Slashdot Mirror

it's coming from the Fox News right.

Yes, because we never heard this kind of rhetoric when a Republican was in power.

Thank goodness we have those paragons of honesty on MSNBC!

it's coming from the Fox News right.

Yes, because we never heard this kind of rhetoric when a Republican was in power.

Thank goodness we have those paragons of honesty on MSNBC!

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Oh, those beautiful ideallists.

My observation is that the economy is getting worse. It doesn't make me "stupid" because I'm going by what I observe.

Fox News coverage of government effectiveness is entirely based on what political party is in power. If the Republicans are in the White House, the economy is fine. If the Democrats are even White House-elect, we are headed for economic collapse.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Plus she's the daughter of Carter's National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police.[5] Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary.[6] Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.

albeit deceased: Prior to becoming host of Meet the Press, Russert worked as a special counsel, and later as chief of staff, to U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan, a Democrat from New York. In 1983, he became the counsel to New York Governor Mario Cuomo, also a Democrat.

Before coming to the world of political reporting and analysis, Todd earned practical political experience on initiative campaigns in Florida and various national campaigns based in Washington, D.C.[3] While in college, Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and later started part time at The Hotline.

NBC is owned be General Electric, which is chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, whom sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. GE stands to make bucket loads of money off Obama's various programs, including health care reform, green energy initiatives, ACTA (through NBC Universal), etc.

And that's to say nothing of Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow which are self-admitted partisans but they do commentary not hard news, so I'll give them a pass just like O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck, none of which claim to do hard news either.


So, uh, yeah, MSNBC is very much a Fox News on the left. You may have some confirmation bias issues and whatnot that keep you from seeing it, but that doesn't mean MSNBC doesn't have staunch Democrats on staff... and those are just the hosts, whereas you seem to be stuck on Fox News's regular contributors... I'll bet you that I can find just as many liberal partisans with government ties on MSNBC's payroll too.

Probably at least 14; you remember Drudge's influence on "journalism" during the Clinton years? He's just a linkmeister like most of the web now, certainly not more of a journalist than Wikileaks providing resources to NY Times, etc. But still influential and drives the news narrative since most journalists (supposedly) have him as a home page to launch their leads. Or that's what he became famous for from the late 90's anyway. It's hard to say if he's a leader or follower now from my POV... My point however is that journalists haven't driven the news by original, non-wire "news" in a long-time. It's been agenda-driven no matter who the "journalists'" leaders or masters are.

Actually, MSNBC does it ALL THE TIME. Make sure to watch the video of the guy that's shot from the neck down and called a angry white racist. (The guy is actually black.)

Really? I seem to recall Mika Brzezinski (if that is her real name) admitting that she was "working with the White House" on oil spill talking points

If that's not propaganda, I don't know what is!

Media Matters is a media watchdog that is certainly politically motivated but frequently includes actual facts in their analysis. So it's a valid reference, and we can hope that readers will be intelligent enough to make up their own minds. I'll be nonpartisan and note that Newsbusters does the same thing, just from the other end of America's political spectrum.

Given the possible political angle, it is interesting to see what the different sides are saying about Righthaven.

I've not seen stories of LARGE groups of "RIGHT WINGERS" gathering to beat people up or drag people behind trucks.

I've seen the Obama Administration ignore CLEAR intimidation of voters (Black Panthers). I'm sure the violence at the G9/G20 summits was all because of the police, and not the peaceful protesters.

I haven't seen news lately of gays being beaten on a regular basis, I do see video of left wingers assaulting people all the time. If you want, I'll get you a list the MSM won't show you. But you'd chalk it up to Faux news or DrudgeReport hysteria. It only happens if CNN or NYT says it did.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2010/03/24/medias-myth-right-wing-violence

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Leboon&first=Norman

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6848176.ece

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/09/021387.php

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/09/25/msm-promotes-left-wing-fantasies-of-right-wing-violence/

I read through your link, and it isn't just from a left-leaning watchdog, it reads as if it is from the campaign page of a politician running for office. (IE: it only 'corrects' negatives, and doesn't address any myths and falsehoods that exist which may appear to be positive for her).

I agree. That site, Media Matters, is pretty much only reactionary to messages from Republicans. You've got to look elsewhere for research in the other direction, e.g. Newsbusters for a right-leaning watchdog, and Factcheck for a centrist/even-handed watchdog.

Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.

No he wasn't. He was going to be excluded from the philosopher's section of the curriculum. His place in the historical part of the curriculum wasn't going to be touched. The AP article is lying about the changes that were going to be made. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. Once I knew the truth, I applauded the changes to the curriculum.

After reading the linked article above I got curious as to what exactly the proposed changes were. I had a sneaking suspicion that someone wasn't telling the whole truth and after some searching it turns out that I was right. It seems that Jefferson was never going to be cut from the curriculum and most of the other changes the article mentions (which is based off an AP story) were either over exaggerated or flat out lied about. Here is the real truth: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joshua-sharf/2010/05/23/have-ap-or-denver-post-actually-read-new-texas-curriculum. This is just another example of how the media is just swallowing the lies the progressive wing is just throwing out there without doing any damn fact checking. Just like how they keep promoting net neutrality as good even though members of the administration have said quite openly that they have every intention of using the legislation to censor content: http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/05/20/dont-let-them-tell-you-they-dont-want-to-censor-the-internet/ How does the old saying go? Trust half of what you read and none of what you hear? With this administration that quote has never rung truer.

Feel strongly about climate change does he? Well, maybe there's a reason:

As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power). As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.

Read more

You must of had some yourself.

From: No Doubt About It: All But Fox News Tipping Obama's Way.(11/01/2008)

Two studies out in the past couple of days show that it's not just conservatives who see a strong tilt by journalists in favor of the Democrats: A nonpartisan media monitoring group and a liberal-leaning research organization both confirm the pro-Obama, anti-McCain bias of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.

Is that you, Rick Sanchez?

I linked to "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident". You are the ones calling it "Climategate", not me.

They refused to release their test data. Refused access to the test samples. Cherry picked tree ring test samples that better reinforced their point. Refused to disclose their algorithms. Can these people be called scientists? How can I independently check for their findings? Should I base national, nay global, policy on such shoddy work?

One flood in Australia does not refute global warming science.

I'll keep that in mind next time you tell me a dry spell at Australia in December (summer in the Southern Hemisphere) proves global warming. Or that a picture of polar bears on an ice floe during the summer proves global warming.

lets just hope sean penn doesn't befriend this lovelock character. your probably safe as long as you don't comment about hugo chavez or the castros.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator

Sorry for not posting sooner. Sick child in the house.

That's a bold assertion. What happens when they spend all the money on consumer goods produced in Asia?

Irrelevant. Those goods may be produced in Asia but they are sold by people with jobs here - advertisers, retail staff and so forth. I'm not up for getting into a massive discussion about it but take a look at http://cafehayek.com/myths-and-fallacies and some of the articles there. You should have more respect for his opinion than mine. To answer the second question, I'm not an economist but he is.

I find it interesting that you mention "Even the Austrians..." because I was just reading about that today. I really need to use some sort of web clipping addon.

Anyway, I would have to say I align myself pretty strongly with Hayek but my personal philosophy is whatever provides the greatest amount of individual economic freedom.

And I'm still looking for a good "unbiased" source of information on government spending. I hesitate to link to a third-party news source (especially News Busters) quoting Milton Friedman from a book, however this link has a subsection that is of interest:

http://newsbusters.org/node/27813/print

My google-fu isn't strong enough at this late hour but I also found an interesting statement:

"When the economy is doing fine, he estimates, $1 of government spending yields 40 cents in extra production and related jobs." - http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/does-the-return-on-government-spending-triple-in-a-depression/19200069/

In a such a short article, there's not much meat but I'm interested in seeing any corroboration and/or rebutal to the theories at the end.

Taken in light of the Friedman statements and the basic reality of where government gets its money would seem to suggest that there IS a very small window where government COULD stimulate the economy.

However that window is smaller, IMHO, than trying to hit a two-meter thermal exhaust port. On one side (spending too early) it's wasteful and takes money from the private sector. On the other side, you end up with massive inflation.

I think the safer course of action with those odds is to leave the money with the people who know how to spend it best in their situation, the people who earned it.

Yes, a very reasonable analogy. Let's reminisce:

... Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. ... If you really don't want to be perceived as a "brainwashed idiot", maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. ... As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. ... But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? ... And yes, that to me means "brainwashed idiot". ... get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! ... since you insist on being spoon-fed ... There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me. ... [Jane Q. Public]

... There's really no need to be so uncivilized. I'm just saying that all your posts on this subject clearly imply that scientists are either so stupid that they overlook trivially obvious "problems" with their own research, or are willing members in a global conspiracy. Based on your (mistaken) assumption that I haven't read this thread, I don't have to guess which of these alternatives you've chosen in my case. Pity. I bet conspirators get jetpacks!

And I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It'd be a different story if I was saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life's work... the subject that you've studied since childhood with the passionate intensity of a monk. I'd never insult you like that; at most I'd simply ask polite questions to try to understand your subject of expertise better. ... [Khayman80]

... I am not citing some "conspiracy theory", though I will admit that it may seem that way. Having a political agenda is not necessarily a "conspiracy". It is quite possible for groups of quite well-meaning people, given similar agendas, to appear to be conspiring when in fact they are not. On the other hand, some people might indeed be conspiring, or at least deviously planning: the companies Al Gore set up stand to make a grand fortune in trading carbon credits if caps are legislated. Some of those deals were in the works before he made his movie. ... [Jane Q. Public]

... Notice that I wasn't attempting to use my research to support any particular cause of climate change. I aimed that statement squarely at your conspiracy theory. You might be able to convince nonscientists that there's a massive conspiracy (unintentional or not) among scientists, and ironically any reference I produce to show that ~84% of scientists oppose your position would probably just solidify your belief in an evil conspiracy. My personal anecdote was only intended to show you that I've personally verified glacier melt through its effect on time-variable gravity above the glaciers in Greenland and Alaska. Because of this first-hand experience, I'm very skeptical that there's any large-scale incompetence or data manipulation in the scientific community. ... [Khayman80]

And were derided as birthers for wanting to make sure he was in compliance with the Constitution.

Irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said his personal life was ignored. That is false.

Nobody complained about GWB's dad before election or during his time in office?

Again, irrelevant. We are talking about Obama, not Bush.

Someone chooses to associate with someone for 20 years, someone they call their spiritual adviser, and now that person is off limits too?

I never said they were off limits. I said people were examining (extensively) who his pastor was. A pastor, being a spiritual adviser, is a very personal relationship. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Fox News did some digging on him, they are the lone "they" from the media as far as your statements above go. Where were the other media outlets? Virtually all of them gave him a pass as far as investigating just who he was. Why else would Tom Brokaw feel the need to say that we don't really know who Obama is AFTER he was elected if he was fully vetted beforehand?

Again, bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wright-dominated-news-coverage/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_birth_certificate/2009/07/22/238969.html

Even fucking Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obamas-church-pushes-cont_n_92802.html

Anyone that did attempt to dig through his history was excoriated for it. Look at what people did to Joe the Plumber just for asking him a question that exposed more of Obama's real views than the Obama campaign really wanted the public to know. The media ran cover for him, even going so far as to completely make up stories that would make him more sympathetic (like the one about someone publicly threatening to harm/kill Obama at a McCain rally. The Secret Service investigated and found no such threat).

Again, irrelevant. You made a claim which essentially said Obama's personal life was ignored. That is false.

Regardless of the reaction or fallout from looking into his personal life, to try and say it wasn't widely scrutinized is an outright lie.

Wow. With that level of eloquence and reason, you should be on Fox News

MSNBC: Yes, Fox News is biased and lacks reasoning, unlike us here at MSNBC.

It isn't ad-hominem if it's true.

However, your point is correct. Fox did make a mistake with the party affiliation in the highlighted instance. They also corrected the mistake in the next broadcast and several times over the following day.

Hardly a case for "lying" and "repeatedly representing Republicans as Democrats". Indeed, the few mistakes Fox has made, have been called out by it's OWN people often before anyone else has had a chance to digest it.

Unlike, say, most of the rest of the media, who are SO bad at it that sites like NewsBusters have made a regular topic out of it: Name That Party.

I don't claim that Fox News is perfect. FAR FROM IT. But at the same time, to try and use a massively biased leftwing troll site to provide "evidence" of some "vast Republican Conspiracy" in collusion with Fox news is just nuts.

Also, I realize that we all tend to see the world through the lens of ourselves. Being bias-free is nigh-on impossible. But where there are serial examples of obvious bias bordering on gross journalistic malfeasance it's appropriate to call it out.

I apologize if I came across a bit rudely, it's been a rough week at work. (and it's only Tuesday. Ugh.)

I know brother, Thankfully it is not nearly the level of Bias on MS "Text my blackberry please" NBC.

Media should be Ashamed, They always yelled about people receiving Republican marching orders of some sort, While they have been doing it. thou dost protest too much, methinks I would love to get me some of those marching orders from the Republicans because that would mean they actually are not in shambles and chaotic.

MSNBC makes shit up too.

Just like Climate change is just the issue being used to promote world government. Doesn't really matter what the issue so long as it helps justify the objective. Controlling Carbon Dioxide is NO different than the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax, other than DHMO was meant from the beginning to make a point... which evidently most people still don't seem to get.

Even Al Gore has come out recently to say that "It isn't Global Warming, it is about Global Climate Change".

Yes, ice has been melting AND ice has been forming. Overall, there is MORE ice. The past decade has seen significant cooling just like there should have been based on solar cycles as people have known and understood for hundreds of years.

I am sorry you can't go outside and ice skate any more, but how is a comparison of a generalization of a lake near your house as a kid versus a generalization of it as an adult evidence for or against anthropogenic global climate change? Also, nothing you have said shows any evidence that any of this change would be bad. Directly related, there were many predictions made in the 90's about "global warming". Storms, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, and cannibals. None of these predictions have even remotely come true, not to mention strong evidence that the people that made the "predictions" never believed them in the first place (Ok, maybe they did it for the insurance policy). 4 Dead polar bears and some broken ice prompted book signings more than anything else.

The only real truth to come out of this is what we already knew: The climate is really weird and unpredictable, and thus far NOBODY has been able to create a model to even remotely predict it. You do know that when the "weatherman" says "there is a 40% chance of rain today" means there is a 40% chance you are in a place that is raining right now. That's it!

What we CAN see are very real consequences of this hoax. Just as the DDT hoax is easily responsible for 40+ million deaths in Africa that were totally preventable, the United Nations and European Union have been denying third world sovereign nations the right to industrialize under the threat of war justifying it with "data" about their supposed "carbon footprint". Independent nations with the natural resources, the technology, and skill, and certainly plenty of labor to make much of Africa thrive allowing them to provide FOR THEMSELVES electricity, steel, clean water, and all the other things we take for granted are being denied. People are being denied the right to take care of themselves.

Genocide has always been justified. They don't worship the right God, and God is going to punish us if we don't kill them, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us. Their blood is different, so we need to kill them so they don't pollute the gene pool and we die of horrible disease, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us. We don't have enough food to feed everybody, and we can't let everybody starve, so we are going to have to let you die (oh yeah, there is still some "debate" over whether or not the grain silos were full at the time, but that is just an academic issue). Sorry all you darkies are dying of Malaria, but after we cured all our land, it turns out there is this one study that found a bird laid a soft eggs and we think it might be related, you are all just going to have to die because we would hate to think another bird might lay another soft egg.

So you tell me, just how sure are you about this Global Warming thing, this Anthropogenic Climate Change thing, keeping in mind this goes a LITTLE bit further than regulating what additives in your hair spray might end up in the ozone layer.

Yes, there are real environmental issues, air pollution, water pollution and such which are rightfully local issues that people in their communities can actually deal with. "Global Warming" is a scam and an

Since the owners of Google were big supporters of the Democratic Party and had Al Gore in as a consultant on optimizing their search engine. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality

They also refereed to it in the Daily Show episode linked above.

I really wish you were joking. The taxpayer exposure to all of the bailouts is at $23.7 Trillion.

Back in April it was reported that bailouts had already reached near our entire GDP at $12.8 Trillion. With that much money you could launch an Ares rocket every day for 78 years.

Medicare fraud is estimated to be at least $60 Billion.

Letting banks steal whatever wealth is left in the US doesn't seem like money well spent by Congress.

I don't understand. Your subject says news, but your post says Fox. Which is it? Fox xor a news website?

Wake up. That ain't Fox.

Can you say "New York Times"? Great! I knew you could!

Get how they whitewash Obama's Olympic FAIL:

Lame Gray Lady: NYT Scrubs Major Portion of Original Obama-Olympics Article, Inserts Meeting with McChrystal

Those who read the New York Times's coverage of the unsuccessful results of Barack and Michelle Obama's attempt to seal the 2016 Summer Olympics bid for Chicago on Friday afternoon ('For Obama, an Unsuccessful Campaign") might want to read it again.

If it doesn't seem the same, it's because it isn't.

See the whitewash right next to the original here.

You think the NY Times is going to be able to hide the fact that Obama's done NOTHING? Lordy, even Saturday Night Live is now running skits where 0bama is (weakly) lambasted for accomplishing "Jack" and "Squat".

And I think you missed this one: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/un-s-ipcc-accused-possible-research-fraud

The minutes of a meeting of scientists cherry-picked by the UN for their universal agreement with the man-made global warming hypothesis hardly counts as a credible source. "Everyone agrees with us" is not a scientific argument. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

I did a google search for "time magazine joker bush cover" and this was nested under the 1st result:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/03/obama-joker-poster-starts-outrage-bush-joker-poster-not-so-much

To all the replies that said the the difference between the two is obvious, I completely agree. One is of Bush and the other is of Obama. That, and the Time Mag image is a drawing while the poster was photo edited in Photoshop. Other than that, both were in very bad taste. Even in the posts to the gp everybody wants to defend what Time did.

It's just weird that that kind of blatant bias comes from people who claim to be giving equal treatment. The double-standard is alive and well.

If by miracle my post is not drowned down into depths of oblivion, note that Dubya was depicted tens of times with very unflattering altered photos, and so was Cheney, while the W. administration was in power - and nobody complained.
See this or this, for example.

Also, while Mc Cain was campaigning, this rather shocking picture was publicized by The Atlantic - who later recanted and apologized - but the point is, nobody in the McCain camp complained, let alone did you have public and officers making a fuss about it.

But with Obama, the thought police is up in arms bigtime.

And they are right to be: Obama is sacred and he farts rainbows, and his words are words of wisdom, and he poops gold nuggets. And Obama won't speak up: it is the Will of the People that is against any criticism of the Beloved President.

no different than putting "SOCIALIST" on Obama's picture.

Unless you're a leftwing loon, in which case those that call Obama (PBHN) Socialist are "Racists" as they try to promote the idea that "Socialist" is just a code word for "THE NEW N WORD".

Yes, because the only reason to criticized Obama (PBHN) is because he is black, and not because his policies are stupid ignorant socialist garbage.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//090803/ids_photos_ts/r3995144343.jpg/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV3jgYHvTmk

http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/08/Obama%20Joker%20Poster%20Popping%20Up%20In%20Los%20Angeles.jpg

I always wondered what it would be like to live in some 3rd world shithole with giant mosaics of the divinely chosen Dear Leader on every surface...

• A sizable majority of scientists believe in global warming.
• There was no consensus in the 1970s about global cooling. (I didn't know this)
• The plan to cover the poles in soot was exaggerated. (I didn't know this)
• Organizations that provide statistics on economics or climate change usually have a bias.

You admitted that a consensus can be wrong, but added

it's hubris for laypeople to dismiss it all as a vast academic conspiracy to get grant money.

I don't mean to dismiss it outright, and certainly not as a conspiracy. I think it comes back to money, as most things do. If grant money is more and more going to scientists that support global warming, it's in their self-interest to do so, no conspiracy needed. Being "green" is extremely popular right now. Many businesses also are making money from making "green" products, and car ads and household product ads are all mentioning how "green" they are. I don't think this is a big conspiracy. I'm also not saying it's a bad thing, being environmentally conscious is great. And I don't mean to suggest that the work these scientists are doing is bunk because there's a possibility they're just doing it for grant money. But the temperature record shows cooling or flat temperatures since 1998, historical cyclical swings in climate unrelated to humans, some studies showing antarctic ice growing, and so it seems to me like hubris or conceit to assume humans are causing disastrous global warming. In your link to Wikipedia it mentions some scientists that think it could even be a good thing if it happens.

Epic disaster is a 5 mile wide asteroid hitting the Earth. Epic disaster is the Yellowstone supervolcano covering the entire planet in ash. Epic disaster is a gamma ray burst from outer space eradicating all life. Large disasters are earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. Any disaster means widespread destruction and many people dying. Having to change your address is not a disaster. Many people have been nomadic since ancient times. If there are more jobs in California than Missouri, people will move there. Mass migrations happen for many different reasons all the time. Some are bad like a hurricane dissuades people from living Louisiana, or an evil dictator commits genocide and refugees flock to neighboring countries. Some are good like the gold rushes in California and Alaska, or people moving to Florida because they prefer to retire there. And you seem to refuse to acknowledge that this would happen over the course of centuries. No mass deaths. Things would change slowly. That's where I'm coming from. Maybe we have a slightly different view of how big a calamity it would be. I will say I agree with you that it would be best if New York and LA stayed above sea level. But the point is, we don't know if it's us causing this, or if capping carbon will stop it. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, there would probably be nothing we could do about it, and the hardships this bill would put on us would be for nothing.

How big the hardshi

Just pointing something out.

Sure, it's not necessarily representative of their entire coverage, but when it comes to events that truly matter Fox News is overwhelmingly more fair than most any other news outlet. All the others showed heavy favoritism to the Obama campaign.

In contrast, the Fox News Channel treated both candidates to roughly the same level of good and bad press, with Obama earning just slightly better press than McCain. One-fourth of Obama stories on Fox (25%) were positive, compared to 22% of McCain's coverage. Both candidates received exactly the same proportion of negative stories on FNC, 40%.

I'd like to see a similar study comparing right/left topics in general, perhaps weighted with the importance of the stories (difficult, the importance would have to be relatively subjective). Fox wouldn't fair as well, unless you consider the fact that most of their right-wing shows seem to be trash news for the most part. You could probably toss the talk shows from all the networks and get a decent look at how they stand on actual reporting.

Perhaps Fox only seems so far right because everything else is so far left?

My 2 cents anyway.

He wouldn't want you to waste your question!

If you look at Newsweek I would see a every so slightly liberal agenda.

You're joking, right? Here are two photos from the same issue, one of Obama, one of McCain. You think they treat both equally? (Ignore the source, just look at the pictures).
Then, there's this:
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liberal-bias-at-newsweek/

Oh, hell, I'm tired of finding articles. Just google "Newsweek bias" (no quotes) and read through the over 850,000 hits. Funny, none of them mention Newsweek as bring biased to the right.

I'll agree that Fox is right of center, but they are alone. That's why they are number one. Conservatives make up about 40% of the population. Liberals make up about 40%. The problem for most of the media is that Fox automatically gets most of the conservative 40%. The rest of the media has to split up the liberal audience.

As for MSNBC... I don't know if they are left of Newsweek, but they are definitely left. Even their not-supposed-to-be-biased journalists got "thrills up their legs" when Obama spoke. Then there is Olbermann. What a joke! The guy can't be parodied because he is a parody of himself. Oh, and didn't NBC put him back on football on Sunday nights to try to promote him? Yeah, no bias in that network.

And yeah, radio is far right, but it sells. Air America tried it and failed. They had to steal money from charities to stay afloat. Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest don't have that problem. Liberals just don't listen to talk radio.
As for TV, it appears that liberals don't sell too well there either, but these guys don't really care much. Their ideology trumps their pocket books, for now.

Oh, and the Big Three, NBC, ABC and CBS, may not be terribly liberal on their local news, but their national news shows are extremely liberal. Are you telling me that Katie Couric is a conservative? The closest thing I've seen to a conservative on any of the network news shows has been John Stossel, and he's not really conservative. He's a libertarian who just calls it like he sees it. He'll gladly hammer either side when they are acting stupid. The guy's awesome!

If you take the entire US media market and then look at it in perspective globally the whole thing including Washington Post is actually biased to the right

I love the BBC. Not their specials, but their interviews. They'd hammer Mother Theresa if they got an interview. They ask the hard questions of anyone. They simply don't care who they offend.

Finally, as for stem cell research... read my sig. It is a close quote from the guy that practically invented stem cell research. (the whole quote wouldn't fit within the 2 to 3 words you are allowed as a sig). The full quote is "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough". But you are correct on the left of me part, but that's human nature.

The bottom line is that we all see center of the road to be right in front of us. So anyone to the right of us is right of center. Conservatives see Fox News as truly "Fair and Balanced" and liberals see them as far right wing. It's compounded when Fox is compared to the rest of media. I try to base my comparison by comparing them to the competition. I also look at things like, "how many liberals do I see on Fox News?" "How many conservatives do I see on MSNBC?" Answers: Plenty and Zero, respectively. So, by that alone, Fox is much more balanced than MSNBC. (Many liberals actually work at Fox as returning talking heads and true, full time employees)

Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.

Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.

Reality is how you spin it. Sure, MSNBC can interview two documentary producers to appear non-biased, but treat them both very differently. HERE is an example.

Yes, NewsBusters is a "right-wing" site, however, they do post the entire transcript so you can make up your own mind.

Additionally, Hall offered almost no tough questions, instead tossing softballs such as "What is your observation, having been [to Afghanistan] recently, regarding the Obama administration's plans?" Uninterrupted, Greenwald was allowed to later assert, "Well, again, remember that many people there believe that troops are not the answer. Troops contribute to the problem." He also instructed that the U.S. should send 17,000 teachers instead of soldiers. At the close of the interview, he complained, "But, I think we all get trapped in, as one of my friends in Afghanistan said, 'Shoot first. Think later.'"

In contrast, on January 9, when MSNBC host David Shuster interviewed John Ziegler about his movie on the media's treatment of Sarah Palin, the anchor got into a heated argument with the filmmaker, repeatedly challenging the "conservative documentary's" thesis and deriding, "John, you and Sarah Palin can't take any responsibility for the fact that she wasn't prepared to run for vice president."

Is it really a journalists job to state as fact that Sarah Palin wasn't prepared to run for VP? Regardless of your "opinion" of Sarah Palin, it's just that, an OPINION, and JOURNALISTS shouldn't be spouting theirs. It's not their job.

Intellectual property piracy: "This is theft""

Heck if you 'like' Holder for those views, during the Clinton administration, he promoted that Free Speech should be limited . Heck, there are even videos of him on YouTube speaking about to this....

Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'

If you watch the news, any news, most of the folks in "journalism" are liberal and want bigger, more intrusive government. They can play the stupid games claiming they're "main stream" but it is BS and we all know it. The government is the best path, because the masses are stupid and can't be trusted. So why would you expect them to tilt their headline any other way? Removing the cameras is an anti-government/less-government move. Liberal* is not the same as Libertarian, which is what I think the submitter is expecting from the dinosaur media.

While I think /. tends to lean left from the way the summaries are spun to the multiple negative responses I got from a comment a couple of weeks ago saying I didn't want federal gov't to run healthcare - I still get the impression that a lot us in the /. crowd are probably as much libertarian as anything else.

-Horatio

* Liberal, Progressive, Modern, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. I can't keep up.

Arctic Ice? See this

For some reason the second article linked to does not show, only some of the comments do. But the original article linked to though says the sea ice grew back fast. Googling "arctic sea ice" returns a lot of links saying the same. One of them though says "January Arctic Sea Ice Extent Sixth Lowest In History". So while the ice that came back may of come fast, not all of it did.

You cannot blame Bush for Saddam's behavior.

You're right but you can blame the Bush admin for calling Ritter a traitor. And what about the silence about those who said there were no WMDs? I clearly recall seeing then Secretary of State Colin Powell standing up in front the UN Security Council with a bunch of documents saying there were a number of weapons or factories that could make WMDs. But there wasn't anything denying this.

Nor was anything said about how the US helped Saddam when he did use WMDs. Yes, the US did help Saddam when he used WMDs. All through the Reagan years and part of the first Bush's term in office Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. On 27 July 1987 Saddam used chemical weapons against a Kurdish city for instance. It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait when support for him ended.

Falcon

Scott Ritter changed his tune abruptly shortly before we invaded Iraq. I never did figure out why but I'm sure there's a story there. Saddam's "hide and seek" game with UN inspectors is well documented. If he hadn't been so defiant, we never would have invaded. You cannot blame Bush for Saddam's behavior.

Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Third Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Not only the third but now even the 4th have been discredited. They mis-reported the science, and in some cases the "science" in them was actual fraud!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third many-years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

And the fifth reference you cite (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: I asked for something other than that, thank you very much.) Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Even the report before last was discredited, unreliable, and largely retracted!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

In short, 4 of the 5 references you cite above are solely based on the flawed Assessment Reports from the IPCC, and the fifth (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: If you go back and look, you will see that I specifically asked you for something other than that because it is known to be flawed, thank you very much.)

Sorry, guy, but you should know better than to use Wikipedia as your source on such matters. I can do better than that with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back.

Here is the public letter from Chris Landsea, explaining why he had his name removed from participation in the IPCC studies: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Here are a bunch more links. No, they are not all peer-reviewed scientific papers, but they sure do refer to a bunch of them. Follow the link chain as deeply as you care to, but they pretty much all contradict your position:

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html [jennifermarohasy.com]

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786 [heartland.org]

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971 [newsbusters.org]

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the reports: http://oldsarges.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-reiter-takes-on-ipcc.html [blogspot.com]

Global Warming: Science versus Fraud http://www.forces.

Do you know why they removed the story? Because the claim was renounced yesterday by KHQA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Whoosh.

Well, it appears to be a political barrier. I recall several dozen instances over the last couple years of AP and Reuters photojournalists and/or editors altering photos of the fighting in Israel and Iraq.

For instance:

AP, Reuters, etc. alters photos of Lebanon war

There's a lot more out there of this kind of thing. If it's not altered photographs, it's lying captions or inaccurate information in the articles when it comes to "political" topics which

Which is more dishonest: using photographs which have been altered to improve the appearance of the subject (such as a media headshot as this photo is) or changing something which matters? Or, for that matter, favoring ugly, angry, or stupid looking photos of politicians your organization has ideological differences with, while using favorable photography of those you prefer?

Plenty of evidence there of the AP behaving badly - not just "using" altered photos, but seemingly encouraging it when it suits their political agenda. (In the above cases, that agenda appears to be "destroy Israel".)

The reason they make such a big deal about something like this general's photo is (at least) two fold:

1) They want to provide a smoke screen for when they make photo alterations themselves/use altered photos from their journalists unknowingly.
2) They want to penalize the military (due to ideological differences, apparently)

The AP hasn't been a serious, honest news organization to any significant degree since shortly after World War II. Or, if you prefer not using moral platitudes, they were at least not attacking their own culture and country(s).

The AP, or any other news organization for that matter, taking the Army to task for this is beyond asinine, given their recent (past 10-years) record.

Presidents, President Elects and other high profile people are going to draw a far greater number of wackos than a private citizen vainly clinging to their fifteen minutes of fame.

You mean like all of the wackos that came out believing that Obama was the second coming of Jesus? The reason I'm sympathetic to his security concerns is that I stopped supporting Obama because of all of the wild-eyed zealots the man was attracting to him. Not that I supported McCain, who had some lunies of his own, but Obama clearly had a lot more people willing to take any attack on him as deeply personal, as was shown when he was able to rally his supporters to shut down several radio stations that had Stanley Kurtz discussing Obama.

Oh and that reference to the guy who called for Joe to be murdered? Not too hard to find.

.
Yet changing a stock head shot background from an office to a flag, and touching up skin is a hideous travesty of judgment. Glad to know the AP has standards!