Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-20-2011 | 12:36 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
It just doesn't mean I have to like them. I have no problem if MSNBC wants to champion the DNC or Fox wants to pander to conservatives, I really don't, just admit to it though and let the ratings be the judge. Same with anything, don't tell me you're objective when you consistently champion only one side in what you tell and don't tell.
Put it this way, if Maddow says Obama will win 2012 in a landslide then to me, it's not noteworthy. Its what she believes and hopes and she will look for things to bolster her beliefs and hope. If she says he'll lose in a landslide, now that's intriguing.
Same on the flip side, if Rush saying none of the current Republican candidates can beat Obama that is far more intriguing to a democrat then him saying any Republican can beat Obama. Why? Because "if XYZ is admitting that then it must be true!"
Same if Alpha or PG came out and threw ALPA under the bus or if Carl came out and raved about how great ALPA was. Now that's not to say that when you speak against your own that it's the only time truth is necessarily told. Rush could be right Obama loses, Maddow could be right Obama wins, but when they say the opposite and you know it's not what they want then is that not more noteworthy?
That's why I don't want someone telling me what will happen in any pending news event until I know where they stand.
To prove my point, going against the grain is a great way to make news. It made McCain a hero to liberal media until 2008 and it Colin Cowherd makes a living off of it to the point you question if he believes much of anything he says? Because it seems as if he seeks controversy first and foremost. And trust me, as an Auburn fan, ESPN bias is a major angst for us.
BTW, ESPN signed a huge contract with the University of Texas, do you really believe they'll report anything negative about UT? Makes you suspicious. But what if they do? Well thats when we'll say "it must be true."
05-20-2011 | 12:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
All good points and junk, but the first person to post Megyn Kelly underboob gets a week of vacation over Christmas as a green slip and one week's use of ALPA's AMEX Black card.
05-20-2011 | 12:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
It's ironic when Rhodes Scholars turn out to be leftists, considering how Cecil Rhodes made the money that endowed those scholarships:
Cecil Rhodes encyclopedia topics | Reference.com
Cecil John Rhodes, PC DCL (5 July 1853 – 26 March 1902) was an English-born businessman, mining magnate, and politician in South Africa. He was the founder of the diamond company De Beers, which today markets 40% of the world's rough diamonds and at one time marketed 90%. He was an ardent believer in colonialism (some would say imperialism) and was the founder of the state of Rhodesia, which was named after him. Rhodesia, later Northern and Southern Rhodesia, eventually became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively. South Africa's Rhodes University is named in tribute to him. He is also known today for the famous scholarship that bears his name.
05-20-2011 | 12:45 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
05-20-2011 | 12:52 PM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
Yes.
It just doesn't mean I have to like them. I have no problem if MSNBC wants to champion the DNC or Fox wants to pander to conservatives, I really don't, just admit to it though and let the ratings be the judge. Same with anything, don't tell me you're objective when you consistently champion only one side in what you tell and don't tell.
Put it this way, if Maddow says Obama will win 2012 in a landslide then to me, it's not noteworthy. Its what she believes and hopes and she will look for things to bolster her beliefs and hope. If she says he'll lose in a landslide, now that's intriguing.
Same on the flip side, if Rush saying none of the current Republican candidates can beat Obama that is far more intriguing to a democrat then him saying any Republican can beat Obama. Why? Because "if XYZ is admitting that then it must be true!"
Same if Alpha or PG came out and threw ALPA under the bus or if Carl came out and raved about how great ALPA was. Now that's not to say that when you speak against your own that it's the only time truth is necessarily told. Rush could be right Obama loses, Maddow could be right Obama wins, but when they say the opposite and you know it's not what they want then is that not more noteworthy?
That's why I don't want someone telling me what will happen in any pending news event until I know where they stand.
To prove my point, going against the grain is a great way to make news. It made McCain a hero to liberal media until 2008 and it Colin Cowherd makes a living off of it to the point you question if he believes much of anything he says? Because it seems as if he seeks controversy first and foremost. And trust me, as an Auburn fan, ESPN bias is a major angst for us.
BTW, ESPN signed a huge contract with the University of Texas, do you really believe they'll report anything negative about UT? Makes you suspicious. But what if they do? Well thats when we'll say "it must be true."
It just doesn't mean I have to like them. I have no problem if MSNBC wants to champion the DNC or Fox wants to pander to conservatives, I really don't, just admit to it though and let the ratings be the judge. Same with anything, don't tell me you're objective when you consistently champion only one side in what you tell and don't tell.
Put it this way, if Maddow says Obama will win 2012 in a landslide then to me, it's not noteworthy. Its what she believes and hopes and she will look for things to bolster her beliefs and hope. If she says he'll lose in a landslide, now that's intriguing.
Same on the flip side, if Rush saying none of the current Republican candidates can beat Obama that is far more intriguing to a democrat then him saying any Republican can beat Obama. Why? Because "if XYZ is admitting that then it must be true!"
Same if Alpha or PG came out and threw ALPA under the bus or if Carl came out and raved about how great ALPA was. Now that's not to say that when you speak against your own that it's the only time truth is necessarily told. Rush could be right Obama loses, Maddow could be right Obama wins, but when they say the opposite and you know it's not what they want then is that not more noteworthy?
That's why I don't want someone telling me what will happen in any pending news event until I know where they stand.
To prove my point, going against the grain is a great way to make news. It made McCain a hero to liberal media until 2008 and it Colin Cowherd makes a living off of it to the point you question if he believes much of anything he says? Because it seems as if he seeks controversy first and foremost. And trust me, as an Auburn fan, ESPN bias is a major angst for us.
BTW, ESPN signed a huge contract with the University of Texas, do you really believe they'll report anything negative about UT? Makes you suspicious. But what if they do? Well thats when we'll say "it must be true."
05-20-2011 | 12:56 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Put it this way new, if I could have a paper it'd only have headlines on page 1, speech transcripts or box scores on the next pages, then op eds from both sides about the same news events next. Not 2 pages of op eds but lots of them from people who are admittedly biased or in the case of technical stuff, bonafide experts.
05-20-2011 | 01:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1
From: FO
Sounds reasonable. So if you're watching MSNBC I'm guessing you never (or very much later after everyone else starting covering the story) got the news about climategate or ACORN caught on tape willing to help a pimp claim underage girls from South America and lie to the IRS on their tax forms.
Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room
Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room
Last edited by BlueMoon; 05-20-2011 at 01:33 PM.
05-20-2011 | 01:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Put it this way new, if I could have a paper it'd only have headlines on page 1, speech transcripts or box scores on the next pages, then op eds from both sides about the same news events next. Not 2 pages of op eds but lots of them from people who are admittedly biased or in the case of technical stuff, bonafide experts.
It always intrigues me to see how "the other side" spins their issue. So, when I'm interested in an issue, I check out FOX and MSNBC. CNN, not so much. Most of them time it seems as though they are reporting too neutral -- unwilling to say what they want to say.
I like hearing the best, most pointed argument, then making the call for myself.
05-20-2011 | 02:02 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: going to Boeing Dog...
05-20-2011 | 03:04 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
