AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709 
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 7, 2013 9:20:13 GMT -5
There're far too many examples of liberal bias in the media to start a new thread for each example. So, I propose that like "the gun control debate" and other threads- we have an on-going thread for the almost daily examples of left wing media bias- from misleading edits, media flakeout and/or outright blackout of coverage of important stories- bring it all here. I'll kick it off: www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-forced-to-apologize-after-misleading-edit-of-biden-gun-speech/This is a pretty curious case of spin when you think about it- MSNBC wasn't confident they could get a clip of Biden saying something stupid about gun control? “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun,” Biden said in an interview with Parents Magazine back in February. “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.” Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.” I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semi-automatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal. “Kinda scary man, the black helicopter crowd is really upset,” Biden noted during a recent speech. “No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we’re about to really take away all your rights and you’re not going to be able to defend yourself and we’re going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America. It’s bizarre. But that’s what’s being sold out there.” “There is a paranoia out there,” the politician said. “The facts are, there’s not a single solitary thing that we have proposed…this argument that there’s absolutely any constitutional violation is absolutely not there.” Of course, Biden’s comments about gun owners who simply “like the feel of that AR-15″ will likely draw the most ire from some. “There is a whole new sort of group of individuals now…that never hunt at all. But they own guns for one of two reasons — self-protection, or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range,” he said. “They like the way it feels. It’s like driving a Ferrari, you know.” “You know, they make fun of my saying about use a shotgun if someone’s invading your home – guess what, use a shotgun on someone invading your home and you don’t kill your kids – use an AR-15, it goes through your wall and it can kill your kid in the bedroom” |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 7, 2013 9:31:11 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2013 11:35:18 GMT -5
as usual, the Atlantic offers up some far more compelling arguments than you ever have. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 7, 2013 13:26:02 GMT -5
as usual, the Atlantic offers up some far more compelling arguments than you ever have. Well, more accurately- they're excuses. And if I post a theory, I'll let you know it's a theory. I've posted fact: there has been a deliberate media blackout of the Kermit Gosnell abortion house of horrors trial because accurate coverage will have a direct negative impact on the already fragile far left stance on abortion; and it will bring to light the exact circumstances the Illinois "Born Alive Protection Act" opposed by then State Senator Barrack Obama was designed to prevent. The media are dedicated to the liberal agenda, and that includes an extremist position on abortion. Accurate coverage of this story, and an appropriate legislative response to this atrocity would expose the fact that Mr. Gosnell is not alone; there is a rampant, often taxpayer funded, gruesome late term abortion epidemic in America that would horrify those people in the center that "don't want to watch" (Thank you for deciding for them). |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2013 14:46:17 GMT -5
As the article about Gosnell in The Atlantic points out, the Gosnell story is not really about abortion anyway. It is about murder. precisely. but this is nonsense for those that think all abortion is murder (which it isn't, legally speaking). and the same goes for those that fail to differentiate the very real media biases that exist from those that don't. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2013 14:52:53 GMT -5
as usual, the Atlantic offers up some far more compelling arguments than you ever have. Well, more accurately- they're excuses. no, they are all theories, Paul.And if I post a theory, I'll let you know it's a theory. you're right. liberal bias is not a theory, it is a construct. it is a way of viewing the world. to call it a theory is to make a mockery of science.I've posted fact: there has been a deliberate media blackout of the Kermit Gosnell abortion house of horrors trial because accurate coverage will have a direct negative impact on the already fragile far left stance on abortion; i am sorry. i must have missed something. what "fragile far left stance on abortion" are you referring to?and it will bring to light the exact circumstances the Illinois "Born Alive Protection Act" opposed by then State Senator Barrack Obama was designed to prevent. The media are dedicated to the liberal agenda, verifiably false.and that includes an extremist position on abortion. Accurate coverage of this story, and an appropriate legislative response to this atrocity would expose the fact that Mr. Gosnell is not alone; there is a rampant, often taxpayer funded, gruesome late term abortion epidemic in America that would horrify those people in the center that "don't want to watch" (Thank you for deciding for them). technically, there are zero taxpayer funded abortions. as to the rest of your rant, i don't really know, and you don't have any proof that it is true. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 5:08:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 15:09:59 GMT -5
Great read, dem. Thanks for posting it. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2013 15:22:13 GMT -5
it's a really good mag.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 5:08:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 15:23:31 GMT -5
as usual, the Atlantic offers up some far more compelling arguments than you ever have. Well, more accurately- they're excuses. And if I post a theory, I'll let you know it's a theory. I've posted fact: there has been a deliberate media blackout of the Kermit Gosnell abortion house of horrors trial because accurate coverage will have a direct negative impact on the already fragile far left stance on abortion; and it will bring to light the exact circumstances the Illinois "Born Alive Protection Act" opposed by then State Senator Barrack Obama was designed to prevent. The media are dedicated to the liberal agenda, and that includes an extremist position on abortion. Accurate coverage of this story, and an appropriate legislative response to this atrocity would expose the fact that Mr. Gosnell is not alone; there is a rampant, often taxpayer funded, gruesome late term abortion epidemic in America that would horrify those people in the center that "don't want to watch" (Thank you for deciding for them). Although we had a pretty lengthy thread about the extent of the coverage at the time of the arrest and during the early days of the trial. Despite that, I'm willing to give you the bolded text as fact. I'l even give you the point that most of the media trends liberal. What can I say? I'm a giver. But dude... You do not know the reasons and motivations for the limited coverage of the Gosnell trial. You do not know the opinions of various journalists on abortion, and I don't think you recognize what constitutes an extremist position. There is nothing about the coverage that does exist that would imply it is inaccurate. The "gruesome late term abortion epidemic" you are concerned with is an exceedingly rare event. It may well be more than any of us would like to see happen, but that does not mean it meets the definition of epidemic. Late term abortions are not the thing that Gosnell is on trial for. He killed babies that had been born (allegedly, technically, until the trial verdict is in). While morally equivalent to you, a late term abortion and a murder are not legally equivalent. There is a chance that by likening them to Gosnell, you might make abortion providers who play by the rules actually seem more sympathetic. The public is fickle. Know your audience. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 7, 2013 15:30:16 GMT -5
DJ, On a number of occasions you have made the false claim that my statements re: Obama's vote against the Born Alive Protection Act in Illinois is "verifiably false" and a number of times, I have contradicted you with evidence. I will now, in a comprehensive way, including links to every last detail, completely blow your claim out of the water. Going forward, I expect better of you so kindly conduct yourself accordingly.  This is the legislative record of Barrack Obama on It is not in dispute. 2001 February 22: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1095) was first introduced in the Illinois Senate. March 28: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)copy: www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1095%20pdf.pdfMarch 30: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.Transcript: www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdfMarch 30: Obama voted "PRESENT" on the Senate floor. copy: www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF 2002 January 30: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1662) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year. March 6: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee- copy: www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1662%20pdf.pdfApril 4: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor (again): www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdfApril 4: Obama voted "NO" on the Senate floor: www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdfJuly 18: Congress passed the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Federal Version: www.jillstanek.com/Born%20Alive%20final%20version.pdfAugust 5: The federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection was signed by the President into law. 2003 February 19: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1082) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year. Bill: www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93March 13: After first voting for an amendment to make the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal version, Obama voted against the bill. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began. Obama's Vote: www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1082%20pdf.pdf |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 7, 2013 15:50:48 GMT -5
And btw- the lack of coverage (initially) about Obama's extreme position on abortion (which doesn't fly with voters when presented as an issue) and by extreme, I mean that Obama favors late term abortion up to and including letting a baby born alive from a botched abortion die in a janitorial closet. That is the very circumstance that triggered the Illinois bill. I know what extreme means-
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 5:08:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 15:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 5:08:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 17:23:16 GMT -5
"Liberal bias! Whine! Bitch! Moan! Whimper! Squeal!"
How tiresome.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 7, 2013 17:30:34 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 8, 2013 11:11:22 GMT -5
The ONLY network covering the testimony of eyewitnesses / whistleblowers on Benghazi right now is Fox.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,375 
|
Post by chiver78 on May 8, 2013 11:56:01 GMT -5
The ONLY network covering the testimony of eyewitnesses / whistleblowers on Benghazi right now is Fox. Wrong. I caught a little of an eyewitness interview on the lobby TV as I was heading out to lunch an hour ago - it is tuned to HLN all the time. sent from my electronic distraction  |
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,593
|
Post by swamp on May 8, 2013 11:57:47 GMT -5
I saw something on the Bengazi issue on CBS this morning.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,593
|
Post by swamp on May 8, 2013 12:00:25 GMT -5
Don't doubt him, Ever.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 8, 2013 12:19:52 GMT -5
It was on NBC News last night. No, it wasn't. The testimony going on RIGHT NOW (when I posted that- CNN has started spotty coverage of it) is going on RIGHT NOW. Rush mentioned this in the first part of his show, so they've probably been shamed into it. However, the only wall-to-wall coverage remains on Fox. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,168
|
Post by billisonboard on May 8, 2013 14:33:02 GMT -5
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,375
|
Post by chiver78 on May 8, 2013 17:47:21 GMT -5
It was on NBC News last night. No, it wasn't. The testimony going on RIGHT NOW (when I posted that- CNN has started spotty coverage of it) is going on RIGHT NOW. Rush mentioned this in the first part of his show, so they've probably been shamed into it. However, the only wall-to-wall coverage remains on Fox. because as much as you hate to admit it, there are other news stories to report besides this one. it is the loudest current story that invokes the input of conspiracy theorists though, so I'm not at all surprised to see that Fox has it 24/7. and as for RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU POSTED THAT, um....some of us have jobs. I know my employer would frown upon me watching tv all day.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2013 18:52:30 GMT -5
DJ, On a number of occasions you have made the false claim that my statements re: Obama's vote against the Born Alive Protection Act in Illinois is "verifiably false" and a number of times, I have contradicted you with evidence. sorry that you wasted effort on defending the "Born Alive" against a perceived attack, but i have never commented on this case. my comment was about liberal bias. I will now, in a comprehensive way, including links to every last detail, completely blow your claim out of the water. Going forward, I expect better of you so kindly conduct yourself accordingly. i have never made any comments about this case in the past, and don't plan on making any in the future, so my conduct should not come into play. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2013 18:57:01 GMT -5
It was on NBC News last night. No, it wasn't. The testimony going on RIGHT NOW (when I posted that- CNN has started spotty coverage of it) is going on RIGHT NOW. Rush mentioned this in the first part of his show, so they've probably been shamed into it. However, the only wall-to-wall coverage remains on Fox. i see. so you are saying that the only network that thinks this is the only thing that matters in the world is FOX? yeah, that is probably true. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 8, 2013 23:12:48 GMT -5
Pres. Obama is no more responsible for the Benghazi mess than he is for the OBL takedown. He's the guy in the suit that reads from the teleprompter.  "All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway." - Harry S. Truman |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 10, 2013 10:48:51 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,168
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2013 10:56:02 GMT -5
There are many congressional hearings that aren't carried live on television. This was one that some networks felt deserved such coverage, others didn't. I didn't read anything that came out of the day that I hadn't read prior to the hearings. For me, that supports the idea that live coverage was not necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 16, 2024 5:08:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 11:51:02 GMT -5
They are salivating over trying to make Obama look bad in some way. They are after all the far right repub channel that from what I've heard won't even air any of Pres Obama's speeches. Sad to be so biased. Are you saying we need two more right leaning stations like Fox to help counter balance the three left leaning stations like ABC, CBS, and NBC ? |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 10, 2013 12:32:36 GMT -5
There are many congressional hearings that aren't carried live on television. This was one that some networks felt deserved such coverage, others didn't. I didn't read anything that came out of the day that I hadn't read prior to the hearings. For me, that supports the idea that live coverage was not necessary. Yeah, I know- but they sure do get around to covering the bullshit they want to cover. The MSM devoted a great deal of time to an "unofficial" and decidedly partisan Congressional hearing on "contraception" featuring Sandra Fluke. abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/contraception-controversy-continues-meet-witness-sandra-fluke/MSNBC, the Democratic Party / Obama public relations firm did more than ZERO seconds on it, I can promise you that. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2013 13:36:55 GMT -5
They are salivating over trying to make Obama look bad in some way. They are after all the far right repub channel that from what I've heard won't even air any of Pres Obama's speeches. Sad to be so biased. Are you saying we need two more right leaning stations like Fox to help counter balance the three left leaning stations like ABC, CBS, and NBC ? i don't think FOX is right leaning. but then again, i don't think MSNBC is left leaning. they would both sell out their mothers for a shekel. that is their bias. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,321
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2013 13:39:14 GMT -5
Bernard Goldberg accurately says MSNBC isn't biased, it's not even news. MSNBC and Goldberg have something in common, then. |
|
