Illinois baby obtains gun permit

[GaryC 7]

To a liberal it's an insult. It refers to the Free Republic web site. It's another name for a neocon. I don't mind. I am also a proud ditto head.

That explains a lot. Rush Limbaugh is a lying, drug-seeking blowhard. Let's hope you don't imitate all aspects of his life.

I love it when dittoheads put words in my mouth. I know exactly what a Freeper is, as I am a member of FreeRepublic.com myself. It's not all dittoheads over there, you know. Some of us are just interested in what you people are talking about, though the conversations aren't actually that interesting. Try and see if you can figure out which user I am.

I the first place I was replying to jmagayreh when he/she asked what a Freeper was. I assumed you already knew that since you used it. So try and pay attention. I find it interesting that when Rush is mentioned the libs go crazy with the uncontrolled hatred. That shows me that Rush is right. The more it pisses off the libs the better I like it so keep the insults coming!

[homesick_american 1]

I the first place I was replying to jmagayreh when he/she asked what a Freeper was. I assumed you already knew that since you used it. So try and pay attention. I find it interesting that when Rush is mentioned the libs go crazy with the uncontrolled hatred. That shows me that Rush is right. The more it pisses off the libs the better I like it so keep the insults coming!

LOL...you think I'm pissed off? That's so cute.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it interesting that when Rush is mentioned the libs go crazy with the uncontrolled hatred. That shows me that Rush is right. The more it pisses off the libs the better I like it so keep the insults coming!

That’s a bizarre rationale to make – “If it makes people angry, then he must be right”. Personally speaking I can’t take any of those commentators very seriously – they seem to thrive on sensationalism and affected outrage. I don’t think any of them really have much of a handle on the “real issues”, but they do a pretty good job of distracting people with trivial pettiness.

[GaryC 7]

I find it interesting that when Rush is mentioned the libs go crazy with the uncontrolled hatred. That shows me that Rush is right. The more it pisses off the libs the better I like it so keep the insults coming!

That’s a bizarre rationale to make – “If it makes people angry, then he must be right”. Personally speaking I can’t take any of those commentators very seriously – they seem to thrive on sensationalism and affected outrage. I don’t think any of them really have much of a handle on the “real issues”, but they do a pretty good job of distracting people with trivial pettiness.

Nah. Rush and company just do a good job at pointing out the lefts attempts to lie and distract. They must be doing something right when you consider the fact that conservative commentary rule talk radio and the lefts attempts have failed miserably. Air America was a total failure while Rush has 20 million listeners each week. I find it very amusing to watch the reaction when his name is mentioned. The strong reaction by some just points out how close to home he hits.

Rush Limbaugh is a lying, drug-seeking blowhard.

Homesick American, if it didn't piss you off when I mentioned Rush I will try to do better next time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nah. Rush and company just do a good job at pointing out the lefts attempts to lie and distract. They must be doing something right when you consider the fact that conservative commentary rule talk radio and the lefts attempts have failed miserably. Air America was a total failure while Rush has 20 million listeners each week. I find it very amusing to watch the reaction when his name is mentioned. The strong reaction by some just points out how close to home he hits.

Actually I think talk-radio and the vast majority of the TV media is responsible for the lamentable standard of debate in this country. Fact that people like RL are considered authoritative sources about anything is really quite shocking. Media here does a pretty poor job of acquainting people with political issues – its more about making real issues into a weird form of public theatre.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your use of the word 'liberal' as an insult is one of your more bizarre characteristics, as is your acceptance of anything and everything Republican regardless.

Some people are able to conclude that all politicians should be taken with a huge pinch of salt because with power inevitably comes corruption, greed and personal gain. I don't trust any politician further than I could throw them. That does not mean that collectively they can't make good laws (actually a lot of the time this happens when people have to listen to all points of view and make compromises) or that some don't have some very ethical ideologies. It just means that all political systems are as flawed as the people that run them.

As for the rantings of political journalists...less said soonest mended.

[Ban Hammer 14,897]

[homesick_american 1]

Homesick American, if it didn't piss you off when I mentioned Rush I will try to do better next time.

LOL....don't flatter yourself. Half my family sounds just like you. If they can't piss me off, what makes you think you can?

[Oath 0]

I was told there would be punch and pie, thank you.

[GaryC 7]

Actually I think talk-radio and the vast majority of the TV media is responsible for the lamentable standard of debate in this country. Fact that people like RL are considered authoritative sources about anything is really quite shocking. Media here does a pretty poor job of acquainting people with political issues – its more about making real issues into a weird form of public theatre.

Which Audiences Know the Most?

FigureAttention to the news is strongly associated with knowledge levels, but some news audiences know considerably more than others. Overall, 35% of the public was classified as having a high level of knowledge - on average, 18 correct answers out of the 23 total questions. Half or more of the audiences for six media sources scored this high: the comedy news shows and major newspaper websites (54% in the high knowledge group), the NewsHour (53%), National Public Radio (51%) and Rush Limbaugh's radio show (50%). Regular readers of news magazines were not far behind (48%).

By contrast, the regular audiences for many other sources scored no higher than the sample average. The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%). The audiences for CNN, internet news sites such as Google and Yahoo, local newspapers, and TV news organization websites scored slightly higher (41%-44% high knowledge).

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source. As noted earlier, some news sources draw especially well-educated audiences who are keenly interested in politics. Because of their education and life experiences, these individuals have more background information and may be better able to retain what they see in the news, regardless of where they see it.

Similarly, the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O'Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption - an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Still, differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences. Even after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

Edited May 17, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Reynaldo 0]

So what you are trying to say is that liberals are indeed smarter than the average american???

[almaty 19]

vj sheesh, i am going to puke, my brother gary, bragging on that fat vicodin loving rush

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Even those folks admit that people don't get their knowledge purely from a single source, or that the popularity of particular media products is an endorsement of its quality.

Not sure that's something that can be easily proven - after all I've listened to Rush in the past, and watched O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Stephen Colbert (and others), but I wouldn't credit any of them with informing my opinion on any particular issue...

Edited May 17, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

vj sheesh, i am going to puke, my brother gary, bragging on that fat vicodin loving rush

Not vicodin, oxycottin. Get it right brother Dean.

[homesick_american 1]

Actually I think talk-radio and the vast majority of the TV media is responsible for the lamentable standard of debate in this country. Fact that people like RL are considered authoritative sources about anything is really quite shocking. Media here does a pretty poor job of acquainting people with political issues – its more about making real issues into a weird form of public theatre.

Which Audiences Know the Most?

FigureAttention to the news is strongly associated with knowledge levels, but some news audiences know considerably more than others. Overall, 35% of the public was classified as having a high level of knowledge - on average, 18 correct answers out of the 23 total questions. Half or more of the audiences for six media sources scored this high: the comedy news shows and major newspaper websites (54% in the high knowledge group), the NewsHour (53%), National Public Radio (51%) and Rush Limbaugh's radio show (50%). Regular readers of news magazines were not far behind (48%).

By contrast, the regular audiences for many other sources scored no higher than the sample average. The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%). The audiences for CNN, internet news sites such as Google and Yahoo, local newspapers, and TV news organization websites scored slightly higher (41%-44% high knowledge).

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source. As noted earlier, some news sources draw especially well-educated audiences who are keenly interested in politics. Because of their education and life experiences, these individuals have more background information and may be better able to retain what they see in the news, regardless of where they see it.

Similarly, the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O'Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption - an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Still, differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences. Even after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

A lot of lefties get regular doses of conservative, right-wing media. I think in this day and age, you have to be exposed to both sides in order to even attempt to filter through the B.S. I don't agree that most media outlets in the US are biased towards the left. I find them to be more balanced in general in their approach to news than British media outlets, that's for sure. The notable exception is Fox News...anyone who thinks that network isn't bought and paid for by the GOP is kidding themselves.

I regularly watch CNN, BBC News 24, Sky News, and the Fox News Channel...which is available to us here in the UK. We also get a French 24-hour news station that broadcasts in English, and we have the English version of Al Jazeera, but I rarely watch either of those.

Unfortunately Fox News in the UK is broadcast on the same schedule as it is on the east coast of the US, so when we wake up at 7am, that stupid Red Eye show is on. It used to be Hannity & Colmes at that hour of the morning. I sort of miss that, but I don't miss Sean Hannity pointing his finger and blabbing endlessly about the Duke rape case. I can't stomach O'Reilly; he's an a$$hole.

I should add that I consider CNN, BBC, Sky News, and Fox to all have clear and obvious biases. CNN is slightly biased to the left, the BBC is extremely biased to the left, Sky News is slightly biased to the right, and Fox is extremely biased to the right.

We listen to BBC Radio 4 (left-wing bias) and we used to be regular Guardian readers until it swung too far to the left. I think the Guardian is by far the most left-wing mainstream paper in the UK. I tend to alternate between The Independent (left) and The Times (right).

The only news magazine we get at our house is The Economist, which appears to me to be biased a bit to the right in European terms, though Americans would probably find it biased to the left.

IMHO UK media outlets are all obviously and unashamedly biased. Anti-American Brits love the Guardian/Observer, older ones like the Independent, conservative voters seem to like the Times or the Telegraph, and the UKIP/BNP crowd seems to adore the red top tabloid papers. This drives me crazy, because I have to read at least 2 papers to get any perspective.