Priceless

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is nothing that you or anyone can say about TV "news" opinions about the "worst president" that could make it a useful topic.
As I recall, in 1952 no one liked Harry Truman.
By 1968, many people were fed up with LBJ, because of Vietnam, mostly, unless you lived in the South.

Now both men are highly respected for what people complained about long ago.

[sirs]

And one more time, your opinion in the stupidity of the topic is duly noted.  The FACT still remains, that when Bush was in office the MSM and NBC in particular thought it a HUGE DEAL that he was rated the worst president.  Now that Obama is in office, it's really to be considered no big deal

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whatever you are blathering about is not any sort of FACT. Nor does anyone but you give a flying duck about it.

[sirs]

You're entitled to your opinion.  That's about it.  Based on the video presented, it was a FACT that with Bush being voted worst president was a big deal.  With Obama, all of a sudden, its not a big deal.  That's just a fact.  Deal with it

[Xavier_Onassis]

How is speculation about something that no one could ever possibly prove be any sort of fact?

Or do you seriously think that God is keeping a list of best and worst presidents that he is going to make public someday?

[sirs]

Because there's nothing being "speculated on".  The video is FACT of how NBC thought the poll of Bush as worst President was a HUGE deal, and now that Obama has been voted worst, its no big deal. 

Again, this isn't about you, or what you're supposed to think (as if that was even possible).  It's simply about what is   

[sirs]

...in other words Professor Dodge, the fact isn't about who is or isn't factually the worst President, the fact is how NBC treated both Presidents from what was polled     

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is a stupid topic.

No one expects perfectly balanced crapola except you.

[sirs]

And one more time, your opinion in the stupidity of the topic is duly noted.  The FACT still remains, that when Bush was in office the MSM and NBC in particular thought it a HUGE DEAL that he was rated the worst president.  Now that Obama is in office, it's really to be considered no big deal.

And PS, I'm not looking for "perfectly balanced", I'm looking for news to be objective, as it was always meant to be.  When the media turns into a propoganda machine for the party they support, they no longer function as a news source.  They simply become another arm of the Government, pretending to be a news source

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not in the nature of the media to be entirely unbiased. Even if every fact that a news outlet  divulges is 100% true, there is also the matter that  presenting the news involves selecting what the important issues and events of the day are.

Stuff that is very important but is hard to understand , like the derivatives market or insider trading is often given little or no attention when compared with a celebrity going bananas, like Tiger Woods' fight with his wife, or LeBron James heading back to Cleveland.

It does no real good to squawk about how UNFAIR it is to not publicize some poll about the "worst president".

Publicizing WHY this is true might be news, but the poll itself is just like the old saying, "if it bleeds, it leads."

[sirs]

The media, by definition is SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED.  The fact you keep defending the predominant liberal bias, and worse, the WH mandate that the press adhere to specific restrictions in reporting the news, demonstrates you care little for the Constiitution & Freedom, as long as it's good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.......in other words, ends justifies the means. 

Propoganda by the news is ok, so long as its benefiting the right party   

[Plane]

The media, by definition is SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED.

   I don't think that is a realistic expectation, they need motivation after all.

   Unbiased reporting is the exception , bias is the rule.

     I remember Public broadcasting radio patting itself on the back about how unbiased they were, which was so ridiculous it made my teeth hurt.

      A good question would be why .

      Why is 90% of the MSM liberally biased?

       Why is the bit that is oriented to favor the Right making so much money?

          It can't be because the wealthy watch in that bias, the commercials, are for Tide not BMW.

         

[Xavier_Onassis]

PBS and NPR are far less biased than any of the commercial stations. If you listen to NPR's call in shows, like Diane Rheems, you will hear not two opposing views but nearly every possible view. The hosts on NPR do not hang up on callers or insult them as Limbaugh does all the time, either. If you think NPR and PBS are very biased, you simply have not listened often enough to them. The worst feature of both are those insufferable pledge drives, but they only do those maybe for six weeks out of 52, as opposed to 20-25 minutes of idiotic ads on commercial radio.

Frontline's recent exposé of the Vatican was the best rundown of what is going on in the Church I have ever heard. Apparently, Benedict was simply worn down in his attempts to get the Curia to admit too all the child buggery and abuse over the years and resigned as a result. Commercial newscasts rarely dealt with the Vatican in any realistic manner, even when it was obvious that John Paul was little more than a mumbling vegetable incapable of anything in his final years. If you have not seen this, it is available for watching on your computer. The American Experience documentaries on all manner of topics, such as the Freedom Rides, the financial crisis, Whaling, several presidential biographies, and a huge variety of other topics are infinitely better than the commercial stations have managed to do, and the History Channel and even Nat Geo often do a sensationalist approach to similar topics that are really lacking when compared to what PBS has done.

[sirs]

The media, by definition is SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED.

   I don't think that is a realistic expectation, they need motivation after all.

Oh I realize the need to push a "if it bleeds its leads" angle, for ratings.  That had some legs years ago.  Politically now however, if its political bleeding from Democrats, or *gasp* from the likes of yet another Obama scandal and/or incompetent act on his part, the media quickly applies a tourniquet on it, & starts complaining about some Republican cough as the lead. 

Their motivation now is that of defending the 1st black President, from their perceived attacks by a hostile GOP.  So thanks to xo's helping to highlight it, the predominant bias, is now shifted to a more extroverted propaganda arm of the Government

   

[Plane]

PBS and NPR are far less biased than any of the commercial stations. If you listen to NPR's call in shows, like Diane Rheems, you will hear not two opposing views but nearly every possible view. The hosts on NPR do not hang up on callers or insult them as Limbaugh does all the time, either. If you think NPR and PBS are very biased, you simply have not listened often enough to them. The worst feature of both are those insufferable pledge drives, but they only do those maybe for six weeks out of 52, as opposed to 20-25 minutes of idiotic ads on commercial radio.

Frontline's recent exposé of the Vatican was the best rundown of what is going on in the Church I have ever heard. Apparently, Benedict was simply worn down in his attempts to get the Curia to admit too all the child buggery and abuse over the years and resigned as a result. Commercial newscasts rarely dealt with the Vatican in any realistic manner, even when it was obvious that John Paul was little more than a mumbling vegetable incapable of anything in his final years. If you have not seen this, it is available for watching on your computer. The American Experience documentaries on all manner of topics, such as the Freedom Rides, the financial crisis, Whaling, several presidential biographies, and a huge variety of other topics are infinitely better than the commercial stations have managed to do, and the History Channel and even Nat Geo often do a sensationalist approach to similar topics that are really lacking when compared to what PBS has done.

I listen to NPR quite a lot.
"All things Considered" is just about the highest quality radio show of its type and I like "Snap Judgment" and "Radio Lab" for a good story.

   But their bias is so strong that they never describe anyone as an extreme liberal, from their POV the extremes of Liberalism are so near home it seems ridiculous to them to describe them as extremists.

    On Television I prefer Fox News where the Liberal viewpoint gets reasonable representation , but doesn't make itself a home . Their claim to be fair and balanced is not in any way more ridiculous than NPR being totally blind to their very evident bias.