adam@section118 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I only browse the tailgate and while I love reading politics I will never fully understand them, but ummm, in my opinion bang is far from a liberal. Hell, I have seen him bash both sides, and I have seen him go after any and all perons from many political parties. ---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 04:52 PM ---------- Part of the problem was on the day Weiner came clean, his press conference was at 4:00. Stewart tapes at 5. So they really had to decide whether to scrap the show they had already written and try to rewrite the whole thing in an hour. They didn't. Instead, they plugged in a short mention of it and went ahead with the regular show, which didn't look good when it aired at 11 that night. The next day he played off on the criticism he got very deftly with a fake confessional news conference. And since then, he's been all over the Weiner thing, all the while acknowledging that Weiner as been a friend. Thanks. Must be awesome to be a writer for him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 LOL. I could care less about Fox. Your incessant rant about them borders on a severe derangement syndrome. I don't watch either to any great degree so in the final analysis it matter not one iota of anything to me. But I just love libs like you and Libeowitz proclaim their "objectivity" or no dog in the race when they've bet the farm on an outcome. He's entirely wrong about the NY times you know the media. The honest libs see him for what he is and others just explain it away. Nice explanation. Man, it must be free peanut day. For a guy who doesn't care about Fox, you always show up in threads that cast them badly and wave your sword around. And once again, Stewart has never pretended to be anything. He's an unabashed liberal, and says so all the time. But if it helps you sleep to think that you've exposed yet another one, by all means. By the by, calling him "Liebowitz" on a board in which everyone has a pseudonym is sort of stupid, don't you think? ~Bang ---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 09:06 PM ---------- I only browse the tailgate and while I love reading politics I will never fully understand them, but ummm, in my opinion bang is far from a liberal. Hell, I have seen him bash both sides, and I have seen him go after any and all perons from many political parties.! GrrrRrRRr BANG NOT LIKE FOX!! Bang Lib"Rul CommiE PiNKO! BaNg liKE TrUTh! BanG Tree HuGgGinG WEENIE! ~Ugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Pseudonym? Maybe you Lacy...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Pseudonym?Maybe you Lacy...... Remlik calls, and we must obey. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 . By the by, calling him "Liebowitz" on a board in which everyone has a pseudonym is sort of stupid, don't you think? ~Bang ---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 09:06 PM ---------- GrrrRrRRr BANG NOT LIKE FOX!! Bang Lib"Rul CommiE PiNKO! BaNg liKE TrUTh! BanG Tree HuGgGinG WEENIE! ~Ugh I guess not. For those seeking the "truth" as so many proclaim seems like a reasonable approach.You don't object to the truth do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 may as well add this: http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/is-jon-stewart-correct-that-fo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I always think its interesting that John Stewart never pretends to be anything other than a satirist at most, and the networks he makes fun of are constantly pretending like he's some sort of political activist who is spreading propaganda or something. OH NO! THE YOUNG KIDS ARE WATCHING JON STEWART AND THEY'RE ADOPTING HIS POLITICAL VIEWS BECAUSE THEY'RE FUNNY, HIP, AND TRENDY! I don't know anybody who has become a liberal because they watch the daily show, I don't know anybody who watches the daily show as an authority on the news at all. Its a harmless comedy show. Of course it is political comedy so at times they have to be a little bit more clever or perhaps a bit less over the top than shows like South Park, but its all a joke. I don't understand why people in the news profession would be threatened by a guy who makes jokes unless they're afraid there is some truth to them. Also: "...particular Fox shows scored well above the average. Hannity & Colmes was one of only four choices to exceed 40 percent -- the others were the New Yorker/the Atlantic, NPR and MSNBC’s Hardball -- while The O’Reilly Factor scored 28 percent, or 10 points above the national average. (Hannity & Colmes even exceeded Stewart’s Daily Show in this poll, 42 percent to 30 percent.)" So is it a bragging point now that viewers of Hannity and Colmes, a news show, are 12% more informed than viewers of The Daily Show, a comedy show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I guess not. For those seeking the "truth" as so many proclaim seems like a reasonable approach.You don't object to the truth do you? Well, then what is your name? You come off like an angry kid. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Stupid question for you, Bang (or others)I was reading the WAPO the other day (I was quite a few days behind) and they kind of blasted him for not covering the story because they were college friends. Is that accurate. or did the paper just miss the humor initially? Look forward to seeing this interview. Have not seen JS in a while, but he is always good for a laugh or two (or ten) His bits on the Wiener scandal were awful. If you ever want to see what Jon Stewart comes up with when he's blinded by bias, watch that week. At least he had the sense to admit it and make fun of himself for it afterwards. For the sake of the show I can only hope no more of his friends get caught up in a high-profile scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It's funny to see someone in the media blame Stewart for his Weiner coverage like he was to be held up to a Walter Cronkite like standard. He's a comedian...he points this out constantly and explained why he went easy on him. Also...it's not like there wasn't absurdly comical coverage of the event on the 24/7 networks already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 yeah, the best jokes about Weiner were done by the graphics dept. Although it was pretty funny when Stewart gashed his wrist open with a glass while pretending to do a press conference. (For real.) ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 What, you didn't want to leave your diaper comment up from last night?So tell me, O' defender of lies,, o protector of propaganda... if you AGREE there's a bias in the news, why doesn't it just piss you off to no end that they felt it necessary to EDIT OUT the most damning evidence against Fox's claim to be a "news organization" when Stewart brought it up on Wallace's show? The fact that you don't says a lot about you and your opinion on this matter. It's my thinking that if you complain about bias, but then accept bias as the solution, then you're not much smarter than a **** throwing monkey chattering and screaming at passers-by in the zoo. You're not against bias. You just want one you agree with. And that makes you part of the problem, actually makes you the pawn with which the propagandists use to make the problem worse. You happily dance to their tune. So quit dancing on your strings, marionette. Fox is indefensible. Open up your brain and maybe next time we can talk about these things like grown ups. ~Bang You know when I throw a rock over the fence, the dog that barks the loudest, is the one I hit. So, are you going to continue to nip at my heels, my little chihuahua friend, or are you going to tuck your tail between your legs and run to the porch to see if the big dogs are going to let you lie there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 You know when I throw a rock over the fence, the dog that barks the loudest, is the one I hit.So, are you going to continue to nip at my heels, my little chihuahua friend, or are you going to tuck your tail between your legs and run to the porch to see if the big dogs are going to let you lie there? What does this even mean? The rocks you're throwing seem to be falling out of your head. So, what DID you think when you read that Wallace edited the interview to take out the most damning bit of evidence of their being nothing but a propaganda machine? This is my point. The frirst thing you did was try to claim Fox wasn't mainstream, which is laughable, then you've tried to counter that by hollering about bias, and even expressly said how much you agree with Wallace, ho edited the interview to hush the pushing of agenda by his network. Like i said, you don't care about bias. You just care about bias you don't like. Yip yip yip. ~Bark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 For what it's worth, there was a pretty funny review of the new Keith Olbermann show in the Post today. The reviewer really bashed the hell out of it. So, just for those who think that the "mainstream" media never goes after liberals read it and you might get a nice wave of catharsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 What does this even mean?The rocks you're throwing seem to be falling out of your head. So, what DID you think when you read that Wallace edited the interview to take out the most damning bit of evidence of their being nothing but a propaganda machine? This is my point. The frirst thing you did was try to claim Fox wasn't mainstream, which is laughable, then you've tried to counter that by hollering about bias, and even expressly said how much you agree with Wallace, ho edited the interview to hush the pushing of agenda by his network. Like i said, you don't care about bias. You just care about bias you don't like. Yip yip yip. ~Bark You know, when you come down off of your throne and sit down here with the rest of us, only then will you see how arrogant, narcissistic, and hypocritical you appear. Being the great seeker of truth that you are, you sit there and pass out your judgements of people, tell them not only what they think, but what they should think, and all the while, not addressing at all Diane Sawyers and ABC's misrepresentation of the Arizona law. Get over yourself and give the rest of us a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It's funny to see someone in the media blame Stewart for his Weiner coverage like he was to be held up to a Walter Cronkite like standard. He's a comedian...he points this out constantly and explained why he went easy on him. Very true. However, as a comedian he needs to be funny. His coverage of that scandal wasn't, really. It was obvious he was trying to find ways to make jokes without directly insulting his friend, and it came off really flat. But I like his work so I can forgive him this one time. ---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 07:14 PM ---------- You know when I throw a rock over the fence, the dog that barks the loudest, is the one I hit. Well to be fair, by your own admission, you posted four times in this thread before you even watched the interview. Looks to me like a rock smacked you right in the kisser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 What does this even mean?This is my point. The frirst thing you did was try to claim Fox wasn't mainstream, Yip yip yip. ~Bark Wrong again my barking friend You're pulling a Diane Sawyer Bang I said in the " Big picture " Fox is mainstream. I know you want to ignore that, but it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The Sawyer clip played in the Stewart/Wallace interview sounded an awful lot like a tease. Teases are supposed to be a bit sensational. You'd have to listen to the story to know if they really got it wrong or if they biased the story. The other question I would ask was when was that report in the timeline because they did, if memory serves, tone down what they were proposing and what Sawyer read might have been a legitimate interpretation albeit on the "look at me! Look at me! Give me your ratings damn you!" side of legitimate. It's dangerous to judge a book by its cover or a story by its title or tease. Still, I won't argue that it was sensational, over the top, and meant to agitate listeners and therefore you may have a point. On the other hand, why is it that we talk about what FOX is doing today and other folks are talking about what the liberals did last year. I mean someone actually brought up Dan Rather in this thread. He hasn't been at CBS for over a decade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [/color]Well to be fair, by your own admission, you posted four times in this thread before you even watched the interview. Looks to me like a rock smacked you right in the kisser. I was responding to Burgolds definition of mainstream....not about the video, so you may want to check your vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I was responding to Burgolds definition of mainstream....not about the video, so you may want to check your vision. It's still a rock, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It's still a rock, dude. Might be a boulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It's still a rock, dude. No, dude, .....It wasn't. Burgold said he couldn't understand how FOX couldn't be considered mainstream. I responded with the one way I personally thought that they could not be seen as mainstream, and then said in the " big picture ", they are. . Not a rock....dude. But that's a good try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No, dude, .....It wasn't. Burgold said he couldn't understand how FOX couldn't be considered mainstream. I responded with the one way I personally thought that they could not be seen as mainstream, and then said in the " big picture ", they are.. Not a rock....dude. But that's a good try. Still barking, I see. But if you don't see it, that's fine. I offered my opinion. Feel free to reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Still barking, I see. But if you don't see it, that's fine. I offered my opinion. Feel free to reject it. Feeling free, I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Wrong again my barking friendYou're pulling a Diane Sawyer Bang I said in the " Big picture " Fox is mainstream. I know you want to ignore that, but it's there. I see. Well, picking nits is a favorite pastime, I suppose. Beats the heat of the day and develops familial ties. In the BIG picture, yes, you put four or five words up there in this 100 post thread to acknowledge Fox was mainstream due to their viewership,. all the while arguing that because their 'take' is different, therefore they are not mainstream. Context of argument. It matters. So anyway, about this business of Chris Wallace editing that tape to take out Stewart's best point, and most damning point about Fox? What is up with that? To parrot,, i know you want to ignore that,, but it's there.. ~Bing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.