If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(newsbusters.org)   New study of the obvious: TV networks have pounded Bush for five years   (newsbusters.org) divider line 126
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

461 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2006 at 2:58 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-02 02:12:37 PM  
...but enough about my wife...
 
2006-08-02 02:16:26 PM  
It's not like there's that much positive material to report.
 
2006-08-02 02:16:27 PM  
If he didn't make himself such an easy farking target...
 
2006-08-02 02:17:05 PM  
They have??? Not that he hasn't served it since about 2002 or whenever the Bushies started linking 9/11 with Iraq, butI thought it was only since the '04 election.
 
2006-08-02 02:17:14 PM  
Shiat, I pound the bush every chance I get.
 
2006-08-02 02:18:25 PM  
newsbusters.org
 
2006-08-02 02:22:54 PM  
Shameful. They should be disemboweling him.
 
2006-08-02 02:24:00 PM  
News flash: Liberal reporters and editors are critical of Republicans.

Is the study including editorials?

It would be interesting to see the same study made of a Democrat president. It may be that reporters are just more critical than they are positive.
 
2006-08-02 02:24:04 PM  
Total BS.. The media has been so friendly to Bush.. that's why he won the second term. This is just more propaganda from the right trying to claim a liberal media.

BS.
 
2006-08-02 02:24:55 PM  
If by "pounded," you mean "given a free pass to," then yes, I am in complete agreement.
 
2006-08-02 02:25:02 PM  
So a site with "combating liberal media bias" in it's slogan cites a study by an organization that is funded by conservative foundations.

I'm sure it's all full of 100% truthiness.
 
2006-08-02 02:25:58 PM  
I guess for FoxNews, "pounding Bush" is a euphamism for "humping Dubyas'leg"

/Sort of like Britney crying about losing her privacy, then posing pregnant and nude on a magazine cover.
 
2006-08-02 02:26:12 PM  
New study of the obvious: Submitter and NewsBusters are a bunch of whiney-ass tittybabies who need to get a farking life.
 
2006-08-02 02:28:14 PM  
a new report from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a nonpartisan research group

O RLY?
 
2006-08-02 02:28:47 PM  
Thin-skinned biatchy little crybabies.

"WAAAAH! WAAAAAAAH!!! They don't like our leader!"

Welcome to the Democratic party, circa 1998. Times about 10,000, considering "your guy" is ACTUALLY incompetent, and has farked over more than an intern.
 
2006-08-02 02:28:49 PM  
1) Contrary to what they say, I don't recall much negative stuff about Bush from, oh, 9/11/2001 to summer 2003.
2) Who knows how strictly they define "negative." Negative could be Hans Blix searching Iraq for WMDs and saying he wasn't finding anything.
3) There isn't much positive to report, anyway.
4) Consider the source.
5) I guess the media was nice to Clinton during incidents like the Lewinsky Affair.
6) This "liberal media bias" crap is getting tired, and it sounds like an excuse to pull out of your ass whenever things aren't going your way. It's like the right's version of Diebold.
 
2006-08-02 02:29:04 PM  
There is no liberal media.

It is the best Strawman conservatives have ever put forth.

It doesn't exist.

The media is corporate. It serves corporate interests. It's there to sell advertisments. There is not one media outlet that is doing anything more than pushing out what it thinks will sell ads. Not one.

Fox? Nope, not a conservative outlet. A niche market.
MSNBC? Nope, not a liberal outlet. A niche market.

Give it up; more and more people are wise to this particular joke every day.

It's all corporate.
 
2006-08-02 02:31:01 PM  
from the mediaho FA:

the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson

Thats all you need to know.
 
2006-08-02 02:32:30 PM  
 
2006-08-02 02:32:46 PM  
I don't know. Last time I watched FOXNews for more than 10 minutes I felt compelled to join the Church of Bush. I've been saying several Hail Condi's everyday now.
 
2006-08-02 02:39:26 PM  
I've been saying several Hail Condi's everyday now.

Blessed is the stinking, warmongering, hateful, xenophobic bastard fruit of thy womb?
 
2006-08-02 02:44:13 PM  
This website has the distinct aroma of Floor Humper spunk.
 
2006-08-02 02:45:27 PM  
Funniest headline all day! Well done Submitter!
 
2006-08-02 02:47:48 PM  
Reality does have a well-known liberal bias.

/still betting coverage of Clinton wasn't much better
 
2006-08-02 02:54:17 PM  
Step 1: Take page from "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
Step 2: Change instances of the word "Jew" to "Liberal"
Step 3: Profit
 
2006-08-02 02:57:01 PM  
Are they supposed to make up good things to report about?
 
2006-08-02 03:02:31 PM  
Is this a Jeff Gannon reference? He was certainly pounding someone in the white house.
 
2006-08-02 03:05:16 PM  
You'd figure they'd cheat on him after so long. We all get tired of pounding the same Bush over and over. Hopefully we can get some new meat in the White House soon and give that a good reaming.



//Hopes the Daily Show is just as funny in 2009.
 
2006-08-02 03:05:29 PM  
Bullshiat. The media were the biggest Bush war whores around, reporting Great Conquerer Bush's reluctant invasion of Iraq to get those WMDs and save the world from the evil Saddam!.
 
2006-08-02 03:13:56 PM  
And Bush has pounded the U.S.
 
2006-08-02 03:15:11 PM  
At least they don't discuss his sex life.
 
2006-08-02 03:15:18 PM  
Well, let's look at the bright side of Dumbnuts tenure...

...ok that was quick.

Impeach.
 
2006-08-02 03:15:26 PM  
Blues_X:
"So a site with "combating liberal media bias" in it's slogan cites a study by an organization that is funded by conservative foundations.

I'm sure it's all full of 100% truthiness."


Heh. Though it appears that the group doing the study is at least trying to have a non-partisan veneer, as with this piece about how Howard Dean couldn't get a break.

That said, they appear to characterize all stories about the President (or Dean, or whoever the subject is) as either positive or negative. I'm no fan of the MSM, but it seems unlikely to me that there wasn't a single story which couldn't be characterized as "neutral" or "ambiguous" or something like that. That makes me disinclined to dig much deeper into their stuff.
 
2006-08-02 03:19:32 PM  
Feh. Pound harder.
 
2006-08-02 03:20:21 PM  
There is more evil going on in the Bushmafia than we could even imagine.

If half the truths were revealed they would be on there way to prison...oh, wait.
 
2006-08-02 03:23:45 PM  
Reality has a liberal bias.
 
2006-08-02 03:24:04 PM  
unlikely: There is no liberal media.

It is the best Strawman conservatives have ever put forth.

It doesn't exist.

The media is corporate. It serves corporate interests. It's there to sell advertisments. There is not one media outlet that is doing anything more than pushing out what it thinks will sell ads. Not one.


There is still a liberal bias. You don't need to continue to pound Bush to sell copy. The media needs to realize that their irresponsible style is a threat to the War on Terror and that next time they could receive more than just a non-binding reprimand from Congress.

Bush could use the Espionage Act of 1917 to silence irresponsible types, and I suggest he consider using it before any serious damage is done.
 
2006-08-02 03:25:56 PM  
Ah yes, the old "whoever calls bullshiat when the President screws up on the job is a dirty liberal who is clearly biased" routine.

Never gets old.

Challenge to all conservatives: make your case for Bush having done a "good job."

Difficulty: taking down the Taliban doesn't count since any President, whether liberal, conservative, or any combination thereof, would have made that decision in an instant.
 
2006-08-02 03:25:56 PM  
... and the wikiality of how studies like this create a groundswell of the appearance of truthiness.

/Or something like that.
 
2006-08-02 03:27:50 PM  
Skookum

Seriously dude, your act is old. DIAF. If you don't like our media, move to North Korea where they break out pompoms whenever the glorious leader takes a poo.
 
2006-08-02 03:29:42 PM  
Poopspasm: If you don't like our media, move to North Korea where they break out pompoms whenever the glorious leader takes a poo.

Oh sure, just because I demand fairness in media automatically means let's make this place North Korea.

They need to clean their act up or at the least face audits, or whatever legal means to stop them from damaging the office of President.
 
2006-08-02 03:31:47 PM  
Are you talking about the Jews or the Liberals again, skookum? I get this rhetoric confused.
 
2006-08-02 03:31:58 PM  
You demand silence in the media, not fairness.

And I think the President is doing a pretty good job of damaging that office all by himself.
 
2006-08-02 03:32:18 PM  
REMEMBER: There are only two sides to every story! Us versus them! Right or wrong! Positive or negative!

Down with complexity, up with simplistic and meaningless distinction!
 
2006-08-02 03:33:04 PM  
Oh sure, just because I demand fairness in media

Noooo....you just demanded presidential oversight and possible use of treason statutes to silence the press.

Calling that pile of fascism "fairness" fools nobody.
 
2006-08-02 03:33:11 PM  
skookum: Oh sure, just because I demand fairness in media automatically means let's make this place North Korea.

fair enough, China should be more your speed...
 
2006-08-02 03:36:26 PM  
Poopspasm: You demand silence in the media, not fairness.

In this case, fairness is silence.

We don't need to hear daily how Bush is screwing up, how X number of soldiers got killed by roadside bombs, we don't need to hear about soldiers going crazy and killing people. This should be left out, simply because of the ensuing frenzy the anti-Bush crowd goes into. Over NOTHING. These things HAPPEN in war.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: .you just demanded presidential oversight and possible use of treason statutes to silence the press.

Only because it appears to be necessary.
 
2006-08-02 03:36:36 PM  
skookum

Bush could use the Espionage Act of 1917 to silence irresponsible types, and I suggest he consider using it before any serious damage is done.

Absolutely. The fools at the NY Times need to quit pretending that they're an "independent" press and should just report what the White House tells them.

"Free speech" is a politically correct way of being seditious.
 
2006-08-02 03:38:36 PM  
skookum

These things HAPPEN in war.

Don't forget your obligatory rant on why soldiers shouldn't be punished and should be able to do as they wish with impunity upon civilians.
 
2006-08-02 03:39:20 PM  
We don't need to hear daily how Bush is screwing up, how X number of soldiers got killed by roadside bombs, we don't need to hear about soldiers going crazy and killing people. This should be left out, simply because of the ensuing frenzy the anti-Bush crowd goes into. Over NOTHING. These things HAPPEN in war.


So why don't YOU turn to the Cartoon Network and ensure that no bad thoughts or unpleasant images enter your pretty little mind.? The rest of us? The adults? We like to stay informed. We like to know what's happening in our world even if -- shock -- it doesn't do anything to polish Mr. Bush's halo. Even if -- double shock -- it makes Mr. Bush or his administration look bad.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report