On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> I'm not saying he doesn't suck, I'm saying that there are fewer sources of
> news than you think. It has nothing to do with advertisers or people being
> reached. It has to do with sources. And again, in America it only looks like
> there a
sulzberger has an agenda, his paper reflects it
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Loathe wrote:
> Anyone see where the Times outed an interrogator it admits didn't harm
> anyone, or do anything wrong.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 s
Anyone see where the Times outed an interrogator it admits didn't harm
anyone, or do anything wrong.
sam morris wrote:
> Look into my eye's
>
>
> you are getting sleepy
>
>
>
> I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles
> like this.
>
> http://www.usn
> cHat wrote:
> An advertiser doesn't give a wit about sources, they care about
> eyeballs
I get the point, I just don't agree with it.
Ask tBone or The Sarge where they get their Iraq news - it ain't from the AP!
~|
Adobe® Col
Here is an interesting take from Tufts Magazine on the state and future of
journalism:
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2008/features/press1.html
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:58 PM, sam wrote:
> I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles
> like this.
>
>
>
> Tell that to an advertiser. There are 1000s. And no, I'm not judging
> media by "influence" I'm judging them the way advertisers do: number
> of people reached.
An advertiser doesn't give a wit about sources, they care about
eyeballs; yes, there are thousands of distribution points but if you
Look into my eye's
you are getting sleepy
I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles like
this.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/6/23/media-to-america-disaster-seen-as-catastrophe-looms.html#
[http://tinyurl.com/6rmhu6]
>> Dino wro
I'm not saying he doesn't suck, I'm saying that there are fewer sources of
news than you think. It has nothing to do with advertisers or people being
reached. It has to do with sources. And again, in America it only looks like
there are thousands of media sources. Maybe on the very local level but
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument present by Cam, from what I can tell, is that Bush really
> doesn't suck; it's just that 80% of Americans think he does because
> they're hyp-no-tized by "the mainstream media".
>
> I'm pointing out that that's fa
> Dino wrote:
> If you dig down you'll find that there really aren't that many media
> sources.
Tell that to an advertiser. There are 1000s. And no, I'm not judging
media by "influence" I'm judging them the way advertisers do: number
of people reached.
The argument present by Cam, from what I c
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3.) Influence of media bias on opinions.
> Best way to see this is talk to any Rush listener. Despite the fact
> that he's not a news source, millions of Americans form their opinions
> based on what he says. Therefore bia
What a truly Amero-centric way of looking at it. Who is the media in
England? There is really only one. Who is the media in France? There is
really only one. Who is the media around the world? Well, the one from
England and France seem to be everywhere.
If you dig down you'll find that there really
> cHat wrote:
> Last I knew every major city in the US carries the networks listed
> above.
There's 3 issues here:
(1.) Defining the "mainstream media"
20 years ago it was probably defined as you say and the term meant
those sources that the majority of people got their news and
information. My
>> ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
>> in TV, print and spoken forms.
>
> Ok, and on a 24-hour week day basis what is the consumership of those
> news sources vs all other media?
Last I knew every major city in the US carries the networks listed
above. Additi
> gg wrote:
>> RoMunn wrote:
>> How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
> Oh, and there's always positive history from even from failures:
Actually we could probably do a rough SWAG of an unbiased analysis:
(1.) Hopefully we'll agree that Bush will be remembered
> RoMunn wrote:
> How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
>
Ah, so Napoleon's failed democratic imperialism is now viewed as
successful and he's a hero? That's not what I learned ... But don't
worry - with of all the biased history sources there'll always be so
> cHat wrote:
> ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
> in TV, print and spoken forms.
>
Ok, and on a 24-hour week day basis what is the consumership of those
news sources vs all other media?
> The "S-CHIP" Bill -
> Bush had to veto it, not because of the fact tha
Maureen's corollary to Godwin's Law: Any political discussion will
eventually be derailed by discussion of Clinton and sex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
~|
Ado
The media can be seen as the major news clearing houses - AP, Reuters, AFP,
and BBC. These are centers of news that may gain their news from a number of
'lower' sources but that news is approved, edited and distributed from a
central location. If there is bias at the center then the bias is carried
How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Gruss G wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > The Left will never
> > acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's
> accomplishments
>
> What are they again?
>
> But never matter, beca
Do _you_ know what syndication is?
Do you know where the AP get their stories?
Read a little about it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Take a look at the by-line on those articles or listen to th
> I know you have this huge chip against the "the media", but facts are
> that there is so much channel segmentation in the media right now that
> making any type of claim of bias *as assoicated with market numbers*
> is ridiculous.
Take a look at the by-line on those articles or listen to the sou
> Give 3 examples and show "the media" bias. Oh, and define "media" in
> terms of sources and number of audience reached.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
in TV, print and spoken forms.
The "S-CHIP" Bill -
Bush had to veto it, not because of the fact that it
> Dino wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
>
I know you have this huge chip against the "the media", but facts are
that there is so much channel segmentation in the media right now that
making any type of claim of bias *as assoicated with market numbers*
is ridiculous.
Ask anyone looking to advertise in
Boy, that was a non sequitor.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Michael Dinowitz <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > cHat wrote:
> > > Regardless of the
> > > action that he took, he's going to look
Clinton: Define sex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cHat wrote:
> > Regardless of the
> > action that he took, he's going to look like "the bad guy." The
> > biased side of the media comes in to play at that point, not telling
> > people the projected
> cHat wrote:
> Regardless of the
> action that he took, he's going to look like "the bad guy." The
> biased side of the media comes in to play at that point, not telling
> people the projected outcome if he had taken an opposite stance.
>
Give 3 examples and show "the media" bias. Oh, and defin
> Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
> article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
> acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
> that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
True, but
> RoMunn wrote:
> The Left will never
> acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments
What are they again?
But never matter, because this administration will be judged just like
everyone other one: were things better when the President left office
from when he came in
>Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
>article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
>acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
>that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
Well given the
it's an editorial piece. Published because it is a well-expressed opinion.
There is value in discussing such pieces even if you do not agree with them.
Don't know why that is hard to understand.
Maybe it is because it is a thought that is not phrased in terms of anyone
hating anybody??
On Sun, J
Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2
Wow and I thought the Telegraph hated Bush.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Tria
33 matches
Mail list logo
