What's your take on the shooting of Dr. George Tiller

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by chile1

Yeah but that entire "news network" is loaded with opinions and very little news.........Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and even the FOX and Friends comic act in the morning. Is it possible for Fox to produce a single article which doesn't use as a source "some" "some people" "opponents" "A group" Either this is the laziest bunch of journalists in the world or they are just making up their sources to fit their political agenda.

Glenn Beck is an opinion show (and he says that), I've never watched Hannity so I don't know that show, O'Reilly is an opinion show (and he says that). Not sure any of the group you've described labels themselves as 'news reporters' and not opinion pieces. Where as one other poster pointed out CNN labels themselves as a news show and does the same thing FOX does, so who is being honest?

[chile1]

Originally Posted by LobsterX

C'mon now. Don't they all? CNN? MSNBC? They're all guilty! That's why it's good to have FOX to balance out the biases of the other networks.

I don't watch MSNBC but do watch CNN and FOX. Please name me a specific pundit on CNN that constantly rants on the Republicans in the same tone and anger as Glen Beck, Sean Hannity & Bill O'. We're now totally off topic but thought it was important to set the record straight.

[AzX5]

Originally Posted by chile1

I don't watch MSNBC but do watch CNN and FOX. Please name me a specific pundit on CNN that constantly rants on the Republicans in the same tone and anger as Glen Beck, Sean Hannity & Bill O'.

As Wagner said, those guys are all OPINION shows, not news, and they all clearly state their bias as conservatives. CNN's pundits pretend to be unbiased reporters and try to be subtle in their liberal bias. Just a few examples:

1.) CNN Gets Zinged

CNN's Aaron Brown set up an interview segment by tagging Shelby Steele as "a conservative," but simply describing Richard Cohen as "a columnist," Steele called him on it, forcing Brown to concede that Cohen is a liberal.

2.) CNN’s Global Warming Special

CNN’s “Melting Point” repeated several other ongoing flaws in media coverage of this environmental debate that were detailed in a November 2004 Business & Media Institute (BMI) study. That analysis, “Destroying America to Save the World,” explained how the media skew the debate by claiming the “science” of Kyoto is settled when it isn’t.

O’Brien’s story relied overwhelmingly on “experts” who believe in global warming and didn’t include an opposing view until nearly a half-hour into the program. This followed the media trend. According to the study, “Broadcast news programs presented the claims of liberal environmentalists that global warming is a given, that mankind is to blame for it, or both, 55 percent of the time (77 stories).” O’Brien only had one program, so he said it as often as he could.

In addition, he made several other typical errors covered in the BMI study, including:

* Blaming President Bush – O’Brien said: “President Bush opposes Kyoto” and implied Bush is to blame for the U.S. not being part of the treaty. He never mentioned that the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto. While O’Brien interviewed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he didn’t mention McCain voted for the resolution that opposed Kyoto along with liberal Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).

* The Cost of Kyoto: The story gave the projected U.S. cost of signing Kyoto as more than $400 billion each year with a possible loss of 4.9 million jobs. However, it relied on a quote from President Bush that gave the impression it was his opinion. It’s actually the result of a U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis. O’Brien did fail to compare the numbers he cited for costs of Kyoto with the costs from a global warming scenario. His numbers for warming over the next 100 years: “UN estimates somewhere between $20 and $150 billion in property damage in the U.S. alone.” Using his highest estimate and comparing it to the lowest figure from the Energy Department, the cost of signing the treaty would still be about 133 times more.

* Polar Bears Threatened: “But the bears are in trouble, big trouble,” said O’Brien, claiming they could be wiped out. “For them, it’s a matter of survival.” The networks trot out polar bears any time they want to tug at the heartstrings for global warming and Sunday night’s broadcast was no different. In Pat Michaels’ book “Meltdown,” he explained how the left-wing environmental movement takes advantage of “cute and furry” creatures to win the warming debate. “NGOs [Non-governmental organizations] know the value of a marquee species. Algae won’t do. Polar bears will,” he stated.

At the end of the program, the voiceover described “CNN Presents” as “separating fact from fiction.” It didn’t.

3.) CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown

CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown led with attacks on the administration’s credibility, but Brown stretched his own credibility by picking up on a rumor, “a story that's been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus.” Brown’s raising of such an uncorroborated story befuddled CNN reporter David Ensor, who speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, told Brown: “I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect, I would say...”


In a cursory check of a bunch of Web sites and news sources online, I could not find a reference to any such allegation. But then I’m not on the left-wing mailing lists which CNN must peruse.

Brown launched his July 9 program: “We begin with the question of credibility now dogging the White House even half a world away on President Bush's trip to Africa. Today, a State Department intelligence official who retired during the run up to the war accused the Bush administration of practicing 'faith based intelligence when it comes to Iraq.’"

Following the lead story from David Ensor about the day’s developments on the Niger story front and questions about how President Bush could have conveyed such a bogus claim, Brown confronted Ensor with an unsubstantiated rumor of his own:
“A couple things, David. There is, as you know, a story that's been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus. Do you have any reporting that supports the idea that the President was directly told it was fake before he included it in the State of the Union speech?”
A clearly flummoxed Ensor, speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, struggled for a reply now that he was on the spot and probably afraid of upsetting Brown if he condemned such rumor-mongering: “I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect I would say but we'll have to check it.”
Brown pressed again: “Alright, and any other information that would suggest the President knew in advance this was bogus?”
Ensor: “None at this point, no.”
Brown: “Thank you, David, David Ensor in Washington.”

Brown stayed on point: “David Sanger has been reporting on the case against Iraq and the political tussle over it for the New York Times. Mr. Sanger joins us from Washington, good to see you David, thank you. Same question, do you have any have you in your reporting seen anything that suggests that at any point the President before the speech was told this information was phony?”
Sanger: “No, we've not found anything along those lines. If one read into the footnotes of some of the earlier intelligence reports, which there's no reason to expect the President or even many of his top aides do, there were just hints that there were doubts about it.”

There goes a great conspiracy theory.

[Web Update: When castigating George Bush for passing on bogus information about uranium from Niger, Aaron Brown passed along a one-source Web story he should have known was false since it had been retracted four hours earlier. See the July 10 CyberAlert Extra]

4.) CNN's Susan Roesgen slams FOX at Chicago "Tea Party".



5.) Jill Miller Zimon on CNN’s Blog Buzz with Tony Harris


CNN cast Jill as the “moderate” in a discussion featuring a conservative, liberal, and “moderate.” The little secret remained hidden that Jill is a proud liberal which makes for fake TV and another phony debate at CNN revealing their liberal bias.

To the liberal media, two against one qualifies as a balanced perspective. Add the Democrat announcer into the picture, and they are presenting three Democrats and one Republican for public consumption.

Shame on CNN for intentionally misleading the public once again.

Among other things, Zimon uses her role as the assumed “independent” to promote the discredited New York Times story on John McCain. Jill glowingly discusses Obama, Clinton, Ralph Nader, and talks a little too much about Dennis Kucinich. She does it all in her usually articulate manner, but the real question is why is she in the wrong frame?

You can read more from Jill at WritesLikeSheTalks.com.

Update: Received email indicating that CNN knew about Jill before putting her on as the “moderate.” As as upstanding blogger, Jill revealed herself to the producers which means that nobody can give CNN the benefit of the doubt about faking out the public.

Hey there -

Yup - I bent over backwards to tell them that I lean left but I don’t
write a ton of partisan stuff. They read my blog - and on and on -
we talked a lot about it. But I also blog regularly at The Moderate
Voice and I was on the show representing TMV - where, again, I don’t
write partisan stuff - that’s not my deal and you know it - why -
McCain - you know very well that you have me on RightPundits because
of my oh-so moderate and thoughtful approach! Now don’t you be
disingenuous my good man.

Jill

email reprinted by permission.

The reason this is so bad is that the public will listen to the “moderate” voice more than the partisans. They also associate moderate with independent. As a result, Jill got more airtime than either of the party hacks and her sham identification means she was given the benefit of the doubt as a non-partisan.

And she used that time as the good Democrat to attack John McCain who in reality has great appeal to real moderates and independents. This is why Jill’s participation in this sham is intellectually disappointing, but I recognize that CNN is the real problem here. Nobody should be shocked to find liberal bias at CNN anymore.

6.) CNN Debate Under Fire

At a time when CNN had an opportunity to shine as host of last night’s Republican presidential debate, the network faltered. Today conservatives are left with yet another example of bias at the highest level of the media establishment. It’s another sad example of how liberals deliberately portray conservatives as gun-toting, Bible-thumping and gay-bashing bigots.

I had high hopes for CNN in its role of selecting questions for last night’s debate. The network had nearly 5,000 to choose from — plenty to get a good representation of a variety of issues. Instead, we heard three questions about guns, a topic of significance to the GOP, but was it really that important to ask three different questions? There was also a question attacking trade, another about the North American Union, a silly question about The Holy Bible and two each on abortion (here and here) and homosexuality (here and here). By the time Anderson Cooper got around to introducing a question about the Confederate flag, I was flabbergasted.

7.) YouTube - CNN reporter liberal bias

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by chile1

I don't watch MSNBC but do watch CNN and FOX. Please name me a specific pundit on CNN that constantly rants on the Republicans in the same tone and anger as Glen Beck, Sean Hannity & Bill O'. We're now totally off topic but thought it was important to set the record straight.

- Jack Cafferty
- James Carvelle
- Rick Sanchez

off the top of my head. Glenn Beck rips on ALL parties, not democrats alone and he doesn't pretend to run a news show.

[chile1]

Originally Posted by AzX5

As Wagner said, those guys are all OPINION shows, not news, and they all clearly state their bias as conservatives. CNN's pundits pretend to be unbiased reporters and try to be subtle in their liberal bias. Just a few examples:

1.) CNN Gets Zinged

2.) CNN’s Global Warming Special

3.) CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown

4.) CNN's Susan Roesgen slams FOX at Chicago "Tea Party".

5.) Jill Miller Zimon on CNN’s Blog Buzz with Tony Harris

6.) CNN Debate Under Fire

7.) YouTube - CNN reporter liberal bias

First of all, Aaron Brown hasn't been on CNN since 2005 and the rest of the offenders (as you insinuate) are unknowns in comparison to those I've mentioned previously. The "Tea Party" incident which FOX must have promoted for weeks, is interesting but again, the reporter is an unknown unlike all of the FOX clowns that make up the face of this "network". Again, it's their constant daily aggression (like a preacher's sermon) that makes it so interesting/comical to watch..
Sensationalism sells and it's what FOX likes to show and promote.
BTW....you forgot to mention Lou Dobbs on CNN.....hmmm.

We are way off topic. If you would like to further debate this I suggest starting a new thread.

[LobsterX]

Originally Posted by chile1

First of all, Aaron Brown hasn't been on CNN since 2005 and the rest of the offenders (as you insinuate) are unknowns in comparison to those I've mentioned previously. The "Tea Party" incident which FOX must have promoted for weeks, is interesting but again, the reporter is an unknown unlike all of the FOX clowns that make up the face of this "network". Again, it's their constant daily aggression (like a preacher's sermon) that makes it so interesting/comical to watch..
Sensationalism sells and it's what FOX likes to show and promote.
BTW....you forgot to mention Lou Dobbs on CNN.....hmmm.

We are way off topic. If you would like to further debate this I suggest starting a new thread.

It doesnt matter if they are "unknowns" like you say they are. If they are on TV people will see them and listen to their "unbiased" liberal views. And if they're from CNN, a lot of folks would actually believe that it is "unbiased"...like you for instance.

[chile1]

Originally Posted by LobsterX

It doesnt matter if they are "unknowns" like you say they are. If they are on TV people will see them and listen to their "unbiased" liberal views. And if they're from CNN, a lot of folks would actually believe that it is "unbiased"...like you for instance.

Lobster, please read the thread before posting your typical remarks. Where did I state that CNN was unbiased. However, FOX doesn't have to constantly spew angry ultra right-wing talking points on every segment in order to get their points across. We get it!!

What actually ends up happening is that all of those country bumpkins that listen to these shows can't differentiate between fact and FICTION. Unfortunately, not everyone listening to Glenn, Rush, Sean, Bill O' and even Joe the Plumber, is as astute as you and could resort to violence.

[Wagner]

so Fox has gone from conservative, to right-wing...and now ultra-right wing

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by chile1

Lobster, please read the thread before posting your typical remarks. Where did I state that CNN was unbiased. However, FOX doesn't have to constantly spew angry ultra right-wing talking points on every segment in order to get their points across. We get it!!

What actually ends up happening is that all of those country bumpkins that listen to these shows can't differentiate between fact and FICTION. Unfortunately, not everyone listening to Glenn, Rush, Sean, Bill O' and even Joe the Plumber, is as astute as you and could resort to violence.

Chile, you criticize those on the far right for being extreme yet your views and opinions are on the opposite far end of the political spectrum. You've labeled me extreme Right but truth is I'm way more moderate than you claim to be and if you had any intellectual honesty you would admit your bias.

Your partisanship blinds you from the truth.

[chile1]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Chile, you criticize those on the far right for being extreme yet your views and opinions are on the opposite far end of the political spectrum. You've labeled me extreme Right but truth is I'm way more moderate than you claim to be and if you had any intellectual honesty you would admit your bias.

Your partisanship blinds you from the truth.

Why are you trying to spin this and make it into a personal attack - it's what you've done throughout this post. Did I first attack you? Come on pall!!
You like to dish it out but don't like any repercussions!

If you would like to further debate this I suggest starting a new thread - you are WAY OFF TOPIC!!