What would happen????

[STANMAN]

I watched SNL this weekend and there was a skit floating the possibility that Palin's husband was fooling around with their daughters. I waited a few days and wanted to see if anyone on the right would throw a fit, but alas, nary a peep. Now, I know it's sketch comedy going for the "WOW" factor and all, but can you imagine the OUTRAGE if something like this was put on SNL about Obama's wife? Can you imagine how the left would react? Why the double standard?

Discuss.

[ND4SPD]

Yeah, I just heard about that yesterday afternoon and I was pretty damn pissed. It's also starting to hit the conservative talk shows and so forth... Greta mentioned it briefly last night on her show and I imagine it will take more flak today.

[Windsors 03 Cobra]

Stanman go ahead and say whatever you want, doubt anyone will hear or care.

[pOrk]

It would be racism if they did the same to Obama, everything is racism.

I'm a racist because I'm not voting for that homo. NOBAMA!

[Voodoo Chick]

I wouldn't vote for Obama if he was white, black, purple, green, whatever. I think he's a weirdo, and I really hope McCain gets in instead. As for the SNL skit, Of course it's a double standard. I (and I truly DON'T want to offend anyone here, so, 'sorry' in advance) am so tired of having to listen to every minority-group going on about their heritage, and how they've suffered, yada, yada, yada. What about the Irish? They suffered, and were slaves, too, and yet we don't hear about that. What would happen if we had "white history month?" I am part Seminole, so, what? Should I walk around saying, "white man stole my land?" I think racism wears many faces, and one of it's faces is allowing one group to have special attention, while for another, it is considered unacceptable. Shouldn't 'equal rights' mean exactly that??

[Karps TA]

People still watch SNL? I'm sure those 4 people would be outraged.

[Sprayaway Fox]

SNL sux! MAD TV all the way!.........Race card woulda been pulled... carry on.

[0TransAm0]

it would be racism if they did the same to obama, everything is racism.
x2
better?

[pOrk]

^ what?

[Nix]

It would be racism if they did the same to Obama, everything is racism.

I'm a racist because I'm not voting for that homo. NOBAMA!


Yes!! You hit the nail on the head right there! Everyone who is not voting for that piece of fvcking shit are racist! :goof

Atleast thats what I've been told in the past. No its not cause' of that, its cause' I don't like that piece of trash weather it be black trash or white trash. In the end its still trash.

"You CAN"T polish a turd" /end quote

[STANMAN]

Europeans built the pyramids as slaves to the Egyptians, why don't they (this would include almost every "white" american) get reperations??? But, aside from the obvious race portion, (which of course anything and everything is racist as long as it's a white person starting it as others have stated) why does the left whine and cry about everything and the right just take it?

[Cryptic]

They hit the ignore button

[Mr. Brett]

People still watch SNL? I'm sure those 4 people would be outraged.

....

[84hurst]

I wouldn't vote for Obama if he was white, black, purple, green, whatever. I think he's a weirdo, and I really hope McCain gets in instead. As for the SNL skit, Of course it's a double standard. I (and I truly DON'T want to offend anyone here, so, 'sorry' in advance) am so tired of having to listen to every minority-group going on about their heritage, and how they've suffered, yada, yada, yada. What about the Irish? They suffered, and were slaves, too, and yet we don't hear about that. What would happen if we had "white history month?" I am part Seminole, so, what? Should I walk around saying, "white man stole my land?" I think racism wears many faces, and one of it's faces is allowing one group to have special attention, while for another, it is considered unacceptable. Shouldn't 'equal rights' mean exactly that??

x2! :thumbsup
If anything, racism had turned back to 1 way. It's not white people hating on blacks, hispanics, asian or whatever. It's the other way around now. Whites are hated by almost every other ethnicity. These people are givin chances to succeed (i.e., free schooling, free money, cheap housing, equal opportunity for jobs), yet still they bitch. I don't understand it. I'd be grateful to have all of that given to me. The "debt" was paid for, a long, long time ago. I don't consider my self racist, I just go by what I hear on the news, read in the paper, and see on COPS. :rolf

[Z28Roxy]

This thread itself is proof that there isn't as much of a double standard as you think there is.

The left gets mad when the right bags on them.

The right gets mad when the left bags on them.

Same shit really.

[Windsors 03 Cobra]

^ True that, I love listening to most of what they talk about but Mark Belling and Rush Limbaugh have made huge profitable careers out of what STANMAN describes as "whine and cry".

[Karps TA]

This thread itself is proof that there isn't as much of a double standard as you think there is.

The left gets mad when the right bags on them.

The right gets mad when the left bags on them.

Same shit really.

Ding ding ding. Funny how neither side ever can see that.

[STANMAN]

^ True that, I love listening to most of what they talk about but Mark Belling and Rush Limbaugh have made huge profitable careers out of what STANMAN describes as "whine and cry".

I am talking about what most people consider legitimate news sources like CNN or any of the other networks and most major newspapers, not talk radio.


We all know talk radio was made for us righties to whine and cry, and it's purposly kept there so it's never considered "legitimate news".

[Reverend Cooper]

They hit the ignore button

i just choked on popcorn asshole

[lit666]

for as much as I love Robin Meade, CNN is a very liberal news station as Fox is more of a conservative station. I've had to turn off CNN and switch to Fox news in the mornings.

[Mr. Brett]

Fox and CNN are both cesspools of journalistic shenanigans. Anyone who gets news from either is uninformed at best.

[Z28Roxy]

for as much as I love Robin Meade, CNN is a very liberal news station as Fox is more of a conservative station. I've had to turn off CNN and switch to Fox news in the mornings.

IMHO, Fox News is much more conservative than CNN is liberal.

[Syclone0044]

Fox is downright propaganda.

[Prince Valiant]

I watched SNL this weekend and there was a skit floating the possibility that Palin's husband was fooling around with their daughters.
Why stop there?

Why not point out the double standard in coverage for actual politicians? Obama gets roughly 33% more coverage/press than does McCain...AND Obama is far more likely to get the top half of the front page, while McCain generally elicits pages within the paper.

Recall the Foley/Craig Scandals...one of a drunken tool sending bizarre messages with sexual innuendo to congressional pages, and the other "cruising" an airport Bathroom...ALL OVER the news. Where are the stories ad nauseum of Rangel's tax evasion? Here's the guy that sits on the committee that writes the tax laws, and he pleads ignorance?!? His illegal use of rent subsidized apartments? How about the political stand-off to remove him from his seat on the ways and means committee?

How about when a news organization identifies another political organization, advocacy group, or think tank? How many times have you heard of the "Left leaning NAACP"? How about "The 'progressive' watchdog, Media Matters" (they label themselves "progressive"...aka "liberal" and yet, are never credited as being idealogues in the press...instead treated as a non-partisan watchdog organization). Same with the idealogical greenpeace, sierra club, planned parenthood, etc.

But of course, NRA is often tagged "right-wing" by media outlets. Heritage foundation, Bradley foundation, Americans for tax reform, Cato institute, etc...are OFTEN tagged as rightest organizations, and not rarely labled "right wing extremist" organizations.

There was a wonderful study done by UCLA a few years back...trying to objectify media bias here (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx). What did it find?

Wall street journal editorial column is unabashedly conservative (no surprise), but that it's NEWS pages were more liberal than that of the new york times. Drudgereport, because it links to AP stories is more liberal than conservative. Was Fox's chief news show "extreme right wing"? Nope..it was about as far to the right as "The news hour with Jim Lehrer" was to the left...IE, just off center either way.

But the chief finding that YES, media bias DOES exist, and it's primarily in favor of a liberal bias...whereas supposedly conservative bastions weren't too far from what the average voter scores on the "liberal-conservative" score. (however, don't be fooled into thinking that the most accurate/truthful ones are considered "centerist"....either liberal or conservative could be reporting the truth, the fact that they are either does NOT tell to either the truth OR inaccuracy of their reporting by itself)

But to answer the first question in the form of a rhetorical question...why would the any in the 'mainstream' media call out someone from it's own ideological ranks?

[Smokey1226]

This thread itself is proof that there isn't as much of a double standard as you think there is.

The left gets mad when the right bags on them.

The right gets mad when the left bags on them.

Same shit really.

umm sorry to interupt the political stuff, but could i get more pics of your avatar? lol

[Z28Roxy]

Recall the Foley/Craig Scandals...one of a drunken tool sending bizarre messages with sexual innuendo to congressional pages, and the other "cruising" an airport Bathroom...ALL OVER the news. Where are the stories ad nauseum of Rangel's tax evasion? Here's the guy that sits on the committee that writes the tax laws, and he pleads ignorance?!? His illegal use of rent subsidized apartments? How about the political stand-off to remove him from his seat on the ways and means committee?

*cough* Clinton-Lewinsky scandal *cough*

[VroomPshhTsi]

CNN is full of hippy-douches and FOX is full of redneck-turds

From what I've seen NBC is slightly to the left, but not as much as CNN.

It's nearly impossible to get a truly "objective" report, someone has to choose what to report, when to report it, how to report it, etc. Any time those decisions must be made, someone is inserting their opinions and make it less objective.

[VroomPshhTsi]

There was a wonderful study done by UCLA a few years back...trying to objectify media bias



There are TONS of credible studies done on the bias of media and they show a significant bias on both sides. I've seen plenty of studies where the Bush administration and FOX have spun a news event to make it less negative/truthful (choice of words, angle of story, pushing other less significant stories, downplaying the importance, etc.). Depending on who does the study, I'm sure one can find similar studies that say the media is even more bias.

[Prince Valiant]

*cough* Clinton-Lewinsky scandal *cough*What brought the clinton-lewinsky scandal to light?!?

Hmm...was it a watchdog media concerned about a president using his office to shield him from civil charges and to allow him to lie under oath to protect himself from a rather meaningless civil action? Nope.

It was a independent investigator who was the primary source of bringing it to light.

Then did the media take off with it?

Hmm, nope again! No, for the most part they were indignant that Clinton was being impeached "for lying about sex" (there were of course some shows that were enjoying the salacious details that were coming out about it).

Pretty much the only investigative reporting that was done on it was "Drudgreport" and is primarily how Matt Drudge came to fame.

It wasn't really until things got heated during the impeachment that things really came to a head as far as coverage...QUITE different than the treatment of Craig/Foley scandal.

*cough cough* nice try but conotquitethesameugh*


There are TONS of credible studies done on the bias of media and they show a significant bias on both sides.Actually, read the study and note how it was considered the first study of this kind by both it's poli sci authors and the peers who reviewed it.


I've seen plenty of studies where the Bush administration and FOX have spun a news event to make it less negative/truthful Do you doubt ANY administration puts "spin" on a story to make look either more favorable or less negative? It's not entirely a new concept.

But again, the implication that foxNEWS has been disreputable is silly...it's NEWS division is actually quite good. What gets people's panties in a bunch? The O'rielly's, Hannities, and to a lesser extent the Cavuto's et al during opinion driven programs...and that they have an ugly alien looking liberal Alan combs. There opinions are no more conservative than Olberman's/Matthews/Maddow's opinions on MSNBC are liberal.

However, I doubt what you've seen can be termed as "studies" (IE peer reviewed scholarly articles) rather researched opinion journalistic pieces (this doesn't say what you read wasn't true, but it's not the same as the UCLA study) nor does it put an objective standard to the reporting...again, a first done by the UCLA study.

[VroomPshhTsi]

However, I doubt what you've seen can be termed as "studies" (IE peer reviewed scholarly articles) rather researched opinion journalistic pieces (this doesn't say what you read wasn't true, but it's not the same as the UCLA study) nor does it put an objective standard to the reporting...again, a first done by the UCLA study.

Actually they were studies, with measures, numbers, hypotheses, etc. Granted it's been over a year since I've read them so I don't remember the studies or which catalog they were in, but they weren't just reviews of studies.

I'd be interested in seeing the specific measures of the UCLA study, not just a short article discussing some findings. Their are plenty of factors that could affect the findings. Number of media outlets, which ones, when, why they chose those over others, etc.

Basically my point is, if you look at the right info, you can prove media bias on both sides.

[VroomPshhTsi]

For example, when Edwards admitted cheating on his wife, FOX spent twice as much time covering it than CNN. When something negative is found about a member of Bush's administration, CNN will spend more time covering it and FOX will cover other stories.

I agree with Prince Valiant that the actual NEWS shows, Fox and CNN do a good job of reporting the who, what, where, when, and why. It's when they bring on the guests who represent their respective groups when things get ugly and people just yell over the other, very little is accomplished.

[Z28Roxy]

It wasn't really until things got heated during the impeachment that things really came to a head as far as coverage...QUITE different than the treatment of Craig/Foley scandal.

*cough cough* nice try but conotquitethesameugh*


You've got to be out of your mind :rolf, the clinton scandal was everywhere. The craig and foley scandals were a bad joke for not even a week. And now if you asked Joe 6 pack on the street he probably wouldn't even know who either of them were.

One big reason it was not as much in the news at the beginning is because there was no "hard" (pardon the pun) evidence except for phone calls between Lewinsky and a THIRD PARTY :rolf Moreover, the incident itself wasn't illegal (perjury debatable). In the two repug cases, both were illegal and there was immediate evidence.

[Syclone0044]

umm sorry to interupt the political stuff, but could i get more pics of your avatar? lol

x2

[Rocket Power]

How about Quayle and spelling potato wrong, still hearing about it.
Will we hear as much about Biden saying FDR was on TV talking about the depression ?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘ Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn’t introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World’s Fair.

FDR was elected three years later when voters denied Hoover a second term. The Democratic challenger appealed to the “forgotten man” by promising a “new deal” to solve the Depression era



NTBZHf6WyG0

NBC is every bit or more as left as CNN. Fox may be right wing slanted but they balance out all the left slanted news everywhere else. Probably why they are the top cable news channel.

[Prince Valiant]

You've got to be out of your mind :rolf, the clinton scandal was everywhere. The craig and foley scandals were a bad joke for not even a week. And now if you asked Joe 6 pack on the street he probably wouldn't even know who either of them were.Notice I didn't say that it wasn't...but the tone of the coverage was different on most *serious* news programs. (first, you find where I say it was *no where*, then move on to proving the difference in coverage in the *hard news* segments).

Furthermore, look at the DIFFERENCE in how the news came out...

Foley:
The *news media* sat on the details for 2-6 months (perhaps longer, can't recall the precise time off the top of my head), though they knew the details and had the evidence of the shenanigans...why sit on it so long? Oh, it became a bombshell to be dropped right before the election to make not only Foley look bad, but republicans in general for not apparently doing anything. Who did the muckraking? The media...who sat on it for the purposes of influencing the outcome of an election? Why, the media.

Clinton:

Despite RAMPANT rumors of clinton shennanigans both before and after entering the white house, where were the news stories on this? Hmmph, no where. Who broke the lewinsky scandal? Lawyers in a civil suit. Who brought that to the public attention? A special prosecutor. What was the tone of the coverage? As stated, most the *soft news* covered it ad nauseum, revealing in the dirty details...but the *hard news* more or less covered it from the angle of "does this rise to the level of impeachable charges" and terming that this was simply about *sex*. The tone of the coverage was less indignation, and more sympathetic.

How about other reported clinton scandals? Hmmm....like Juanita Broderick? How about Kathleen Wiley? Did anyone really take Paula Jones accusations as seriously as they did Craig's bathroom tryst?


One big reason it was not as much in the news at the beginning is because there was no "hard" (pardon the pun) evidence except for phone calls between Lewinsky and a THIRD PARTY :rolf Moreover, the incident itself wasn't illegal (perjury debatable). In the two repug cases, both were illegal and there was immediate evidence.Well, perjury is a crime...that is NOT debatable. People DO go to jail having been convicted of it, even when it deals with sex.

And actually, Foley is not being charged with a crime...as the investigators recently stated that they found that there was no evidence of commission of a crime...just poor tasted and worse judgement. (not excusing his actions)...but what's interesting is that the media ran with a story that had NO hard evidence of a crime...simply innuendo at the time they reported it.

While you may correctly believe there is bias in the media, you incorrectly believe that it somehow balances out. This isn't true...I mean, historically the media has been voting ~ 90% democratic...but somehow we're to believe this works out to a 50-50 bias scenario? Even when objective observation shows this to not be the case.

[Z28Roxy]

Notice I didn't say that it wasn't...but the tone of the coverage was different on most *serious* news programs. (first, you find where I say it was *no where*, then move on to proving the difference in coverage in the *hard news* segments).

Furthermore, look at the DIFFERENCE in how the news came out...

Foley:
The *news media* sat on the details for 2-6 months (perhaps longer, can't recall the precise time off the top of my head), though they knew the details and had the evidence of the shenanigans...why sit on it so long? Oh, it became a bombshell to be dropped right before the election to make not only Foley look bad, but republicans in general for not apparently doing anything. Who did the muckraking? The media...who sat on it for the purposes of influencing the outcome of an election? Why, the media.


Did it influence the election, yes, but they did not sit on it for 2 to 6 months. That's false.

Also, why did republicans try to keep it under wraps themselves?



Clinton:

Despite RAMPANT rumors of clinton shennanigans both before and after entering the white house, where were the news stories on this? Hmmph, no where. Who broke the lewinsky scandal? Lawyers in a civil suit. Who brought that to the public attention? A special prosecutor. What was the tone of the coverage? As stated, most the *soft news* covered it ad nauseum, revealing in the dirty details...but the *hard news* more or less covered it from the angle of "does this rise to the level of impeachable charges" and terming that this was simply about *sex*. The tone of the coverage was less indignation, and more sympathetic.


Because it was between two consenting adults.

It wasn't about creating a known and reported public nuisance nor was it about sending messages to teenagers.

Moreover, the important point you are missing is that no one had evidence at the start. The news had to be very careful reporting on what they had - just tapes of a third party conversation (you know this is skating legality for several reasons, whether the taping is legal and if it turned out to not be true it could be libel). They tried to get Lewinsky to talk but she wouldn't at first.



How about other reported clinton scandals? Hmmm....like Juanita Broderick? How about Kathleen Wiley? Did anyone really take Paula Jones accusations as seriously as they did Craig's bathroom tryst?


Juanity Broderick, alleging a rape from two DECADES prior? Sure if true it's far more wrong than Craig or even Foley but it's not really newsworthy unless a lot of evidence comes to light. She also had previously denied that anything happened.

Wiley, who gave false information to the FBI on several occasions? :rolf

As for Jones, yes I think people did, I remember tons of skits making fun of it, all those Megan's Law references to Clinton, etc.



And actually, Foley is not being charged with a crime...as the investigators recently stated that they found that there was no evidence of commission of a crime...just poor tasted and worse judgement. (not excusing his actions)...but what's interesting is that the media ran with a story that had NO hard evidence of a crime...simply innuendo at the time they reported it.


The news reported what was there: AIM logs and emails: not he said, she said or he said he said in the case of Foley.



While you may correctly believe there is bias in the media, you incorrectly believe that it somehow balances out. This isn't true...I mean, historically the media has been voting ~ 90% democratic...but somehow we're to believe this works out to a 50-50 bias scenario? Even when objective observation shows this to not be the case.

I didn't state that it balances out 50-50 (which sources are included? Do you weight them based on market share or all equally? How do you determine bias exactly?) because I wouldn't know what that means. I think more than politics the news is concerned with the "next big scoop".

[CobraSnake]

x2

x3

[Z28Roxy]

x3

Sorry don't have any others, this is the size the image was when I downloaded it :(

[forest]

i just choked on popcorn asshole

asshole tastes like popcorn?:confused :rolf

[Poncho]

asshole tastes like popcorn?:confused :rolf

:rolf:rolf:rolf


roxy's e-stabbing FTW

[CobraSnake]

Sorry don't have any others, this is the size the image was when I downloaded it :(

damn you and your teasing avatar!!!