This is good to hear. No matter what your political views are, the mean-spirited bias at MSNBC should be denounced.
BOTH SIDES OF AISLE RIP MSNBC
(link to full article)
In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.
She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats. She stressed, though, that it's Palin's small-town American roots she wishes to defend and not her politics or policies.
Oct 29 2008, 7:31 am
|
|
Disturbed Puppy
 |
I don't really know what happened to mainstream media. Either it's overly-liberal(CNN and MSNBC), or overly conservative(Fox News). It's a shame they're no longer after the truth, only ratings.
|
It's always seemed to me that Fox news makes an effort to be bi-partisan in their coverage, but over reach and oft-times appear right leaning.
I choose to watch Fox because they give both sides some ground to stand on...however in a perfect world non-partisan coverage would be great- something that both CNN and MSNBC claim to have but absolutely do not deliver on. | |
I lost faith in Fox a while back, actually before the election was even that big of a deal. I honestly don't remember what it was, but I know I was so disgusted at the point being raised that I just said "enough", and went on with my life. I never did watch MSNBC, and although I still do watch CNN on occasion(mainly Larry King), I haven't used it to follow the election.
| |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
I lost faith in Fox a while back, actually before the election was even that big of a deal. I honestly don't remember what it was, but I know I was so disgusted at the point being raised that I just said "enough", and went on with my life. I never did watch MSNBC, and although I still do watch CNN on occasion(mainly Larry King), I haven't used it to follow the election. Exploding buses, perhaps? | |
Ugg. This topic needs to die. Yes, news stations are biased, some more than others. But we wouldn't know what an unbiased network would like, because we are biased. Everybody is biased. It's not like you can say to yourself, well, I'm this much biased, so I'll just force myself to lean the other way by that much and it'll be perfectly even.
I haven't seen a decent article that logically goes through and determines how much negative press, positive press, and overall press each candidate deserves. Surely no one in their right mind thinks they should all be equal. Until I see something along those lines, then it's pointless for me to try and say who is being more biased than the other, because I'll be speaking purely off my own logic & bias. And this theoretical article will need logic out the ass before it can be considered remotely accurate because it too will be biased. Then we'll need an article to talk about how the theoretical article is biased so we can determine how to much to correct it......rinse and repeat. Eventually, we'll assymptotically approach unbiased. | |
Stupot wrote:
Ugg. This topic needs to die. Yes, news stations are biased, some more than others. But we wouldn't know what an unbiased network would like, because we are biased. You can apply that flawed logic to almost anything, ex: No one is ever going to be a perfect parent, so what does it matter if they beat their kids? From reading your posts lately, the common theme in all of your arguments seems to be "things are never going to change, so why bother?". As far as the topic at hand goes: MSNBC's treatment of Sarah Palin in particular has been incredibly unfair and mean-spirited. They deserve criticism for the way they've conducted themselves. We had a larger discussion about media bias a couple weeks ago. | |
How is the logic flawed? While I realize that the last paragraph was showing the insanity of the situation, it was meant as a joke. Perhaps I shouldn't have started off by saying that this topic needs to die. However, I definitely stand by the argument that until we can come to some sort of unbiased opinion of how much negative, positive, and overall coverage the candidates deserve, then it's pointless to discuss which network is being more biased.
Until we have our starting point for what should have happened, how can we possibly judge who went farther (be it to the left or right)? My stance isn't to forgive all the networks because it doesn't matter like you inferred, rather that we need a means by which we can judge them. (Most) everybody knows that beating your kid is wrong. But this situation is much closer to which is worse for the kid, over punishing or under punishing? What is worse for the kid? How do you tell if you are over punishing or under punishing? We don't live in a perfect world where right and wrong are always clearly defined. Just because my logic doesn't lead to a clean solution does not mean it is flawed. It took me a long time to figure that out about the world. Maybe that's why I like engineering so much, there are typically multiple solutions that clearly achieve the intended goal. Philosophy is fun to debate, but I would hate to use it for my living. | |
Stupot wrote:
We don't live in a perfect world where right and wrong are always clearly defined. Just because my logic doesn't lead to a clean solution does not mean it is flawed. I agree with you 100%. I mean this with all sincerity; if you truly believe this, you would make a great poker player or options/derivatives trader. Life is a game of imperfect and partial information, but we must still make decisions. | |
Aww, I like Keith Olbermann. Not that I watch MSNBC.. who watches TV for news anymore?
But Keith Olbermann is the man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06TRnxcXMX8 Pwnd. | |
Jerico2day wrote:
But Keith Olbermann is the man. Yet another Keith Olbermann clip that further proves that all he knows how to do is call people names. His sole function is to insult, demean, degrade and antagonize people. The fact that he has a prime time slot on MSNBC says quite a bit about the integrity of that network. John Stewart really puts into perspective what a black hole of talent that Olbernmann is. Stewart absolutely skewers people in an intelligent way without hatred and vitriol. Olbermann yells and screams and name calls, hoping that if he yells loud enough people might listen to him. | |
Stupot wrote:
It took me a long time to figure that out about the world. Maybe that's why I like engineering so much, there are typically multiple solutions that clearly achieve the intended goal. Philosophy is fun to debate, but I would hate to use it for my living. That's the fundamental flaw in your philosophy. The world isn't gray; it's black and white. If you can't accept that, the proper solution isn't to ignore philosophy. Philosophy dictates the way we live our lives. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
That's the fundamental flaw in your philosophy. The world isn't gray; it's black and white. If you can't accept that, the proper solution isn't to ignore philosophy. Philosophy dictates the way we live our lives. It seems like you take a kind of "karma" like approach to life. Maybe I misunderstand you -- but should you be a bit more specific as to what about philosophy that solely dictates our lives? (Given that you believe in a black and white world, I assumed that you intended that to be an exclusive relationship). Are you saying that the decisions are black and white?... and/or the perceived data from the world?... And it's not that I disagree with you. It's just that there's an immediate association with not having free will. That is, the decisions you are making are done with complete and perfect information, therefore, there was no decision to be made at all. And there is also the practical side to what you are suggesting (and perhaps going against the Catholic Church's insistence of non-relativism). The decisions I make in the stock market, the poker table, and even driving to work rely on me understanding the probabilities of success and the acceptance of partial information. That is, you can make all the right assumptions driving, but still get killed by an asshole driving on the wrong side of the freeway. But we still had the free will to make the decision to drive that morning. Anyway, I'm guessing when you say The world isn't gray, you're probably saying that human decisions aren't grey... am I right? | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Stupot wrote: Interesting. When I go telling people that, I get weird looks. But I'm with you on that one. As for Olbermann, that what I like about him. I wouldn't consider it proper journalism, same as I don't count Stewart as a proper journalist. But they both raise great points and bring many issues to light. As for Palin getting the short end of the stick. Good. Last thing we need is a religious fanatic in office. And I've never heard anyone smear her that wasn't completely true and on the money. | |
Jerico2day wrote:
As for Palin getting the short end of the stick. Good. Last thing we need is a religious fanatic in office. And I've never heard anyone smear her that wasn't completely true and on the money. This is why you like Olbermann. You disagree with Palin, so you want to see people attack her and say bad things about her. Whether or not those things are true or deserved doesn't matter; demonizing her reaffirms your beliefs. Therefore, Keith Olbermann is your guy. Bootyboy: A is A. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Bootyboy: A is A. What is A? | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Jerico2day wrote: Yes I realize I may be biased in my opinion. My point still stands. If Olbermann were ripping on Obama, Nader, Superman, I'd still smile:) Also, do you dispute Olbermann calling Palin a commie? I realize Palin is not a communist, but her calling Obama one is her calling the kettle black, isn't it? | |
Jerico2day wrote:
Also, do you dispute Olbermann calling Palin a commie? I realize Palin is not a communist, but her calling Obama one is her calling the kettle black, isn't it? Palin inherited the (immoral) "Oil Rebate" system when she stepped into the Governor's office. The fact that Olbermann can point to an example of her talking about it to win over voters doesn't make her a socialist. Obama, on the other hand, is a socialist to the core. He wholly believes in socialist ideals, and all of his proposed policies reflect that. If someone steals a candy bar at the grocery store, it doesn't put them on the save level as a career bank robber. | |
If someone steals a candy bar at the grocery store, it doesn't put them on the save level as a career bank robber. That sounds like a shade of grey, there, Silk. | |
Jp wrote:
That sounds like a shade of grey, there, Silk. That's a misapplication of the concept. Degrees exist; but they are not a justification for evil. Degrees are a secondary matter, and they rely upon the absolutes of Black and White to be measured. For example, a murderer commits a greater evil than a thief, but both are still evil. McCain/Palin may not be as wrong as Obama/Biden, but both are still wrong. If I poison your food just a little bit, your food is still poisoned. | |