If you haven't heard MSNBC has been busted for purposefuly editing a Romney video to give him a bad light then airing it on the news.
The cut out a full minute of a speech he was giving which was the most important part.
It is no news that MSNBC has been in the pocket of obama since he started running for office.
Trying to imitate foxnews only with liberals MSNBC has slipped into dead last in ratings for a news program.
This reminds me of the Dan Rather incident with George Bush.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Thats why I say the media has WAY too much control over things in this country.
That being said, just because one side sees it as important and the other side doesnt, doesnt mean the editor is on anyones side. His job is to fill a time slot. He cut a minute of a speech that was how long? If that minute was the most important part of the speech, there is more wrong then the editing job.
Love how fox news did this a few days ago with an obama quote but you didn't create a thread for that. It's what they all do and it's just to be expected at this point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Romney's better off dropping it and letting it die.
Yes the MSNBC person who edited was trying to make Romney look out of touch, probably out of partisanship, but specifically because it makes for a humorous sound bite poking fun at Romney. They're biased, rotten, etc. Bad MSNBC.
Problem is that if you tack on the rest of Romney's story (anecdote about a 33 page govt form for changing the billing address of the optometrist), you might call that a gross exaggeration from Romney, or given that it's an anecdote, you could also call it a bald faced lie. There is no such 33 page form (he was using a made up anecdote to illustrate that the private sector rocks and govt sucks).
So because the omitted ancedote is a fabrication this just opens him up to the counterattack that "Romney is complaining that they cut the lie out of his speech"
So it really ends up becoming "Romney lies. MSNBC lies."
Love how fox news did this a few days ago with an obama quote but you didn't create a thread for that. It's what they all do and it's just to be expected at this point.
If you haven't heard MSNBC has been busted for purposefuly editing a Romney video to give him a bad light then airing it on the news.
Politically, I think you're diametrically opposite to me; but, you care markedly more and less considered and moderately than I do.
That said, if your point is journalism can be easy and sleazy or that the tendrils of media have quite the stranglehold over quite a sizeable proportion of Americans, I do agree with you.
Thats why I say the media has WAY too much control over things in this country.
Evidently, yes.
That being said, just because one side sees it as important and the other side doesnt, doesnt mean the editor is on anyones side.
Yes.
His job is to fill a time slot.
Who knows.
Maybe I'm an idealist but I think the purity, honesty, and integrity of the industry, as is the case with that of numerous others, is pretty darn important.
Here, I think the message is don't take anyone's editorial or opinions without a grain of salt or critical thinking, and that this was a shonky job. Maybe MSNBC is pro-Democrat and/or anti-Republican but it's pointless to discuss this element, really.
*GASP* An American news organization that edits footage to tell the story they want to tell rather than what actually happened?
I'm shocked and amazed.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, this has been a plague on American 'journalism' for years. Watch the BBC if you want impartial American news coverage. All current American national news channels are unadulterated garbage. What gets me is people who complain about the leftist ones - but watch Fox News. It's a counterpoint, they say. I had a discussion with a friend's dad over this, as he's retired and pretty much watches it consistently, claiming it's a balance. But the truth is, trash is trash, regardless of where you leave it.
Maybe I'm an idealist but I think the purity, honesty, and integrity of the industry, as is the case with that of numerous others, is pretty darn important.
I take it you dont live in America.
Those qualities of journalism went away in America decades ago. Now its all about shock journalism and filling time spots or space on a web site/paper (lmao, whats a paper?)
I lived stateside, in numerous places, in my younger years.
Those qualities of journalism went away in America decades ago. Now its all about shock journalism and filling time spots or space on a web site/paper (lmao, whats a paper?)
The decline of journalistic ethics, the quality of journalism, and loss of focus in everything ... was, is, and will be.
Bah, I'll shut up and stop being an old person. There's good and there's bad. Things change, and who really knows whether they're good or bad.
Quote from Jay13x »
Seriously though, this has been a plague on American 'journalism' for years.
The real stickler is that this plague isn't endemic to the U.S.
Watch the BBC if you want impartial American news coverage.
But the U.K. also has, say, the Daily Mail. (So, I'm not so super-okay with the Thatcher-era Conservative Party. U.K. politics isn't quite as scary as American politics, and the U.K. isn't as big or bad as the States.)
All current American national news channels are unadulterated garbage.
Are really no 'independent', non-blogger folks? Of those, are there any good or whatever?
I suppose, if there are any, they're not Big DealsTM or loud to enough to be heard.
But the truth is, trash is trash, regardless of where you leave it.
What gets me is people who complain about the leftist ones - but watch Fox News. It's a counterpoint, they say. I had a discussion with a friend's dad over this, as he's retired and pretty much watches it consistently, claiming it's a balance.
See, I can understand watching Fox News or MSNBC as a counterpoint. The media is frequently biased, so in the absence of an unbiased source it's a good idea to listen to differently-biased perspectives.
What I don't understand is when people like your friend's dad say "Fox News/MSNBC is a counterpoint" while only ever listening to one side. How can it be a counterpoint for them when it isn't countering anything? How can it be a balance when it isn't balancing anything for them?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Seriously though, this has been a plague on American 'journalism' for years. Watch the BBC if you want impartial American news coverage. All current American national news channels are unadulterated garbage. What gets me is people who complain about the leftist ones - but watch Fox News. It's a counterpoint, they say. I had a discussion with a friend's dad over this, as he's retired and pretty much watches it consistently, claiming it's a balance. But the truth is, trash is trash, regardless of where you leave it.
Right. people used to do this in news papers but there are laws against that so if you redact someone's quote you have to use elipses. (... or ....).
In accademia we were taught to HATE those things because you never knew if they were stealing valuable context so you had to go back and look at the source quote. A work with too many of them just wouldn't get published.
With Video Editing you can splice stuff and unless someone wants to sit through a 30 min speach again they never know and most people don't know to look. Video response is designed to fester emotion not logic. Emotion creates ratings.
Its like the moron who was giving me crap on facebook about creating my belief system off the King James Bible and ranting about how poor the translation (and/or the Textus Receptus was). But I studied Biblical Textual Criticism, unlike him, so I KNOW about that already and don't need his google search to tell me. The dumb part is, because I know that, I don't even read the KJ except when I'm doing word studies and thats only because the best concordances are of the KJ.
My former FB Freind is all bent out of shape emotionally and is trying to make a logical argument. He looks like a fool.
News Media doesn't need people to covert from emotion to logic (then back to emotion). They just need people to "like" and "share" thus transfer the emotion directly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
But the U.K. also has, say, the Daily Mail. (So, I'm not so super-okay with the Thatcher-era Conservative Party. U.K. politics isn't quite as scary as American politics, and the U.K. isn't as big or bad as the States.)
True but the Daily Fail is in no way linked to the BBC as it is a completely separate commercial entity with no more limits to its actions than any other company and to balance it out we have the Gaurdain, the Times and a number of other newspapers each allowed to have there own spin on the news. It is just the free to air Broadcast media (not just the BBC) that legally need to keep a strict impartiality when broadcasting the news as they are funded by the taxpayer.
Whilst I accept that we are able to enforce that neutrality due to the licensing of the airwaves on this side of the pond and on the US side all the news corporations are commercial entities is there any way congress/senate could enforce something similar if not permanently maybe just for the election season? Or does the extreme length of the election season make that impractical.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
With Video Editing you can splice stuff and unless someone wants to sit through a 30 min speach again they never know and most people don't know to look. Video response is designed to fester emotion not logic. Emotion creates ratings.
This happens ALL THE TIME with those 'police brutality' videos. Some college student takes a video, edits out the negative actions of the students, and posts it online. No one stops to think what happened before the footage starts, and by the time all the unedited, or less edited footage is up, people have already made up their minds. (this isn't to say that there isn't police brutality, just that most of the college campus videos are pretty bogus.)
is there any way congress/senate could enforce something similar if not permanently maybe just for the election season? Or does the extreme length of the election season make that impractical.
no the first amendment protects them. which is why it is up to people to know what is going on and to educate themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Whilst I accept that we are able to enforce that neutrality due to the licensing of the airwaves on this side of the pond and on the US side all the news corporations are commercial entities is there any way congress/senate could enforce something similar if not permanently maybe just for the election season? Or does the extreme length of the election season make that impractical.
There isn't much the federal government could do. First Amendment protections ensure that a news outlet can report a story however it wishes. The populace depends on the outlets' integrity to ensure a story is reported fairly. However, with the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, integrity has taken a backseat to ratings. Mistakes are rarely corrected and news is spun heavily because the stations cater to their demographic who want confirmation and not balance. The government defers to civil court if anything slanderous is put out there.
Fox News plays a clip of Obama and cuts off the second half of his sentence to completely take it out of context and attempt to reverse the meaning of what he was saying.
This isn't the first time that NBC was caught doing something like this.
they were caught during the primary
and they were caught in the zimmerman play back as well.
my thing is that now they are trying to cover it up as well we didn't unethically edit anything.
What Romney was talking about was touch order stations at a sandwhich stop. more and more sub shops are putting them in.
basically they are POS (point of sale) devices that allow you to pick your sandwich toppings etc hit submit go pay the lady and you are done.
he was comparing that to having to change his address at the post office which if anyone has tried to do is a pain. there is the form then it takes like 2 weeks etc ...
NBC cut out the last part of it. as romney was trying to compare the difference between how efficient the private sector is compared to Government agencies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There isn't much the federal government could do. First Amendment protections ensure that a news outlet can report a story however it wishes. The populace depends on the outlets' integrity to ensure a story is reported fairly. However, with the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, integrity has taken a backseat to ratings. Mistakes are rarely corrected and news is spun heavily because the stations cater to their demographic who want confirmation and not balance. The government defers to civil court if anything slanderous is put out there.
I take it that the major news corporations have enough money that they can just throw lawyers at any case in any court and unless the other side has vast quantities of money they are royally screwed.
It just seems a little odd from the UK perspective that there are so few protections against dodgy reporting for the ordinary people in the US. AS over here in addition to the semi enforced neutrality of the airwaves we also is an press complaints commission that you can go to if you feel that you have been misrepresented which can force apologies that are given as much prominence as the original article, so if a paper were to publish something dodgy as a front page headline the relevant apology would also have to be on the front page as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I take it that the major news corporations have enough money that they can just throw lawyers at any case in any court and unless the other side has vast quantities of money they are royally screwed.
The courts move pretty slowly as well so an election is usually over by the time a slander or libel case is done.
It just seems a little odd from the UK perspective that there are so few protections against dodgy reporting for the ordinary people in the US. AS over here in addition to the semi enforced neutrality of the airwaves we also is an press complaints commission that you can go to if you feel that you have been misrepresented which can force apologies that are given as much prominence as the original article, so if a paper were to publish something dodgy as a front page headline the relevant apology would also have to be on the front page as well.
Side effect of the First Amendment. The federal government can't restrict what you say even if it's patently false unless you get federal funding. I'd be interested in seeing the prominent apology over here; if an apology is made by a periodical it's usually buried somewhere in the back.
Side effect of the First Amendment. The federal government can't restrict what you say even if it's patently false unless you get federal funding. I'd be interested in seeing the prominent apology over here; if an apology is made by a periodical it's usually buried somewhere in the back.
Using the UK as an example again. Over here during the general election the major national (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) and I believe regional (Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru wales, Ulster Unionist and DUP Northern Ireland) are given slots on the major National TV channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4, funded by the taxpayer.
Is there a possibility of something similar happening on your side of the pond to give the 'other side' some first hand undiluted/spun access to their oppositions arguments and have that federally funded. Or would the expense just be to much and the networks liable to bury those party broadcasts at odd times in the schedule where no one would be around to watch them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
It just seems a little odd from the UK perspective that there are so few protections against dodgy reporting for the ordinary people in the US. AS over here in addition to the semi enforced neutrality of the airwaves we also is an press complaints commission that you can go to if you feel that you have been misrepresented which can force apologies that are given as much prominence as the original article, so if a paper were to publish something dodgy as a front page headline the relevant apology would also have to be on the front page as well.
There use to be the fairness doctron that was in effect, but that was done because there were very few sources for news.
that went away with the better additions of TV news, radio and even internet.
people have multiple sources to get information so it is no longer relevant.
news stations and paper that publish dodgy information are usually shunned by the public.
that is why MSNBC is one of the lowest ranked news programs on TV.
I think CNN is beating them.
The cut out a full minute of a speech he was giving which was the most important part.
It is no news that MSNBC has been in the pocket of obama since he started running for office.
Trying to imitate foxnews only with liberals MSNBC has slipped into dead last in ratings for a news program.
This reminds me of the Dan Rather incident with George Bush.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
That being said, just because one side sees it as important and the other side doesnt, doesnt mean the editor is on anyones side. His job is to fill a time slot. He cut a minute of a speech that was how long? If that minute was the most important part of the speech, there is more wrong then the editing job.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Yes the MSNBC person who edited was trying to make Romney look out of touch, probably out of partisanship, but specifically because it makes for a humorous sound bite poking fun at Romney. They're biased, rotten, etc. Bad MSNBC.
Problem is that if you tack on the rest of Romney's story (anecdote about a 33 page govt form for changing the billing address of the optometrist), you might call that a gross exaggeration from Romney, or given that it's an anecdote, you could also call it a bald faced lie. There is no such 33 page form (he was using a made up anecdote to illustrate that the private sector rocks and govt sucks).
So because the omitted ancedote is a fabrication this just opens him up to the counterattack that "Romney is complaining that they cut the lie out of his speech"
So it really ends up becoming "Romney lies. MSNBC lies."
So two wrongs does make a right??
That said, if your point is journalism can be easy and sleazy or that the tendrils of media have quite the stranglehold over quite a sizeable proportion of Americans, I do agree with you.
Evidently, yes.
Yes.
Who knows.
Maybe I'm an idealist but I think the purity, honesty, and integrity of the industry, as is the case with that of numerous others, is pretty darn important.
Here, I think the message is don't take anyone's editorial or opinions without a grain of salt or critical thinking, and that this was a shonky job. Maybe MSNBC is pro-Democrat and/or anti-Republican but it's pointless to discuss this element, really.
— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
I'm shocked and amazed.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, this has been a plague on American 'journalism' for years. Watch the BBC if you want impartial American news coverage. All current American national news channels are unadulterated garbage. What gets me is people who complain about the leftist ones - but watch Fox News. It's a counterpoint, they say. I had a discussion with a friend's dad over this, as he's retired and pretty much watches it consistently, claiming it's a balance. But the truth is, trash is trash, regardless of where you leave it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Those qualities of journalism went away in America decades ago. Now its all about shock journalism and filling time spots or space on a web site/paper (lmao, whats a paper?)
The decline of journalistic ethics, the quality of journalism, and loss of focus in everything ... was, is, and will be.
Bah, I'll shut up and stop being an old person. There's good and there's bad. Things change, and who really knows whether they're good or bad.
The real stickler is that this plague isn't endemic to the U.S.
But the U.K. also has, say, the Daily Mail. (So, I'm not so super-okay with the Thatcher-era Conservative Party. U.K. politics isn't quite as scary as American politics, and the U.K. isn't as big or bad as the States.)
Are really no 'independent', non-blogger folks? Of those, are there any good or whatever?
I suppose, if there are any, they're not Big DealsTM or loud to enough to be heard.
For the people, by the people?
— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
Their is only 1 difference between left and right and it comes down to who should do what.
that is it. Political oppostites are not that far apart.
I believe more in a free market and that government should be reduced to monitor of that system to ensure and limit corruption and enforce laws.
other than that government should just stay out of the picture.
the problem was that they cut the part of the speech that made his previous comment more clearer.
when it comes to blogs you have to be careful. there are a lot of blogs but most of them are agenda driven.
dailykos, huffington post are prominent left wing blog sites. Ms. malkin, drudge report tend to be more conservative.
it all depends on the person so you have to just watch.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Does anyone else see what is wrong with this right here?
See, I can understand watching Fox News or MSNBC as a counterpoint. The media is frequently biased, so in the absence of an unbiased source it's a good idea to listen to differently-biased perspectives.
What I don't understand is when people like your friend's dad say "Fox News/MSNBC is a counterpoint" while only ever listening to one side. How can it be a counterpoint for them when it isn't countering anything? How can it be a balance when it isn't balancing anything for them?
Right. people used to do this in news papers but there are laws against that so if you redact someone's quote you have to use elipses. (... or ....).
In accademia we were taught to HATE those things because you never knew if they were stealing valuable context so you had to go back and look at the source quote. A work with too many of them just wouldn't get published.
With Video Editing you can splice stuff and unless someone wants to sit through a 30 min speach again they never know and most people don't know to look. Video response is designed to fester emotion not logic. Emotion creates ratings.
Its like the moron who was giving me crap on facebook about creating my belief system off the King James Bible and ranting about how poor the translation (and/or the Textus Receptus was). But I studied Biblical Textual Criticism, unlike him, so I KNOW about that already and don't need his google search to tell me. The dumb part is, because I know that, I don't even read the KJ except when I'm doing word studies and thats only because the best concordances are of the KJ.
My former FB Freind is all bent out of shape emotionally and is trying to make a logical argument. He looks like a fool.
News Media doesn't need people to covert from emotion to logic (then back to emotion). They just need people to "like" and "share" thus transfer the emotion directly.
True but the Daily Fail is in no way linked to the BBC as it is a completely separate commercial entity with no more limits to its actions than any other company and to balance it out we have the Gaurdain, the Times and a number of other newspapers each allowed to have there own spin on the news. It is just the free to air Broadcast media (not just the BBC) that legally need to keep a strict impartiality when broadcasting the news as they are funded by the taxpayer.
Whilst I accept that we are able to enforce that neutrality due to the licensing of the airwaves on this side of the pond and on the US side all the news corporations are commercial entities is there any way congress/senate could enforce something similar if not permanently maybe just for the election season? Or does the extreme length of the election season make that impractical.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I specified national news channels for a reason. There is good journalism in the US, but not on the 24-hour networks.
This happens ALL THE TIME with those 'police brutality' videos. Some college student takes a video, edits out the negative actions of the students, and posts it online. No one stops to think what happened before the footage starts, and by the time all the unedited, or less edited footage is up, people have already made up their minds. (this isn't to say that there isn't police brutality, just that most of the college campus videos are pretty bogus.)
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
no the first amendment protects them. which is why it is up to people to know what is going on and to educate themselves.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There isn't much the federal government could do. First Amendment protections ensure that a news outlet can report a story however it wishes. The populace depends on the outlets' integrity to ensure a story is reported fairly. However, with the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, integrity has taken a backseat to ratings. Mistakes are rarely corrected and news is spun heavily because the stations cater to their demographic who want confirmation and not balance. The government defers to civil court if anything slanderous is put out there.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Fox News plays a clip of Obama and cuts off the second half of his sentence to completely take it out of context and attempt to reverse the meaning of what he was saying.
they were caught during the primary
and they were caught in the zimmerman play back as well.
my thing is that now they are trying to cover it up as well we didn't unethically edit anything.
What Romney was talking about was touch order stations at a sandwhich stop. more and more sub shops are putting them in.
basically they are POS (point of sale) devices that allow you to pick your sandwich toppings etc hit submit go pay the lady and you are done.
he was comparing that to having to change his address at the post office which if anyone has tried to do is a pain. there is the form then it takes like 2 weeks etc ...
NBC cut out the last part of it. as romney was trying to compare the difference between how efficient the private sector is compared to Government agencies.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I take it that the major news corporations have enough money that they can just throw lawyers at any case in any court and unless the other side has vast quantities of money they are royally screwed.
It just seems a little odd from the UK perspective that there are so few protections against dodgy reporting for the ordinary people in the US. AS over here in addition to the semi enforced neutrality of the airwaves we also is an press complaints commission that you can go to if you feel that you have been misrepresented which can force apologies that are given as much prominence as the original article, so if a paper were to publish something dodgy as a front page headline the relevant apology would also have to be on the front page as well.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
The courts move pretty slowly as well so an election is usually over by the time a slander or libel case is done.
Side effect of the First Amendment. The federal government can't restrict what you say even if it's patently false unless you get federal funding. I'd be interested in seeing the prominent apology over here; if an apology is made by a periodical it's usually buried somewhere in the back.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Using the UK as an example again. Over here during the general election the major national (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) and I believe regional (Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru wales, Ulster Unionist and DUP Northern Ireland) are given slots on the major National TV channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4, funded by the taxpayer.
Is there a possibility of something similar happening on your side of the pond to give the 'other side' some first hand undiluted/spun access to their oppositions arguments and have that federally funded. Or would the expense just be to much and the networks liable to bury those party broadcasts at odd times in the schedule where no one would be around to watch them.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
There use to be the fairness doctron that was in effect, but that was done because there were very few sources for news.
that went away with the better additions of TV news, radio and even internet.
people have multiple sources to get information so it is no longer relevant.
news stations and paper that publish dodgy information are usually shunned by the public.
that is why MSNBC is one of the lowest ranked news programs on TV.
I think CNN is beating them.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/12/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-june-11-2012/137645/
this was just for monday i can't find the monthly averages even though i looked.
however the lastest article i have found shows that fox news has held the number 1 rating slot for 10 years in a row.
this isn't just 1 program it is all their news programs in all time slots.
CNN trails a distant 3rd and MSNBC is even further behind.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum