Don’t watch or listen to Beck. Rarely listen to Limbaugh.
Please find me something that I made up.
I haven’t watched enough PBS news analysis to form any solid views on their political leanings. However, I do think NPR announcers are more likely to be vegans than those in other news outlets. Furthermore, I believe that MSNBC presenters favor the Beatles over the Rolling Stones, FoxNews people prefer briefs over boxers, CNBC staff are more likely to go for Thai food than Mexican, and CNN announcers to drink imported beers instead of domestic. And all of these are just as useful in demonstrating any political bias in their reporting as our guesses as to who they vote for.
I’m just curious what you’re basing your “intellectually honest opinion” on other than the fact that they’re on PBS. What specifically have they said or done to make you think that they’re Democrats?
Who do you think you are? Every poster in this thread has asked that idiot the same question, and he has refused to answer. What, he’s not going to answer me, or any of them, but he’ll answer you? Are some special little snowflake?
Put another way: I don’t think the OP has any intention of engaging beyond repeating what he’s already said. You can ask him every possible way, and he’s going to repeat the same thing. If that’s you cup of meat, go for it.
How curious, that those who most assiduously parrot the talking points of those blowhards most assiduously deny ever listening to them.
Okay, but that doesn’t really have any relevance to the fact that you sound like someone stupid enough to get their views from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
You made up political parties for people whose actual party affiliation you don’t know. That’s making something up. You made up a fact, and then expressed opinions based on nothing but your made up fact.
He’s said over and over that he has no facts to support his opinion. He even explicitly said that he doesn’t want to argue on the basis of evidence. He’s only interested in arguing about made-up speculation.
Well, my “intellectually honest opinion” is that he really is basing it on the fact that they’re on PBS. Because PBS wouldn’t have hired them if they weren’t left-wing. And thus their bias is proof of the network’s bias, and the network’s bias is proof of their bias, and round and round the argument goes until it turns into butter*. He is, of course, welcome to come and present something other than “Nuh-uh” (excuse me - “nuh…uh…”) as an alternate argument but I’m not holding my breath either.
And yes, I am a special little snowflake, thanks for asking.
*Please note the obligatory proof of the left’s secret racism.
PBS is heavily funded by government. They are beyond biased.
Surely that would imply that they’d be biased in favor of the government (and specifically Congress, which holds the pursestrings)? We ought to be seeing ideological shifts whenever control of Congress changes hands. Has that happened?
There are no facts available that could support my opinion… that doesn’t make it wrong does it? But you all keep wanting facts to support my opinion
Who is more intellectually honest… one who opines that Bill Moyers and Ray Suarez probably support Obama… or one who won’t hazard a guess?
I know why you won’t…then you’d be asked about George S and Gregory and Matthews and the CBS guy.
(Note… I identify Ray Suarez with Pacifica Radio but I can’t find that connection on his Wiki page.)
Cite? PBS’s funding is varied, but on any given year it gets less than 20 percent of it’s funding through “The Government”
Suarez was the host of Talk of the Nation on NPR before going to PBS in 1999. He’s never been on Pacifica Radio.
Judging from several recent posts, Linguini appears to be doing a bit of performance art/satire playing the role of a comically misinformed, talking-point-spewing right-wing troll.
I hope.
There are no facts available that suggest you aren’t Lrrr, Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8, so that doesn’t make my opinion that you are wrong, does it?
Of course, here in reality-land, we prefer our opinions flavored with facts instead of rampant speculation.
- I should note that I don’t actually think you are Lrrr, Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8. I think you’re actually a giant Parasitic Slime-worm from the Delta Pavonis system, home of the universe’s largest ball of twine.
But it does make the exercise meaningless. There are informed opinions and uninformed ones. What’s informing yours?
And we’re back to wondering what you mean by “intellectually honest”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Really, I don’t.
And we’ve already told you why we won’t: because it’s a pointless exercise and because you’ve given us no reason to play your game.
The Bias of the gaps?
One who bases his opinion of a show/host’s bias on watching the show, rather than on the host’s presumed voting record.
Ah. I see. My mistake. Carry on.
It might for all we know to the contrary. Think about it.
It’s just a gut feeling. I wonder why some are so disinclined to tell us about their feelings in this instance.
I picked the term up from Brainy G a few years ago. I know it when I see it…ex. if someone claims they have no idea who Bill Moyers voted for in 2008 that person is not intellectually honest.
You’d have to be following all three threads on PBS, Sunday News Shows and Snopes.
That’s because you aren’t being intellecthuyally honest about the way that hosts can steer the debate and you all fall back on intellectually dishonest arguments like biases don’t matter.