Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The policies of the Fed with the endless easing and the endless printing of money are good for the economy in the short-term. I don't think these policies are too good long-term. Even though any uptick is good news, most people would still say the economy is struggling.

Just to humor you, I will give Obama the credit for the uptick in the economy, whether he is responsible or not. But I still don't think most people would say that the Obama Administration doing something good is "typical". Quite to the contrary. It is not typical at all. That is why he is regarded as the worst President since World War II. GW Bush is considered the 2nd worst.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-since-wwii/

But I'm sure you will argue that people are wrong. They are right about Bush being a bad President but they are wrong about Obama.





With regard to the coverage of the jobs report by the media, they all covered it. Why would it be surprising that a channel with a liberal bias like MSNBC would want to really focus on good news for Obama, while a channel with a conservative bias like FOX would want to focus less on that story?

It's funny that people are so outraged that FOX has a conservative bias while they have no problem with the liberal bias of the other channels.

This article quotes numerous people who work for CBS and those types of news organizations and these people admit that there is a liberal bias at those stations, and their stories reflect it.

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/jo...-bias-part-one

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

I looked at that second link of Rupert's, and not only do many of the quotes have nothing to do with whether journalists are personally liberal in their views, four of the quotes are from Mark Halperin, who is notorious for following the money in the course of his career. Not to mention, a bunch of quotes doesn't exactly count as research. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. So you're right; beaucoup de bias.

As for the Quinnepac poll, it's bad polling, for a number of reasons, the big one being that Presidents experience an upswing in favorability after they leave office (call it the nostalgia effect). In a poll run during GW's administration, he was regarded as the worst, by about the same percentage (34 percent GW to 33 percent BO). If Quinnepac runs the same poll five years after BO's Administration is over, it's unlikely he'll get the "worst" rank; it'll either be whoever is in the WH, or GWB. Because he really was the worst.

I'm going to try to attach a Gallup poll jpeg of the difference between "in office" ratings and retrospective ratings for the Presidents since Kennedy.

[Danzig]

yeah, with polls being low across the board, it's no surprise obama's is down-i can only imagine would bush jr's would be right now!

not happy right now. we came up to our property on the lake for the wknd, and someone has stolen some gear.
some people are such aholes.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, with polls being low across the board, it's no surprise obama's is down-i can only imagine would bush jr's would be right now!

not happy right now. we came up to our property on the lake for the wknd, and someone has stolen some gear.
some people are such aholes.

Oh that sucks. I'm really sorry. Yes, people certainly can be. One of the dads at my son's birthday party in the park last week had to make an unplanned run around the park after some kid came up and stole a scooter belonging to a 5-year-old guest. He found the perpetrator, thank goodness (not cool stealing from children. Not cool stealing from anybody, but especially not cool stealing from kids).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh that sucks. I'm really sorry. Yes, people certainly can be. One of the dads at my son's birthday party in the park last week had to make an unplanned run around the park after some kid came up and stole a scooter belonging to a 5-year-old guest. He found the perpetrator, thank goodness (not cool stealing from children. Not cool stealing from anybody, but especially not cool stealing from kids).

That's crazy. Then again, years ago tony was doing electrical work at a school, a Jr high....and one of the students ran off with his makita drill! He got it back, kid got in all kinds of trouble.
A fifth grader stole my sons bike, everyone saw him ride off with it. Some people are just crazy

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

That's crazy. Then again, years ago tony was doing electrical work at a school, a Jr high....and one of the students ran off with his makita drill! He got it back, kid got in all kinds of trouble.
A fifth grader stole my sons bike, everyone saw him ride off with it. Some people are just crazy

I think I mentioned here before, I had my phone stolen out of my hand by a teenager in Central Park. I chased after him (carrying my lunch carton in my hand the whole time) yelling at the top of my lungs, until he finally dropped the phone, terrified, I think, by my ability to run full speed, carry lunch, and shriek at the same time. In this case, it wasn't the thief who was the crazy one.

Had I managed to catch up with him before he dropped the phone I would have advised him to stay in school, as he was terrible at profiling targets. I was wearing running shoes, for chrissake.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think I mentioned here before, I had my phone stolen out of my hand by a teenager in Central Park. I chased after him (carrying my lunch carton in my hand the whole time) yelling at the top of my lungs, until he finally dropped the phone, terrified, I think, by my ability to run full speed, carry lunch, and shriek at the same time. In this case, it wasn't the thief who was the crazy one.

Had I managed to catch up with him before he dropped the phone I would have advised him to stay in school, as he was terrible at profiling targets. I was wearing running shoes, for chrissake.

Lol. Geez. My favorite stories are when punks target old guys who turn out to have been marines.

When my boys bike got stolen we called the police, who went, asked the boy if he took it, and he said no. They were about to leave when I showed up. They said he doesn't have it, I said there was a crowd of folks who saw him take it. Sure enough, he had it, was already removing stuff to put on the bike frame he had.
The police in this little town are a joke.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

I agree with you about unemployment and the lack of jobs.

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate. I'm sure they've botched a few stories but so has every other network. I'll say one thing. The left-wing has done a great job of smearing Fox. Fox is still very popular but there are also a ton of people out there like yourself who have the false assumption that Fox is totally unreliable. That is complete nonsense. That is just left-wing propaganda that many people believe. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a conservative station like Fox that reports important and legitimate stories that the liberal media doesn't want to report.

A high ranking member of the IRS taking the 5th at a congressional hearing is a big deal. Yet the mainstream media has not devoted much time to the story. You hear a lot more about that story on Fox than the other channels. Yet if that IRS official was a Republican under Bush, that had targeted liberal groups, and she took the 5th before Congress, you know darn well that it would be the #1 story on every news channel every night.

I'll tell you one thing that Fox does. They keep the mainstream media a little more honest. When they pick up a story that the mainstream media would normally ignore, it sometimes forces the mainstream media to at least give a little coverage to the story.

There are also plenty of times when Fox is the only station that will report a big story. Do you remember this case? This should have been a huge story. It was to anyone who knew the story, but not to the mainstream media, who didn't want to report it because it didn't fit their narrative. Obama himself called it a "phony scandal". I do give him some credit. He convinced many liberals that it was basically a "phony-story" when it was actually a huge story. I would like someone to explain to me how this is a phony story. If this would have happened under Bush with all the roles reversed, people would have demanded that the Attorney General resign.

There was a liberal witness to this whole thing, in addition to the videos of the incident. Bartle Bull was a long time civil rights activist and aide to Robert Kennedy. He called this one of the worst cases of voter intimidation he had ever seen. The lawyers at the Justice Department agreed. They were prosecuting the case. But Obama appointees who were not lawyers ordered the lawyers to drop the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate.

Okay, now you're just straight up trolling.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you about unemployment and the lack of jobs.

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate. I'm sure they've botched a few stories but so has every other network. I'll say one thing. The left-wing has done a great job of smearing Fox. Fox is still very popular but there are also a ton of people out there like yourself who have the false assumption that Fox is totally unreliable. That is complete nonsense. That is just left-wing propaganda that many people believe. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a conservative station like Fox that reports important and legitimate stories that the liberal media doesn't want to report.

A high ranking member of the IRS taking the 5th at a congressional hearing is a big deal. Yet the mainstream media has not devoted much time to the story. You hear a lot more about that story on Fox than the other channels. Yet if that IRS official was a Republican under Bush, that had targeted liberal groups, and she took the 5th before Congress, you know darn well that it would be the #1 story on every news channel every night.

I'll tell you one thing that Fox does. They keep the mainstream media a little more honest. When they pick up a story that the mainstream media would normally ignore, it sometimes forces the mainstream media to at least give a little coverage to the story.

There are also plenty of times when Fox is the only station that will report a big story. Do you remember this case? This should have been a huge story. It was to anyone who knew the story, but not to the mainstream media, who didn't want to report it because it didn't fit their narrative. Obama himself called it a "phony scandal". I do give him some credit. He convinced many liberals that it was basically a "phony-story" when it was actually a huge story. I would like someone to explain to me how this is a phony story. If this would have happened under Bush with all the roles reversed, people would have demanded that the Attorney General resign.

There was a liberal witness to this whole thing, in addition to the videos of the incident. Bartle Bull was a long time civil rights activist and aide to Robert Kennedy. He called this one of the worst cases of voter intimidation he had ever seen. The lawyers at the Justice Department agreed. They were prosecuting the case. But Obama appointees who were not lawyers ordered the lawyers to drop the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

,,I get all my Fox news from Jon Stewart..nite after nite he plays back what the talking heads catch phrase is and repeated show after show...and they are reading from Ailes script for the day..like 'I don't understand what Obama is thinking here'..even the revered O'rielly was caught on camera...whatever faux says i know the oppisite is true

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

I have said Fox has a conservative bias. There are so many of you that have such a huge double-standard. You think that since there is a conservative bias that that somehow makes them liars, shills, not a legit news source, etc.

I could say the exact same thing for most of the mainstream media (which has a huge liberal bias). Look at the Associated Press and many of the other news organizations. They won't use the words "illegal immigrants". It's a good thing their biases don't affect their objectivity. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/bu...anted=all&_r=0

In addition, you need to separate Fox News from its opinion shows. The news is almost identical to any other news. The bias is very subtle. If I got a transcript from a few different news channels on a random night, I highly doubt that any of you would be able to tell which transcript was from which channel. If I got the transcripts from 10 straight nights and you went over them very carefully, it is quite possible that you would be able to find the slight subtleties to guess which one was from Fox. It's very subtle. It's not major. Sean Hannity isn't subtle. His show is an opinion show. The news is a different story.

Let's check the news stories on the fox News website right now. Compare it to other sites like CNN. You won't see a major difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/

[geeker2]

^^^^^^^^

thinks Rachel Maddow is hot

[GPK]

Originally Posted by geeker2

^^^^^^^^

thinks Rachel Maddow is hot

Reminds me of Pat from old SNL skits

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

Fox News was never called GOP TV. Don't believe everything you read from left-wing blogs without fact-checking it. Where did you read that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

there are groups who 'judge' all the media outlets. what do they have to say?

foxes ratings have been significantly down for some time, with seniors being their core-you know, just like the republican party.

and they should have to remove their 'fair and balanced' tag,because everyone knows they're just a shill for the republiecans.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

This piece is a classic look at typical FOX misinformation to try to make its point. From the piece:

"Question #4: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?" (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org's report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims."

Note how in the second half of this, the Op-ed switches the terminology from "climate change" (what the original question was about) to "man-made global warming." It's verbal sleight-of-hand and is quite common when someone wants to mislead without appearing to do so. The two terms are not synonymous. So, FOX can say, "Look! There are scientists who dispute man-made global warming!" when the survey question was "Do most scientists believe climate change is occurring, not occurring, or evenly divided?" The original question makes no claim as to cause of climate change, but FOX is happy to impose one in order to misinform.

For that matter, "climate change" and "global warming" (regardless of man-made or not) are not the same thing, either.