Why are so many journalist who should be competitors working together on the left? Objective journalism is dead in America.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
The bunk just keeps on coming.
Why are so many journalist who should be competitors working together on the left? Objective journalism is dead in America.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
You have seen it in the papers and watched it on the news, now is your chance to lead the bailout and save the economy.
The Bailout Game puts you in the drivers seat. Help the Bailout Boys as they drive down Wall St. with unchecked power and a truck full of cash.
<a href="http://www.thebailoutgame.us">http://www.thebailoutgame.us</a>
Good luck, you???re going to need it!
Blue Earth Interactive
The joke is that Factcheck.org passes itself off as totally objective and unbiased. What bunk. All organizations have their own tacit assumptions and unstated biases, and any organization that claims they don't is flat out lying. How do we know this? Simple. Look at all the facts that this organization chooses not to mention. By their selectivity, they expose bias, and most of it is in the direction of favoring Barack Obama. For example, this organization has never mentioned the fact that Larry Sinclair has made allegations concerning activities he engaged in with Obama on Nov. 6 and 7, 1999. They also have not reported the massive abuse of power coming out of Delaware with the arrest of that same Larry Sinclair after a press conference he gave in Washington, DC last year. Additionally, this organization has never reported the many lawsuits that have been filed against Obama over questions regarding his citizenship. There is a whole littany of issues--actual factual activities or events--that this organization simply does not cover or report on. You are a sham Factcheck.org. And if you don't admit that you selectively choose not to cover certain stories that reflect poorly on Obama, then this is yet further evidence of your bias.
Why not debunk that the financial crisis was not Bush's fault?
Because its not fashionable to believe the truth,, this s a Global crisis is due decades of wrong policies from both parties, just like the 1929 Depression was. Hitler was VOTED in to office because of 1929... expect more of the same. Meanwhile these folks are on McCarthy Witch hunts.
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, you idiot.
Of course once in power Hitler used illegal means to remain and stay in power.
Hitler used Democratic means to gain power, His party won 44% of the vote and essentially majority control. You give partial facts like much of the press. Then you insult folks proving you have little integrity.
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html
The biggest wopper I can think of is the $700 billion BAILOUT brought on by the high-risk mortage loans mandated by legislation passed by Bill Clinton and protected by Barney Franks and Chris Dodd protecting Fannie and Freddie from oversight legislation. Now the debt binge mentality that brought on the housing crisis resulting in the financial crisis is being pursued by additional debt called the BAILOUT by the Federal Government loaning $ to irresponsible companies!
What hurt John McCain the most was not that he was beaten by a better man with superior intellect but by a black Afro-American.
That would only hurt a racist.
Of his many weaknesses, I don't think that's one of them.
Yes, the better man with the superior intellect did win, in spite of racists like you. We are all enjoying watching you fading in our rearview mirrors.
A 40 year republican
Race is moot. It's over. May as well forget it. Useless exercise. On with life.
no lies to de-bunk from the left? Newsweek no longer even fakes objectivity. It will fail shortly and we won't have to worry...please lay off the editorial staff first!!
You didn't even read the article, did you?
You right wingnuts are hilarious.
All you have to do is look at FactCheck to find them. Here's their most recent, I think 12/27 or 12/28
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156934
The media should be more responsible and ethical aoout what they report . The reporting of many of these lies, propogamda, exagerations, not only hurt others, it has a very profound and negative influence on our children. In the residential treatment I work, many chilldren are be admitten with anxiety disorders, form listening to the TV, radio, parents, and minister, who fill their minds with information that causes fear, and feeling of unsafety. The media is helping to creat more home grown terroist, and people that will kill are hurt others because of intollerance.
I believe the problem, in part, is the buying of press properties by the entertainment industry. The movie industry has been very ideological for decades and has reinforced the journalistic tilt.This with the lack of competition both inthe journalism ad politics leads to lack of multiplicity of views and critical thinking.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Wonder why you've never heard of his study? Why people rely on comedians for their news?
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Table 4. Rankings Based on Distance from Center
Rank
News Outlet
ADA
Score
1
Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8
2
CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
56.0
3
ABC Good Morning America
56.1
4
Drudge Report
60.4
5
Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume
39.7
6
ABC World News Tonight
61.0
7
NBC Nightly News
61.6
8
USA Today
63.4
9
NBC Today Show
64.0
10
Washington Times
35.4
11
Time Magazine
65.4
12
U.S. News and World Report
65.8
13
NPR Morning Edition
66.3
14
Newsweek
66.3
15
CBS Early Show
66.6
16
Washington Post
66.6
17
LA Times
70.0
18
CBS Evening News
73.7
19
New York Times
73.7
20
Wall Street Journal
85.1
Note: The table gives our method's rankings of the most
to least centrist news outlet. The rankings are based
on the distance of the outlet's estimated ADA score
(from Table 3) to 50.06, our estimate of the average
U.S. voter's ADA score.
A perfect objective journalism score would e 50. from "http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm" Wonder why you've never heard of his study? Why people rely on comedians for their news?
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Thank you for the link to that study. I would be interested to see how the bias ratings have fared over the past four years, since the study was conducted. The charts displayed in the figures included in the study are similar to my perspective chart, only much more specific. The charts do support my suspicions concerning a few news outlets, but as I mentioned earlier, I would be interested to see how the last four years have affected, if at all, the ratings of some of those news sources.
LOOK at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) , Media Research Center,
The media is no longer to be trusted when it comes to political or ideological issues. The NY Time, NewsWeek, Time, and Washington Post have all been caught in outright lies, plagerism, and made up information. NBC, MSN, CBS, ABC also cannot be trusted to give you accurate and unbiased information. Reporters now do not report, spin information to further their cause, political affiliations, and ideology. This election cycle has exposed what was long suspected and believed but not thought probable, there is a deep and hateful liberal bias in the media. How sad. Most of these companies are not doing well and all I can say the sooner they go bankrupt the better. The liberal professors that produced these journalist clones should be ashamed of what they have wrought.
You could spend some time doing fact checks on the NY Time and Time Magazine. The Washington Post is also a pit of misinformation as well. For some real whoppers, listen to NBC and MSN news programs. ABC and CNN are not much better. The big story for the year is the overwhelming liberal bias (esp. Obama bias) in the media. It is so bad that the media really can't be trusted to tell the truth. How sad.
???Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.??? 'That study found 43 media outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate???Barack Obama???s coverage was slightly more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%)... John McCain???s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the poll "THE COLOR OF NEWS". The center was founded by a former Newsweek reporter.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Wonder why you've never heard of his study? Why people rely on comedians for their news?
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
I do understand what you are saying concerning the appearance of bias throughout the 2008 campaign, but there is also something to be said here about candidates providing ammunition to the media, who is constantly lying in wait for the next juicy piece of news that could be the next "big story." If one candidate or party is providing that feast to the media, moreso than the other, then the overall press coverage concerning that candidate will likely be negative - but it may be a beast of their own making.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
You did notice, didn't you, that this article was a debunk of falsehoods? It is not an opinion piece that should elicit your repetitive posts about bias. Refute the facts of the debunk, rather than chant 'bias', if you want any credibility.
Go to http://www.newsweek.com/id/156934 and complain about the bias there. I dare you.
If you do not, then all you have posted here is simply recounting of a perspective theme, not interest in truth.
That's the problem the stories debunked are one-sided and not objective. like you..
If you don't understand the relevance I cant explain it to you and you would not understand anyway.
who holds The press responsible? Obviously not you!, you would give aMulti Billlllion Idustry (part f heeeeeeeeentrtainment Industry) a passbut oooooooooe lone ise a assle.. I
i say take our own advice Brave r40R I gave you pof bt thaasno ewnught Like I kew ITwould nnt be
I do understand what you are doing. I decided to point that out after your multiple posts. You are off topic. I, for one am grateful for their debunks about the lies about Obama. Debunks of lies are always one-sided against the lie. I received an anonymous email, sometimes up to ten, for every lie about Obama that FactCheck and Snopes debunked. I still haven't seen you debunk any of those debunked lies, although you told me to 'do my own research' so you must have done your own, and I still haven't seen you do this whining at http://www.newsweek.com/id/156934 .
That's the problem the stories debunked are one-sided and not objective. like you..
If you don't understand the relevance I cant explain it to you and you would not understand anyway.
who holds The press responsible? Obviously not you!, you would give a $ Multi-Billion Industry (part of the entertainment Industry) a pass but one lone voice you hassle..
Ii say take our own advice Brave 40yearR!
I gave you three points of proof but that's not enough Like I knew It would not be1
The relevance is the Press hypocrisy when so many times the world press tell part truths or place emphasis which create a point of view and the call it objective when it s not a editorial or oped.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
The number one is the media. look at there press objectivity report some time.. This is rich, "Year-end WhoppersYear-end" , Its like reading Pravda.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
You might be more believable if you could debunk any of FactCheck's debunks. Until then you're repeating a propaganda slogan, not stating facts.
BE AN adult and do your own research like I do. Start with any election press objectivity report, like the one at PEW center... but there are others, and they all come to the same basic conclusions. press objectivity is a myth
Debunk one, ok? Or did you already hear what you want to hear?
What you can't find this? i suppose being a 40 yr old you're to ill equipped to find it on your own like me and must be spoon-fed like an infant.
gave you proof wheres yours?
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
PRESS OBJECTIVITY is A MYTH. Google the reports like I did.
Newsweak = Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Clear writing would help here ...
"Consider some of the bogus claims we've debunked just since Election Day: It's not true that unionized auto workers at Detroit's Big Three make more than $70 an hour, as claimed by some opponents of federal aid."
Are you debunking the claim that it's not true? Are you saying it is true? Too many double negative ideas here. About two minutes of work would have straightened up this sentence. It's really off-putting, considering that it's the first item in your list and I had to read the story three times to be sure I understood what you meant.
I'm not sure what this means -- you say you are debunking
Well done, give yourself a big pat on the back! Nothing like a large dose of self-egrandizemnet to end the year on.
As for the labor costs of U.S. auto workers, those labor costs are $70 plus dollars an hour, that the $70 plus dollars an hour doesn't go to one worker, but instead to current workers, retired workers and laid off workers, it's still the per hour labor costs to buid a U.S. auto. The comparable per hour labor cost to build a Toyota, Honda or any other foreign auto built in the U.S. is far less. That a significant competetive sales disadvantage for U.S. auto. The reasons for the differences are many, including most, if not all, of the foreign auto plants in the U.S. are in the South and non-union, but those reasons are not relevant. The relevant fact is that U.S. autos, if of comparable quality, are non competetive from a cost viewpoint. Until that changes, U.S. auto mkers are not going to be profitable.
EEEE-Gads!!
john mccain is our political tom cruise.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss