Chilly

omg, rofl, this is some !@#$ed up sh--. http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf Possibly NSFW. Its not really that explicit, and its on ABC News' website, but ya know, it is talking about penises and what not.

lmao. you know, it'd have its benefits to be able to say "Clinton tried to make my wife the next Monica"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_...EMPLATE=DEFAULT Ahahaha. Awesome.

Mommy says JP is a homosexual!

I've left a couple UT games where it was well over 100 degrees (~110 or so), its absolutely miserable, and we were beating some shittastic school by a ton of points.

That show sucks ass.

Or 39.

The problem is that the internet is not a truck, it is not something that you can just dump something on, its a series of tubes. Online poker, obviously, fills up the tubes, so that when my staff sends me an internet I don't get it for a few days.

I don't (and didn't) disagree with you here, just pointed out that different elements of the media attempt to draw in different audiences. You're right there, reporters haven't typically had a ton of political/military/other training. But yes, I do trust the media more then I would most people. Do I take their opinions as fact? Hell no. Do I trust them a helluva lot more then I would say Wacka or blzrul to relay information and what is happening? Yeah, I do. Would you not say the same? Would I put their opinions above other people who haven't followed things as closely? Probably. Do I trust them completely? Hell no. Its like Tom Edsall's new book, Building Red America. He's been reporting politics long enough to where he can see patterns and offer ideas explaining them, but he doesn't really know what he's talking about for some of it (like his assertion that the American electorate is currently polarized - its not, the candidates are). It's like most people, good ideas on one hand and stupidity on the other. Thats a large part due to resources. You've got the news networks and the news programs working with a 30minute to an hour window before they repeat stuff. Not nearly as much space/time to report the news as a newspaper does. Every news outlet will be sensationalist, I didn't say they weren't, its for economic reasons. My point with the Times article is that newspapers generally have more space and time, with which they use that time to write articles which have more facts. In the front page section I typically find myself reading all of the articles right around the middle, after most sensationalist stuff and before the editorial page (though I do like to read some Friedman, lol). They provide the meat of the coverage. I dunno, I didn't take it that way nor did I read it that way. To me it was written at the beginning to get people to read it, which I did when I hopped into it. After I read it, I was presented with the information that while some soldiers had these concerns, most of them had perfectly valid explanations. While there might be some shortages that they gave examples of (and hell, with an organization that big, would you really expect there not to be), by in large it isn't a huge problem. IIRC thats what ended up happening. The Pentagon was a bit short of their goals; not massively, mind you, but they were, and these soldiers were the ones directly affected by it. If I was to get upset at anything the media did over this issue it would be to take this story and quote it in other articles to "spice" those articles up. I remember reading the "Hillbilly armor" quote all over. Elections do give some sense of legitimacy in making that claim. The media's widely regarded position as the fourth estate also is why they make the claim, at least before they figured out that "hey, we actually CAN make a shitload of money off of this news stuff, more then we realized before, if we throw in a bunch of bull sh--" and the business aspect became more important then the journalism aspect. (I agree with you that the whole 4th estate thing is crap nowadays.) And thus you describe my problem with what you said. "the electorate" that you work for, currently, is whoever in your party shows up to the poll to get you the slight majority, and it is no longer considered the moderate vote that does. Its not going to get any better either. Candidates have learned that the best way to win is get just close enough to the center to be able to get some independent voters, but staying mostly toward their base. Its typically useless to try to attract people who identify themselves as Independents, but when pressed will say that they lean one way or another. Data shows that they'll vote for that party ~90% of the time. One of the reasons why we get stuck between a turd and a giant deuche. So they mostly lean toward their base, once in a while throw a bone to more true independents, and then hope they win. Overall though, you know, I'd agree with you on most things. There are a few elites in the media that I think do a decent job at reporting actual news, and its why I don't agree with you about everything. NY Times and WSJ being the first two that jump into my mind, with the Washington Post there probably also. Yeah, they do the same bull sh-- that the rest of the media does in order to be able to market/create a product, but they are a few of the only places that actually do reporting as well.

no message

I watched part of the game, and was a bit disappointed but I'm not surprised. How Tennessee is dealing with him absolutely sucks. I know I've posted it before that he wouldn't be ready to start in the NFL right away, and that it might even jeopardize his career doing so. Its going to take him a couple years to develop into an NFL QB, much the same way its taken JP to show his stuff, but I think its even more exaggerated with Vince. He was in a 1-read scheme at Texas. His biggest problem in the NFL is going to be reading defenses in a more complex offense, something he didn't have to do at Texas. Having Vince Young start right now without another answer at QB = really, really bad decision. If they can survive a couple years with this Vince at the helm, or they pull a Buffalo and sign a shittastic QB to split starting time with, I think he'll have a good shot at developing after all. The Bills are surprising me right now, I thought it'd take them a few years to be able to compete. If I had known that they would be this competitive back during the draft, I wouldn't have wanted them to draft Vince. I figured it'd take a couple more years for them to get back, and probably another year or two with JP at the helm (giving VY time to develop). Hmm, I don't recall seeing that. Even still, the intarweb and message boards are funny things, and people can be portrayed in untrue ways (just look at PPP, lol). I really can't imagine HA sitting down in front of his TV today being mad every time JP made a good play.

Depends on the type of media you're looking at. The traditional press media has more liberals then conservatives working for it, while radio is just the opposite. TV has both. Yeah, they're going to sensationalize a lot. Hell, in a tragedy like Katrina, I'd argue that its human nature to at least partially sensationalize what happened. There is also, though, an element of reporting that is not all sensationalized. Typically you see this in non-visual news sources rather then "video clip" news sources. On the Katrina example, the NY Times on August 30th, 2005, the day after Katrina hit, also ran a story as part of its Katrina coverage called "National Guard units joined federal, state and private organizations in a broad effort to provide relief." As for the armor example, I didn't actually see it like that. My remembrance of the event was that it was a concern of some of the soldiers, that were addressed by Rumsfeld and co during and after a question and answer setting. In fact, after doing a bit of searching, I found the NYT article that I read about the situation. Here's the NYT article about Abramoff. I dunno, seems pretty fair to me. The feeling that I got from the article was that the White House largely ignored Abramoff except for a couple times, which weren't exactly intimate. Yeah, the media does represent their own interests. But hell, so does the administration. To expect that *anyone* in the US represents the interests of the American public over their own would be delusional.

Guess what? You just did the same exact thing you were accusing me of in your own damn post. The JP critics ARE BILLS supporters are much as JP supporters are. Ask Holcomb's Arm if he'd, above all else, want to see the Bills have success, and he'd agree with that statement. You know the reason why we use those two terms? Because some people are overly pro-JP, and some people are overly anti-JP. The only reason why I used it was to say that the JP "supporters" are over-enthusiastic about his early success, and the JP critics are overly negative about this season's games. A more appropriate term would be JP-enthusiast, but I haven't really seen that term used at all on this board.

Hell, I'd expect that everyone be searched and screened if they were entering the WH/Congress/anything else. I'd also expect the "fire in a crowded theater" to be on full-scale. I wouldn't think that calling someone an "idiot", "stupid" or anything of the such would be even remotely close to a perceived threat. Then again, maybe I'm just not nearly as paranoid

Yeah, they do that somewhat. However, they still hold press conferences that provide lots of information and stories for the media. If they really thought that the media fxed everything up as bad as some people accuse them of doing, they'd stop except for standard campaigning. Bush still could cut a bunch of stuff out of his press conferences to reduce them to nothing but campaigning. But I do agree that they do it to an extent.

It was an article written by a reporter which talked about parts of the bill, and what their effects might be on society, as thought by social elites (professors and others). What, exactly, is the problem here? You are mad that they are screwing up "facts" and showing a bias in reporting, yet when they provide arguments, which are labeled as such, you also throw a fit. And I also showed that they also provide opposing viewpoints and a wide range of viewpoints, something which you conveniently leave out here. Why is that exactly? Really? That headline said something that the pew's poll also said. That means that it DID match the article. So did the Washington Post's. Its really no surprise that they view the two headlines this way. Lets take a look at their own "headlines": "The Democrats' Cheating Heart" "Apocalypse Kerry" "Silence of the Liberals" All of which link to conservative sites. Its not surprising at all that they view two headlines, both of which are correct, as having a bias.

Actually, that article and other similar articles/studies are making a really big assumption - reporters have the power in the media business. They don't, the owners have the power in the media business to sent the tone and feel for the whole network. Just because a reporter is a liberal or conservative doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to write that way. More or less, a newspaper is going to be published as to how the owner/editing staff wants it published. The major media outlets are somewhat interested in selling stories, but really, thats only part of whats going on. The NYT, for example, wants to have a selection of stories that draws in the largest proportion of NYC residents as possible, so that they can get advertising money from companies who are looking to reach the NYC audience. If all of these different media outlets are getting the facts incorrect, at least in regard to politics, then why, exactly, do administrations keep talking to them and providing them information? The latest study that I was reading (don't have a link, sorry) suggests that the media is viewed by most people as opposite of their own beliefs. While even a plurality of Democrats would say that the media is bias, when you examine the issues that the media is reporting, it is overwhelmingly viewed as opposite to however one feels on the issue.

And it still doesn't make it any less retarded that you would.

Do you actually read it? I subscribe to the newspaper, and wholeheartedly disagree. For example, on Saturday, they had a piece on the front page talking about the detainee bill/military act and arguments against it. Guess what? They labeled it friggin News Analysis at the start of the piece. What more do you want? All in all, they do a pretty good job day in and day out, and are one of a small handful of elite news sources that the US media uses to find out the news from. I love how everyone who claims that the NYT is extremely liberal has a very short memory, where back in the day, before the intelligence was proven false, the Times was on Bush's side in regards to Iraq. In a May 26, 2004 newspaper, the Times wrote about their coverage in regards to Iraq, outlining where they found facts out, and how they screwed up some of the articles. They used some of the same sources as the Bush Administration, and ended up in the same results. Lets talk about the editorial page of the NYT, shall we? -Tom Friedman supported and was hopeful for the Iraq War, but doesn't support the way the Bush administration has handled the post-war invasion. He thinks that the Bush administration !@#$ed up the post-invasion operations, and thats our biggest issue in Iraq. - Maureen Dowd, the feminist who hates men with power and criticizes them with hyperbole. Whether they are named Bush or Clinton, she's there to bash em. Liberal? Yeah, on social issues, but feminism seems to dominate her philosophy, which is why she is perceived as liberal but is really just out there. - David Brooks, a conservative who advocates the moderate views of the majority of America. He has been arguing for the invasion of Iraq his whole career, and supports the war. I remember reading an editorial recently from him which advocated the creation of a moderate 3rd party. Also, Brooks is a fan of Reagan. Damn, he's a liberal !@#$! - Bob Hebert, an African American who is a "classic" Democrat. He criticizes Bush on the War in Iraq, and his issues of focus are on racism and poverty. - Nicholas Kristof, who is focused on Human Rights abuses in Darfur and other places. He'd be considered a liberal due to his criticism of the Iraq war and his concern with pollution. - Paul Krugman, a critic of demand-side economics who advocates the view that political polarization in America is the result of class warfare. - Frank Rich, a critic of the Bush administration who relates politics to popular American culture. - John Tierney, a self-proclaimed libertarian, would be considered a "conservative" because of that on a left-right scale (even though I don't agree with that scale, I'll use it for the purposes of op-ed columnists). So, the breakdown that we have is: - 5 who are on the "Left" side of the scale (Dowd, Hebert, Kristof, Krugman, Rich) - Friedman in the middle - 2 on the "Right" (Brooks, Tierney). This means that of the Times op-ed columnists, 62.5% would be considered Liberal. Not overwhelming by any means. This means that a multitude of diverse views are supported on the NYT Op-Ed page given the diversity of the columnists. The Times has a liberal slant, as evidenced by my breakdown above, but does indeed present other sides of the story and other views. Not surprising, given that the Times is attempting to build a huge audience in a liberal leaning metropolitan city to sell to advertisers. If anything, the Times is biased toward The New York Times Company, advertisers to the Times, and companies friendly toward the NYTCO.

While the Losman supporters are saying this way too early, I have to say I am VERY happy with his continued improvement, and building on last week's performance. Go JP!

Sounds like a PAC or another political organization that legally can't mention the candidates name called you. Did they leave their name/what organization they are?

You didn't answer my question: Do you actually read the newspaper, or are you just parroting Ann Colter again?

oh noes, someone that doesn't understand humor may get mad like last time you posted this.

You're going to vote for a candidate because they didn't leave you a message on your answering machine?

Do you read the newspaper or are you just continuing to parrot was Ann Coulter told you?