Bush to Cut PBS...

[Jenn! 918]

Seriously. Mcneil/Lehrer???

Oh yeah. That one also. Thanks Jenn

I was being facetious.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Nova?

Gary, you do know what propaganda is, right?

Frontline is investigative journalism and while it may slant to the left, there is something called journalistic integrity. Find me a source that has ever shown factual inaccuracies in Frontline's reporting.

I'm fascinated about something. Why is it, when news is left-leaning, it's "investigative journalism" and it has "journalistic integrity" while any news source that slants to the right is "fake" and considered "complete propaganda?"

[GaryC 7]

Nova?

Gary, you do know what propaganda is, right?

Frontline is investigative journalism and while it may slant to the left, there is something called journalistic integrity. Find me a source that has ever shown factual inaccuracies in Frontline's reporting.

It's not factual inaccuracies that worry me. It's the way it is presented and what is left out. I site Nova because they state that global warming is fact. It isn't. They also cite environmental issues from a left point of view. They state the facts that they think advances their way of thinking and ignore the facts that don't.

You don't like Fox news because you think they lean right. Would you like it if the government supported them? Be fair now. If everyones tax dollars pays for it then it shouldn't have any slant at all!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nova?

Gary, you do know what propaganda is, right?

Frontline is investigative journalism and while it may slant to the left, there is something called journalistic integrity. Find me a source that has ever shown factual inaccuracies in Frontline's reporting.

I'm fascinated about something. Why is it, when news is left-leaning, it's "investigative journalism" and it has "journalistic integrity" while any news source that slants to the right is "fake" and considered "complete propaganda?"

It is? I didn't know that. I mean, regardless of whatever ideology bias can be found with journalism, the issue comes down to facts...undisputable facts.

If you're refering to Faux News - the issues there are many - one of which is that station's bulk of programming is editorial in nature.

Investigative journalism is just that - it's focused on presenting facts. They may get witnesses testimony or opinions from various sources, but the focus is investigating facts.

[Lurker 0]

Nova?

Gary, you do know what propaganda is, right?

Frontline is investigative journalism and while it may slant to the left, there is something called journalistic integrity. Find me a source that has ever shown factual inaccuracies in Frontline's reporting.

I'm fascinated about something. Why is it, when news is left-leaning, it's "investigative journalism" and it has "journalistic integrity" while any news source that slants to the right is "fake" and considered "complete propaganda?"

The left lives by emotional ideology and not factual information. They give into their impulses for the free love, abortion and the likes and shitty terms like “diversity”. In other words, what “feels good” and convenient for them, must be good. Only when it becomes not convenient for them do they then demonize it. You see, they pick and choose what they want to make their point. 90% of the media is left-leaning, and the left will demonize any other network that does not conform to their propaganda agenda.

[GaryC 7]

It is? I didn't know that. I mean, regardless of whatever ideology bias can be found with journalism, the issue comes down to facts...undisputable facts.

If you're refering to Faux News - the issues there are many - one of which is that station's bulk of programming is editorial in nature.

Investigative journalism is just that - it's focused on presenting facts. They may get witnesses testimony or opinions from various sources, but the focus is investigating facts.

You just proved my point. You even changed the name of the channel to reflect your bias. What Fox news does is just as valid and CNN (Clinton News Network - sorry couldn't resist!). They each have their own way of looking at things. I have no problem with CNN. But I would if tax dollars were paying for it just as I am sure you would have a problem with Fox being paid for by taxes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is? I didn't know that. I mean, regardless of whatever ideology bias can be found with journalism, the issue comes down to facts...undisputable facts.

If you're refering to Faux News - the issues there are many - one of which is that station's bulk of programming is editorial in nature.

Investigative journalism is just that - it's focused on presenting facts. They may get witnesses testimony or opinions from various sources, but the focus is investigating facts.

You just proved my point. You even changed the name of the channel to reflect your bias. What Fox news does is just as valid and CNN (Clinton News Network - sorry couldn't resist!). They each have their own way of looking at things. I have no problem with CNN. But I would if tax dollars were paying for it just as I am sure you would have a problem with Fox being paid for by taxes.

Go check out the several media watchdog sites on reporting inaccuracies. Then come back and tell me how those stations stack up. And that's just one of many issues of Faux News.

Nova?

Gary, you do know what propaganda is, right?

Frontline is investigative journalism and while it may slant to the left, there is something called journalistic integrity. Find me a source that has ever shown factual inaccuracies in Frontline's reporting.

I'm fascinated about something. Why is it, when news is left-leaning, it's "investigative journalism" and it has "journalistic integrity" while any news source that slants to the right is "fake" and considered "complete propaganda?"

The left lives by emotional ideology and not factual information. They give into their impulses for the free love, abortion and the likes and shitty terms like “diversity”. In other words, what “feels good” and convenient for them, must be good. Only when it becomes not convenient for them do they then demonize it. You see, they pick and choose what they want to make their point. 90% of the media is left-leaning, and the left will demonize any other network that does not conform to their propaganda agenda.

Keep smoking on that pipe, buddy.

[Lurker 0]

...Keep smoking on that pipe, buddy.

And you just proved my point on the demonizing with this statement.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Lurker

[GaryC 7]

Go check out the several media watchdog sites on reporting inaccuracies. Then come back and tell me how those stations stack up. And that's just one of many issues of Faux News.

The media watchdog groups have their own agenda. Fox and CNN are the very same. Just opposites on the same pole. Surely you can agree with that? You don't think Mathews is unbiased do you?

[Marilyn. 340]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

[Lurker 0]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

That is what makes this democracy of ours balanced. The "Yin" and the "Yang" if you will. If this wasn't the case, then of course you would have a totalitarian society like communism or even worse.

[GaryC 7]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...3168&st=210

You missed it!!!! God love you Steve. At least your honest with your beliefs. We may never agree but we can respect each other.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...3168&st=210

You missed it!!!! God love you Steve. At least your honest with your beliefs. We may never agree but we can respect each other.

God doesn't love me...he hates liberals.

[Marilyn. 340]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

That is what makes this democracy of ours balanced. The "Yin" and the "Yang" if you will. If this wasn't the case, then of course you would have a totalitarian society like communism or even worse.

I am not saying that they can't have different points of view.. the world would be very boring if everyone thought alike..

my comment was that it seems like they are trying to change the other person's point of view....

[Lurker 0]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

That is what makes this democracy of ours balanced. The "Yin" and the "Yang" if you will. If this wasn't the case, then of course you would have a totalitarian society like communism or even worse.

I am not saying that they can't have different points of view.. the world would be very boring if everyone thought alike..

my comment was that it seems like they are trying to change the other person's point of view....

Understood, but it is the mere fact that they have these debates which keeps each other in their corner instead of laying down thier arms and possibly yielding.