Uhm, because unlike you I’m not an idiot? I’m not interested in buying female hygiene products, but that doesn’t mean I find the existence of female hygiene product commercials stunningly inconceivable, nor that companies seeking to make a profit selling female hygiene products exist.
That they’ll end up retracting and apologizing, as CBS did?
Yes, that’s completely an invention of mine. I understand the CBS shareholders were just clueless* before I set 'em straight.
Funny how some are eager to see conspiracies behind mistakes, despite lack of actual evidence.
Well, I guess CBS thought the story qualified as “news”. I’d’ve disagreed.
Heh-heh-heh, I don’t need to see a memo proving the profit motive. I have logic on my side.
Well, I’m confident even a baby seal could out-argue you, until you got frustrated at your lack of success and started clubbing it.
LOOOO-zer.
What, you get called on the kool aid bit and now you move to ostriches?
For this to be a contradiction, you have to assume something has to have significance to garner ratings. You must not watch a lot of television.
In order to get ratings with news, all you need is an exclusive. It gives you something to advertise and provides a hook for the viewing millions. Examples of this would be the Monica Lewinski interview or Al Capones Vault. No significance whatsoever but loads of ratings. If you bump your ratings, advertisers will pay more money for a thirty or sixty second spot during your show. There is the rationale behind the “news for profit.” approach.
You on the other hand have offered no rationale behind why CBS would be out to get President Bush other than the ole “liberal media” line which you are using the CBS story to support. In essence, you are saying that “The media is liberal so they broadcast the National Guard story which proves that the media is liberal.” Leaves me a bit
Can you support the CBS story without the liberal media? Tell me why CBS was out to get the President.
Well, I could clarify for a fourth time, but it turns out your repeated requests only serve to support my claim that you are, in fact, an idiot.
Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.
– Ayn Rand, “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Well, I have not requested anything from you. All I did was point out your contradictory point-of-view, and now you are furiously back-peddling. What’s more, I have reduced you to name-calling, like a frustrated adolescent.
Here’s a clue for ya, you can’t win a debate, or “outargue”, as you call it, by taking the side of defending the indefensible. In this case, that would be liberalism. And then you make it doubly hard on yourself by taking on someone who is obviously your superior in the arena of political dabate.
Oh, and as for your Ayn Rand quote, it may seem “on point” to you, but then you have exhibited a proclivity for missing the point.
See, your quote is inapplicable in that big business is often the target of the liberal bias that is inherent in the media.
This is the Pit, you big poopy-head. Personal insults are to be expected. And I’m not backpedaling at all; there just isn’t any point repeating my statements when you insist on misreading them.
At this point, it’s increasingly unlikely that you still think my position is “indefensible”. I’m going to have to assume that since you know how to operate a computer and form sentences, you can’t possibly be that dumb, and you’re simply ignoring key words in my posts on the assumption that if I keep repeating myself, eventually the law of averages will catch up to me and I’ll make a major mistake.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe your dumbness is complete.
Oh, I dunno. You seem like the kind of guy who would happily blame the world’s his problems on some ill-defined group.
And you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that the owners of the media (ya know, the ones who pay the salaries of those commie journalists) are disproportionally conservative Republicans. You continue to insist that the “mainstream media” are out for some agenda that doesn’t involve making money first and foremost. But that’s ok, you go on with your little fantasies. It’s cute.
Evidently, you missed the link. Here, I’ll re-post it for your (in)convenience.
…study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological “common sense moderates,” nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic,… http://www.mediaresearch.org/Specia...rt063004_p1.asp
Blatant hypocrisy? It’s acceptable for a liberal candidate for President to have dodged the draft. A conservative is to be vilified.
Welfare broodmares? Liberal’s love 'em, they just sugar-coat 'em with a more pleasant sounding nomenclature. They call 'em “single-moms”. And they really love 'em when they can get their cohorts in the media to paint a caricature of the poor single-mom as one who has been victimized by a man. Nevermind the fact that she is such a shrew that she could never hold the attention of a man any longer than a one-night-stand.
Those who play the racecard? Liberals pee all over themselves when the “reverends”, Jackson and Sharpton, agitate.
A “free press” that attempts to influence an election? As long as it’s for their candidate, they’ll gladly sacrifice the truth for ideology.
An entertainment media that attempts to brainwash the populace? Mention the term “hate-crime”, and the average person will automatically conjure up a mental image of a white persecuting a minority, although, FBI crime statistics reveal that, according to their population, whites are several times more likely to be the victims of a crime perpetrated by a minority, than the vice-versa. Think this “Through the Looking Glass” worldview came about just by happenstance?
First of all, that link doesn’t go where you think it does. So I can’t comment on the quality of the reporting.
Second, yes. Several. But it doesn’t matter to you, does it? You want to buy what they’re selling, the myth of the monolithic liberal media, and nothing I can say will change that. So, you have fun, Sparky.
