Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

[hnumpah]

and thus you can completely refute it......right?

No need. They admit their bias, by claiming to have been 'Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996'.

Note I did not say their conclusions were wrong, just that they are, of course, biased. Talking heads talking to talking heads are not of much interest to me, nor are their conclusions about what the other talking heads are saying.

[sirs]

and thus you can completely refute it......right?

No need. They admit their bias, by claiming to have been 'Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996'. Note I did not say their conclusions were wrong, just that they are, of course, biased.

Hey, I'm biased too, and largely right most of the time.  Go figure.  Seriously though, thanks for helping to validate the point they were making though.  That much is appreciated.  Unless of course you're planning on presenting some refuting evidence/URL's.  The web site in question is not so much an op-ed source (though it does have them) as much as a source of the overwhelming MSM bias reporting, in 1 location.  The story in particular that Bt & this "source" are referring to is a demonstration of just how bad the MSM bias has become.  And this is small potatoes to the story Ami provided at the top of this thread.

But hey, if you want to twaddle on about "the source" (in what I might assume as a deflection effort), vs actually discussing the merits of both stories being presented, knock your socks off

[Xavier_Onassis]

But hey, if you want to twaddle on about "the source" (in what I might assume as a deflection effort), vs actually discussing the merits of both stories being presented, knock your socks off

==========================================
Both shoelessness and socklessness are a boon to silence, and as we know, silence is necessary for those spoken volumes.

[sirs]

Good to see we have Xo here to continually add absolutely squat to the discussion

[BT]

From a totally unbiased source, no doubt ...

The author of the piece was the author maligned by Griffith. I woud expect he could produce what he wrote to counter Griffith's claims. So I'm not sure i see a bias there.

If you are referring to me, I do admit I am not fond of "journalists" taking quotes out of context for the mere purpose of playing gotcha games and having teasers at hand to drive ad revenues.

What is your position on such journalistic practices?

[sirs]

From a totally unbiased source, no doubt ...

...

If you are referring to me, I do admit I am not fond of "journalists" taking quotes out of context for the mere purpose of playing gotcha games and having teasers at hand to drive ad revenues.   What is your position on such journalistic practices?

Excellent question.  (and before Xo types his foot in the mouth again, no, it's not my question either)

[hnumpah]

If you are referring to me...

I wasn't.

[sirs]

So, more to the point, "What is your position on such journalistic practices?"

[Plane]

You'd also have to believe that eight years of continuing declining trade balances under a Republican President had no effect on the dollar.

You might , if we had such a thing happen.

You didn't notice that during times that the dollar devalued against other currencys , our balence of trade would improve?

[hnumpah]

The same as my position on McCain and Palin and Obama and Biden doing the same thing - 'taking quotes out of context for the mere purpose of playing gotcha games and having teasers at hand...', except in their case they aren't trying to drive ad revenues, they are trying to portray theit opponent in an unfavorable light to get elected.

[Plane]

To believe that crap, you'd have to believe either
(a) that the lending restrictions were loosened under a Democratic President and Congress, but that from the time of the loosening and through almost eight years of a Republican Presidency, all but two with a Republican Congress, risky lending continued unabated, and most of the risky loans were being repaid on time until suddenly and without warning all or most of the risky loans suddenly went sour more or less at once and caused the crash;

Well yes , it is the nature of a crash and the nature of an avelanche for the weight of the problem to build up slowly and silently , then fail catastrophicly this load can be traced back to decisions made decades ago and an accumulation of mistakes over a longperiod.

or
(b) that the loan restrictions were removed during a Republican administration and nobody in two full terms of a Republican administration all but two of which with a Republican Congressional majority could stop the evil Democrats from letting Fannie and Freddie run wild making crazy loans to irresponsible paupers.

That too is true , but the causes don't have tobe so simple that only a few things went wrong and all of the mistakes were made in one office. What the Democrats did contributed a lot , what the Repubvlicans didn't do might be construed as being even worse.

[sirs]

The same as my position on McCain and Palin and Obama and Biden doing the same thing - 'taking quotes out of context for the mere purpose of playing gotcha games and having teasers at hand...', except in their case they aren't trying to drive ad revenues, they are trying to portray theit opponent in an unfavorable light to get elected.

So, it's your position that this overwhelming level of overt media bias against Palin & McCain has prescious little to do with portraying them in a negative light (which coincidentally helps Obama), but is simply being driven by ad revenues, which....is no real biggie.  Does that sum your POV up, on the question posed?  Strange how these ad revenues apparently only generate a 1 side application

It's also my understanding that its expected for the political parties to be doing it at each other.  You seem to be giving the MSM a pass.  So, it's expected of them too?

[Plane]

The same as my position on McCain and Palin and Obama and Biden doing the same thing - 'taking quotes out of context for the mere purpose of playing gotcha games and having teasers at hand...', except in their case they aren't trying to drive ad revenues, they are trying to portray theit opponent in an unfavorable light to get elected.

So, it's your position that this overwhelming level of overt media bias against Palin & McCain has prescious little to do with portraying them in a negative light (which coincidentally helps Obama), but is simply being driven by ad revenues, which....is no real biggie.  Does that sum your POV up, on the question posed?  Strange how these ad revenues apparently only generate a 1 side application

It's also my understanding that its expected for the political parties to be doing it at each other.  You seem to be giving the MSM a pass.  So, it's expected of them too?

At this point Obama spending is about eight times McCain spending on advertisement and other electioneering.

Check these figures for me , I am not certain that the diffrence is that small.

[hnumpah]

So, it's your position that this overwhelming level of overt media bias against Palin & McCain has prescious little to do with portraying them in a negative light (which coincidentally helps Obama), but is simply being driven by ad revenues, which....is no real biggie.  Does that sum your POV up, on the question posed?

No.

It's also my understanding that its expected for the political parties to be doing it at each other.  You seem to be giving the MSM a pass.  So, it's expected of them too?

No. Nor you or BT.

[sirs]

So, it's your position that this overwhelming level of overt media bias against Palin & McCain has prescious little to do with portraying them in a negative light (which coincidentally helps Obama), but is simply being driven by ad revenues, which....is no real biggie.  Does that sum your POV up, on the question posed?

No.

Now, I'm really confused.  Care to clarify?  You seemed to take the typical blanket condemnation, like when Palestinian pundits are asked if they'd condem a particular suicide bombing of an Isreali bus, and they answer to the effect that "We condemn all acts of terror, including the latest X the Israelis did"  When asked of your specifics on these 2 stories and stories like them, you blanketed everyone, then even gave some loophole to the MSM that they do it for ad revenue.  All the while failing to address either of these stories presented that demonstrate how egregious the bias is.  So, yea, could you clarify your position a bit better?  Is the MSM trying to portray McCain & Palin in a negative light, compared to Obama & Biden?

It's also my understanding that its expected for the political parties to be doing it at each other.  You seem to be giving the MSM a pass.  So, it's expected of them too?

No. Nor you or BT.

Still waiting for the condemnations, if they're not to be given a pass then.  Nor do I see Bt or myself perptuating such a bias, unless you care to provide examples