Here's what a "fair and balanced" segment on a news show looks like.

[pbrauer]

Care to make your own observations? Or are you here just to insult me and give pbrauer a political erection?

:rofl I love ya man, you sure are entertaining. :lamo

 

[Grim17]

All from an progressive author. Big surprise.

Shocking... Except for nearly everyone on this entire board, who would have thought he would rely on someone else's thoughts, rather than try and form his own???

lolololol

 

[Barbbtx]

All from an progressive author. Big surprise.

An author who has one finger pointing at conservatives and three pointing at progressives.

 

[Grim17]

An author who has one finger pointing at conservatives and three pointing at progressives.

Wanna guess where his thumb is?

 

[pbrauer]

Wanna guess where his thumb is?

Aren't you a clever dude.:roll:

•Believe they have no personal failings.
•Avoid learning about their personal failings.
•Be highly self-righteous.
•Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

 

[Grim17]

Aren't you a clever dude.:roll:

Clever enough to realize you still haven't, nor likely ever will, address what both Barb and I wrote about the Matthews interview... At least not until you can find someone on the net you can leach ideas from.

 

[Whovian]

Please take note, Grim!

Right Wing Authoritarianism: What Is the Allure in Being a Follower?

In North America these traits are seen more readily in those with conservative political leanings. To break this down even further, one can examine the following symptoms that reveal the authoritarian personality organized into four distinct catagories.


1: Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to:

• Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
• Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking, as illustrated by Orwellian doublethink.
• Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
• Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
• Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
• Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

• Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights
• Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
• Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
• Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities.
• Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
• Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:

• Be dogmatic.
• Be zealots.
• Be hypocrites.
• Be absolutists
• Be bullies when they have power over others.
• Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
• Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:

• Believe they have no personal failings.
• Avoid learning about their personal failings.
• Be highly self-righteous.
• Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

Yeah.. this is a completely non-biased piece, isn't it. totally objective.

 

[pbrauer]

Clever enough to realize you still haven't, nor likely ever will, address what both Barb and I wrote about the Matthews interview... At least not until you can find someone on the net you can leach ideas from.

So that's why you made the disgusting remark about the thumb? And YOU say I should get help? :lamo

Like I said previously, MSNBC doesn't claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and Faux News does. Btw, Hardball is an opinion show, it's not news.

 

[Barbbtx]

Aren't you a clever dude.:roll:

Yes he is.:giggle1:
Did you ever doubt it?
Now about those videos.........
I know you think Megyn Kelly's is biased. What about the other one? Care to analyze it?

 

[Grim17]

Yes he is.:giggle1:
Did you ever doubt it?

Thanks

Now about those videos.........
I know you think Megyn Kelly's is biased. What about the other one? Care to analyze it?

That's the thing... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Kelly, this was about that particular interview.

and...

He's already made it clear Barb, that he won't address the Matthews interview, because he's simply incapable doing so. Since nobody will likely write about it on any of the liberal blogs he worships, he has nothing to write.

 

[pbrauer]

Thanks



That's the thing... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Kelly, this was about that particular interview.

and...

He's already made it clear Barb, that he won't address the Matthews interview, becau
se he's simply incapable doing so. Since nobody will likely write about it on any of the liberal blogs he worships, he has nothing to write.

Here are the facts, this thread isn't about Chris Matthews, it about the horrible OP YOU wrote. "Fair and Balanced" that's bull****. I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. Megyn Kelly pressed the woman several times about her contention that language caused violence in this Hispanic community. Check. So why didn't Megyn ask the conservative about his claims that the language was about amnesty?

Also, since being in this country is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, how can you say they're illegals? If you get a traffic ticket (a misdemeanor) are you then an illegal driver? If you doubt what I say about this, you should ask Judge Andrew Napolitano as he agrees with this. And he's no liberal.

 

[Grim17]

Here are the facts, this thread isn't about Chris Matthews, it about the horrible OP YOU wrote. "Fair and Balanced" that's bull****. I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. Megyn Kelly pressed the woman several times about her contention that language caused violence in this Hispanic community. Check. So why didn't Megyn ask the conservative about his claims that the language was about amnesty?

The fact you even ask that question, confirms everything I've said about you on this thread. Politics has distorted your judgment and ability to reason. Hell, it's obvious you can't even apply common sense without ideological approval... lol

Although I see no chance of you understanding the obvious reason why Kelly questioned one statement and not the other, I'm going to give it a shot anyway... The reason is simple. The republican stated his opinion on what the motives were of those trying to get the press to stop using the word "illegal", and then explained the basis for it... While the democrat stated 4 different times prior to being questioned, that the word "illegal" has contributed to or resulted in violence being perpetrated against immigrants, which is a statement of fact.

It's obvious why Kelly questioned the democrat about her allegations, based on the seriousness of them. So obvious in fact, I think even you get it. Why Kelly didn't question the republican was just as obvious, but something I'm positive you are incapable understanding or excepting. She didn't question his statement on what he thinks their motives are because 1) it's was just an opinion, not an accusation and 2) because after stating that opinion, he also explained his reasoning behind it, so there was no reason for Kelly to have to ask.

And now for the question that I'd bet a stack of cash you either won't answer, or if you do answer, won't do so truthfully...

Do you now understand why she questioned the democrat and didn't question the republican?

Also, since being in this country is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, how can you say they're illegals?

You gotta be kidding me.... The words "misdemeanor" and "felony" are words used to classify the severity of a crime. A crime is an act or instance that is legally prohibited... aka "illegal".

So to make this as understandable as humanly possible, when a person who is not a US citizen (an "alien") enters, resides or works in the United Stated without first obtaining written authorization from the United States government, they are committing a crime regardless of that crimes classification. This means that their actions are legally prohibited (aka "illegal), which means that any person who commits such an act is an "illegal alien".

Got it!

If you get a traffic ticket (a misdemeanor) are you then an illegal driver? If you doubt what I say about this, you should ask Judge Andrew Napolitano as he agrees with this. And he's no liberal.

Even though your example is a false one that doesn't apply here, the answer is "No"... If the person has a drivers license then the person would be a legal driver, who committed an illegal act while driving. The reason it doesn't apply, is because a traffic ticket is an illegal offense committed while in the act of driving, and has nothing to do with the persons status as a driver.

The correct example question that would apply here would be "If you get caught driving without a license, are you an illegal driver?" The answer there is of course "Yes"... just as a person who migrated here without permission is an "illegal immigrant".

Got it!

EDIT:

Here's a better example that displays the flaw in your "illegal driver" question...

If the resident of a house lets their grass grow to high and gets a ticket, does that mean their an illegal resident?
A: No, if they legally reside there, they would be a legal resident that committed an illegal offense while residing there.

 

[pbrauer]

The fact you even ask that question, confirms everything I've said about you on this thread. Politics has distorted your judgment and ability to reason. Hell, it's obvious you can't even apply common sense without ideological approval... lol

Although I see no chance of you understanding the obvious reason why Kelly questioned one statement and not the other, I'm going to give it a shot anyway... The reason is simple. The republican stated his opinion on what the motives were of those trying to get the press to stop using the word "illegal", and then explained the basis for it... While the democrat stated 4 different times prior to being questioned, that the word "illegal" has contributed to or resulted in violence being perpetrated against immigrants, which is a statement of fact.

It's obvious why Kelly questioned the democrat about her allegations, based on the seriousness of them. So obvious in fact, I think even you get it. Why Kelly didn't question the republican was just as obvious, but something I'm positive you are incapable understanding or excepting. She didn't question his statement on what he thinks their motives are because 1) it's was just an opinion, not an accusation and 2) because after stating that opinion, he also explained his reasoning behind it, so there was no reason for Kelly to have to ask.

And now for the question that I'd bet a stack of cash you either won't answer, or if you do answer, won't do so truthfully...

Do you now understand why she questioned the democrat and didn't question the republican?

I understand perfectly why she didn't question the conservative about the plain and simple talking point he put out there. Are you ready??? It's because she AGREES WITH HIM!!!! And more than likely YOU AGREE WITH HIM as well. If you want to talk see someone who is blinded by politics, you need only look into the bathroom mirror.
This what you call "Fair and Balanced" debate boils down to the following two points:

1. Immigrints are bad
2. Liberals are bad for wanting amnesty (Plain and Simple)

This post of yours is number 2 in your "the dog ate my homework" excuses. The first was when you claimed the mayor of Wilmington, Ohio lied to Glenn Beck or his staff.
Now its because somebody states and opinion (which in this cas is actually is a talking point) they shouldn't Keep them coming... they make me laugh.

Remember Grim, here is the message of this little thinly veiled message:

• Immigrants and liberals BAD
• White conservatives GOOD

 

[Barbbtx]

I understand perfectly why she didn't question the conservative about the plain and simple talking point he put out there. Are you ready??? It's because she AGREES WITH HIM!!!! And more than likely YOU AGREE WITH HIM as well. If you want to talk see someone who is blinded by politics, you need only look into the bathroom mirror.
This what you call "Fair and Balanced" debate boils down to the following two points:

1. Immigrints are bad
2. Liberals are bad for wanting amnesty (Plain and Simple)

This post of yours is number 2 in your "the dog ate my homework" excuses. The first was when you claimed the mayor of Wilmington, Ohio lied to Glenn Beck or his staff.
Now its because somebody states and opinion (which in this cas is actually is a talking point) they shouldn't Keep them coming... they make me laugh.

Remember Grim, here is the message of this little thinly veiled message:

• Immigrants and liberals BAD
• White conservatives GOOD

:thinking:sigh: I wonder how many times Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin come up in threads that have nothing to do with them. Maybe as many times as Hitler?

At least when someone else brought Mathews into it, I used a video that compared his being non-biased in that case to Megyn's non-bias which is the topic.

 

[Redress]

You were not ignored. I apologize if I missed your post asking for clarification.

You DID use the word 'regularly' though. Here is a link to the thread...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/88525-using-nothing-but-media-matters-america-source-material-11.html#post1059187547




The main point being, 'some' posters (I avoid using a specific name because I don't want him to start whining about how everyone is out to get him), use MMA almost every time the cite a source for a post they make.

You claimed I do that with Newsbuseters.

I asked you to prove it, and you never did. My guess is because you can't As I stated, I know I've used Newsvusters at least once, possibly even twice, since I joined this board. To put that on the same level as 'he who shall remain nameless to prevent his whining' and his constant use of MMA, is patently ridiculous.

Sorry for the delay. Between the new search feature we have with VB 4.0 being incredibly sucky, and me having other things to do in real life, I have been slow getting to it. As best I can find in limited searches, the use of the term "regularly" would be inaccurate. My apologies to you.

 

[Whovian]

Sorry for the delay. Between the new search feature we have with VB 4.0 being incredibly sucky, and me having other things to do in real life, I have been slow getting to it. As best I can find in limited searches, the use of the term "regularly" would be inaccurate. My apologies to you.

No worries mate! Happy New Year!

 

[ricksfolly]

I thought it would cool to do something a little different. Instead of posting an example of political bias by the news media, I decided to instead post an example of what a fair and balanced debate from the news media looks like, and get everyone else's take on it.

Too late. The well has already been poisoned.

ricksfolly

 

[pbrauer]

At least when someone else brought Mathews into it, I used a video that compared his being non-biased in that case to Megyn's non-bias which is the topic.

Anyone who can't see that either Chris Matthews or Megyn Kelly as biased can't see the forest through the trees. Neither Chris Matthews nor MSNBC claims to be unbiased, that certainly isn't true with Megyn Kelly or the FNC. I don't think many people would have as much problem with Fox if they were honest and called themselves as the conservative/republican channel.

Most people don't understand Chris Matthews, he loves arguing politics and it doesn't matter which side the political spectrum he coming from. Conservatives love to remind everyone about his "thrill" with Barack Obama, but I guarentee he would have said the same thing (and maybe he did) about Ronald Reagan.

 

[Whovian]

Anyone who can't see that either Chris Matthews or Megyn Kelly as biased can't see the forest through the trees. Neither Chris Matthews nor MSNBC claims to be unbiased, that certainly isn't true with Megyn Kelly or the FNC. I don't think many people would have as much problem with Fox if they were honest and called themselves as the conservative/republican channel.

Most people don't understand Chris Matthews, he loves arguing politics and it doesn't matter which side the political spectrum he coming from. Conservatives love to remind everyone about his "thrill" with Barack Obama, but I guarentee he would have said the same thing (and maybe he did) about Ronald Reagan.

you know how many people in here believe the **** that pours out of your mouth? One... you.

 

[Grim17]

I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself and just as I suspected, you went of your trolley again and pissed it away.

I understand perfectly why she didn't question the conservative about the plain and simple talking point he put out there. Are you ready??? It's because she AGREES WITH HIM!!!! And more than likely YOU AGREE WITH HIM as well.

Dude... She didn't question why he said they support amnesty, because he already told her exactly the basis for his opinion. Let me refresh your very, very selective memory.

After he said they were "seeking amnesty for these people", the very next words out of his mouth (words you pretend don't exist) were "There's no reason not to use this (illegal) unless you have an alterer motive, and the alterer motive is amnesty plain and simple. There is no business for journalists to determine for other journalist what statuses should be called... It's not their job."

Now why in the hell would Kelly, or any other person from any news network, question him about the basis for his statement, when he'd already made that clear? The fact is, they wouldn't... But that didn't stop you from ignoring that little piece of information, and going on another hate filled partisan rant against Fox News.

You are truly hopeless.

If you want to talk see someone who is blinded by politics, you need only look into the bathroom mirror.
This what you call "Fair and Balanced" debate boils down to the following two points:

1. Immigrints are bad
2. Liberals are bad for wanting amnesty (Plain and Simple)

More of your totally transparent, but always predictable tactic of trying to steer the conversation away from the actual subject, by attacking Fox News... Avoidance just never gets old for you, does it?

This post of yours is number 2 in your "the dog ate my homework" excuses. The first was when you claimed the mayor of Wilmington, Ohio lied to Glenn Beck or his staff.

And what would a pbrauer melt down be, without him lying about someone he disagrees with (in this case, me) and tossing out a Glenn Beck reference?

Now its because somebody states and opinion (which in this case is actually is a talking point) they shouldn't Keep them coming... they make me laugh.

That man had every right to voice his opinion, just like that democrat had every right to lie her liberal ass off when she claimed that the word "illegal" is responsible for acts of violence against immigrants... Isn't it telling you don't seem to have any problem what so ever, with that woman's patently false claims and despicable out-right lies... But that's the way it is when politics call all your shots for you.


Let's review:

1. You attacked Kelly for not questioning the basis of an opinion, even though the basis of it had already been revealed.
2. You imply political bias, by claiming Kelly was in agreement with the republican's viewpoint, when she never expressed such.
3. You imply my agreement with the republicans viewpoint discredits my observations.
4. You attack me and my ability to honestly evaluate issues.
5. You falsely claim the interview was anti immigrant, when it wasn't.
6. You falsely claim that the interview depicted liberals as being in the wrong for their support of amnesty, when it didn't.
7. You attack me personally, by accusing me of making a statement on another thread that I never made.
8. You attack me personally again, by implying I'm a racist.


Conclusion:

The majority of your response was dedicated to partisan attacks on me, the republican from the interview, Megyn Kelly, and Fox News... and very little time was spent addressing the interview itself.. Your evaluation of the actual interview, was based entirely on partisan supposition and omitting pertinent facts. The logic you implemented to base your arguments around, consisted of 100% political rhetoric and partisan assumption, and 0% substance and actualities... Put simply, the logic you use is:

"I think Megyn Kelly is on his side, therefore the interview can't be fair."
"Grim agrees with the republican's opinion, therefore his views are not objective."
"The republican's opinion is the same as many other republicans, so it must be a talking point, not a valid opinion."

I gave you the chance to put your politics aside, be honest and redeem yourself... To prove that you really are capable of forming a reasonably objective opinion, and show that you're the master of your political beliefs, rather than a slave to them.

What a shame.

 

[Grim17]

Too late. The well has already been poisoned.

ricksfolly

lololololol... Give it a shot anyway,

 

[pbrauer]

I gave you the chance to put your politics aside, be honest and redeem yourself... To prove that you really are capable of forming a reasonably objective opinion, and show that you're the master of your political beliefs, rather than a slave to them.

What a shame.

Look into the Bathroom mirror your highness, I think that hot Arizona sun has fried your brain.

 

[Whovian]

I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself and just as I suspected, you went of your trolley again and pissed it away.



Dude... She didn't question why he said they support amnesty, because he already told her exactly the basis for his opinion. Let me refresh your very, very selective memory.

After he said they were "seeking amnesty for these people", the very next words out of his mouth (words you pretend don't exist) were "There's no reason not to use this (illegal) unless you have an alterer motive, and the alterer motive is amnesty plain and simple. There is no business for journalists to determine for other journalist what statuses should be called... It's not their job."

Now why in the hell would Kelly, or any other person from any news network, question him about the basis for his statement, when he'd already made that clear? The fact is, they wouldn't... But that didn't stop you from ignoring that little piece of information, and going on another hate filled partisan rant against Fox News.

You are truly hopeless.




More of your totally transparent, but always predictable tactic of trying to steer the conversation away from the actual subject, by attacking Fox News... Avoidance just never gets old for you, does it?



And what would a pbrauer melt down be, without him lying about someone he disagrees with (in this case, me) and tossing out a Glenn Beck reference?




That man had every right to voice his opinion, just like that democrat had every right to lie her liberal ass off when she claimed that the word "illegal" is responsible for acts of violence against immigrants... Isn't it telling you don't seem to have any problem what so ever, with that woman's patently false claims and despicable out-right lies... But that's the way it is when politics call all your shots for you.


Let's review:

1. You attacked Kelly for not questioning the basis of an opinion, even though the basis of it had already been revealed.
2. You imply political bias, by claiming Kelly was in agreement with the republican's viewpoint, when she never expressed such.
3. You imply my agreement with the republicans viewpoint discredits my observations.
4. You attack me and my ability to honestly evaluate issues.
5. You falsely claim the interview was anti immigrant, when it wasn't.
6. You falsely claim that the interview depicted liberals as being in the wrong for their support of amnesty, when it didn't.
7. You attack me personally, by accusing me of making a statement on another thread that I never made.
8. You attack me personally again, by implying I'm a racist.


Conclusion:

The majority of your response was dedicated to partisan attacks on me, the republican from the interview, Megyn Kelly, and Fox News... and very little time was spent addressing the interview itself.. Your evaluation of the actual interview, was based entirely on partisan supposition and omitting pertinent facts. The logic you implemented to base your arguments around, consisted of 100% political rhetoric and partisan assumption, and 0% substance and actualities... Put simply, the logic you use is:

"I think Megyn Kelly is on his side, therefore the interview can't be fair."
"Grim agrees with the republican's opinion, therefore his views are not objective."
"The republican's opinion is the same as many other republicans, so it must be a talking point, not a valid opinion."

I gave you the chance to put your politics aside, be honest and redeem yourself... To prove that you really are capable of forming a reasonably objective opinion, and show that you're the master of your political beliefs, rather than a slave to them.

What a shame.

You didn't 'really' expect him to be anything other than what he is... did you?

 

[pbrauer]

You didn't 'really' expect him to be anything other than what he is... did you?

And I didn't expect you guys to be anything other than what you are as well. Notice how Grim is like many conservatives and plays the role of victim? Sad.

 

[Whovian]

And I didn't expect you guys to be anything other than what you are as well. Notice how Grim is like many conservatives and plays the role of victim? Sad.

the only thing sad is you. You have my pity.