[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
Wordle - daily game - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
NYTimes Connections - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:03pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:41pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:22pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Entertainment » TV » Fox Spews Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
Post to this Topic
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 12:14pm

 hippiechick wrote:
That blond chick that does the news in the afternoon looks like a drunk sorority girl, and makes comments on news stories.
 
You say that like it's a bad thing...

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 12:12pm

 hippiechick wrote:

That blond chick that does the news in the afternoon looks like a drunk sorority girl, and makes comments on news stories.
 

Making it personal, as you do, lessens your observation. You flat out don't like FOX. Fine. But you would better serve yourself by avoiding personal comments like this. If the 'blond chick' be a Con, don't listen if you think she will upset you. Calling her a Con, if that is what she is, is fine. Stating she looks like a drunk soroity gal crosses lines. I detest, for many reasons, the hard Left wing talking points Mr. Olbermann always hews to. Stating I think he's a pathetic gay man would be crossing the line when discussing his on air demeanor or philosophical bend.
 Btw, the 'blond chick' is a lawyer and that means some level of education and achievement and I am not a champion of lawyers.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 12:08pm

 musik_knut wrote:

The failure to separate or worse, group, FOX commentators with FOX reporters is where many make a mistake. I don't lump MSNBC reporters with Chris Matthews and other MSNBC talking heads. To say Beck is FOX is wrong. To say Matthews is MSNBC is wrong. Both men are links in a much larger news org, respectively.
 
That blond chick that does the news in the afternoon looks like a drunk sorority girl, and makes comments on news stories.

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 12:06pm

 Danimal174 wrote:
 

Concerning Obama's so-called liberal agenda...I've never seen a public figure attacked more for things people think he's going to do than Obama. He wasn't even in office yet, and people were declaring him to be the most liberal President ever. Concerning his approval rating - the problem is that many in this country have no patience for things to turn around. The economic conditions that were in place around the time that Obama took office were the worst they had been since the Great Depression; those things aren't going to change overnight. During the Great Depression, our forefathers hunkered down for the long fight, knowing things weren't going to get fixed overnight. Now, however, people today, angry that things weren't totally fixed in three months or so, look for someone to blame for the state of the economy right now, and many of those people choose Obama. Rightly or wrongly, it comes with the job. An approval rating for a President is really just an approval rating for the overall state of the union. If the country is in the toilet, the best President would still have a crappy approval rating. Also, it's not that surprising that his approval rating is declining, as this has happened in the first two years of every new President since Truman, with the exception of Kennedy, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. (due greatly to 9/11). Also, out of all of those Presidents, Clinton was the only one who left with a higher approval rating than he started office with; everyone else saw their approval ratings decline during their presidency. (Info from the Wall Street Journal's site, here . I noticed, though, after putting this together, that graphs on other sites, like Wikipedia, look a little different, and show Reagan's approval rating also increased slightly, and that Bush Sr's ended up about the same as when he started office.)

Secondly, I don't get the statement that Glenn Beck is not FOX. I don't know of anyone who has said that Beck controls FOX (if they did, they'd be wrong); however, his show is broadcast on their network, and he is one of the stars of their network, so I don't get the need to distance him from the network that signs his checks. Beck's views are just a more extreme version of many of the messages pushed by Fox News overall and believed by many of their viewers. The stimulus package has hurt the country? Check. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (or it's at least suspect)? Check. Obama is an extreme liberal looking to push this country towards socialism? Check. For more examples, see below. Generally speaking, these views are the same thing being pushed by Fox News and by the commentators on Fox News.

  • 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
  • 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
  • 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
  • 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
  • 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
  • 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
  • 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
  • 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
  • 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)


 
The failure to separate or worse, group, FOX commentators with FOX reporters is where many make a mistake. I don't lump MSNBC reporters with Chris Matthews and other MSNBC talking heads. To say Beck is FOX is wrong. To say Matthews is MSNBC is wrong. Both men are links in a much larger news org, respectively.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 8:25am

 islander wrote:

Sort of like the one about how the 'main stream media' is rabidly liberal?

 

Touche' Monsignor!{#War}
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 8:07am

 Danimal174 wrote:

Reminds me of the increase in gun sales since Obama won the election. There was such a run that many local stores couldn't keep ammo in stock. Prices (on both ammo and firearms) have also increased pretty substantially during that time; ammo that used to cost me $10 a box now runs about $16.
 
This happens every time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

Danimal174

Danimal174 Avatar

Location: Upstate South Carolina
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 8:05am

 Jack_Jefferson wrote:
I recall Clinton being the target of the same kind of paranoia.  I know of one person that even took action to prepare.  This guy was so convinced Clinton was going to run the economy down the drain that he didn't think he'd be able to afford a haircut.  So he ordered a floby (sp?) from TV.  True story. 



Reminds me of the increase in gun sales since Obama won the election. There was such a run that many local stores couldn't keep ammo in stock. Prices (on both ammo and firearms) have also increased pretty substantially during that time; ammo that used to cost me $10 a box now runs about $16.
 


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 7:56am

 Jack_Jefferson wrote:

I recall Clinton being the target of the same kind of paranoia.  I know of one person that even took action to prepare.  This guy was so convinced Clinton was going to run the economy down the drain that he didn't think he'd be able to afford a haircut.  So he ordered a floby (sp?) from TV.  True story.

This is the Right Wing MO, masterminded by Karl Rove, which started while Reagan was president, by Lee Atwater, etal. Keep telling the same lies, as loud as possible, as many times as possible, until people believe.
 


Jack_Jefferson

Jack_Jefferson Avatar

Location: Columbus, OH
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 7:52am

 Danimal174 wrote:
 

Concerning Obama's so-called liberal agenda...I've never seen a public figure attacked more for things people think he's going to do than Obama. He wasn't even in office yet, and people were declaring him to be the most liberal President ever.  


I recall Clinton being the target of the same kind of paranoia.  I know of one person that even took action to prepare.  This guy was so convinced Clinton was going to run the economy down the drain that he didn't think he'd be able to afford a haircut.  So he ordered a floby (sp?) from TV.  True story. 
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 7:45am

 sirdroseph wrote:
Quite frankly other than maybe NPR and PBS; they ALL suck and it is because WE suck.  In mainstream news media for the most part, there is only ONE consistency; desire for ratings; they give the people what they want and it is the great unwashed that truly SUCK.{#Daisy}

For the record, yes I am a proud elitist.{#Cheers}
  Y'know, for a misanthrope, you're pretty likable in my book...


Danimal174

Danimal174 Avatar

Location: Upstate South Carolina
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 7:40am

 musik_knut wrote:


Pointless. Likeable or not, Mr. Obama, according to Gallup, now sits at a new low of approval: 40%.
Liking Mr. Obama is not going to help the unemployed nor make his decided Liberal agenda more palatable to most.
And, despite some wrongheaded notions, Glenn Beck is not FOX.

  

Concerning Obama's so-called liberal agenda...I've never seen a public figure attacked more for things people think he's going to do than Obama. He wasn't even in office yet, and people were declaring him to be the most liberal President ever. Concerning his approval rating - the problem is that many in this country have no patience for things to turn around. The economic conditions that were in place around the time that Obama took office were the worst they had been since the Great Depression; those things aren't going to change overnight. During the Great Depression, our forefathers hunkered down for the long fight, knowing things weren't going to get fixed overnight. Now, however, people today, angry that things weren't totally fixed in three months or so, look for someone to blame for the state of the economy right now, and many of those people choose Obama. Rightly or wrongly, it comes with the job. An approval rating for a President is really just an approval rating for the overall state of the union. If the country is in the toilet, the best President would still have a crappy approval rating. Also, it's not that surprising that his approval rating is declining, as this has happened in the first two years of every new President since Truman, with the exception of Kennedy, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. (due greatly to 9/11). Also, out of all of those Presidents, Clinton was the only one who left with a higher approval rating than he started office with; everyone else saw their approval ratings decline during their presidency. (Info from the Wall Street Journal's site, here . I noticed, though, after putting this together, that graphs on other sites, like Wikipedia, look a little different, and show Reagan's approval rating also increased slightly, and that Bush Sr's ended up about the same as when he started office.)

Secondly, I don't get the statement that Glenn Beck is not FOX. I don't know of anyone who has said that Beck controls FOX (if they did, they'd be wrong); however, his show is broadcast on their network, and he is one of the stars of their network, so I don't get the need to distance him from the network that signs his checks. Beck's views are just a more extreme version of many of the messages pushed by Fox News overall and believed by many of their viewers. The stimulus package has hurt the country? Check. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (or it's at least suspect)? Check. Obama is an extreme liberal looking to push this country towards socialism? Check. For more examples, see below. Generally speaking, these views are the same thing being pushed by Fox News and by the commentators on Fox News.

  • 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
  • 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
  • 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
  • 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
  • 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
  • 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
  • 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
  • 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
  • 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)



islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 7:10am

 musik_knut wrote:


I would agree with you that many news orgs now blur, not always, but once in awhile, news and commentary. Was a time a reporter would inform his viewers that the following was a Commentary. Now, you might have to shake the news loose from opinion. Not always and almost never on breaking stories: they're too new to form opinions in that sense. And many reporters will speculate *a thin form of an opinion?* 'well, I think the guy with the gun was doing the shootings'...
I do get a chuckle out of FOX SUX...that their reporters are not pros, that the make up news that they yadda yadda yadda...it's such an old lament...shop worn and dog eared. It should be retired because it's now just a reflexive thought for some.

 
Sort of like the one about how the 'main stream media' is rabidly liberal?
nuggler

nuggler Avatar

Location: RU Sirius ?
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 5:12am

 sirdroseph wrote:


Quite frankly other than maybe NPR and PBS; they ALL suck and it is because WE suck.  In mainstream news media for the most part, there is only ONE consistency; desire for ratings; they give the people what they want and it is the great unwashed that truly SUCK.{#Daisy}

For the record, yes I am a proud elitist.{#Cheers}
 
. . . they channel public opinion . . .

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 17, 2010 - 5:07am

 musik_knut wrote:


I would agree with you that many news orgs now blur, not always, but once in awhile, news and commentary. Was a time a reporter would inform his viewers that the following was a Commentary. Now, you might have to shake the news loose from opinion. Not always and almost never on breaking stories: they're too new to form opinions in that sense. And many reporters will speculate *a thin form of an opinion?* 'well, I think the guy with the gun was doing the shootings'...
I do get a chuckle out of FOX SUX...that their reporters are not pros, that the make up news that they yadda yadda yadda...it's such an old lament...shop worn and dog eared. It should be retired because it's now just a reflexive thought for some.

 

Quite frankly other than maybe NPR and PBS; they ALL suck and it is because WE suck.  In mainstream news media for the most part, there is only ONE consistency; desire for ratings; they give the people what they want and it is the great unwashed that truly SUCK.{#Daisy}

For the record, yes I am a proud elitist.{#Cheers}

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 7:47pm

 Jack_Jefferson wrote:


You make good, fair points, but you have to admit, Fox News and MSNBC are still very guilty of intentionally blurring the line between news reporting and commentary.  I'm sure educated people like yourself, me and most RPers can tell the difference and see through that.  As for the rest of the viewing public, I'm not so sure I have as much faith.

 

I would agree with you that many news orgs now blur, not always, but once in awhile, news and commentary. Was a time a reporter would inform his viewers that the following was a Commentary. Now, you might have to shake the news loose from opinion. Not always and almost never on breaking stories: they're too new to form opinions in that sense. And many reporters will speculate *a thin form of an opinion?* 'well, I think the guy with the gun was doing the shootings'...
I do get a chuckle out of FOX SUX...that their reporters are not pros, that the make up news that they yadda yadda yadda...it's such an old lament...shop worn and dog eared. It should be retired because it's now just a reflexive thought for some.


Jack_Jefferson

Jack_Jefferson Avatar

Location: Columbus, OH
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 7:43pm

 musik_knut wrote:


Ummm. No. I think CNN, MSNBC and FOX, along with others, employ professional journalists who do not harm the profession. They seek answers to stories, they keep us informed and I appreciate their efforts, often under the most trying conditions. Where many folks, I think, confuse FOX is between FOX reporters and FOX commentators. They are not one and the same yet to many of my friends on the other side, FOX sucks and they make no distinction between FOX opinion pieces which do run middle—->conservative and FOX reporters who walk a street looking for the story or tag along in Afghanistan in harsh and deadly conditions.
As I stated, CNN and MSNBC handled the Chilean story different than did FOX. Each org made a decision. It seems FOX dumped scheduled programming while CNN and MSNBC stuck with their programming and provided updates on the Chilean story. If you were inclinded to follow each drum roll of that story, FOX was there. I watched it for a few and then it became more of the same with each rescued miner which was truly a great story and a lift to all of Chile and others. But 3 or so hours of coverage? Its like Super Bowl Sunday...you can only repeat yourself so many times before the kickoff...

 

You make good, fair points, but you have to admit, Fox News and MSNBC are still very guilty of intentionally blurring the line between news reporting and commentary.  I'm sure educated people like yourself, me and most RPers can tell the difference and see through that.  As for the rest of the viewing public, I'm not so sure I have as much faith.
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 7:22pm

 Jack_Jefferson wrote:


So are you essentially conceding that Fox News has started or, at the very least, joined in on this race to the bottom when it comes to journalistic professionalism?

As for your second point, I don't doubt that the miners' story was newsworthy.  I think you and I just disagree as to how newsworthy it really was.  It was a great compelling human interest story.  I agree with you there.  Was it really necessary to block off two or three hours of waiting for each and every miner to be rescued?  I'm not sure.  I think a lot of people would have found something that had a more immediate impact on their lives more newsworthy.

 

Ummm. No. I think CNN, MSNBC and FOX, along with others, employ professional journalists who do not harm the profession. They seek answers to stories, they keep us informed and I appreciate their efforts, often under the most trying conditions. Where many folks, I think, confuse FOX is between FOX reporters and FOX commentators. They are not one and the same yet to many of my friends on the other side, FOX sucks and they make no distinction between FOX opinion pieces which do run middle—->conservative and FOX reporters who walk a street looking for the story or tag along in Afghanistan in harsh and deadly conditions.
As I stated, CNN and MSNBC handled the Chilean story different than did FOX. Each org made a decision. It seems FOX dumped scheduled programming while CNN and MSNBC stuck with their programming and provided updates on the Chilean story. If you were inclinded to follow each drum roll of that story, FOX was there. I watched it for a few and then it became more of the same with each rescued miner which was truly a great story and a lift to all of Chile and others. But 3 or so hours of coverage? Its like Super Bowl Sunday...you can only repeat yourself so many times before the kickoff...
Jack_Jefferson

Jack_Jefferson Avatar

Location: Columbus, OH
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 7:08pm

 musik_knut wrote:


That was a time of greater civil demeanor, of a much less coarse Nation. And it was also a time when going snide could mean losing your job as a broadcaster or a talking head on the tube. Now, you can all but drop the F bomb in a comment and the only thing that interrupts some personal explosions on the air is a commercial break. Times change but not always for the better.
Covering the Chilean miners was simply a compelling human interest story and much of the world covered it. For reasons of their own, MSNBC and CNN gave updates while FOX fixated on the unfolding drama.

  

A snide comment about a republican or a positive comment about a democrat, homosexual or racial minority is still very much grounds for dismissal at Fox News.  So are you essentially conceding that Fox News has started or, at the very least, joined in on this race to the bottom when it comes to journalistic professionalism?

As for your second point, I don't doubt that the miners' story was newsworthy.  I think you and I just disagree as to how newsworthy it really was.  It was a great compelling human interest story.  I agree with you there.  Was it really necessary to block off two or three hours of waiting for each and every miner to be rescued?  I'm not sure.  I think a lot of people would have found something that had a more immediate impact on their lives more newsworthy.


musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 4:07pm

 RichardPrins wrote:
 musik_knut wrote:
... But not accurate because Mr. Obama is at the switch with 9.8% unemployment. Neither Mr. Clinton or Mr. Reagan had that sack of rocks hanging on them. That's where approval matters more than 'for he's a jolly good fellow' does.
 


If I recall correctly Reagan had to deal with some rather steep unemployment figures as well, which would be confirmed by the stats above (timing might suggest that Reagan increased those figures to an even higher level than is currently the case). Of course, unemployment figures aren't entirely uncontroversial/unambiguous either.

 
Ok. Thanks for the pertinent data.

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 16, 2010 - 4:04pm

 musik_knut wrote:
... But not accurate because Mr. Obama is at the switch with 9.8% unemployment. Neither Mr. Clinton or Mr. Reagan had that sack of rocks hanging on them. That's where approval matters more than 'for he's a jolly good fellow' does.
 


If I recall correctly Reagan had to deal with some rather steep unemployment figures as well, which would be confirmed by the stats above (timing might suggest that Reagan increased those figures to an even higher level than is currently the case). Of course, unemployment figures aren't entirely uncontroversial/unambiguous either.


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 35, 36, 37  Next