I only watch The Daily Show with Jon Stuart and The Colbert Report
I remember it well. As I've said before, my dad was on the editorial board of a major metro daily for many years. He was a reporter his whole life. Reporting in America is a thing of the past, for the most part. Once news divisions were required to make a profit, it was all over. News is entertainment now. Why waste money on a Moscow bureau when running Michael Jackson on an endless loop brings in more eyes to watch the soap ads between segments?
That's why this chatter about which of the cable nets is better is just hot air. They all suck. They're not biased right or left. They're biased corporate.
Odd that I should find this thread. I don't even watch broadcast television in any form at home (find it almost totally devoid of anything of value to me) and haven't bothered to get cable or satellite since I moved a year and a half ago (and I'm not some crotchety old fart, either--36 y.o., thank you). Therefore, my sole source for news is the internet. For about the last 3 years, CNN was always my homepage--guess I just liked the layout better than MSN or FoxNews. However, a few days ago I "woke up" and realized just how sick I was becoming of the "news" stories headlining CNNs site. I'm not sure I see the un-American angle as the OP observed, but I can understand where he's coming from with his view that they've become anti-white. I view it not so much as "anti-white" but rather "pro-minority". I see "real" news stories pushed aside constantly while they headline stories with a steep angle on racial or discriminatory aspects. Sotomayor hearings--if I read nothing but the headlines and teasers on CNN about her, I'd know nothing other than there's a Latina woman who, because of her race/gender has had to struggle through the oppression of her people by white, male-dominated society in order to reach the pinnacle of her career. This story is next to a piece on the importance of the african-american hair styling industry to their culture. I'm no more interested in reading that than the african-americans would be in reading a piece about my local barbershop, its white proprietor, and how important it is to the white community. Anyway, I digress. I realize that "sensationalized" news is what draws the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing masses and creates the huge advertising revenue but I, for one, am tuning out. I'll check out fark.com as suggested but as for finding THE unbiased, tell-it-like-it-is, draw your own conclusions news source--it would never "sell" so will most likely only exist on small, blog-like websites in a very limited scope. My $.02
p.s. Sorry about the length--my intention wasn't to turn this into a blog or rant of my own but once the juices start flowing....
I choose Fox over CNN. The biggest draw for me is Bill O'Rielly. It's amazing how much bad press that guy gets. I've watched him every day for many years and I think he's great.
I watch Fox what is your point?
I watch Fox what is your point?
I could not agree moreI want SMALL government, no messing with my e-cigs or money! No big brother, I'm here to rule your life! We should be responsible for ourselves and our choices, I don't want BIG government making any choices for me...
I want SMALL government, no messing with my e-cigs or money! No big brother, I'm here to rule your life! We should be responsible for ourselves and our choices, I don't want BIG government making any choices for me...
Agreed. There could be more efficiency in the way those funds are spent, but they do serve a purpose. The pocket lining comes from special interests in the form of campaign contributions (at least over the table)."Big government" does things you rely on every day. Highways. Police. Fire departments. Schools. Parks. The military. The Coast Guard. FEMA. The list goes on and on. When you pay taxes, it doesn't just go to line some politician's pocket. It pays for services and infrastructure that you use every day. It helps create the environment of opportunity that you exploit to make money in the first place.
Mostly agreed, except that government necessarily needs to look at things that harm society as a whole, which is a touchy subject. Since there is no standard definition of "harm" as related to "society", there are a LOT of things that can fall under that umbrella, which is partially why we have checks and balances, free speech, etc.When big government becomes problematic is when it tries to engage in social engineering. Government works best when it allows citizens to make personal choices like what gender the person they choose to marry is, what recreational behaviors they choose to engage in and so forth.
I would comment on this but it would violate one of the cardinal rules of this forum, but let's just say that the answer to your question is yes.But don't fool yourself into thinking that it's a clear cut issue. Some people might want to use crack or ...... as their recreational drug of choice. Should we legalize those? The fact that our drug of choice is nicotine gives us some clout over other drug users because nicotine is far more acceptable to society at large, but really, it's just another aspect of the same thing. If ...... had a long history of mainstream usage, people would be raising just as much stink over laws banning it as we are about the possibility that nicotine might be banned one day.
I would comment on this but it would violate one of the cardinal rules of this forum, but let's just say that the answer to your question is yes.
I only watch The Daily Show with Jon Stuart and The Colbert Report