Democrats are lying dishonest scum

[Nessephanie]

You talk like I was trying to bring something meaningful to the conversatoin. I never claimed such a thing, nor gave any indication that I was even trying to bring something meaningful, especially since I didn't find the original conversation to be very meaningful in the first place :P

Way to try and lash out at anyone you can.

*bedtime*

[x_rex30]

err, sorry.. got a lot of rage boiling through my veins and I'm taking it out on everyone. Sorry about that guys.

OK, just to conclude some things here.

WTF are you on? That has happened exactly once that I know of.

I won't agree with you here. I see he lets guests talk even the right wing. Though I haven't watched the show in a while.

He doesn't run a debate show, he'd be the first to tell you it's a liberal leaning political parody show

Yes it's not but they have some debates at the end of a lot of shows.

and if you're getting your facts solely from him then you're pretty fucking stupid.

I'd agree that if a person does do that then they are pretty fucking stupid.

As a total side note, it's JON Stewart.

Thanks for making your point more valid.

I'd have to agree. Anybody who gets their facts from COMEDY CENTRAL and think they're 'fair and balanced' is retarded, misinformed and biased. They've stated that they're liberal-leaning multiple times...

Studies suggest that they are more informed than fox news, some studies also suggest that fox news isn't fair and balanced. I use to watch new clips that came out everyday from The O'Reilly Factor and to me it was outfoxed everyday. And I think those who think Fox is fair in balanced are retarded to be fair. And if you think O'reilly is more fare and balanced than a lot of the debates had at the end of the daily show then I think you are even more retarded(just saying if someone does, not saying you do).

Also it's not a debate. One thing that irks me about the Daily Show (and I do watch and enjoy it) is that Jon (and Colbert) interrupt their interviewees way too often. They'll ask a question and the guy gets two words out and then BAM interruption or counter-point.

I respect that opinion.

I don't think Godix or I actually said anything about Fox being fair and balanced. In fact, I despise them and Bill O'Reilly. I'm not entirely sure why you've turned the discussion into a FOX vs. Comedy Central argument since that's irrelevant and was never inferred (at least by me) so that ends that part of the discussion fairly succinctly.

I may have said it wrong but what I was trying to point out is I find The Daily Show better than The O'Reilly factor when it comes to information(remember back to my misinformation link), and even more fair and balanced then you make it sound like I'm a whack job for thinking so.. or maybe you just didn't get what I was trying to say

As for interruptions, if you say so buddy. Like I said, I like the show and watch it, but it still irks me. Maybe you have a larger threshold for it than I, but citing a few examples here and there is hardly 'good research.

I know it's not a fair amount of info for a conclusions to be made but I did watch the show for years and what I got from it is he does give people a chance, again take that as bs but that's what I believe and I think they have better discussions on it than the BillO show.

I should know since I'm a Ph. D. student doing *wait for it*...research for a living. What you're doing would hardly be considered a concrete and irrefutable argument.

Yeah again I would agree with you that without enough examples and not doing a long independent study, you couldn't make a concrete and irrefutable argument. I preach against that type of research and that way of thinking.

This is simply a taste, preferences and perception thing and you can't really argue against those things since they differ person to person. It's like me saying the sky is blue and you saying it's a light blue.

I can see your point here.

And again I wasn't trying to say you don't look at countering evidence, I suggested you might not because it seems rare that people do that but I didn't say for sure that you do.

______________________

And that ends that. These are my closing statements on how I feel about the posts. I wanted to make things clearer.. so whatever mess I wrote before I think isn't important. I addressed things in this one post. Thanks.

[godix]

Godix, I didn't know you attacked others spelling to help support your feelings of them being wrong. Kinda lame.

Usually I don't because I realize how horrible my own spelling and grammar are. However in this case it's the guys name and the name of the show. If you can't even get the name of the show and host correct it really makes me wonder how much you actually know about the subject. Let me put it this way, if you were left an opinion by someone who mentioned that AMV stands for 'Animated Motion Video' would you think the guy had any clue what he was talking about?

I never said Fox was better and that's really all I gotta say about the rest of your babbling. Although I do note you seem to have major problems identifying what is supposed to be news and what isn't. O'Reilly is an opinion show, he doesn't claim to be fact based news any more than Stewart does. Although O'Reilly does claim to be an unbiased opinion which is pretty obviously wrong but even so, he doesn't host a news show and he knows it.

If you really want to go into this though, you may want to read <a href="http://godix.livejournal.com/1248.html">this</a>. It should give you a pretty clear idea what my opinion on various news sources is.

[x_rex30]

Pretty good article. Thanks for posting. It's a nice examples of different extremes in news sources. That honestly would be some fun in doing some deep research in. ^__^

[godix]

I didn't make a post about it but the recent Georgia/Russia thing was even more telling. It took me a couple days of active searching to piece together enough facts to form my own opinion. As with the France fires, American news sources ranged from horribly biased to just plain horrible. Americans also tend to report the event as if there was nothing at all that lead up to it. The US view is Georgia was just sitting there herding goats or whatever it is Georgians do then one day Russia said 'lets invade for no reason at all'. The US media seems to believe the more facts you put in the story the worse it is. Which goes a long way towards explaining bias in media, when you aren't putting in facts then the only thing left to put in is your opinion.

Strangely enough I've found Al Jazeera to be consistently one of the most factual sources around, with the notable exception of anything that in any way is about Israel. The BBC is useful as well since it's biases are those of a European so are usually pretty obvious and easily ignored by an American. Unless you are, by US standards, an extreme leftist then you probably don't think the BBC has any bias. Both these sources frequently put events into a broader context and explain what happened to lead to the current news as well.

Anyway try it yourself, wait for some event to happen that will be covered internationally then just read the various articles to see which covered it with the most facts and least bias. I'd be willing to bet $10 that it won't be a US source.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Mentioned (in part) somewhat earlier, but on topic - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... -does.html

The comment section has a few gems in a sea of shit that is internet politics.