[NeedKarma]

"Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it. I have said this - Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign -- I have said that all along.''

This man is clearly an idiot. Here's an example of Fox News' responsible reporting:

Fox News Jokes About Killing Obama

The incident happen in an exchange with the FOX News anchor. When asked her opinion of the recent scandal surrounding some comments made by Sen. Hillary Clinton, which Trotta described by saying that, "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Hemmer quickly corrected Trotta, having noticed that she had said "Osama" when she meant "Obama." At this point, Trotta said, "Obama. Well... both if we could!" Trotta then laughed gleefully.

[tomder55]

Update on the progress of the Ron Paul campaign . (as you know he has not officially dropped out of the contest)

In yesterday's Idaho primary Ron Paul collected a best to date 24% of the Republican vote. Paul supporters were actually disappointed with the result because the contest has shifted to the cheap media markets;Paul has horded his campaign funds , and McCain, having clinched the nomination, has effectively disengaged from the GOP race. If Paul was going to make a move to show electoral legitimacy this would've been the place to lay it on the line.

But Paul is more content to try to disrupt the Republican convention and perhaps throw a "Hail Mary pass" on the convention floor . Paul's supporters have been showing up attempting to take over State conventions with the goal of using that venue to seat their delegates at the national convention ;even though the state's delegations are already pledged. Then if they can force a 2nd ballot it would free up many of the delegates to nominate who they wish . It is a " Hail Mary Pass "because their tactic needs to survive the 1st ballot ,which McCain has locked up theoretically . What it would take is a bunch of trojan horse Paul delegates dressed up as McCain delegates not voting in the 1st round.
Ron Paul's troops quietly take over some local GOP groups : Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times
At very least they intend to force some issues during the Republican platform debate.

Whatever staying power Paul has is more attributed to a dissatisfaction of McCain by the Republican base than an enduring message by Paul. He gets the protest votes because no one else stayed in the process long enough to split them with him.

[NeedKarma]

Whatever staying power Paul has is more attributed to a dissatisfaction of McCain by the Republican base than an enduring message by Paul.

I disagree. I believe that they know his message and want it to be heard.

[purplewings]

If this is true, they sure seem to be having trouble making up their mind this year.

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate because his policy positions are extreme.

Ron Paul has extreme policy that people don't agree with? Really? Do you think people disagree with following the Constitution as it was intended? I don't.
Do you think people want more government instead of less? I don't.

Do people want to pay more taxes instead of less?
Do people want more government intervention into their private lives?
Do we want the Federal Reserve holding our money so the government can use it however and whenever they decide without our input?
Do people want amnesty for illegals?

If people knew his positions, I don't believe they would disagree. They don't know his positions because he's been kept from their view the majority of the time. When they do mention him it's in a way that indicates he knows nothing, and yet his time with Congress as well as his career as a doctor, show him to be very knowledgeable about our government.

[speechlesstx]

This man is clearly an idiot. Here's an example of Fox News' responsible reporting:

NK, I'm not saying McAuliffe isn't an idiot, but in this case he's right. The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University did a recent study and reported this:

Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Trotta's comment was out of line, but if you want to judge FNC on that one comment by someone rarely seen on the network, let's judge HBO by the same standard for Bill Maher's outrageous remarks. Or how about MSNBC over Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann? Let's be fair and balanced about this.

[NeedKarma]

Your "recent study" comes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs which:
Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.

Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

[JBeaucaire]

...Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

That's not an argument. That's begging the question your opinion about FOX is true because you say so... facts or no facts. Hehe, that's actually pretty funny.

Well, let me try. "Everyone knows the media is owned and operated by the liberal pundits and conservative values and candidates can't even buy a fair shake. Everyone knows that. No self-aware intelligence can deny that."

(Hey, I do feel better... :) )

[tomder55]

Here are the facts on Ron Paul and his participation in the GOP debates

There were 20 debates both televised and not televised . Ron Paul participated in 17 of them . Of the 3 he did not attend ;The one everyone remembers is the FOX debate (you know FOX ;the network that Needkarma says no one takes seriously ).He also was not invited to a nonsponsored debate in Washington DC Oct 16,2007 . He also chose to not participate in a local debate in Iowa October 25 ,2007 .

How then did he not have ample opportnity to get his message out when besides participating in the vast majority of the debates ;he also had the most money of any candidate in the GOP field for the purpose of advertising ?
I recall in NY and NJ ,the 2 States I travel in daily ,Ron Paul signs were out months before the other candidates and they littered the highways and street corners . His blog sites have been some of the most sophisticated on the net. Clearly his core group of supporters are dedicated .

The truth is that although it is a nice fantasy ;his vision of the role of the US in the world is not practical . As Ronald Reagan said during the D Day anniversary at Pointe de Hoc Normandy.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

I agree with many of the libertarian positions and find myself in agreement with much of what Ron Paul says even if I don't think he is the best perosn to lead that movement . However ;the libertarian position on the role of America has been discreditted much like Chamberlain's position in Munich.

[NeedKarma]

No it wasn't serious argument, it was kind of a jab Fox's viewership demographics.

[purplewings]

Here are the facts on Ron Paul and his participation in the GOP debates

There were 20 debates both televised and not televised . Ron Paul participated in 17 of them . Of the 3 he did not attend ;The one everyone remembers is the FOX debate (you know FOX ;the network that Needkarma says no one takes seriously ).He also was not invited to a nonsponsored debate in Washington DC Oct 16,2007 . He also chose to not participate in a local debate in Iowa October 25 ,2007 .

How then did he not have ample opportnity to get his message out when besides participating in the vast majority of the debates ;he also had the most money of any candidate in the GOP field for the purpose of advertising ?
I recall in NY and NJ ,the 2 States I travel in daily ,Ron Paul signs were out months before the other candidates and they littered the highways and street corners . His blog sites have been some of the most sophisticated on the net. Clearly his core group of supporters are dedicated .

The truth is that although it is a nice fantasy ;his vision of the role of the US in the world is not practical . As Ronald Reagan said during the D Day anniversary at Pointe de Hoc Normandy.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

I agree with many of the libertarian positions and find myself in agreement with much of what Ron Paul says even if I don't think he is the best perosn to lead that movement . However ;the libertarian position on the role of America has been discreditted much like Chamberlain's position in Munich.

Interesting that I've seen the other candidates dozens of times, at least once a day, usually more but have seen Ron Paul about twice during the entire campaign. Maybe the shows he did aired while I was sleeping? He did bow out when it became obvious he would get no news hype. He hopes to maintain his seat on Congress at least. I once saw him try to respond to a question and was cut off before he had completed his answer. He has not been treated nicely, no matter what is being said. Since he is known to vote contrary to the status quo, they really don't accept him. Especially now that he's told some of their secrets.

Ron Paul speaks a bit slower but if anyone takes the time to listen, he is 100% for the Constitution which the others have manipulated to suit themselves.

Even if he were in office and his ideas were too far-fetched there is always a semi-useful Congress to stop them. He couldn't do worse than what we've had and probably would do much better. After all, he's not in it for the cash or the fame. He simply loves America.

[tomder55]

I do not disparage his motives just his dangerous notions about our role in the world. Do you remember how he responded to the question of how he would've dealt with al-Qaeda after 9-11 ? Almost eveyone agrees that going after them in Afghanistan was the correct move. Well... almost everyone . Ron Paul said his constitutional mandate was to issue a "Letter of Marquis". In 20th century jargon that is he wanted to send in a hit squad.

He also did not answer adequately to the clearly racists material published in his news letter penned under his name.

[purplewings]

Racist? Ron Paul has been a free doctor to hundreds of poverty stricken black families. That should be the answer shouldn't it?

Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.

It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with... you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. :) OMG

[ordinaryguy]

Ron Paul has extreme policy that people don't agree with? Really?

Yes, really.

Do you think people disagree with following the Constitution as it was intended? I don't.

I think a majority disagrees with following the Constitution as Ron Paul interprets it.

Do you think people want more government instead of less? I don't.

I think a majority wants more competent and less doctrinaire government. I don't think they want a major reduction in the level of government services.

Do people want to pay more taxes instead of less?

Of course not. They want somebody else to pay for their government services.

Do people want more government intervention into their private lives?

No, but many of them want the government to make other people behave.

Do we want the Federal Reserve holding our money so the government can use it however and whenever they decide without our input?

Since that isn't what the Fed does, the question is moot. A competent central bank is an essential component of a market economy. People who want to abolish it generally misunderstand its role and function. Going back on the gold standard is a recipe for financial disaster.

Do people want amnesty for illegals?

Not if it's called that. Do they want to pay what it would cost to round them all up and deport them? I doubt it.

If people knew his positions, I don't believe they would disagree.

Well, I know his positions and I disagree.

They don't know his positions because he's been kept from their view the majority of the time. When they do mention him it's in a way that indicates he knows nothing, and yet his time with Congress as well as his career as a doctor, show him to be very knowledgeable about our government.

Anybody who cares can easily find out what his positions are. It isn't necessary to postulate a vast media conspiracy to explain his lack of support.

[tomder55]

Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.

It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with... you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. :) OMG

can't argue with you threre . I know peope who argue that after 4 years of a disastrous Democrat rule that includes veto proof majorities in both houses of Congres that the US will plead with the GOP to come to the rescue ;and that will give them ample time to bring in fresh blood . Perhaps they are right . After 4 years of Carter the country handed the Presidency to the Republicans for 12 years. After 2 years of the Clintoon act the Republicans began to build their majority in Congress. But a Democrat control will shape the courts for the next 20 years and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.

[NeedKarma]

But a Democrat control will shape the courts for the next 20 years and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.

Or 50% of the population is looking forward to it. It's in the eye of the beholder.

[tomder55]

No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

Here are the FNC (Fox News Channel )ratings for this period.

For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).
Amercia's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time.
Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months.

mediabistro.com: TVNewser

[speechlesstx]

Your "recent study" comes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs which:
Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

Nice try NK, but you left out the last sentence of your quote:

After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."

You also failed to be "fair and balanced" in omitting discussion of the CMPA critic you cite, FAIR:

In 1990, Walter Goodman wrote an editorial in The New York Times comparing FAIR and Accuracy in Media and stated that the two groups' "criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious", and that FAIR's "target invariably is bias on the right."[2]

In May 2002, Jeff Cohen, a FAIR founder, left the organization to work as a producer on Phil Donahue's short-lived talk show on MSNBC...

In 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that "... Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule".[4] FAIR has frequently defended the Chávez government against such criticism.

FAIR currently cites far, far, far left-wing cartoonist and disgusting Bush critic Ted Rall as an authority on fairness in the media. Rall is the bottom feeder that drew this racist cartoon where Condoleezza Rice calls herself "Bush's beard" and "his house nigga":



I come prepared, NK.

[NeedKarma]

I come prepared, NK.

I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.

[speechlesstx]

I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.

It has MUCH more to do with taking time to know the facts than it does free time to hang out here. Fact is, Olbermann is a deluded left-wing conspiracy nut.

[ordinaryguy]

purplewings agrees: Most of your points were childish and completely untrue. The fact is people don't know who Ron Paul is. To this day I have people asking. The Media decides who we will be able to choose from and that's a fact

Hiding behind a supposed conspiracy by The Media instead of actually debating the merits of his policy positions is a cop out. If you think my points were erroneous or poorly reasoned, address them in an adult fashion.