity.

captainhampton is the best bush republican ever. anytime someone comes up with facts that discount his predetermined world view, he either ignores them or calls them anti-semitic (or terrorist or baby whatever).

He's so dreamy. Ap.net needed a big strong man to condemn all the evils of the world like trolls posting on other websites.
Hahaha seriously. I don't understand why any of us even bother with him anymore. I'm so sick of him calling everyone Anti Semitic for no reason at all. It's stupid, but yet so amusing.

[Shatter590]

Hahaha seriously. I don't understand why any of us even bother with him anymore. I'm so sick of him calling everyone Anti Semitic for no reason at all. It's stupid, but yet so amusing.

hes the anti-ben

[Love As Arson]

I read the articles, and I haven't noticed any anti-semitism in them, unless you consider criticism of Israel anti-semitic. One article, which contains racist cartoons of Jewish people, is comparing America's treatment of Muslims and Hitler's treatment of Jews.

[aminorthreat55]

Hahaha seriously. I don't understand why any of us even bother with him anymore. I'm so sick of him calling everyone Anti Semitic for no reason at all. It's stupid, but yet so amusing.
Don't pretend like you aren't anti-semitic Eda, we all know you're right up there with Rommel and Hitler.

[Lueda Alia]

Don't pretend like you aren't anti-semitic Eda, we all know you're right up there with Rommel and Hitler.
Of course. Why would I not hate Jewish people?

[Shatter590]

http://www.liter.kz/files/Borat-flag.jpg

[captainhampton]

Were these articles posted on the front page or were they simply on the front page at the time they were made just like threads are on AP? The most recent threads/posts will show up on the front page, but that doesn't mean that AP posted them - its users did.

No, pointing out Anti-Semitism is not BS, but the way people are always looking for it, is. Yeah, it's depressing to think about what happened to the Jewish people, but pretty much every other race/all people on this planet has been screwed over at some point, so I don't know why people are more sensitive when it comes to Anti-Semitism than anything else. I'm not saying we should ignore it, because we shouldn't, but come on, one can't even make a comment about Israel or Jewish people without being called out for being "Anti-Semitic." So stop telling me I'm "gutless" because I'm not criticizing DailyKos. Sure, I think people posting such things are idiots, but they don't represent the site. Unlike you, I actually visit the site regularly, not to look out for the negative stuff like you do. So I like to think I know the site a little better than you do because of that little fact.

I'm making a weak argument because I'm pointing out an obvious lie? "I don't visit the site, I just did a little search"? Yeah... OK.

spare me the "oh but it doesn't represent the site as a whole" bullcrap. you can't name one respected conservative blog that will have anything hateful, like the Kos has, exist on their site.

[captainhampton]

http://www.liter.kz/files/Borat-flag.jpg

in my country there is problem....

[Justin_stacy]

Countdown,” a unique newscast that counts down the day’s top stories with Keith’s particular wit and style, telecasts weeknights, 8-9 p.m. ET on MSNBC.

that is how the show is advertised on the msnbc website. but honestly, whether it is or isn't really is not the issue right now, it's the ignorant comments about Foxnews and comparisons to al-qaeda and the KKK.


Well if you read a little further you’ll see that MSNBC labels all of its commentators show’s, whether they‘re Republican or Liberal, as Newscasts. So their interpretation of the word is universally used regardless of ideologies.

And if you really get down to it “newscaster” isn’t exactly a false description, either. Part of their job is to present the news to the viewer, which is the definition of a “newscaster,” all be it with their own personal spin and opinions. But again nowhere does MSNBC attempt to portray this show as hard news. And the ads clearly present the show as an irreverent, entertainment based, commentary show.

As for the second part, of course it’s an ignorant statement. The liberal fear of Fox News is nothing short of comical. But it doesn’t mean he should be fired. Leave that to the viewer to decided. If a statement is so bad, so universally ignorant, then the viewers will take care of him. Its people like you that got Immus fired for doing nothing more then refusing to be ignorantly-PC, when he still had the support of his fan base.

[x togepi x]

spare me the "oh but it doesn't represent the site as a whole" bullcrap. you can't name one respected conservative blog that will have anything hateful, like the Kos has, exist on their site.

During the big immigration debates there were posts on Free Republic advocating that people go out and shoot people from Mexico.

[captainhampton]

Well if you read a little further you’ll see that MSNBC labels all of its commentators show’s, whether they‘re Republican or Liberal, as Newscasts. So their interpretation of the word is universally used regardless of ideologies.

And if you really get down to it “newscaster” isn’t exactly a false description, either. Part of their job is to present the news to the viewer, which is the definition of a “newscaster,” all be it with their own personal spin and opinions. But again nowhere does MSNBC attempt to portray this show as hard news. And the ads clearly present the show as an irreverent, entertainment based, commentary show.

As for the second part, of course it’s an ignorant statement. The liberal fear of Fox News is nothing short of comical. But it doesn’t mean he should be fired. Leave that to the viewer to decided. If a statement is so bad, so universally ignorant, then the viewers will take care of him. Its people like you that got Immus fired for doing nothing more then refusing to be ignorantly-PC, when he still had the support of his fan base.

alright i can agree with that. except i wouldn't say it's people like me who got Imus fired. I supported Imus keeping his job. Imus was crucified by the left for his statement. Imus is pretty moderate politically, but had someone on the left said something like what he said, i doubt there would have been much outrage.

[captainhampton]

During the big immigration debates there were posts on Free Republic advocating that people go out and shoot people from Mexico.

you think Free Republic is legit? and is that article still posted?

[x togepi x]

you think Free Republic is legit? and is that article still posted?

I don't think it's possible for any conservative blog to be "legit". Even then, Free Republic is the conservative answer to Daily Kos. Of course they're not still posted since it was months ago and months old posts get deleted.

Like i said, you're being willfully ignorant and relying on using quantifiers to get out of the fact that you only condemn liberals for doing things and think it's okay for conservatives to do whatever they want.

[captainhampton]

I don't think it's possible for any conservative blog to be "legit". Even then, Free Republic is the conservative answer to Daily Kos. Of course they're not still posted since it was months ago and months old posts get deleted.

Like i said, you're being willfully ignorant and relying on using quantifiers to get out of the fact that you only condemn liberals for doing things and think it's okay for conservatives to do whatever they want.

look if you show me where the site said the things about Mexicans then I can criticize anyone regardless of party for that. but you claim it was deleted. fine. if it was hateful towards mexicans i hope it was deleted. yet the Kos still hasn't deleted some of their hate.

[x togepi x]

look if you show me where the site said the things about Mexicans then I can criticize anyone regardless of party for that. but you claim it was deleted. fine. if it was hateful towards mexicans i hope it was deleted. yet the Kos still hasn't deleted some of their hate.

that's because Kos is a much bigger site than free republic. Free Republic routinely bans people for disagreeing with their political opinions. This April they banned a bunch of users for supporting Guiliani.
There are thousands of diaries that get posted on Kos, are you seriously telling me that the fact that a few slip through that the site is hateful?

Do you not recognize that people join sites just to post inflammatory shit (you're probably one of those people)? It's not a reflection of the site's staff when they do this. You've been challenged by a couple people to find hateful posts on the Kos homepage, and you've failed.

You are beyond full of shit when you say you "criticize anyone regardless of party" because you still haven't condemned dick cheney and other conservatives saying liberals were worse than terrorists.

[captainhampton]

You are beyond full of shit when you say you "criticize anyone regardless of party" because you still haven't condemned dick cheney and other conservatives saying liberals were worse than terrorists.

show me the exact Cheney quote

[x togepi x]

CHENEY: [A]s I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for vice president, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.
The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608220002




CHENEY: The basic proposition for our adversaries–and we ought to take a minute and focus on it–they, they want to re-create the old caliphate that stretched from Spain all the way around to Southeast Asia. They want to topple the regimes that are there today, they want to kick the U.S. out of that part of the world, destroy Israel, equip themselves with weapons of mass destructions, etc. In the course of doing that, their strategy for doing that is to break our will. They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight, they never have, but they’re absolutely convinced they can break our will. The American people don’t have the stomach for the fight.
So you look at situation today in Afghanistan or even in Iraq, and you’ve got people who have doubts. They want to know whether or not if they stick their heads up, the United States, in fact, is going to be there to complete the mission. And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/11/cheney-terrorists/




I can also find conservatives like Jerry Falwell saying Hillary Clinton is worse than the devil and Tom Delay saying that liberals are nazis if you want.

[Nevuk]

I'm surprised no one has brought up the rumors of Olbermann's sexism. Wait, is that because Bill O'Reilly approves of it?
(http://drinkingwithkeitholbermann.wordpres s.com/2006/10/12/keith-olbermann-is-wrong/)


Also good for a laugh : http://celebrities.netscape.com/story/2006/10/10/olbermann-gets-low-ratings-in-bed/

Its just the news, relax. The liberal people on this sight are waay more liberal than Keith Olbermann in any case.

[captainhampton]

CHENEY: [A]s I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for vice president, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.
The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608220002



CHENEY: The basic proposition for our adversaries–and we ought to take a minute and focus on it–they, they want to re-create the old caliphate that stretched from Spain all the way around to Southeast Asia. They want to topple the regimes that are there today, they want to kick the U.S. out of that part of the world, destroy Israel, equip themselves with weapons of mass destructions, etc. In the course of doing that, their strategy for doing that is to break our will. They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight, they never have, but they’re absolutely convinced they can break our will. The American people don’t have the stomach for the fight.
So you look at situation today in Afghanistan or even in Iraq, and you’ve got people who have doubts. They want to know whether or not if they stick their heads up, the United States, in fact, is going to be there to complete the mission. And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/11/cheney-terrorists/




I can also find conservatives like Jerry Falwell saying Hillary Clinton is worse than the devil and Tom Delay saying that liberals are nazis if you want.



Cheney never said liberals are worse than terrorists you liar. and i am not a Falwell supporter, he's said some bad shit. keep trying

[banana_hammock]

Still not as bad as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.

[captainhampton]

Still not as bad as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.

Coulter has said some bad things, but find me a Hannity quote that compares to this.

[E-Skeezy]

you bringing up McVeigh only proves the point that even our own can be terrorists. the WOT is against all forms of terrorism. it can happen anywhere, not just major cities. please tell me the last time foxnews flew a plane into a building killing thousands or when Rupert Murdoch blew up embassies? did foxnews cause the train bombings in Madrid?


Regardless of your position on whether or not you consider DailyKos to be a hate site or not....you never did address OReilly comparing them to Nazi's and the KKK. I'll ask you a question similar to your own....please tell me the last time DailyKos marched a bunch of jewish people into concentration camps and slaughtered them.

[captainhampton]

Regardless of your position on whether or not you consider DailyKos to be a hate site or not....you never did address OReilly comparing them to Nazi's and the KKK. I'll ask you a question similar to your own....please tell me the last time DailyKos marched a bunch of jewish people into concentration camps and slaughtered them.

he's not saying they are worse than Nazi's. he's comparing the type of hatred. as compared to Olbermann who flat out says foxnews is worse than the KKK.

[Thug_Nasty]

you triple dog dare me!?

[captainhampton]

you triple dog dare me!?

fine i triple dog dare you

[x togepi x]

Cheney never said liberals are worse than terrorists you liar. and i am not a Falwell supporter, he's said some bad shit. keep trying

Olbermann says Fox causes terrorism. You whine about it.

Cheney says the same thing, only with liberals and you say "try again".

do you see why nobody takes you seriously?

[Justin_stacy]

alright i can agree with that. except i wouldn't say it's people like me who got Imus fired. I supported Imus keeping his job. Imus was crucified by the left for his statement. Imus is pretty moderate politically, but had someone on the left said something like what he said, i doubt there would have been much outrage.

But see you're wanting done to Olbermann what race baiters did to Immus. It is the same thing.

[captainhampton]

But see you're wanting done to Olbermann what race baiters did to Immus. It is the same thing.

i think what Olbermann said was far worse than Imus, that's probably why i feel that he deserves to be canned.

[atticus1492]

so you don't have a problem with any of the articles i posted?

I don't know how this makes sense, but alright. I called you those names because you haven't denounced the racist, pedophilic remarks made in the 'racism and pedophilia rulez' thread.

[atticus1492]

I don't know how this makes sense, but alright. I called you those names because you haven't denounced the racist, pedophilic remarks made in the 'racism and pedophilia rulez' thread.

And no, I don't have a problem with any of the articles posted. What part should be offending me?

[ghostyouare]

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy.

this is as pathetic as it gets.
Fox news won the elections for the republicians who ruined our country. Booya

[captainhampton]

Fox news won the elections for the republicians who ruined our country. Booya

don't forget foxnews also stole the 2000 election

[captainhampton]

And no, I don't have a problem with any of the articles posted. What part should be offending me?

maybe the article where they imagined a world without Israel or the one which had a poll of who your favorite Nazi was. not offensive?

[atticus1492]

maybe the article where they imagined a world without Israel or the one which had a poll of who your favorite Nazi was. not offensive?

The Nazi one is offensive, but it is clearly in jest. No, the one about Israel is neither offensive nor anti-semenic. Israel=/=Jewish People in general.

[_CR]

yeah that guy was def wrong, fox news is definately worse than the kkk ever was

[Justin_stacy]

i think what Olbermann said was far worse than Imus, that's probably why i feel that he deserves to be canned.

and some who didn't understand the situation probably thought Imus's comment was worthy of him being fired, too. Wouldn't we all be better served to allow the viewing public to decided such matters, instead of going after a free speech lynching?

[Justin_stacy]

Fox news won the elections for the republicians who ruined our country. Booya


Actually Fox News almost cost Bush the first election.....

[captainhampton]

and some who didn't understand the situation probably thought Imus's comment was worthy of him being fired, too. Wouldn't we all be better served to allow the viewing public to decided such matters, instead of going after a free speech lynching?

and i agree, but where is the outrage over Olbermann's comments? there is none. Imus was crucified in the media. you may disagree, but i feel Olbermann's comments were far worse than Imus. Olbermann is getting a pass because he went after foxnews. the viewing public will not even hear this matter because most of the media will ignore this.

[Love As Arson]

Most of the media ignores it because they have their own pundits, who, on their shows, castigate the liberal/conservative media and other pundits. The reason Don Imus received more attention is because of the racial component, and the fact that it seemed like a celebrity was picking on individuals without similar status.

[livefromDC]

Most of the media is also liberal and don't have the ratings that Fox News has either. Olbermann definitely deserves some form of reprimand for this comment, not just because al Qaeda reference was very bad form but because he's trying to portray himself as an unbiased journalist. Comments like this are clearly partisan and biased - you can't be a respected reporter and act like this.

[Thug_Nasty]

fine i triple dog dare you
oh its on... ITS ON!!!

[x togepi x]

Most of the media is also liberal and don't have the ratings that Fox News has either. Olbermann definitely deserves some form of reprimand for this comment, not just because al Qaeda reference was very bad form but because he's trying to portray himself as an unbiased journalist. Comments like this are clearly partisan and biased - you can't be a respected reporter and act like this.

lol@ the media being liberal.

keith doesn't present himself as being objective in the least. case in point, the 2006 election telecast when Chris Matthews called out his bias, and Keith acknowledged its existence.

[IAmNietzche]

Captain Hampton and xtogepix represent what is wrong with politics on both ends of the spectrum.

[x togepi x]

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm don't even really care about politics.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

lol@ the media being liberal.

keith doesn't present himself as being objective in the least. case in point, the 2006 election telecast when Chris Matthews called out his bias, and Keith acknowledged its existence.

key point

captain hampton, why do you defend fox news so much?

[blooshoo]

and i agree, but where is the outrage over Olbermann's comments? there is none. Imus was crucified in the media. you may disagree, but i feel Olbermann's comments were far worse than Imus. Olbermann is getting a pass because he went after foxnews. the viewing public will not even hear this matter because most of the media will ignore this.
1. Although the Imus thing was blown out of proportion, i do disagree with you that "Olbermann's comments were far were than Imus". What Imus said was racist, misogynistic and completely unprovoked. Olbermann merely exaggerated the harmful influence of a news corporation. Manyconservative pundits (like those that work for fox) have made similarly stupid and exaggerated statements.
2. Fox news is a huge part of the media. if they wanted the viewing public to know about Olbermann's comment, they can make it happen. but my guess is that they won't because...
3. This quote is from playboy, why would anyone take it seriously? nobody reads playboy for its informed, unbiased political commentary

[banana_hammock]

Coulter has said some bad things, but find me a Hannity quote that compares to this.

With Hannity, its more of his body of work. Also, not as bad as pat robertson. I could definately find some quotes for that.

"Homosexuals caused 9/11"

[Justin_stacy]

watch=Outfoxed


which has been thoroughly discredited as the comically hatched it was. Using propaganda from Moveon.org and Bob Greenwald as the basis for an attack on fox, for being bias no less, makes you look stupid.

[aminorthreat55]

im on his side..FOX networks influence 4.7 billion people and rising....murdoch is good friends with bush and has a huge empire...
Seeing as how there are only 6.7 billion people in the world and 2.7 million of them live on less than $2 a day, you're quite obviously and comically wrong.

[Justin_stacy]

ok well..im not just saying fox is corrupt....the other news stations are too.....


Then there's no point in singling fox out for what all news stations do.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Then there's no point in singling fox out for what all news stations do.


if you're punk rock there is

[Justin_stacy]

since a human can not take on the form of a genre of music......i'm going to continue to chalk it up to mental ignorance.

[livefromDC]

What are you talking about? I thought the punk rock argument was very convincing.

Bun now apparently punk rock endorses and boycotts specific cable news channels... I wasn't aware of this but ok. But, can punk rock also be against Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, and all the other guys I don't like too? I can't even say that we should be for MTV either though now because I don't remember the last time I saw a music video on it - or MTV2 for that matter.

Actually, did anyone see Jon Stewart go after Tucker again? Just like the good old Crossfire days. Punk rock is against the bow tie too.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

since a human can not take on the form of a genre of music......i'm going to continue to chalk it up to mental ignorance.

alright fine

[atticus1492]

What are you talking about? I thought the punk rock argument was very convincing.

Bun now apparently punk rock endorses and boycotts specific cable news channels... I wasn't aware of this but ok. But, can punk rock also be against Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, and all the other guys I don't like too? I can't even say that we should be for MTV either though now because I don't remember the last time I saw a music video on it - or MTV2 for that matter.

Actually, did anyone see Jon Stewart go after Tucker again? Just like the good old Crossfire days. Punk rock is against the bow tie too.

As the sole proprietor of punk rock, I say that it has never, nor will it ever, be against the bow tie.

[livefromDC]

The bow tie was pretty good on dancing with the stars...

[boykosaurus]

I like Keith Olbermann...he's got some balls

[captainhampton]

Keith Olbermann: What I Do ‘Is Really Journalism'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/15/keith-olbermann-what-i-do-really-journalism

[mattybobviously]

Keith Olbermann: What I Do ‘Is Really Journalism'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/15/keith-olbermann-what-i-do-really-journalism

You are such a sad case, honestly. You continually post this bullshit, all the while ignoring the fact that FNC routinely churns out stories that are hateful, factually incorrect, and just plain wrong. There is no sense in you posting here, none of us are brainless enough to read your posts and then say "Oh, everything I know about the media is wrong, good thing captainhampton enlightened me with his great propaganda websites."

NewsBusted? Honestly, who really reads this trash?

[captainhampton]

You are such a sad case, honestly. You continually post this bullshit, all the while ignoring the fact that FNC routinely churns out stories that are hateful, factually incorrect, and just plain wrong. There is no sense in you posting here, none of us are brainless enough to read your posts and then say "Oh, everything I know about the media is wrong, good thing captainhampton enlightened me with his great propaganda websites."

NewsBusted? Honestly, who really reads this trash?

this isn't a fox news thread. refute anything from the newsbuster article. since you say it is trash and you claim not to be brainless, this should be easy.

[bossman calling]

You are such a sad case, honestly. You continually post this bullshit, all the while ignoring the fact that FNC routinely churns out stories that are hateful, factually incorrect, and just plain wrong. There is no sense in you posting here, none of us are brainless enough to read your posts and then say "Oh, everything I know about the media is wrong, good thing captainhampton enlightened me with his great propaganda websites."

NewsBusted? Honestly, who really reads this trash?
Wait, because FNC supposedly does something you think is wrong, it's ok for others to do the same things?

I'm not standing up for FNC or Newsbusters.org either way, but I never really understood that kind of argument.

[lauren<3s music]

i'll take it. one would assume an american corporation wouldn't undermind the constitution and founding principals of this country. no one expects terrorist to act reasonably. is purposely misleading the public and perpetuating lies as fact as bad as terrorism, probably not, but it's damn near close. just depends on where you sit

[lauren<3s music]

The bow tie was pretty good on dancing with the stars...

Wait, because FNC supposedly does something you think is wrong, it's ok for others to do the same things?

I'm not standing up for FNC or Newsbusters.org either way, but I never really understood that kind of argument.

holy shit there are other dc people in the same thread as me. this NEVER happens.

[bossman calling]

i'll take it. one would assume an american corporation wouldn't undermind the constitution and founding principals of this country. no one expects terrorist to act reasonably. is purposely misleading the public and perpetuating lies as fact as bad as terrorism, probably not, but it's damn near close. just depends on where you sit
Wait, how does Fox News "undermine the constitution?"

[lauren<3s music]

Wait, how does Fox News "undermine the constitution?"

not fox as much as our buddy rupert. i think his conglomerate borders on criminal and i think the way they spins things personally violates the first amendment. you can't put someone on that station who presents the opposite view and have them actually be able to present the facts. personal interpretation of course

[lauren<3s music]

ok admittedly that didn't make too much sense. i've been awake far too long. let me rephrase..

[bossman calling]

Just because you don't agree with an opinion or the methods of a news station doesn't mean any laws or the constitution are violated. That's a really silly thing to say. You and everyone else are free to watch any competing news program if you don't like what Fox says.

[I<3JohnJameson]

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy.

this is as pathetic as it gets.

Rupert Murdock and Fox News have 10x the power to ruin our society than Al Quaeda could ever have. They present personal opinion and outright propaganda as fact and credible news to further the agenda of a multi-billionaire form Australia. Rupert Murdock only cares about expanding his empire and keeping the Republicans under his control to allow him to do so without opposition. If he could make more money by making slavery legal again he would support it and make his news stations report on its benefits and vilify it opponents. He doesn't live in America and doesn't give a fuck what happens to us as long as people keep watching his TV channels, buying his newspapers and magazines, and watching his movies. That is why he is more dangerous than Al Queda. Because while Al Queda is being fought and has be denounced by America while Rupert Murdock has be welcomed with open arms to rise to power and dictate what our society watches, reads, and listens to. What ever he dictates becomes fact in our society because people don't have the time to read everything and fact check what they hear so he sells out the American people on a daily basis for more money and power.

[decisionpending]

Any douchebag that believes an Australian, though, deserves their fate. Sorry 80% of the USA.

[senatorlamb]

Bill O'Reilly regularly compares Media Matters and Daily Kos to the Klu Klux Klan and the Nazis. Two wrongs don't make a right, but where is that outrage?

[captainhampton]

Rupert Murdock and Fox News have 10x the power to ruin our society than Al Quaeda could ever have. They present personal opinion and outright propaganda as fact and credible news to further the agenda of a multi-billionaire form Australia. Rupert Murdock only cares about expanding his empire and keeping the Republicans under his control to allow him to do so without opposition. If he could make more money by making slavery legal again he would support it and make his news stations report on its benefits and vilify it opponents. He doesn't live in America and doesn't give a fuck what happens to us as long as people keep watching his TV channels, buying his newspapers and magazines, and watching his movies. That is why he is more dangerous than Al Queda. Because while Al Queda is being fought and has be denounced by America while Rupert Murdock has be welcomed with open arms to rise to power and dictate what our society watches, reads, and listens to. What ever he dictates becomes fact in our society because people don't have the time to read everything and fact check what they hear so he sells out the American people on a daily basis for more money and power.

I heard Murdoch also kills kittens.

[I<3JohnJameson]

I heard Murdoch also kills kittens.
I'll take that as "wow, I dared someone to defend him and they did since I am unable to come back with anything intelligent or any counterpoints" Don't worry about it. I understood what you meant.

[captainhampton]

I'll take that as "wow, I dared someone to defend him and they did since I am unable to come back with anything intelligent or any counterpoints" Don't worry about it. I understood what you meant.

your last post was "timberwolf-esque" i mean cmon you don't actually believe what you said do you? fox news worse than the most dangerous terrorist network in the world? Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world haha.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

your last post was "timberwolf-esque" i mean cmon you don't actually believe what you said do you? fox news worse than the most dangerous terrorist network in the world? Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world haha.

You have got to be kidding me

The point is that Murdoch has more power than Al-Qaeda. Anyone with sense can see the point that he was making. But you, much like the Republicans that get criticized on here so much, don't respond to arguments, points, logic. You simply choose to make jokes, and resort to restating what the person just said sarcastically. You're pathetic. Prove him wrong. Respond to what he said minus the 4th grade commentary.

[I<3JohnJameson]

your last post was "timberwolf-esque" i mean cmon you don't actually believe what you said do you? fox news worse than the most dangerous terrorist network in the world? Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world haha.

[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdoch_Newspaper_List)

If he isn't trying to take it over, then he's trying to buy the rights to it as we speak.

[bossman calling]

Rupert Murdock and Fox News have 10x the power to ruin our society than Al Quaeda could ever have. They present personal opinion and outright propaganda as fact and credible news to further the agenda of a multi-billionaire form Australia. Rupert Murdock only cares about expanding his empire and keeping the Republicans under his control to allow him to do so without opposition. If he could make more money by making slavery legal again he would support it and make his news stations report on its benefits and vilify it opponents. He doesn't live in America and doesn't give a fuck what happens to us as long as people keep watching his TV channels, buying his newspapers and magazines, and watching his movies. That is why he is more dangerous than Al Queda. Because while Al Queda is being fought and has be denounced by America while Rupert Murdock has be welcomed with open arms to rise to power and dictate what our society watches, reads, and listens to. What ever he dictates becomes fact in our society because people don't have the time to read everything and fact check what they hear so he sells out the American people on a daily basis for more money and power.
We should have known not to take this post seriously when slavery was brought up, but whatever, it seems that there are more than a few people on here who actually think like this, so here we go.

Take off your tin hats and think about this for a few minutes. How does Murdoch "dictate" anything, given that his flagship news station only gets about 1.3 million viewers a day? Even at its peak (prime time), it rarely passes 2 million. Either way, that is less than 1% of the total population of the United States watching Fox News at any given time, and no one is forcing these people to watch it.

On top of that, FNC, CNN, MSNBC and HLN all get trounced by network evening news broadcasts. Last week, NBC Nightly News pulled in 9.3 million, ABC World News took in 8.6 million and CBS Evening News took in 6.8 million. FOX doesn't even have a major nationwide network news program.

Like I said, no one forces the 1.3 million people who watch FNC every day to do so; they are free to change the channel at any time to CNN, MSNBC, HLN, Bloomberg, CNBC, or to the major network news broadcasts...they are also free to not watch the news at all, and get their news from their local newspaper, one of several national newspapers, or from any of the hundreds of newspaper or news sites on the internet.

Again, how is Murdoch dicating anything?

[I<3JohnJameson]

We should have known not to take this post seriously when slavery was brought up, but whatever, it seems that there are more than a few people on here who actually think like this, so here we go.

Take off your tin hats and think about this for a few minutes. How does Murdoch "dictate" anything, given that his flagship news station only gets about 1.3 million viewers a day? Even at its peak (prime time), it rarely passes 2 million. Either way, that is less than 1% of the total population of the United States watching Fox News at any given time, and no one is forcing these people to watch it.

On top of that, FNC, CNN, MSNBC and HLN all get trounced by network evening news broadcasts. Last week, NBC Nightly News pulled in 9.3 million, ABC World News took in 8.6 million and CBS Evening News took in 6.8 million. FOX doesn't even have a major nationwide network news program.

Like I said, no one forces the 1.3 million people who watch FNC every day to do so; they are free to change the channel at any time to CNN, MSNBC, HLN, Bloomberg, CNBC, or to the major network news broadcasts...they are also free to not watch the news at all, and get their news from their local newspaper, one of several national newspapers, or from any of the hundreds of newspaper or news sites on the internet.

Again, how is Murdoch dicating anything?

Cuz he owns all of those as well FTW!
(since he obvs missed the previous post) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings

[captainhampton]

You have got to be kidding me

The point is that Murdoch has more power than Al-Qaeda. Anyone with sense can see the point that he was making. But you, much like the Republicans that get criticized on here so much, don't respond to arguments, points, logic. You simply choose to make jokes, and resort to restating what the person just said sarcastically. You're pathetic. Prove him wrong. Respond to what he said minus the 4th grade commentary.

i wasn't that sarcastic in 4th grade. honestly, people like you who eat up Keith's every word aren't thinking logically. I like a lot of things about fox news as I have admitted before that I know it has a conservative viewpoint. I can understand why many dislike it because of that. However, people like you who buy into this evil Fox News conspiracy and the evil Roger Ailes and Murdoch stuff are suffering from what is called Fox Derangement Syndrome. now go read Bossman's post, he has a good explanation about Fox's actual influence. honestly, you give them too much credit to how much influence they really have. and even if you think they have a negative influence, don't compare them to the worlds most dangerous terrorist network, that is a 4th grader comparison. cmon it's just childish.

[Nevuk]

i wasn't that sarcastic in 4th grade. honestly, people like you who eat up Keith's every word aren't thinking logically. I like a lot of things about fox news as I have admitted before that I know it has a conservative viewpoint. I can understand why many dislike it because of that. However, people like you who buy into this evil Fox News conspiracy and the evil Roger Ailes and Murdoch stuff are suffering from what is called Fox Derangement Syndrome. now go read Bossman's post, he has a good explanation about Fox's actual influence. honestly, you give them too much credit to how much influence they really have. and even if you think they have a negative influence, don't compare them to the worlds most dangerous terrorist network, that is a 4th grader comparison. cmon it's just childish.
Theres actually a documented case and name for it?


And this thread may be the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

[captainhampton]

Theres actually a documented case and name for it?


And this thread may be the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

yes most people in this thread have been diagnosed with it by me.

but seriously, i'm not sure who coined the phrase, it might have been Bernie Goldberg. it has many similarities to BDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

[x togepi x]

dude, if we're going to make up mental illnesses, i'm going to diagnose captainhampton with rampant conservativism, which obviously means he's a violent threat to himself and the rest of society and needs to be locked away in an asylum for his own good.

bossman lacks the illness because he can construct logical arguments.

[captainhampton]

dude, if we're going to make up mental illnesses, i'm going to diagnose captainhampton with rampant conservativism, which obviously means he's a violent threat to himself and the rest of society and needs to be locked away in an asylum for his own good.

bossman lacks the illness because he can construct logical arguments.

i'm flattered. how does my support for gay marraige, pro choice, and stricter gun laws fit in to that diagnosis may i ask?

[Nevuk]

yes most people in this thread have been diagnosed with it by me.

but seriously, i'm not sure who coined the phrase, it might have been Bernie Goldberg. it has many similarities to BDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
This whole thread is just so... absurd. I mean, Keith Olbermann is one man, with one show that only people who strongly agree with or disagree with him watch. Similar to Bill O'reilly in almost every respect, right down to their sexually predatory nature. Why is there even a name for people who blame Fox News?
dude, if we're going to make up mental illnesses, i'm going to diagnose captainhampton with rampant conservativism, which obviously means he's a violent threat to himself and the rest of society and needs to be locked away in an asylum for his own good.

bossman lacks the illness because he can construct logical arguments.
No, captainhampton can construct logical arguments, they just use conservative logic. AKA Bush and abstinence education for Africa. It makes sense - if you're conservative.

[captainhampton]

No, captainhampton can construct logical arguments, they just use conservative logic. AKA Bush and abstinence education for Africa. It makes sense - if you're conservative.

abstinence only education is stupid, so add that to my list of conservative viewpoints i disagree with.

[Nevuk]

abstinence only education is stupid, so add that to my list of conservative viewpoints i disagree with.
I was being half-sarcastic there, but if I remember from the political test, weren't you just a slightly conservative moderate?

[captainhampton]

I was being half-sarcastic there, but if I remember from the political test, weren't you just a slightly conservative moderate?

yeah i'm not really the conservative monster people make me out to be. It just happens that the topics I usually get involved in on this forum are relating to national security issues which, I admit, I am closer to the far right.

[captainhampton]

Bill O'Reilly regularly compares Media Matters and Daily Kos to the Klu Klux Klan and the Nazis. Two wrongs don't make a right, but where is that outrage?

that's a fair argument. I don't like when people use extreme examples to make a point.

[Nevuk]

yeah i'm not really the conservative monster people make me out to be. It just happens that the topics I usually get involved in on this forum are relating to national security issues which, I admit, I am closer to the far right.
Yes, thats the most common topic, and with the majority of the board being extreme left (hell, I think I was one of the furthest right at -6 and -7) being right on anything tends to become exremely exaggerated.

[x togepi x]

i'm flattered. how does my support for gay marraige, pro choice, and stricter gun laws fit in to that diagnosis may i ask?

your posting patterns indicate a large amount of threads where you DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND SOMEONE/SOMETHING ELSE where you hope to incite a violent orgy of liberal hatred. it probably comes from problems you had identifying with the other in your early developmental stages.

[bossman calling]

Cuz he owns all of those as well FTW!
(since he obvs missed the previous post) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings
So? Think about this one for a few minutes as well...this is almost 2008, not 1950; there are now literally hundreds of competing news and media sources out there today. Also, for every single thing on the list of NewsCorp holdings, you can come up with direct competitors, many of which do alot better than those held by NewsCorp. NewsCorp doesn't have a monopoly in anything, nor do they even come close, and there certainly isn't a conspiracy to control everything, nor is there even a capability to do so. Even with the relaxed media ownership rules, competition is fierce, and wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

In addition, there are probably 100 other global conglomerates/holding companies out there who do the same thing; they buy things, improve them to make them profitable, and either continue maintain them or they sell them. Where are your accusations of conspiracy for any of them?

[x togepi x]

yeah i'm not really the conservative monster people make me out to be. It just happens that the topics I usually get involved in on this forum are relating to national security issues which, I admit, I am closer to the far right.

and this is how fascists gain power.

[bossman calling]

Fascism is not exclusive to national security...

[x togepi x]

Fascism is not exclusive to national security...

you're right, but one of the most easy ways to get people to accept fascist policies is national security issues.

[bossman calling]

It's still a great stretch to go from someone saying they are "closer to the far right" to comparing that to fascism. "Closer to the far right" could mean any number of things; he could just mean he prefers focusing on maintaining or increasing defense spending as a deterrent. "Far right" doesn't have to mean neoconservatism or a "bomb the fuck out of everyone" attitude.

Additionally, if we stretch it like you are here, fascism can just as easily be wrought through focusing on other issues, such as a national religion, economics, environmentalism, etc.

Sorry, I just don't think its very responsible or helpful to a discussion to throw around words like "fascist" or "nazi." It's almost always a great stretch, and almost always discounts what those idealologies are actually all about.

[I<3JohnJameson]

So? Think about this one for a few minutes as well...this is almost 2008, not 1950; there are now literally hundreds of competing news and media sources out there today. Also, for every single thing on the list of NewsCorp holdings, you can come up with direct competitors, many of which do alot better than those held by NewsCorp. NewsCorp doesn't have a monopoly in anything, nor do they even come close, and there certainly isn't a conspiracy to control everything, nor is there even a capability to do so. Even with the relaxed media ownership rules, competition is fierce, and wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

In addition, there are probably 100 other global conglomerates/holding companies out there who do the same thing; they buy things, improve them to make them profitable, and either continue maintain them or they sell them. Where are your accusations of conspiracy for any of them?
First, who said anything about consipricy? He's being pretty obvious about it and his intentions. No one can deny that he is a extremely conservative person and all the news papers, television channels, and radio stations reflect his personal opinions in their reporting and editorials. Whether they are the front runner in their market isn't the point. News Corp's companies reach millions of people via different forms of media every single day. He doesn't have a monopoly becuase of anti-trust laws and even those are in the proccess of being over turned by...wait for it...REPUBLICANS HE DONATES MILLIONS TO! Example: He was forced to sell The Boston Herald (the conservative news paper in Boston) becuase of his ownership of the local Fox affiliate and because of some FCC rulings he might be able to buy it back which would mean he would own a local news paper, local news channel, and already owns news talk radio channels in the area aka HE COULD CONTROL ONE OF EVERY FORM OF MEDIA IN A MAJOR US CITY!. Remind me again how this wouldn't be an example of him controling the media?

You don't have to agree with me on his political beliefs but you can't deny if he had the chance he would buy up every major news outlet he could. He did it in Austrailia and he wants to do it here.

[livefromDC]

I would say a plan to "buy up every major news outlet" is a conspiracy theory in my book. I think what you're actually describing is a desire to have a finger in all the pies - not own all the pies outright - which I'm pretty sure isn't illegal. I guess its a form of vertical integration - but just because you have good audience reach doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. If it wasn't successful, no one would care.

[bossman calling]

This is going to be long, but you need to understand a few things so you don't react so strongly on things that don't really warrant a reaction. Try to keep up.

No one can deny that he is a extremely conservative person and all the news papers, television channels, and radio stations reflect his personal opinions in their reporting and editorials.
So? If you don't like his opinions or methods, you're free to suscribe to another newspaper or change the tv or radio station...or you can do like more and more people do these days and go online and browse literally hundreds of different news sources, both mainstream and alternative. In the grand scheme of things, News Corp owns a small percentage of media outlets, and their competitors are doing quite well against them.

Whether they are the front runner in their market isn't the point.
Actually if your argument is about News Corp "controlling the media," then that IS the point, because it nullifies your argument.

News Corp's companies reach millions of people via different forms of media every single day.
...and so do every single one of the competitors of News Corp's holdings, many of which actually reach quite a few more people, and all of which reach far more people when combined. Your point?

He doesn't have a monopoly becuase of anti-trust laws and even those are in the proccess of being over turned by...wait for it...REPUBLICANS HE DONATES MILLIONS TO! Example: He was forced to sell The Boston Herald (the conservative news paper in Boston) becuase of his ownership of the local Fox affiliate and because of some FCC rulings he might be able to buy it back which would mean he would own a local news paper, local news channel, and already owns news talk radio channels in the area aka HE COULD CONTROL ONE OF EVERY FORM OF MEDIA IN A MAJOR US CITY!. Remind me again how this wouldn't be an example of him controling the media?
Because to "control the media" in 2008, News Corp would have to literally buy the entire internet, plus all competing networks, and then shut down everything except media approved by Murdoch himself...which you and I both know is impossible due to a severe lack of capital to do such a thing, the presence of thousands of competitors and competitor groups competing to buy and sell the same things, not to mention a spattering of anti-trust laws that would not allow. At least I hope you know that.

Plus, if you'd actually pay attention to the new relaxed FCC regulations, rather than jerking your knee and going on a rant about "media control," you'd learn that they are aren't actually as relaxed as you're making them out to be, and you'd understand the logic of relaxing them to begin with.

First, the rules against cross-media ownership in the same market were put into place in 1975, which, as you know, was before the internet existed, before cable and satelite television were as widespread and extensive as they are today, and back when newspapers and local television affiliates were highly profitable ventures. Back then, given the limited and highly profitable nature of the media, you might have had an argument on one company taking over the entire media in one city, and that being harmful to public interest, so the FCC made it a rule that said no new cross-ownerships in the same market could happen.

Fastforward to 2008, and newspapers and local television affiliates are no longer as profitable as they once were, due to an abundance of competition. Newspapers subscriptions are dwindling as people are now finding it easier just to surf any one of hundreds of websites that offer news from anywhere you want, and from many different perspectives. In response, many newsrooms are cutting staff, cutting resources, etc.

Now, what you missed from the new rules: ownership of a newspaper and either a television station or a radio station would be allowed only in the top 20 US markets. Further, if a television station is involved, it cannot be amongst the top four ranked stations in the market, and there must also be at least eight independently owned and operating major media outlets remaining after the transaction is complete.

The logic behind slightly relaxing the rules is that now a struggling newspaper can conceiveably combine its resources with those of a radio or a television station...and thus offer better quality news reporting, and avoid shutting down completely.

You don't have to agree with me on his political beliefs but you can't deny if he had the chance he would buy up every major news outlet he could. He did it in Austrailia and he wants to do it here.
So would every single person with that kind of capital. But the joy of capitalism is that there are plenty of others who also have that kind of capital, and are also competing with him to buy and sell the same things, which keeps things relatively level. Every time one company starts to dominates any market, along comes others who see the demand and try to figure out how they can take over the same market with a better product.

[I<3JohnJameson]

This is going to be long, but you need to understand a few things so you don't react so strongly on things that don't really warrant a reaction. Try to keep up.


So? If you don't like his opinions or methods, you're free to suscribe to another newspaper or change the tv or radio station...

Actually if your argument is about News Corp "controlling the media," then that IS the point, because it nullifies your argument.


...and so do every single one of the competitors of News Corp's holdings, many of which actually reach quite a few more people, and all of which reach far more people when combined. Your point?


Because to "control the media" in 2008, News Corp would have to literally buy the entire internet, plus all competing networks, and then shut down everything except media approved by Murdoch himself...which you and I both know is impossible due to a severe lack of capital to do such a thing, the presence of thousands of competitors and competitor groups competing to buy and sell the same things, not to mention a spattering of anti-trust laws that would not allow. At least I hope you know that.

Plus, if you'd actually pay attention to the new relaxed FCC regulations, rather than jerking your knee and going on a rant about "media control," you'd learn that they are aren't actually as relaxed as you're making them out to be, and you'd understand the logic of relaxing them to begin with.

First, the rules against cross-media ownership in the same market were put into place in 1975, which, as you know, was before the internet existed, before cable and satelite television were as widespread and extensive as they are today, and back when newspapers and local television affiliates were highly profitable ventures. Back then, given the limited and highly profitable nature of the media, you might have had an argument on one company taking over the entire media in one city, and that being harmful to public interest, so the FCC made it a rule that said no new cross-ownerships in the same market could happen.

Fastforward to 2008, and newspapers and local television affiliates are no longer as profitable as they once were, due to an abundance of competition. Newspapers subscriptions are dwindling as people are now finding it easier just to surf any one of hundreds of websites that offer news from anywhere you want, and from many different perspectives. In response, many newsrooms are cutting staff, cutting resources, etc.

Now, what you missed from the new rules: ownership of a newspaper and either a television station or a radio station would be allowed only in the top 20 US markets. Further, if a television station is involved, it cannot be amongst the top four ranked stations in the market, and there must also be at least eight independently owned and operating major media outlets remaining after the transaction is complete.

The logic behind slightly relaxing the rules is that now a struggling newspaper can conceiveably combine its resources with those of a radio or a television station...and thus offer better quality news reporting, and avoid shutting down completely.




Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I actually had to do some real work today. Suck.

Anywho, here we go.

The reason him owning so many different forms of media and the reason it doesn't matter that they are the front runner in every market is that people don't fact check and believe things if they are told them again and again regardless of the source.

Joe Average in the Midwest who works all day and barely knows how to use a computer listens to talk radio on the way home from work, reads the news paper when he gets home, and watches Hannity and Combs before bed. He just heard the same story twisted by Rush Limbaugh, his News Corp owned news paper and Sean Hannity. They all stated the same facts and reports and all stuck to GOP talking points. In Joe's mind, there is no doubt that what they said is true cuz he heard it 3 times and he's not going to question it. He doesn't use the internet and there are 3 newspapers in his area and he only gets the smaller local one because it reports about his town more than the bigger, more main stream ones.

In a perfect world, everyone would read the entire 9/11 commission report and every other 800 page document the government releases and watch CSPAN 24/7 and not have to depend on the media (left, right, moderate, whatever) to tell them whats going on in the world but they do cuz they work and have families and don't have time to fact check because thats what the media is suppose to do before they report. This is exactly why Kieth made the analogy he made. You can do far more damage with the power Rupert Murdock has than any terrorist organization in the world because he can control what people hear, read, and watch for information. He can affect elections and public opinion on issues as he so chooses. Until everyone in America learns how to use a computer and search for news articles they are going to depend on radio, print, and TV for their information about issues and events. And when you control those 3 things, you control how much power the people have. If you keep the scared and ignorant you can do whatever you want. So don't tell me he doesn't think about that when he masks his bias with shows like Fox and Friends and that he doesn't want to control things after buying the Wall Street Journal.
You may not agree on his motives but please concede that this is a slippery slope that could lead to an abuse of power.


PS. If i don't reply before, have a good holiday!

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I would say a plan to "buy up every major news outlet" is a conspiracy theory in my book. I think what you're actually describing is a desire to have a finger in all the pies - not own all the pies outright - which I'm pretty sure isn't illegal. I guess its a form of vertical integration - but just because you have good audience reach doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. If it wasn't successful, no one would care.

And if it wasn't successful then it wouldn't matter if he abused his position. But because of his good audience reach, if there is even a chance that he slanting things, then it is a big deal.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

And bossman,

Although you weren't addressing me, I think you make good points. My only problem with the "turn the channel" argument is that Murdoch's papers and channels are supposed to present unbiased news. It's different than saying, "if you don't like rush limbaugh then turn him off" because rush and people like him don't hide their bias. if that makes sense.

[captainhampton]

My only problem with the "turn the channel" argument is that Murdoch's papers and channels are supposed to present unbiased news. It's different than saying, "if you don't like rush limbaugh then turn him off" because rush and people like him don't hide their bias. if that makes sense.

then can't you make the same argument against MSNBC? they have bias just like Fox does. and they, like fox, try to act like they are giving unbiased news. news has always been biased in some way, so don't act like what Fox does is anything new, and it's especially ludicrous to argue that they are dangerous.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

then can't you make the same argument against MSNBC? they have bias just like Fox does. and they, like fox, try to act like they are giving unbiased news. news has always been biased in some way, so don't act like what Fox does is anything new, and it's especially ludicrous to argue that they are dangerous.

but we're talking about fox news so thats why they're the one in question

[captainhampton]

but we're talking about fox news so thats why they're the one in question

don't give me that BS steven, respond to my point. it is relevant to the discussion. and by the way this is a Keith Olbermann thread, so talking about MSNBC isn't off topic.

[x togepi x]

It's still a great stretch to go from someone saying they are "closer to the far right" to comparing that to fascism. "Closer to the far right" could mean any number of things; he could just mean he prefers focusing on maintaining or increasing defense spending as a deterrent. "Far right" doesn't have to mean neoconservatism or a "bomb the fuck out of everyone" attitude.

he does.

Additionally, if we stretch it like you are here, fascism can just as easily be wrought through focusing on other issues, such as a national religion, economics, environmentalism, etc.

i've never claimed that it couldn't be.

Sorry, I just don't think its very responsible or helpful to a discussion to throw around words like "fascist" or "nazi." It's almost always a great stretch, and almost always discounts what those idealologies are actually all about.

I'm sorry, but in a political environment where even our "liberals" are right of center, and centrism is considered "shifting to the right", i think the term fascism ought to be used. He's not a Nazi or anything like that, but he is not critical of the government unless it's the "liberals" are the ones making the policies. that's a strain of fascism.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

don't give me that BS steven, respond to my point. it is relevant to the discussion. and by the way this is a Keith Olbermann thread, so talking about MSNBC isn't off topic.


ha, you saying that is funny

but I will

Is slanting the news either way bad? Yes, no matter who does it

But I will say that I'd rather have my press questioning the Government as opposed to a streaming commercial for them

[captainhampton]

i'm sorry, but in a political environment where even our "liberals" are right of center, and centrism is considered "shifting to the right", i think the term fascism ought to be used. He's not a Nazi or anything like that, but he is not critical of the government unless it's the "liberals" are the ones making the policies. that's a strain of fascism.

what are you talking about that i am never critical of the govt? you are just making stuff up now. there are plenty of things i don't like about the bush administration.

I swear, it's like you want me to be this evil conservative monster so bad that you will just ignore some of my other positions.

[captainhampton]

ha, you saying that is funny

but I will

Is slanting the news either way bad? Yes, no matter who does it

But I will say that I'd rather have my press questioning the Government as opposed to a streaming commercial for them

you have no proof that FOX news is streaming commercial from the government.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

you have no proof that FOX news is streaming commercial from the government.


I didn't say that the government was giving them information to report. But the channel seems to be consistently on the Republican side of things. You watch them for a reason don't you?

[captainhampton]

I didn't say that the government was giving them information to report. But the channel seems to be consistently on the Republican side of things. You watch them for a reason don't you?

yes i have no problem with the conservative tilt. but just like you, i think they shouldnt advertise themselves as fair and balanced. just like people like Olbermann wouldn't get criticized so much if he just admitted he's not a journalist.

[x togepi x]

yes i have no problem with the conservative tilt. but just like you, i think they shouldnt advertise themselves as fair and balanced. just like people like Olbermann wouldn't get criticized so much if he just admitted he's not a journalist.

the fact that you think he's not a journalist proves that you have absolutely, positively no understanding of the history of journalism. this "journalists are objective" idea isn't the only one in journalism, but you'd learn that if you took classes on media instead of just talking about random shit you don't know about.

[captainhampton]

the fact that you think he's not a journalist proves that you have absolutely, positively no understanding of the history of journalism. this "journalists are objective" idea isn't the only one in journalism, but you'd learn that if you took classes on media instead of just talking about random shit you don't know about.

is sean hannity a journalist?

[x togepi x]

what are you talking about that i am never critical of the govt? you are just making stuff up now. there are plenty of things i don't like about the bush administration.

I swear, it's like you want me to be this evil conservative monster so bad that you will just ignore some of my other positions.

I have never seen you make a post critical of bush on this site. You mime his policies 100%. You might say that you disagree on issues like gay rights (ones that he doesn't even really push) but on most of them, you're just spouting his talking points. every source you cite is from some conservative blog/website.

[captainhampton]

I have never seen you make a post critical of bush on this site. You mime his policies 100%. You might say that you disagree on issues like gay rights (ones that he doesn't even really push) but on most of them, you're just spouting his talking points. every source you cite is from some conservative blog/website.

you're delusional. i've been very critical of his immigration stance. stop making shit up.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

yes i have no problem with the conservative tilt. but just like you, i think they shouldnt advertise themselves as fair and balanced. just like people like Olbermann wouldn't get criticized so much if he just admitted he's not a journalist.

Keith Olbermann has admitted his bias

[bossman calling]

The reason him owning so many different forms of media and the reason it doesn't matter that they are the front runner in every market is that people don't fact check and believe things if they are told them again and again regardless of the source.

Joe Average in the Midwest who works all day and barely knows how to use a computer listens to talk radio on the way home from work, reads the news paper when he gets home, and watches Hannity and Combs before bed. He just heard the same story twisted by Rush Limbaugh, his News Corp owned news paper and Sean Hannity. They all stated the same facts and reports and all stuck to GOP talking points. In Joe's mind, there is no doubt that what they said is true cuz he heard it 3 times and he's not going to question it. He doesn't use the internet and there are 3 newspapers in his area and he only gets the smaller local one because it reports about his town more than the bigger, more main stream ones.
You are seriously going to use a stereotype to argue your case?

Your condescending generalization aside...do you honestly think that any of that is exclusive to people in the midwest, conservatives and/or people who watch Fox News? Also, isn't that the fault of the individual who supposedly doesn't check facts? And I'm not sure what your alternative would be, or how you propose that we make sure that people "check facts."

Also, you are basically presupposing that News Corp publications do nothing but lie, which is rather laughable. I'm not saying they are the perfect news outlet, but come on...all news outlets screw up at times, all of the cable news outlets and every newspaper has sections for opinions, seperate from the news reporting, and its always the competitors or independent watchdogs who jump in and try to fill any voids created by any lies, actual, perceived, and even unjustly accused. And as I've shown you, it would be impossible financially and legally for Murdoch to even come close to controlling a small part of his competition.

People not paying attention...that's life in a free society, some people just aren't going to pay attention all the time, but most people are going to pay attention enough to counter that out, and there will always be plenty of competing news outlets to fill the demand of those who want more.

In a perfect world, everyone would read the entire 9/11 commission report and every other 800 page document the government releases and watch CSPAN 24/7 and not have to depend on the media (left, right, moderate, whatever) to tell them whats going on in the world but they do cuz they work and have families and don't have time to fact check because thats what the media is suppose to do before they report.
We do not live in a perfect world, and again, people not having time to fact check is definitely not exclusive to one group of people. I've called out many left leaning folks on here just in the past few weeks for posting a news story from msnbc, reuters, etc, using them to try to vindicate their position without actually looking into the details.

This is exactly why Kieth made the analogy he made. You can do far more damage with the power Rupert Murdock has than any terrorist organization in the world because he can control what people hear, read, and watch for information.
Keith made the analogy because he was either poking fun at or attempting to marginalize his biggest competitor, for the sake of entertaining or enraging his core audience. But that aside, Murdoch does not control anything. This has already been explained to you. You are stretching the senario into places that are impossible for anyone to reach.

He can affect elections and public opinion on issues as he so chooses.
Do you have any proof of this, or are you just stretching senarios again? I would point to several recent events and polls that counter this asertion:

-The more conservative candidate lost in the Australia elections a few weeks ago
-Democrats now control the US Congress
-Bush's chronically low approval ratings

You give News Corp way too much credit.

Until everyone in America learns how to use a computer and search for news articles they are going to depend on radio, print, and TV for their information about issues and events.
As of 2004, about 75% (205 million) of Americans over the age of two had access to the internet. That was up from 66% a year before, so I imagine the number today is probably higher than 80%.

In addition, over 99% of Americans have a television, and a majority of those have two. I think its pretty safe to say that almost all of that 99% also at least have access to the four major network affiliates.

Finally, 54% of Americans read a print newspaper each day, and about 55-60 million newspapers are circulated every day. This doesn't, however, account for everyone who browse newspaper websites, rather than pay for a print edition.

You're not giving America and news competition enough credit.

And when you control those 3 things, you control how much power the people have. If you keep the scared and ignorant you can do whatever you want. So don't tell me he doesn't think about that when he masks his bias with shows like Fox and Friends and that he doesn't want to control things after buying the Wall Street Journal.
But he does not, and cannot control those three things, anywhere in the United States. Period. He can control one newspaper and one radio station OR one 5th ranked or worse television station in one of the top 20 markets; but he cannot control all three.

You may not agree on his motives but please concede that this is a slippery slope that could lead to an abuse of power.
Given the legal and fical impossibility of your senerios, and the vast compeition, I cannot conceed any slippery slope at this time.

PS. If i don't reply before, have a good holiday!
Merry Christmas to you to.

[bossman calling]

And bossman,

Although you weren't addressing me, I think you make good points. My only problem with the "turn the channel" argument is that Murdoch's papers and channels are supposed to present unbiased news. It's different than saying, "if you don't like rush limbaugh then turn him off" because rush and people like him don't hide their bias. if that makes sense.

I think you mean "should" rather than "supposed to." The latter infers that there is some sort of regulation or law, and in a free society such as ours, there isn't. Sure, any news outlet that markets itself as an objective source of news is "should" follow that. Just like any retail store that markets itself as having low prices "should" keep low prices. In a free market, this is not only self-enforced, but also enforced by the presence of competitors who keep you on your toes, and are always ready to jump in and take your customers should you screw up or displease customers and/or potential customers.

[bossman calling]

This (http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf) is interesting. George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs studied the mainstream television news coverage of the 2008 election from October 1st through December 15th. What we find is that 1) Hillary Clinton is a little justified in crying about being picked on more (though we should question whether or not she can handle being president if she can't handle media scruitiny) and 2) Fox News' actual news coverage is the most fair and balanced when it comes to the election:

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the
broadcast networks.

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of all 481 election news stories (15 hours 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”) from October 1 through December 15, 2007.

MAJOR FINDINGS:
Hillary Pilloried? On-air evaluations of Hillary Clinton were nearly 3 to 2 negative (42% positive vs. 58% negative comments), while evaluations of her closest competitor Barack Obama was better than 3 to 2 positive (61% positive vs. 39% negative). John Edwards attracted much less coverage, but his evaluations were 2 to 1 positive (67% positive vs. 33% negative). Sen. Clinton was evaluated more often than all her Democratic opponents combined.

Examples:

“Critics say her best known Senate vote, on Iraq, was driven by politics, not by principle.” – Andrea Mitchell, NBC
“She was widely blamed for a health care policy so secretive and complex it died at birth.” – Major Garrett, FOX
“I’ve been inspired [by Obama] to believe that a new vision is possible for America.” –
Oprah Winfrey, FOX


It’s All About Hillary: Four of the ten most heavily covered candidate-related issues concerned Ms. Clinton:
#1. Clinton campaign’s strategy and tactics, 47 stories;
#7. Her electability, 18 stories;
#8. Her alleged policy flip flops, 14 stories;
#9. Her honesty/integrity, 12 stories.

Other hotly debated candidate issues included:
#2. Barack Obama’s strategy/tactics, 46 stories;
#3. John Edwards’ strategy/tactics, 24 stories;
#4. Mitt Romney’s religion, 20 stories;
#5. Romney’s strategy/tactics.

Huckabee Leads GOP:
Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee fared best with evenly balanced
coverage – 50% positive and 50% negative evaluations by reporters and sources. Fred Thompson came next with 44% positive comments, followed by Mitt Romney with 40% positive, Rudy Giuliani with 39% positive, and John McCain with 33% positive.

Examples:

“He [Huckabee] seems very real, very authentic. It’s hard not to like him, and you can’t say that about some of the other Republican candidates.” – Bob Schieffer, CBS
“What he [Romney] talked about was a complete repudiation of any notion of separation of church and state…” – Sally Quinn, ABC
“Rudy [Giuliani] would be a great candidate if he was pro-life, but… that is an issue we can’t overcome. It’s a huge handicap for him.” – voter, FOX


Who’s Fair and Balanced?:
Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Policy Debate:
The campaign coverage has been relatively issue oriented -- 188 stories dealt with policy issues, 191 with campaign strategy and tactics, 162 on the candidates’ standings in the horse race, and 122 on heir personal backgrounds. (A story could cover more than one of these topics.) The most frequently debated policy issues were #1. Illegal immigration, 32 stories; #2 Iraq, 22 stories; #3 Electoral reforms, 18 stories; #4 Abortion, 13 stories; #5 Iran, 12 stories.

Methodology
The Center for Media and Public Affairs is a media research organization that uses scientific content analysis to study news and entertainment media content. CMPA is affiliated with the George Mason University, where CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter is Professor of Communications. CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data files on partisan evaluations as well.

[I<3JohnJameson]

I have been super busy at work this week. Sorry for the delay. Hope everyone had a good holiday

http://www.journalism.org/node/709

A few quotes cuz I need to get back to work.

"Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. The news channel was also decidedly more positive in its coverage of the war in Iraq, while the others were largely neutral. At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences."

"In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far.
Just 4% of CNN segments included journalistic opinion, and 27% on MSNBC.
Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq. There 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%.
The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC."

Im glad Fake News has been more fair and balanced as of late but part of me thinks that is going to change in a big way once they pick the nominees and they can focus their energy at taking down the democrat instead of reporting on all 10 people in the race right now.


I have a lot more in response to your previous response ("As of 2004, about 75% (205 million) of Americans over the age of two had access to the internet. That was up from 66% a year before, so I imagine the number today is probably higher than 80%." Access to the internet and use of the internet are 2 different things. Our local library has internet access ipso facto everyone in town has internet access.) but I need to keep working.

Have a great new year if I don't get back to ya.

[bossman calling]

Im glad Fake News has been more fair and balanced as of late but part of me thinks that is going to change in a big way once they pick the nominees and they can focus their energy at taking down the democrat instead of reporting on all 10 people in the race right now.
It's too bad the very same study you posted showed that Fox News was also the most balanced in the 2004 election coverage as well:

When it came to election coverage, the majority of stories on every network had no overwhelming tone. Here MSNBC stood out as being twice as likely to air candidate and issue stories with a positive tone as with a negative tone. CNN's coverage, on the other hand, was more likely to be negative. Fox was divided equally among positive and negative stories.

Therefore, according to your source, history would not support your assertion that Fox News is going to "focus their energy at taking down the Democrat."

I have a lot more in response to your previous response ("As of 2004, about 75% (205 million) of Americans over the age of two had access to the internet. That was up from 66% a year before, so I imagine the number today is probably higher than 80%." Access to the internet and use of the internet are 2 different things. Our local library has internet access ipso facto everyone in town has internet access.) but I need to keep working.
You're missing the point. You are basing your conspiracies and assertions on the false assumption that people do not have choices (or are in danger of losing their choices) when it comes to where they get their news. In reality, the people have the access and choices they need; what they do with this access and these choices is up to them. The news outlets cannot force them to do anything, and can only continue to compete to put out what the people want to see.

[captainhampton]

Keith Olbermann has admitted his bias

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/12/keith_olbermann_71.php#more

go to number 1.

[captainhampton]

jpU1znOqOSs&eurl=http://olbermannwatch.com/

[saysmydoctor]

Olbermann is a useless rambling whiner in the grand scheme of political media but he has more credibility than the entire staff of Fox News put together. You name drop your anti-Olbermann politics and get the opinions and distortions of members of the blogosphere, I'm not swayed. Fox News is news-ertainment, not fair and balanced media.

[x togepi x]

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/12/keith_olbermann_71.php#more

go to number 1.


and that comment is obviously not serious. they're already joking about the feud with bill o'reilly, and one who's obsessed with him as you would realize that he's sarcastic or joking just as much as he's serious.

thought to mince terms, one could claim that technically, he's not politically bias, as he slams democrats and republicans, but even then, as i've pointed out, everytime we talk about this, on MSNBC's coverage of the 2006 election, Chris Matthews said Keith was biased and Keith agreed.

why drag up this thread every few months so you can lose the same tired argument?

[saysmydoctor]

Honestly, Olbermann, as nothing as he truly is, at least has some credibility and takes careful effort to fact check before he goes into one of his ridiculous rants. They may be ridiculous and drawn out but when he tells someone off with one, everything he says couldn't be anymore factual.

Meanwhile, O'Reilly is well known for getting facts wrong--the same facts, at that--not once but twice, and when told he is wrong, he instead corrects his transcripts or removes them in their entirety to cover his ass. I think it's hilarious you defend such garbage media and attack credible media even if it is dull and redundant.

[captainhampton]

and that comment is obviously not serious. they're already joking about the feud with bill o'reilly, and one who's obsessed with him as you would realize that he's sarcastic or joking just as much as he's serious.

thought to mince terms, one could claim that technically, he's not politically bias, as he slams democrats and republicans, but even then, as i've pointed out, everytime we talk about this, on MSNBC's coverage of the 2006 election, Chris Matthews said Keith was biased and Keith agreed.

why drag up this thread every few months so you can lose the same tired argument?

oh really he slams both? who was the last democrat to win Worst person in the world? are you going to ignore the video i posted?

[captainhampton]

Honestly, Olbermann, as nothing as he truly is, at least has some credibility and takes careful effort to fact check before he goes into one of his ridiculous rants. They may be ridiculous and drawn out but when he tells someone off with one, everything he says couldn't be anymore factual.

Meanwhile, O'Reilly is well known for getting facts wrong--the same facts, at that--not once but twice, and when told he is wrong, he instead corrects his transcripts or removes them in their entirety to cover his ass. I think it's hilarious you defend such garbage media and attack credible media even if it is dull and redundant.

oh Olbermann fact checks? i'll assume you did not watch the video i posted tonight, because if you watched it and then go on to claim that he is a careful fact checker, you are a complete moron.

[x togepi x]

oh really he slams both? who was the last democrat to win Worst person in the world? are you going to ignore the video i posted?

Lieberman won it.

He also made the fans of the Seahawks worst person in the world when some fans said they'd no longer like the seahawks because they gave Bush a jersey.

he also dedicated one of his special comments towards the democratic leadership for refusing to stop the war. also, if you watch the show, he criticizes the democrats a lot when he doesn't think they're doing their job.

see here: 2bixw8TefvU

obviously he doesn't like republicans and likes democrats more. why don't we wait until a a democratic president is elected before we start claiming he's so biased.

of course, you also ignored how i pointed out how out of context his so-called claim of nonbias was.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh Bill O'Reilly fact checks? Watch this video and stop hero-worshipping the worst TV journalist ever.

O2KU02lsfH8

[captainhampton]

Lieberman won it.

He also made the fans of the Seahawks worst person in the world when some fans said they'd no longer like the seahawks because they gave Bush a jersey.

he also dedicated one of his special comments towards the democratic leadership for refusing to stop the war. also, if you watch the show, he criticizes the democrats a lot when he doesn't think they're doing their job.

see here: 2bixw8TefvU

obviously he doesn't like republicans and likes democrats more. why don't we wait until a a democratic president is elected before we start claiming he's so biased.

of course, you also ignored how i pointed out how out of context his so-called claim of nonbias was.

hahaha i knew you were going to say Lieberman. gee i wonder why Lieberman got it.

[x togepi x]

jpU1znOqOSs&eurl=http://olbermannwatch.com/

need we point out all the lies and factual errors fox news makes?

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You can't show me why bias is bad. You can't show me why it really matters. You can't prove that Fox never makes mistakes, and you can't prove that what Keith said right there wasn't just a mistake instead of an outright lie.

even if it is a lie, cool, everyone knows the media lies. did you just start watching tv? find me an objective journalist who never makes mistakes or lies. they don't exist.

[x togepi x]

hahaha i knew you were going to say Lieberman. gee i wonder why Lieberman got it.

way to ignore everything else in the post. it all stands.

[captainhampton]

need we point out all the lies and factual errors fox news makes?

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You can't show me why bias is bad. You can't show me why it really matters. You can't prove that Fox never makes mistakes, and you can't prove that what Keith said right there wasn't just a mistake instead of an outright lie.

even if it is a lie, cool, everyone knows the media lies. did you just start watching tv? find me an objective journalist who never makes mistakes or lies. they don't exist.

every time i point out something bad about Olbermann, someone switches it to Fox News. so that's your defense, oh well Fox does it to, so that means it's ok for Olbermann to lie?

[x togepi x]

every time i point out something bad about Olbermann, someone switches it to Fox News. so that's your defense, oh well Fox does it to, so that means it's ok for Olbermann to lie?

since you have this nasty habit of not responding to things that you have no way of responding to because you're an idiot, i'm going to repeat myself again: even if it is a lie, cool, everyone knows the media lies. did you just start watching tv? find me an objective journalist who never makes mistakes or lies. they don't exist.