birdog1960

i'm impressed. an analogy between the liberal msm conspiracy and the farce of professional wrestling. awesome .

hmmm, natural selection?

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-cdc-warns-that-the-flu-season-may-be-a-bad-one/. looks like a bad bug this year. if you haven't already, get a shot.

aaron sorkin sells. people actually pay extra to watch newsroom. i think hbo is probably the most left leaning "network" there is in regards to their series and docs and they're subscription only. it's about demographics and the folks buying hbo generally like this stuff, including me. you're not likely to see a neocon equivalent of jon stewart on hbo. but it's not about conspiracy. it's about subscriptions and demand.

i actually agree with everything said here x for the counter establishment part. i wouldn't characterize budding journalists as being predominantly that. i'd stick with "idealistic".. my tendency is to listen more frequently to those motivated to enter the news field for more selfless reasons than to those with overt ulterior motives. if you start with good intentions, your chances of obtaining good results are better. one certainly needs to keep in mind that this, by virtue of the mechanisms you describe, will lead to some bias and therefore some balance must be sought by listening/watching to less "purely" motivated sources from time to time.

that's an important distinction between the right and left media presence. for the most part, the left is not organized or calculated as you describe and apparently agree with.. i agree that many journalists lean left. i think it's often an idealistic thing. some are channeling the hemingway stories they read in an earnest sort of way. alternatively, much of the right wing media seems very calculated and organized. some for viewers and profit, some to promote an agenda but little, as i see it, for the journalistic ideal of shedding light on the truth, whatever that happens to be. i'm sure there are those at fox motivated in such a manner but i can't think of any off hand. i can imagine several at npr or pbs that are so motivated.

none of this seems like masterminds at work. orton or palmer? williams or the lacrosse player? there's not a lot to consider here yet these are sources of serious contention. these should not have been split decisions.

so wait, who wanted jordan palmer and who wanted orton?

the implication is that helpless, regular folks are victims of an organized propaganda campaign engineered by liberal elites to somehow advance their self serving goals. the role of the right wing propaganda machine in this very scenario often goes unquestioned by the same people that complain about the msm and is likely closer to the truth.

fair enough. i watch almost no network shows except sports but i've seen a few of those pieces. they seem to sell which goes to greg's point. the "moral" is always pretty obvious and usually clumsily delivered. these aren't allegories or subliminal artworks. even more obvious are the liberal leaning hbo shows. if you're watching newsroom you expect a liberal viewpoint. it's no secret.

you mean it wasn't hollywood insiders that produced those most excellent atlas shrugged films?

and that's the point. do you think this msm moniker is accidental? it implies that the listeners and competitor sources are victims. and that conservative sources are unconventional and revolutionary. nothing could be further from the truth. this is purposeful disinformation setting up the unfortunate reality that people believe only their chosen partisan news sources. it makes for an uninformed and easily misled public.

now c'mon. everyone knows it's the kennedys with help from george soros.

almost everything seems liberal if you are on the far edge of conservatism.

probably because they are competing for the same finite number of minds as limpy, hannity, o'reilly et al.

one need look no further than this board to see proof of this. b man's endless links to obscure but presumably popular far right sites, never cease to amaze me. perhaps there are analoous left wing sites proliferating so wildly but neither I nor any liberal i know seeks them out. it's almost as if far right wingers require external validation of their views......

because there are only so many nimrods to cater too. the better audience demographics are over at npr/pbs and they're not after profits so it's near impossible to compete.

because bob hayes was not an exeptional receiver but was an exceptional olympic athlete. thanks for making my point.

um no. the guy was 6'1" 190, chain smoker (even smoking on the sidelines) and very slow by today's standards. he had intangibles. we've yyet to see if sammy has them as well.

key words...there's this guy, biletnikoff, that they named college football's highest wide receiver award on. there were many peers who were felt to possess superior physical skills. they don't have awards named after them.

let me break it down for you mono- syl-ab-ic-ly: he's just a rook-ie and should be con-sid-ered such. Too bad so much was paid for him and so much needs to be ex-pect-ed from him. O-K?

maybe if we stopped trying to justify the trade, we could judge his play more objectively. from that prospective he looks like a promising rookie receiver. unfortunately, we do need to consider his cost from the trade...

saw it last week also. thought it was very good but not as good as the previous 2. not a lot of action. ideally they would haver not divided the 3rd book into 2 parts. i saw snowpiercer between this and the 2nd hunger games. interestingly, the themes are very similar yet the methods very different. i personally like the hunger games much better but admired snowpiercer as well.

an interesting thread in that the usual knuckle draggers seem almost progressive in reference to the even further right loons. almost entertaining.

there's nothing to see here. a politically motivated witch hunt committee said so. fini...