Canadians want Fox News Now!

Spendius writes

Quote:

Your 1.17 Sunday post is a little naive.If it is true what you say that American suppliers don't run your consumer choices then why do the various food lobby groups spend so much money in Washington.Dr Barnard says,and I can't comment on it,that the meat industry spends a billion a year in seeing that meat is recommended to your consumers by your government in its four foods policy.Whatever the rights or wrongs of that the billion is a total waste if what you say is true.Vance Packard was even more dramatic on this issue but not as dramatic as Ivan Illych in Medical Nemesis and the book on education the title of which I forget.All that,plus much more,strongly suggests that the average American consumer is little else but an array of reflexes organised by whizzkids.But what do I know?They are American authors who were so polular that their books went worldwide

I don't know where you are getting your information my friend but I suggest you consult difference sources. The beef industry may spend a billion a year on advertising to entice Americans to buy their product, but they sure aren't spending anything close to that kind of money to lobby Washington. Washington does not advertise products on behalf of producers of anything.

Agricultural lobbyists in Washington are pushing for subsidies, price supports, advancing trade with other countries, reducing trade on certain commodities with other countries, or lucrative low cost grazing leases on public lands.

If the American public wants more flavorful, fat marbled beef, that's what the beef producers produce. If the American public is going for lean and low cal, that's what the beef producers produce. If the beef producers fail to figure out what Americans want, they take it heavily in the pocket book because the price drops. If they get it right, they do well because prices hold up. Washington participates very little, if any at all, in that process.

0 Replies

deb

I thought this bit classic...from Salon

Quote:

Fair and buxom

You can't make this stuff up.

This afternoon on Fox News, Neil Cavuto spent a good chunk of time interviewing Focus on the Family's James Dobson. They talked about Dobson's efforts to fight abortion, they talked about the great Sponge Bob controversy -- when you hear the words "tolerance and diversity," Dobson said, you've got to ask "what's behind it?" -- and then they talked about the awful influence that TV is having on our kids. Dobson said that popular culture is "at war" with moms and dads all over the country. Cavuto clucked clucked right along with him, saying he was worried about what his kids see on TV and didn't know what he could do about.

Minutes later, Cavuto was on to another story: A fawning live interview with two large-breasted women, dressed only in their underwear, who will be appearing in Sunday's pay-per-view "Lingerie Bowl"

0 Replies

How can you continue to claim Fox News doesn't show both sides of the story? Very Happy

(BTW: that was a post from Salon.com. .... I'm keeping track now)

Um ... is this deja vu?

0 Replies

Salon...home of regular Andrew Sullivan contributions. Please do keep track.

0 Replies

You mean anti-war Andy Sullivan? How comforting for you.

Please don't claim Salon.com to be much more than an anti-Bush site. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

How can you continue to claim Fox News doesn't show both sides of the story?

(BTW: that was a post from Salon.com. .... I'm keeping track now)

As long as you don't mention Clinton - now I am watching.

0 Replies

Clinton ah yes, the finest Republican president of the 20th century.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

deb

I thought this bit classic...from Salon

Quote:

Fair and buxom

You can't make this stuff up.

This afternoon on Fox News, Neil Cavuto spent a good chunk of time interviewing Focus on the Family's James Dobson. They talked about Dobson's efforts to fight abortion, they talked about the great Sponge Bob controversy -- when you hear the words "tolerance and diversity," Dobson said, you've got to ask "what's behind it?" -- and then they talked about the awful influence that TV is having on our kids. Dobson said that popular culture is "at war" with moms and dads all over the country. Cavuto clucked clucked right along with him, saying he was worried about what his kids see on TV and didn't know what he could do about.

Minutes later, Cavuto was on to another story: A fawning live interview with two large-breasted women, dressed only in their underwear, who will be appearing in Sunday's pay-per-view "Lingerie Bowl"

Reminds me of these two awful "shock-jocks" from Sydney talk-back radio - John Laws and the other one.

Both have been done for accepting money to sponsor various folk on their shows - without declaring it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Clinton ah yes, the finest Republican president of the 20th century.

Now you're just out to cause trouble.

0 Replies

Well actually Debbie, I was thinking more along the lines of Bill Clinton playing the sax has morphed into Blatham replacing the upright 88's with a honky-tonk version of Dueling Banjos just as quickly replaced by O'Bill in your living room with a John Philips Sousa intrepretation of Dueling Tubas. I was not thinking politics at all, just a little dance music. Pink Floyd never entered the discussion.

0 Replies

Do they publish this in The Great White North?

http://www.bartcop.com/wwn-little-richard-sleazy.gif

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

timber

And here's a critique of the study you noted.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001169.html

Now, I am not going to wade through either piece. But I will note that the media that Groseclose/Milo chose omits radio, all pundit shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc), and sources we know lots of folks here turn to (because they paste from them daily) like NewsMax and TownHall.

Well, I waded through blogger Nunberg's twaddle, and found a bit with which to take exception. To begin with, Nunberg betrays a thorough, complete, and unreserved absence of understanding of statistical analysis. That to which Nunberg takes exception is the finding - the conclusion - of the study, exception based on a misunderstanding and misquoting of the methodology of the study. I cannot believe Nunberg, as he claims. read the study carefully; three possibilities exist - 1) He did not read the study carefully 2) Though he read the study carefully, he was completely incapable of understanding it or its methodology 3) Having carefully read and understood the study, he chose to misrepresent same in interest of personal partisan agenda. In point after point throughout the critique, Nunberg makes factual errors, misrepresents the material at question, and otherwise assembles a veritable army of straw men. In short, Nunberg, to my mind, hardly provides a credible refutation to a well researched, widely accepted, comprehensive study conducted and published by a couple of folks who's CVs each contain more credentials in their first lines than are to be found anywhere in Nunberg's entire resume. He does write well, though.

Oh - and BTW - I believe you won't find many cites to Townhall, NewsMax, or the like among my contributions here - though I'll acknowledge others drag 'em into the fray with some frequency... just as some others rely heavily on Josh Marshal and Salon.

0 Replies

The thing is, all of the pieces featured on Townhall are produced for other mainstream magazines and newspapers and are often available there for a limited time before they are archieved and become either a) inaccessible or b) you have to pay to get them. Townhall has some shallow stuff but it also features articles/essays written by some of the nation's most esteemed conservative thinkers and/or academics. So I go to Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or John Leo's websites for instance--each man with very impressive academic and literary pedigrees--and find a provocative title and click on the link. From there I might be taken to the Jewish national magazine or US News and World Report or any of a hundred different publications where their writings appear. But if the piece has some age on it, I will sometimes wind up in Townhall that archives, free of charge, some of the nation's most impressive conservative writing.

Townhall is not the producer of the material; it is simply the repository. And, personally I think it is only the most narrow minded and partisan from the left who would condemn a piece out of hand simply because it is in the Townhall collection.

Most thinking people judge a piece (or a cable network for that matter) on its scholarship, professionalism, and content. But I do attempt to placate the intellectual bigots by locating the written pieces in another source when I have time to look. Sometimes I don't bother and just post from Townhall because I know it will be insulted and rejected by some no matter what the merit of the content.

I certainly would not reject Andrew Sullivan's writings out of hand because they at times appear in Solon.

0 Replies

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862689?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single4

THE WMD Fiasco

Bush finally gives up

By TIM DICKINSON

Zappala finds it ironic that the failure of the search was made public the same week that CBS cleaned house because of its mistaken broadcast about Bush's National Guard service. "There was so much more fallout about a couple of forged documents that led to a bad news report than to some forged documents that led to a war," Zappala says. "A couple of producers got fired. But our president and secretary of defense and national security adviser all carry on."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mr Zappala isn't the only one who finds it ironic. This is faux folks mentality at its shining best. The Mirror's new front page should read, " We told you so; 59 + million of them!

0 Replies

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

Hunger for Dictatorship

War to export democracy may wreck our own.

by Scott McConnell

"Today's Conservatives are Fascists."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This from a conservative site. Even conservative sites can sometimes write the truth.

Still waiting for Ms JustWonders stats.

Just like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

CBC Exposes Fox's O'Reilly and Coulter
for the Liars They Are!

O'Reilly:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/oreilly5th.mov

Coulter:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/Coulter.mov

0 Replies

This article doesn't really express a conservative viewpoint, but well, you read and decide.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/feb/article019.html

Republican Pigs, Rush Limbaugh And Ken Hughes

By Mark Gelbart

That's not the purpose of this column. I'm using Mr. Hughes as an example of the thought processes and bullying tactics of conservatives who deny facts that debunk their ideology.

Talk radio is a kind of commercial totalitarianism over the public interest. The people who are influenced by these ignorant blowhards are a simple, stupid people who want to hear a simple, stupid message.

0 Replies

timber
You know I could find other critiques as well. But I won't argue the specifics as I am not competent.

townhall vs salon....a truly silly comparison. Try to find any, that is, any, commentary posted on townhall or on newsmax which represents views other than hard conservative. There is no atttempt or pretense made at diversity of view, which at least is honest in its transparency, but it makes those sites effectively propaganda a la Pravda.

0 Replies

blatham, I've not noticed Salon heralding anything other than the Librul Line - admittedly, I don't follow it closely, but I'm relatively familiar with it over the years. Both Town Hall and NewsMax point out in their mastheads that they are forums for conservative viewpoint. Where does Salon make similar open declaration of its editorial bent?

0 Replies

Then you ought to get familiar with it. My working assumption is that masthead clarity falls short of multiplicity of view as a criterion for worthwhile journalism. But I'm not going to argue this with you any longer.

0 Replies

timber, I believe what blatham really means is the comparison is "truly silly" because anything that does not contain liberal thinking is in his view, well, "truly silly," and not "worthwhile." I've not noticed much of anything other than liberal writing at salon, either, but perhaps that is why blatham chose to point out that Andy Sullivan is a "regular contributor," .... as if his presence there lends legitimacy to what is otherwise "propaganda a la Pravda" per his line of reasoning.

But if I'm wrong, blatham is free to correct me.

And just to get it out of the way because I'm likely to be tied up in about 2 minutes for the bulk of the remainder of the day and might miss blatham's response, which I expect to be rather snooty and highfalutin ....

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif

0 Replies

Canadians want Fox News Now!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know