I normally never post to correct typos, but I thought my substitution of “about” for “amount” was amusing, as I currently have a cold and that’s pretty much what it sounds like when I say it out loud.
Of course, now that I type it out, it’s not really amusing at all. Hrumph.
I consider myself a Libertarian that would typically vote Republican, but there is just simply no way I’ll vote for this Bush asshat, but I’m not much of a fan of Moore either. I cannot make much of a criticism of Moore’s new movie unless I see it, but I don’t want to pay to support.
Excellent idea, I think I just might. If only I had known this when The Pianist came out.
That’s exactly what I did when I went to see The Passion of the Christ. I bought a ticket to City of God, which I’d already seen twice. Boy that felt good.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I think. :rolleyes:
Generally speaking, liberals think Fox News sucks huge rhinoceros penis, while conservatives think it’s the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan. It’s all subjective.
So, it isn’t art you all object to, it’s just the money.
When you sit and watch, you have provided your portion of the exchange between artist, and audience. The rest is just about your, and their attitudes toward, money, and the law.
You sat through the movie, you supported the art of those who produced the it, whether you chose to “steal that book”, or not. You might be petty thieves, but you have not abstained on principle.
Tris
You think that’s bad? Fox’s Roger Ailes supports the release of F9-11 (scroll down to the bottom.)
Do you even understand the difference between news and commentary?
These shows are opinion shows. They’re like the editorial page of your paper, rjung. There’s no obligation for balance or objectivity on these programs.
There are limits on this. I’m generally liberal, and I subscribe to the Guardian Weekly, which trends (very much) the same way. But I get the GW because it’s a good weekly summary of world news, not because I like its bias. I tolerate the bias. You have to read accounting for the bias. Frankly I wish I could find a weekly paper that was less biased.
I think you could find conservatives who feel the same way about Fox.
Some people like to have their views confirmed all the time and don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t fit with their views.
Then tell Mr. O’Reilly to stop promoting his show as the spin-free non-partisan soapbox he claims it is, and tell Messrs. Hannity and Colmes to stop promoting their show as a nonpartisan “Crossfire” wanna-be. If they want to be biased, the least they could do is admit it.
They do admit it, ya nitwit. Alan Colmes is a liberal. Sean Hannity is a conservative. Neither of them even attempt to hide this fact on this commentary program.
And, though I’m no fan of Bill O’Reilly, he does throw a lot of barbs at the Bush Administration and claims to be a registered independent. And again, he does his thing on a commentary program. These programs are not straight news, and don’t pretend to be.
For that matter, Crossfire itself was similarly a commentary program, with similar issues of opinion and subjectivity. Done right, it is enlightening and informative. It can really show how people of differing perspectives think. But it is not news, cannot be thought of as news, and is treated by a different standard.
It’s why, too, I can’t hold Michael Moore to strict journalistic standards. He’d fail miserably.
Because what he’s doing is satire, or commentary, or both, he gets cut some slack.
Awwwww, your naievete is so cuteeeeeeeeeeeee! 
Let’s ask Alan himself.
“I think I’m quite moderate.”
–Alan Colmes, USA Today, February 1 1995
“The title … Hannity & Colmes, is something of a misnomer, because the other host – the timid, bespectacled liberal Alan Colmes – acts essentially as a sacrificial lamb and may as well not be there.”
–British elevision review, Sunday Business Post, August 24 2003
You can find these and lots more at An Aggressive Conservative vs. a “Liberal to be Determined”: The false balance of Hannity & Colmes. Bottom line: The only people who think Colmes is a liberal are the folks at Fox News, who use him as a token to show they’re “fair and balanced.” That, and gullible SDMB members. 
Yeah, that’s why when he first registered to vote in 1994, he marked his political affiliation as Republican. Then again, he also lied about his “working class” roots (and was contradicted by his own mother), his nonexistent Peabody awards, and just about everything else; why should he tell the truth about his political affiliations?
But hey, keep believing that “Fox News is unbiased” fantasy of yours. Someone has to be gullible enough to watch that crap…
Nice try.
Consider yourself officially warned, anyway, LouisB.
In Crossfire, people admit to having approaching the subjects with differing perspectives. (For the right, Tucker Carlson, etc.) Bill O’Reilly emphasizes that his program is supposed to be from an unbiased point-of-view. (He thinks that it is unbiased, fair and balanced because he thinks he is right. He knows he is right. :rolleyes: Don’t we all?
Unless they (or anyone else) are using known propoganda techniques they are observable.
All of these programs are commentary programs. People on them are allowed, even encouraged, to have opinions on the events of the day. It really doesn’t matter whether they are Republican, Democrat or whatever.
If you want straight news coverage, you shouldn’t be watching these programs, rjung.
Where did I say Fox was unbiased? What I said was that those particular commentary programs were intended to be biased, and that there was nothing wrong with that.
Or do you think the New York Times should be shut down by its ombudsman because it has an editorial page?
Mr. Moto - kindly show me a program on Fox that isn’t biased.
And could you explain why Oliver North’s Bio contains no mention of his role in the Iran-Contra affair?
Alan Colmes is the Washington Generals to Sean Hannity’s Harlem Globetrotters.
Impossible to do, leander. But then, I could say the same about any network news program, CNN, or NPR. Same with print journalism. Bias exists, and manifests in subtle ways.
Saying it exists on a commentary show is just stating the obvious, though. It’s supposed to be there. And complaining about its presence there makes you look stupid. Now, you can object to specific content of the shows, sure, but really, rjung’s criticisms just struck me as silly.
As for Olliver North, I wasn’t aware of that, and certainly can’t defend it. I’m sure it’s as the old song goes, “ac-cent-tu-ate the positive.”
No shit, Sherlock. But why does Fox promote these programs as being non-partisan and balanced when they’re anything but?
That is the point which you continue to dance around; I’m still uncertain if you’re being deliberately obtuse, or are just terminally thick.
Damn, Rjung. USA Today? Sunday Business Post? You quote extreme leftist hacks as evidence that Colmes isn’t liberal enough. What’s next? David Duke doesn’t think Sean Hannity is conservative enough? Pat Robertson says Islam is a false religion? Osama bin Laden thinks New Yorkers can’t take a joke?