Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
Joel Send a noteboard - 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
If you just objected to biased news you would object the MSNBC and the NYT but all you really object to is there being an outlet for conservative views. Let me guess you hate talk radio but love The Daily Show and the Huffington Post. I know you have found enough "evidence" to support your bias but that really doesn't change anything.
So you stand by the argument that is the left’s turn to spend money we don’t have because it stimulates the economy. Where do you believe most of the money
I know it is fact you like to ignore but the war had around 80% support when it started and was being supported by most of major news outlets. It was losing and giving Iraq to Al Quaeda that the right opposed and that Many on Fox supported.
So you stand by the argument that is the left’s turn to spend money we don’t have because it stimulates the economy. Where do you believe most of the money
I know it is fact you like to ignore but the war had around 80% support when it started and was being supported by most of major news outlets. It was losing and giving Iraq to Al Quaeda that the right opposed and that Many on Fox supported.
Where do I believe most of the money? Slow down, use your words. ALL of them.
I frequently disagree WSJ articles folks post here, especially their editorial pages, but at least their editorials are clearly LABELED as such, and still usually consistent. Actually, I don't spend much time with any of those outlets. I occasionally read a NYT article if someone links it, but don't always agree; I usually watch links to the Daily Show people post here for pure entertainment (NOT news, though I do think they get things right more often than I'd like. ) I did look at Huffington Post earlier today, but that was because of Larrys thread on the MRE brownies.
I know the war had 80% support at the start; that's why the spineless Senate Dems let themselves be terrorized into voting for it. Prohibition had 80% support in the teens, too; didn't make it a good idea. Faux "News" openly and shamelessly backed the war whether it was popular or not because of who initiated it, and I expect better from a news source. Just as I don't expect them to do an about face on editorializes masquerading as news in support of wartime deficit spending the moment their partys out of power. News sources shouldn't HAVE parties. But then, for all the crap Rather got for calling FL for Gore in 2000, no one ever says anything about the Faux "News" political director later calling "undecided" FL for his cousin George Bush before anyone else did.
So now you KNOW what Fox would have done if the war had been unpopular. It is amazing that you can KNOW so much about Fox but remain ignorant of the bias of the rest of the news.
I don't KNOW what they would've done, I KNOW what they did do; it's not exactly a huge secret. Though that's an interesting tack to take: If the entire media, rather than just Fox, was so gung ho for the Iraq War from start to finish, how does that square with the whole "the media is manipulating public support for a war they oppose by choosing to report the negative stories"? Again, a little consistency would be nice, if only for the novelty.
I know what Fox would have done if the war had been unpopular because even after it became QUITE unpopular they continued to press the case for it. It's not a matter of hypothetical speculation, it's a matter of historical fact.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
950 Views
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
950 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits.
- 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM
569 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending.
- 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM
620 Views
hmmm
- 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM
564 Views
That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox.
- 26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM
765 Views
0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions'
- 26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM
711 Views
I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now.
- 26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM
679 Views
You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos
- 26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM
734 Views
A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit
- 26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM
540 Views
Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
- 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
761 Views
This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake
- 28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM
739 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well.
- 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM
534 Views
"They" plural.
- 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM
789 Views
you are so full of crap
- 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM
584 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war.
- 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM
832 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument
- 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM
746 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that.
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
760 Views
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
760 Views
I wish ...
- 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM
736 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election?
- 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM
601 Views
I don't know those articles specifically.
- 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM
664 Views
So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse? 
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
664 Views
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
664 Views
You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo
- 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM
697 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here...
- 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM
773 Views
The second paragraph is very hard to follow unless you already have an idea what he's going to say.
- 27/05/2010 03:43:09 PM
682 Views
yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument
- 26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM
529 Views
Well, I'll certainly agree that if it's bad, it's bad whoever's doing it.
- 26/05/2010 06:00:20 PM
735 Views
you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed
- 26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM
736 Views
Not at all; I just expect a little consistency.
- 26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM
756 Views
then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war
- 26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM
735 Views
Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
- 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
711 Views
so the other media outlets get a pass because the supported losing a war they supported starting?
- 27/05/2010 06:39:21 PM
580 Views
We were heading in the wrong direction already, but Obama/Dems put the pedal to the floor...
- 26/05/2010 06:41:48 PM
524 Views
I don't mean to defend all of the spending that Obama and Congress have done since he's in power...
- 26/05/2010 09:29:38 PM
712 Views
They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it
- 26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM
743 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
- 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
673 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong
- 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM
563 Views
Yes, that would be wrong.
- 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM
573 Views
Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years.....
- 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM
493 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said
- 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM
527 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from?
- 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM
659 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense.
- 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM
565 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM*
- 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM
300 Views
