Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And at MSNBC the requirement is ranting until you internally combust . (Rachel Madcow being the exception... and the faux "conservative " on the morning Schmo).

---

I probably would have added that if I knew more about the liberal media. Thanks for the balancing that out. Yes, well, the less said about standards of journalism the better.

What everyone needs to realize is that despite the claim that these are "news " networks ;the vast majority of their format is commentary and debate . When that is realized then their formats are better understood. You probably don't want me to get started on "standards of journalism". When we only had a choice of 3 major networks ,the so called gatekeepers of truth " were hardly unbiased . They disguised their biases in a straight news reporting format . But their biases were still there . The difference was that there was no counter-point .
I much prefer today where the consumer has choice in coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What everyone needs to realize is that despite the claim that these are "news " networks ;the vast majority of their format is commentary and debate . When that is realized then their formats are better understood. You probably don't want me to get started on "standards of journalism". When we only had a choice of 3 major networks ,the so called gatekeepers of truth " were hardly unbiased . They disguised their biases in a straight news reporting format . But their biases were still there . The difference was that there was no counter-point .
I much prefer today where the consumer has choice in coverage.

---

I don't claim they are news networks. I get that idea from the fact that on just about every screen shot we see in the bottom left hand corner "Fox News"

Yes, it is an excellent choice. No doubt you are bound to get someways close to the truth with that type of 'choice'.


Tom have a look at what this type of choice is giving you.

Quote:

---

Tom have a look at what this type of choice is giving you.

---

Yes I have . As you might have noticed in my responses , I don't restrict my options . For one thing ,most of the news I read comes from a variety of on line sources.. and most of them are primary sources, (if you consider the major news outlets as "primary") ,or reference them.

Quote:

---

Yes, it is an excellent choice. No doubt you are bound to get someways close to the truth with that type of 'choice'.

---

You forgot the sarcasm font . I suppose 'all the news the government sees fit to report ' is a much better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes I have . As you might have noticed in my responses , I don't restrict my options . For one thing ,most of the news I read comes from a variety of on line sources.. and most of them are primary sources, (if you consider the major news outlets as "primary") ,or reference them.

---

Most people go to the site that that best suits their political beliefs. This is pretty evident here. For example, far right wingers have a tendency to go to far right wing sources to confirm their preconceived beliefs. In a similar fashion left wingers go to those sources that support their beliefs.

[/QUOTE=tomder55;3569942]

You forgot the sarcasm font . I suppose 'all the news the government sees fit to report ' is a much better option.

Tom, you are drawing a false dichotomy again. It doesn't have to be one or the other. So, no I don't believe that government gives us all the news we need to know.

[/QUOTE]

If you want to draw that dichotomy then in the end it is just really Hobson's choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Yes, the other video's reveal a lot about the other probable requirements of the job. Being symbols of male appreciation seems to be part of the job as well. Just going through the other clips it seems that 'leg shots' are somewhat overdone.

There must be some average looking women who may be a little overweight that meet the journalistic qualifications at Fox. From what I have seen the standard of journalism required is very basic.

---

Apparently you haven't seen much either. They have plenty of average or worse looking contributors and for some of us it's also a matter presentation. I'd rather watch someone who is entertaining, engaging and humorous than someone who is pompous, snide and/or ranting until their spleen bursts.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

They have plenty of average or worse looking contributors

---

It's true. Alan Combs is the ugliest person on earth and Bob Beckel is a fat sweating slob.

Hmmmm... I seem to think they have OTHER similarities besides ugliness. I wonder what that might be?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
It's true. Alan Combs is the ugliest person on earth and Bob Beckel is a fat sweating slob.

Hmmmm... I seem to think they have OTHER similarities besides ugliness. I wonder what that might be?

excon

---

They're alcoholics?

Greta is no looker and no one would confuse Susan Estrich with Heidi Klum. I feel ill just listening to her voice.

Colmes looks like something that came out of the crypt.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4125/4...fbf6837d_z.jpg

Quote:

---

Colmes looks like something that came out of the crypt.

---

I think you may have missed ex's point. But in a way you reinforced it.

Before Colmes went off the rail progressive ,he hosted a morning drive time radio show here in NY . He was very entertaining . He is good at the roles he plays . On Fox he plays foil ,and he's good at it too. However ,his radio show on progressive radio is a snoozer. He should listen to some of his tapes from his morning show to rediscover what he lost.