"It must be hard for older hardcore conservatives...Goldwater....Strom Thurmond..."straw women." Price of taking orders, I guess; when Karl Rove says shut up and pretend to hate racism, you shut up, don't you."
I've always hated it, in all its forms. Goldwater I know little about. Thurmond and Dixiecrats I dislike. Karl Rove? I have no idea what he says on it, and I doubt he will change my mind on it. Give me a link to his "orders" and I will check it out.
"For the record though, even though I figure you're slandering FAIR"
More evidence of FAIR bias. I found this in FAIR's own site. A story about how Jeff Cohen was producer on (what FAIR called) a left-wing show on MSNBC. He describes his efforts to keep it to the left. Figure out who Cohen is, and you will see that the bias is at the top.
"I don't support race-based affirmative action either. I'd rather see those sorts of things confined to education, and based on ecomonics"
We could argue about it, but you have stated a good deal of what I think about it very well.
"Hi. My name [the rest is a false quote, which I will ignore in favor of real quotes]"
No, propaganda is propaganda, and it was illegal"
What is "Propaganda" is a matter of opinion.
"The Fairness Doctrine says that political propaganda is illegal."
Have you even read it? The doctrine specifically sllows for pressure against media in order to be "balanced". The result was that radio stations would rather play music than face frivolous lawsuits for letting someone say an opinion that they would get sued over because it was inbalanced. The "Fairness doctrine" meant that if you had political content, you could get harassed by frivolous lawsuits.
""What you really like is propaganda."
What I really like is freedom of expression. Yes, there is plenty I do not like (what you term "propaganda"), but let them have their say.
"That's every American's god-given right, and anyone who says otherwise is a fascist."
It was specifically "fascist" for you to declare expression of political opinion as illegal.
"You are like a little baby, really, calling names."
I have yet to...
"And it's funny, coming from a [another two-paragraph long list of insults and name-calling]"
"What I want the federal government to do is say if major networks want to lease the airwaves they must provide one hour of news between 7pm and 11pm without any ads, either during, before, or after the news."
I think it is a bad idea for the rulers of a country to micro-manage media content in this fashion. If there is a public demand for such programming, surely someone will do it.
"ClearChannel has flattened radio diversity almost to nothing"
There has been a lot of hype in the drive to censor them, but there are some pretty damning facts that make the case against Clear Channel to be weak:
They control less than 8% of United States radio stations. Consider this fact against the claim of a Clear Channel monopoly.
In every single market I've checked (I've only looked at very big cities), they control something between 10% and 35% of the radio stations. Far short of a majority, far short of a monopoly.
"In order for FAIR to have done so, there would have to be left-wing mass media in the US"
There certainly are. According to poll after poll, the average American sees the mainstream media as being a little left of center. While that does not make them far left wing, it makes them left wing anyway. In addition, there are individual left-wing media giants such as Michael Moore and others who have a mass audience and mass appeal.
"And even if such mythical beasts did exist, in order for FAIR to have written a report about them, they would have had to have been lying as egregiously as Fox"
Michael Moore, while sticking with the facts for most of "Fahrenheit 911", got a few whoppers into it. FAIR has been silent.
"And Murdoch's newspapers and TV stations have also manipulated the political process in other countries where they have operated. For this reason alone, they should be shut down"
Translation: they have said things you don't want said, so they should be censored. Again, I defend the right of the left and right wing media to say what it wants.
"Murdoch should have his US passport revoked and be sent back to Oz tarred and feathered"
Or send him to the gulag? How dare he say things you don't want said! (I have similarly defended Michael Moore against conservatives who similarly want him censored).
"Now THAT's the moderate position"
You think it is a "moderate" idea to call for torture and the breakup of families of those who express opinions you do not like? You think it is "moderate" to call for censorship of one side, but not not the other.
"Your idea of the "center" is nothing but lukewarm agreement with the propaganda that you replay with all the intelligence of a parrot."
No, my idea of center involves a tolerance for freedom of expression of both the right and left.
"That isn't debate, that's just evidence that you are incapable of conceiving alternatives to the status quo"
I am quite capable of conceiving of, and rejecting such "alternatives" that involve (as you demanded) physical violence against and punishment of people for having the wrong political views. As far as debate tactics go, last time I checked "deport your opponent" is not part of the Harvard rules. I guess you really must be afraid of something.
"I see no examples of FAIR being incorrect, to tell you the truth. Point out a specific one, and we can chat about it, otherwise I'm going to have to assume you're not interested in honest debate."
The FAIR vs Limbaugh argument was an argument between the hard-left and the hard-right. They kept it an an insulting Crossfire vein with FAIR labelled Limbaugh's response a "non-response". The left wingers think FAIR got all of them right. The right-wingers think Limbaugh got them all right.
That report is rather old, but the first thing that comes to mind of the ones FAIR blew was Limbaugh's argument about European poverty. Limbaugh considered all of Europe in his argument. FAIR's rebuttal chose 4 of the richest countries and averaged them together. That's pretty obviously bad.
Right above that item was one where Limbaugh denied that HUD cut funds OVERALL under Reagan. FAIR's rebuttal showed a decline in funding in ONE aspect of HUD (while ignoring that the funding was increased in other areas of their operation).
Limbaugh's item about condom failure rate? The stats are all over the board. He says 20%. FAIR's source said 0. However, Planned Parenthood said 30% when it came to preventing HIV transmission.
There are plenty of items in the list that FAIR "got" Limbaugh on. I'm not listing them since we agree on these already, most likely.
FAIR is certainly not centrist. If they were, they would hit the left-wingers as well as the right-wingers. The would have item-by-item hits about Michael Moore like they do about Rush Limbaugh. If they were centrist, they would probably not be so zealous as to slip up by counting only the rich countries in an argument about European poverty to "score a point" with those who would not bother to fact-check.
"Translation: as far as I know there is no actual evidence, because if I had actually seen it I would just provide a link, but please go do the research to back up my outrageous claims for me. Thank you."
Real translation: there is overwhelming proof that even a lazy 3rd grader would see if they did a Google search.
"What part of hell do lying race baiters go to?
Hope it is deep and hot! Racism in all its forms is pretty bad (and that is my opinion).
How could we stop you, Mr. [list of insults....]
You are flying off the handle. Take a deep breath.
And why did they break it? Because they were planning to broadcast propaganda, at that was illegal.
In this context, "propaganda" is political opinions you do not agree with. That is not illegal. Refer to the Constitution again.
It's fortunately relatively easy to identify propagandists like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, and quite understandable to want to ban them from the airwaves.
Your desire to ban political content you do not like makes you a fascist when it comes to media. That is not an insult, just a fact. Did you get this idea from the People's Republic of China?
"And it is a fact, AtariAmarok that you [list of off-topic insults]"
The problem is that you are playing a one sided game of Crossfire, and I don't want to play. I'll criticize both sides and even defend them, while you are only carrying water for one wing.
Hint #1: long, long ago [list of technicalities to change the subject]
Excuse me for not playing by your arbitrary rules. However, it is clear you would rather discuss these rules than discuss the facts.
"I see no examples of FAIR asking for anyone to be hired, or fired, based on skin color. Instead, they point out that most urban media outlets have staff makeups that do NOT reflect the communities they broadcast to."
How do you achieve what FAIR demands? By racist hiring practices: hiring and firing based on skin color.
" I'm afraid. FAIR is pretty centrist"
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, decying right-wingers but not left wingers. Do searches on Michael Moore, Rush Limbuagh, and Al Franken, and others. You will only find them bashing the right-wingers.
"OK, cite the source, Mr. "what I say is a fact as long as I say it is a fact."
Do a Google search on fair.org and race and media. Take care to look only at the links inside fair.org. Yes, they want people hired and fired in media just for their skin color. What a bunch of bigots. Race matters....only to racists.
"By the way, just for the record... in your world, Janet Jackson should be allowed to show both tits, right? Porn should be legal on TV?"
As long as it is not falsely labelled as programming for kids, that is fine.
"No, it is not. It would only really make sense if you, and me, and everyone else who wanted could have a TV station, and all those stations could fit in the first few channels."
I guess I am too much of a civil libertarian to want the government to decide what speech is "fair" and what isn't! Sorry, I oppose censorship even if (what does it matter!?!?!) there are few channels.
" ask if you can even link to anything by FAIR that's not fine"
I named and described a rather famous report from a while ago. You are too lazy to look it up, but not too lazy to whine "gimme a link". I am beginning to wonder if you even know what FAIR's own web site is.
"And that is you parading slander and insults and name calling as facts"
Pointing out the facts about FAIR is not slander. Whether it is name calling or insults depends on your own opinion.
"Mr. "what I say is a fact as long as I say it is a fact."
"hand because news companies are typically owned bycorporations, some would argue that the repsonsibility of a corporation lies with serving its shareholders"
....which translates into public accountability. The shareholders are happy when the station makes $$$$, and it does this by selling ads, which it can best do when it serves the public by providinng programming around the ads that the public wants.
Only if it is factual. If it is mere opinion, or sarcasm, of course I don't believe it "true".
"Because they are not facts, they are name calling [nya nya nya]"
I guess it worked, because your diversion has made me forget what we were discussing.
""You don't like groups like FAIR, who do the real work every day of trying to keep bias (including racial bias) out of the media. You slander them when they become inconvenient"
One of the reasons I don't like FAIR is because they have fought FOR racial bias. They love bias if it fits their views. However, I have yet to slander them.
"The Fairness Doctrine merely says that broadcast media should be unbiased."
Which itself is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government has no place micro-managing media content. Thankfully, this "doctrine" is long gone. FAIR has benefitted: re-instating the fairness doctrine would knock their "Counterspin" program off the air. If people will listen to them, Limbaugh AND Hannity AND "FAIR" AND Pacifica ALL belong on the air. That is how it should be: the people determine what is fair, not the government.
"And you are still avoiding finding anything specific not to like about that FAIR report."
You are setting up a straw man. You were arguing with me about the FAIR Fox 9/11 report before I ever read it. Then I read it, and found no complaints with it. You are STILL fighting.
"Because you don't know anything about it that's inaccurate. In fact, you don't know much about FAIR at all"
The 9/11 report is new to me, so I do not know anything inaccurate about it. I know plenty else about FAIR however, and can accurately describe them (fact) and to dislike their pro-censorship attitude and racism (opinion).
Some "thugs" they are, trying to give us a little more control over our own money. I wonder if there are muggers like this (who put money into your wallet!).
Are you still asserting that FAIR is centrist? Unlike you, I choose to measure these matters from the center. I don't count "center" as "where I stand".
"pretending name-calling equals facts, and refusing to cite any sources"
Why not deal with the facts, instead of diversion into a pointless argument of whether or not certain facts are "name calling"?
"Hey, didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to stay off the race thing"
Forgive me, I just don't like racism.
"Conservatives especially love to censor the media. Most violence is fine, but Heaven Forbid if there's anything sexual, or disrespectful of Christianity, watch those rabid First Amendment crusaders head right for the phone booth to change costumes."
This is true. It is also true that liberals especially love to censor the media, especially if it is "politically correct", broadcasts violate "fairness doctrines", or something with religious content they do not like appears.
If you don't recognize BOTH of these, or try to deny it, it shows your bias.
"By definition if you lie, you yourself do not believe what you are saying. Or are you suggesting that deliberate falsification of facts by commentators is acceptable"
No, I'm just stating the fact that these two men are hired to "be themselves". And yes, the presentation of opinions that others might not like is "acceptable".
"If so, a fascinating glimpse into the heart of Republican "morality." "
The same is true of Al Franken. Nothing partisan about this "morality".
"The story wasn't fake. One piece of evidence was not corroborated (never proven false by the way) and the right wing spin machine went into overdrive to "discredit" the story."
It was an entirely faked document. Right wing overdrive? I guess CBS is part of it (they have fully discredited the story after a review, and fired those responsible), and anyone who thinks that a "historic" document using modern MS Word fonts is fishy must be a "right winger".
"The Conservative line is that Conservative Propaganda is fair, and everything that is not Conservative Propaganda is biased"
The term "propaganda" is meaningless in such discussions. I think you use it to mean "information you do not like". My take? Information is information. Let everyone decide if it is fair or not. And chances are, if someone opens their mouth, they are rather biased. Or biased like a fox.
Except that what I pointed out is provable and admitted.
By the way, I just now looked at the FAIR report you mentioned. I had never seen it, or commented on it before. It is quite interesting. Have they done similar reports against the left-wing media? Also, more importantly, I wonder what a centrist group has to say about it. As far as other FAIR reports go, I have picked apart and verified others against the truth. For example, their claim of Limbaugh's 100 lies. Probably less than 1/3 were Limbaugh's lies. The rest were mostly differences of opinion. A few were even lies by FAIR. It doesn't make Limbaugh look good to even have that pile of 30 or so lies, but it makes you wonder what FAIR is about if it does not think that they are bad enough: it has to make up most of its list of Limbaugh transgressions.
I've also listened many times to FAIR's weekly radio programme. They have devoted a lot of time to such things demanding racial discrimination in media, and pushing to censor those with views they do not like (come on guys, if you don't like it change the channel).
"1. No one in the white house denied the essential facts in the memo"
Why even waste time refuting fake memos? (i.e. Clinton never refuted the fake Arkancide stories: so they MUST be true!). The most interesting thing was that the entire country knew the story was fake for many days while Dan Rather kept insisting it was real.
"If you have any specific cases where you think FAIR was off base I'd love to discuss, but my guess is you're not that kind of guy."
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, that pushes for left-wing bias in media (and for censorship of right-wing bias in media). There are plenty of similar groups on the right (AIM, various religious right media organizations, Medved, etc).
"Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.Here, Read this. It's a FAIR report titled "Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report"."
Read what I said: they were lucky to first name who was behind it. Nothing to do with 9/11 commission report, which came out long after.
"Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented"
Some of it is, indeed. Some however is nothing more than groups like FAIR trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views (you know, the groups that push for "their" bias in media, and can't stand anyone else's).
"If you think Conservatism is special and its army of propagandists, advocates, and other helpers would do it for free, you are dreaming"
No. I think that conservativism is like any movement. It has its zealots and "true believers": the Limbaughs, Hannity's, Buckleys etc who would hold their beliefs even if they weren't big media figures. Yes, they would do it for free.
"They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. "
Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.
"Where are the "journalists" now? There are very very few actual journalists left in the US"
Where are they? In the small towns walking the beat for stories for the 10:00 news. They are in the bylines of news articles in the papers. You'll even find some at indymedia.org
The thing is, we know the names of few of them. Dan Rather is not a bad journalist for his insisting a fake story was true. He was just a newsreader reading what other journalists provided him. Tom Brokaw? Well respected, but his NBC gig was also as newsreader, not journalist. (As for Rove's talking points, we only get those on C Span).
Slashdot Mirror
On a related subject, the French also said there were WMDs in Iraq. They were wrong, too. Ribbit!
"It must be hard for older hardcore conservatives...Goldwater....Strom Thurmond ..."straw women." Price of taking orders, I guess; when Karl Rove says shut up and pretend to hate racism, you shut up, don't you."
I've always hated it, in all its forms. Goldwater I know little about. Thurmond and Dixiecrats I dislike. Karl Rove? I have no idea what he says on it, and I doubt he will change my mind on it. Give me a link to his "orders" and I will check it out.
"For the record though, even though I figure you're slandering FAIR"
More evidence of FAIR bias. I found this in FAIR's own site. A story about how Jeff Cohen was producer on (what FAIR called) a left-wing show on MSNBC. He describes his efforts to keep it to the left. Figure out who Cohen is, and you will see that the bias is at the top.
"I don't support race-based affirmative action either. I'd rather see those sorts of things confined to education, and based on ecomonics"
We could argue about it, but you have stated a good deal of what I think about it very well.
"Hi. My name [the rest is a false quote, which I will ignore in favor of real quotes]"
No, propaganda is propaganda, and it was illegal"
What is "Propaganda" is a matter of opinion.
"The Fairness Doctrine says that political propaganda is illegal."
Have you even read it? The doctrine specifically sllows for pressure against media in order to be "balanced". The result was that radio stations would rather play music than face frivolous lawsuits for letting someone say an opinion that they would get sued over because it was inbalanced. The "Fairness doctrine" meant that if you had political content, you could get harassed by frivolous lawsuits.
""What you really like is propaganda."
What I really like is freedom of expression. Yes, there is plenty I do not like (what you term "propaganda"), but let them have their say.
"That's every American's god-given right, and anyone who says otherwise is a fascist."
It was specifically "fascist" for you to declare expression of political opinion as illegal.
"You are like a little baby, really, calling names."
I have yet to...
"And it's funny, coming from a [another two-paragraph long list of insults and name-calling]"
I think it is a bad idea for the rulers of a country to micro-manage media content in this fashion. If there is a public demand for such programming, surely someone will do it.
There has been a lot of hype in the drive to censor them, but there are some pretty damning facts that make the case against Clear Channel to be weak:
They control less than 8% of United States radio stations. Consider this fact against the claim of a Clear Channel monopoly.
In every single market I've checked (I've only looked at very big cities), they control something between 10% and 35% of the radio stations. Far short of a majority, far short of a monopoly.
There certainly are. According to poll after poll, the average American sees the mainstream media as being a little left of center. While that does not make them far left wing, it makes them left wing anyway. In addition, there are individual left-wing media giants such as Michael Moore and others who have a mass audience and mass appeal.
"And even if such mythical beasts did exist, in order for FAIR to have written a report about them, they would have had to have been lying as egregiously as Fox"
Michael Moore, while sticking with the facts for most of "Fahrenheit 911", got a few whoppers into it. FAIR has been silent.
"And Murdoch's newspapers and TV stations have also manipulated the political process in other countries where they have operated. For this reason alone, they should be shut down"
Translation: they have said things you don't want said, so they should be censored. Again, I defend the right of the left and right wing media to say what it wants.
"Murdoch should have his US passport revoked and be sent back to Oz tarred and feathered"
Or send him to the gulag? How dare he say things you don't want said! (I have similarly defended Michael Moore against conservatives who similarly want him censored).
"Now THAT's the moderate position"
You think it is a "moderate" idea to call for torture and the breakup of families of those who express opinions you do not like? You think it is "moderate" to call for censorship of one side, but not not the other.
"Your idea of the "center" is nothing but lukewarm agreement with the propaganda that you replay with all the intelligence of a parrot."
No, my idea of center involves a tolerance for freedom of expression of both the right and left.
"That isn't debate, that's just evidence that you are incapable of conceiving alternatives to the status quo"
I am quite capable of conceiving of, and rejecting such "alternatives" that involve (as you demanded) physical violence against and punishment of people for having the wrong political views. As far as debate tactics go, last time I checked "deport your opponent" is not part of the Harvard rules. I guess you really must be afraid of something.
Here's a new logo suggestion.
The FAIR vs Limbaugh argument was an argument between the hard-left and the hard-right. They kept it an an insulting Crossfire vein with FAIR labelled Limbaugh's response a "non-response". The left wingers think FAIR got all of them right. The right-wingers think Limbaugh got them all right.
That report is rather old, but the first thing that comes to mind of the ones FAIR blew was Limbaugh's argument about European poverty. Limbaugh considered all of Europe in his argument. FAIR's rebuttal chose 4 of the richest countries and averaged them together. That's pretty obviously bad.
Right above that item was one where Limbaugh denied that HUD cut funds OVERALL under Reagan. FAIR's rebuttal showed a decline in funding in ONE aspect of HUD (while ignoring that the funding was increased in other areas of their operation).
Limbaugh's item about condom failure rate? The stats are all over the board. He says 20%. FAIR's source said 0. However, Planned Parenthood said 30% when it came to preventing HIV transmission.
There are plenty of items in the list that FAIR "got" Limbaugh on. I'm not listing them since we agree on these already, most likely.
FAIR is certainly not centrist. If they were, they would hit the left-wingers as well as the right-wingers. The would have item-by-item hits about Michael Moore like they do about Rush Limbaugh. If they were centrist, they would probably not be so zealous as to slip up by counting only the rich countries in an argument about European poverty to "score a point" with those who would not bother to fact-check.
Real translation: there is overwhelming proof that even a lazy 3rd grader would see if they did a Google search.
"What part of hell do lying race baiters go to?
Hope it is deep and hot! Racism in all its forms is pretty bad (and that is my opinion).
How could we stop you, Mr. [list of insults....]
You are flying off the handle. Take a deep breath.
And why did they break it? Because they were planning to broadcast propaganda, at that was illegal.
In this context, "propaganda" is political opinions you do not agree with. That is not illegal. Refer to the Constitution again.
It's fortunately relatively easy to identify propagandists like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, and quite understandable to want to ban them from the airwaves.
Your desire to ban political content you do not like makes you a fascist when it comes to media. That is not an insult, just a fact. Did you get this idea from the People's Republic of China?
"And it is a fact, AtariAmarok that you [list of off-topic insults]"
The problem is that you are playing a one sided game of Crossfire, and I don't want to play. I'll criticize both sides and even defend them, while you are only carrying water for one wing.
Hint #1: long, long ago [list of technicalities to change the subject]
Excuse me for not playing by your arbitrary rules. However, it is clear you would rather discuss these rules than discuss the facts.
How do you achieve what FAIR demands? By racist hiring practices: hiring and firing based on skin color.
" I'm afraid. FAIR is pretty centrist"
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, decying right-wingers but not left wingers. Do searches on Michael Moore, Rush Limbuagh, and Al Franken, and others. You will only find them bashing the right-wingers.
Do a Google search on fair.org and race and media. Take care to look only at the links inside fair.org. Yes, they want people hired and fired in media just for their skin color. What a bunch of bigots. Race matters....only to racists.
"By the way, just for the record... in your world, Janet Jackson should be allowed to show both tits, right? Porn should be legal on TV?"
As long as it is not falsely labelled as programming for kids, that is fine.
"No, it is not. It would only really make sense if you, and me, and everyone else who wanted could have a TV station, and all those stations could fit in the first few channels."
I guess I am too much of a civil libertarian to want the government to decide what speech is "fair" and what isn't! Sorry, I oppose censorship even if (what does it matter!?!?!) there are few channels.
" ask if you can even link to anything by FAIR that's not fine"
I named and described a rather famous report from a while ago. You are too lazy to look it up, but not too lazy to whine "gimme a link". I am beginning to wonder if you even know what FAIR's own web site is.
"And that is you parading slander and insults and name calling as facts"
Pointing out the facts about FAIR is not slander. Whether it is name calling or insults depends on your own opinion.
"Mr. "what I say is a fact as long as I say it is a fact."
A fact is a fact, whether or not you or I agree.
I sure don't want to use their chairs on the night shift.
Only if it is factual. If it is mere opinion, or sarcasm, of course I don't believe it "true".
"Because they are not facts, they are name calling [nya nya nya]"
I guess it worked, because your diversion has made me forget what we were discussing.
""You don't like groups like FAIR, who do the real work every day of trying to keep bias (including racial bias) out of the media. You slander them when they become inconvenient"
One of the reasons I don't like FAIR is because they have fought FOR racial bias. They love bias if it fits their views. However, I have yet to slander them.
"The Fairness Doctrine merely says that broadcast media should be unbiased."
Which itself is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government has no place micro-managing media content. Thankfully, this "doctrine" is long gone. FAIR has benefitted: re-instating the fairness doctrine would knock their "Counterspin" program off the air. If people will listen to them, Limbaugh AND Hannity AND "FAIR" AND Pacifica ALL belong on the air. That is how it should be: the people determine what is fair, not the government.
"And you are still avoiding finding anything specific not to like about that FAIR report."
You are setting up a straw man. You were arguing with me about the FAIR Fox 9/11 report before I ever read it. Then I read it, and found no complaints with it. You are STILL fighting.
"Because you don't know anything about it that's inaccurate. In fact, you don't know much about FAIR at all"
The 9/11 report is new to me, so I do not know anything inaccurate about it. I know plenty else about FAIR however, and can accurately describe them (fact) and to dislike their pro-censorship attitude and racism (opinion).
Some "thugs" they are, trying to give us a little more control over our own money. I wonder if there are muggers like this (who put money into your wallet!).
FAIR, by the way, was asking that journalists be appointed and presented based on skin color instead of actual qualifications.
Are you still asserting that FAIR is centrist? Unlike you, I choose to measure these matters from the center. I don't count "center" as "where I stand".
"pretending name-calling equals facts, and refusing to cite any sources"
Why not deal with the facts, instead of diversion into a pointless argument of whether or not certain facts are "name calling"?
"Hey, didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to stay off the race thing"
Forgive me, I just don't like racism.
"Conservatives especially love to censor the media. Most violence is fine, but Heaven Forbid if there's anything sexual, or disrespectful of Christianity, watch those rabid First Amendment crusaders head right for the phone booth to change costumes."
This is true. It is also true that liberals especially love to censor the media, especially if it is "politically correct", broadcasts violate "fairness doctrines", or something with religious content they do not like appears.
If you don't recognize BOTH of these, or try to deny it, it shows your bias.
No, I'm just stating the fact that these two men are hired to "be themselves". And yes, the presentation of opinions that others might not like is "acceptable".
"If so, a fascinating glimpse into the heart of Republican "morality." "
The same is true of Al Franken. Nothing partisan about this "morality".
It was an entirely faked document. Right wing overdrive? I guess CBS is part of it (they have fully discredited the story after a review, and fired those responsible), and anyone who thinks that a "historic" document using modern MS Word fonts is fishy must be a "right winger".
The term "propaganda" is meaningless in such discussions. I think you use it to mean "information you do not like". My take? Information is information. Let everyone decide if it is fair or not. And chances are, if someone opens their mouth, they are rather biased. Or biased like a fox.
By the way, I just now looked at the FAIR report you mentioned. I had never seen it, or commented on it before. It is quite interesting. Have they done similar reports against the left-wing media? Also, more importantly, I wonder what a centrist group has to say about it. As far as other FAIR reports go, I have picked apart and verified others against the truth. For example, their claim of Limbaugh's 100 lies. Probably less than 1/3 were Limbaugh's lies. The rest were mostly differences of opinion. A few were even lies by FAIR. It doesn't make Limbaugh look good to even have that pile of 30 or so lies, but it makes you wonder what FAIR is about if it does not think that they are bad enough: it has to make up most of its list of Limbaugh transgressions.
I've also listened many times to FAIR's weekly radio programme. They have devoted a lot of time to such things demanding racial discrimination in media, and pushing to censor those with views they do not like (come on guys, if you don't like it change the channel).
It is blatantly obvious what they are about.
"or will you continue to pretend that just calling names is enough?"
Just pointing out facts, is all.
Why even waste time refuting fake memos? (i.e. Clinton never refuted the fake Arkancide stories: so they MUST be true!). The most interesting thing was that the entire country knew the story was fake for many days while Dan Rather kept insisting it was real.
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, that pushes for left-wing bias in media (and for censorship of right-wing bias in media). There are plenty of similar groups on the right (AIM, various religious right media organizations, Medved, etc).
"Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.Here, Read this. It's a FAIR report titled "Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report"."
Read what I said: they were lucky to first name who was behind it. Nothing to do with 9/11 commission report, which came out long after.
"Interesting. Why pay them, then?"
I don't give them one cent.
Some of it is, indeed. Some however is nothing more than groups like FAIR trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views (you know, the groups that push for "their" bias in media, and can't stand anyone else's).
"If you think Conservatism is special and its army of propagandists, advocates, and other helpers would do it for free, you are dreaming"
No. I think that conservativism is like any movement. It has its zealots and "true believers": the Limbaughs, Hannity's, Buckleys etc who would hold their beliefs even if they weren't big media figures. Yes, they would do it for free.
"They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. "
Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.
Where are they? In the small towns walking the beat for stories for the 10:00 news. They are in the bylines of news articles in the papers. You'll even find some at indymedia.org
The thing is, we know the names of few of them. Dan Rather is not a bad journalist for his insisting a fake story was true. He was just a newsreader reading what other journalists provided him. Tom Brokaw? Well respected, but his NBC gig was also as newsreader, not journalist. (As for Rove's talking points, we only get those on C Span).