Rocky unbelievable
Unbelievable! The Germans defuse a major terrorist threat and the Rocky carries it on Page 38 and did not even mention it on the front page. Instead the Rocky has the more important stuff on the front page: the Broncos. We haven’t even started the season yet!
I am sick and tired of the Rocky’s constant Broncos drivel. There are a lot more important issues out there that should be covered, like defeating the people who want to kill us.
Rick Piggott, Lakewood
Well Rick if they did that then they would fall out of favor with liberal out-of- touch with-reality billionarie George Soros and the far left wing Media Matters. This ultra left wing group has much of mainstream media and the Democratic party under their nefarious control. Seemingly they wish harm upon conservatives and the Republican Party at any cost, including and not limited to, the United States of America.
Posted by Ben on September 15, 2007 06:45 AM...under their nefarious control...
Golly, Batman, do you think we should do something? Gotham needs our help!
Posted by Robin on September 15, 2007 07:55 AMContrast that with today's RMN page #1 headline of:
"GOP: Never say Ritter."
They gotta be able to do better than that...but maybe they can't. That's not even news. No wonder why circulation, readership and ad revenues are down and layoff are up. The MSM is largely irrelevant and is rapidly being displaced by other superior sources of "news." After I'm done with the sports section, my caged parrot gets to read page #1 for about 24 hours.
Posted by Hank on September 15, 2007 08:51 AMBen
Rupert Murdoch, a conservative has a monopoly on much of the mainsteam media, not George Soros or Media Matters. The MSM is clearly slanted to the right and Murdoch is at the helm controlling it. The "Liberal Media" is nothing more than a myth pushed by the conservative media.
Posted by GK on September 15, 2007 09:05 AMBen peered out through his blinds:
"This ultra left wing group has much of mainstream media and the Democratic party under their nefarious control."
Along with a solid majority of the American people...
Holy "Left Wing Conspiracy" Batman!
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 09:07 AMgk,you idiot,liberals own 80% 0f the media thats alot more that 20%.I read all through the 90's about Bin Laden and clinton's incompetence to deal with him being bury in the back of a paper.
Posted by Keith on September 15, 2007 09:25 AMliberals own 80% 0f the media thats alot more that 20%.
To be fair, liberals own 76.327% of the media. Since this precise number is still way more than 20% your point can be made without exaggeration. Even though it may appear only 3.673% difference, some of these loony-lefties are sure to make a mountain out of that molehill to discredit the truth in what you say.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 10:03 AMTo all of those bleeting about "left wing" media control--PROVE IT!!!
I'll bet you can't...
What a bunch of sheep!
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 10:59 AMFile under: irony
Ben, I know that George Soros, to you and your fellow travelers, probably resembles the villain from a James Bond movie, but that don't make it so. Furthermore, this boogeyman Web site, Media Matters, apart from some columns, is comprised of clips and passages of right-wing commentators on their TV shows, radio shows, etc. I find it pretty funny that the Web site that so unnerves neo-cons is one that simply QUOTES THEM ACCURATELY to hold them accountable for their statements. Oh, the horror!
File under: revisionist history
Keith, your claim about Clinton is pretty egregious. If you read the Sept. 11 Commission report, it points out that the Clinton and the Bush admins. both pretty evenly dropped the ball on the bin Laden threat. But, whenever I hear the tired neo-con talking point that Clinton didn't do anything about bin Laden, I think it may be the most striking example of revisionist history of my lifetime. In 1997 or so, a mediocre movie was released about a president embroiled in a sex scandal who decides to start a fake war to divert attention from his zipper-maintinence problems. It was called "Wag the Dog." In summer of 1998, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke with full force. At this time, Clinton ordered an air strike on Sudan and Afghanistan, for the ostensible purpose of disabling bin Laden's network, and possibly to kill bin Laden himself. Right-wing commentators and even politicians went crazy. It was hard to turn on a talk show without hearing the terms "Wag the Dog" or "Monica bombs" every five minutes. Hence, the neo-cons were so obsessed with Clinton's penis shenannigans that they p-shaw'ed the oh-so-obvious fake distraction of the bin Laden threat.
This whole episode has been whitewashed from the minds of neo-cons. So, no, you don't get to play that card.
Posted by Jeff on September 15, 2007 11:26 AMI got your proof, Got Proof. Many studies have already shown that over 70% of journal are dems and project slant into their reports.
But since you'll probably accuse me of believing a right wing study, lets go straight to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.
He actually admitted on his show that the "network" as opposed to his show, or himself, or his panel -- "would not have given Edwards a hard time" so why did Edwards feel the need to "buy" airtime to denounce Bush's address Thursday evening?
It's pretty pathetic when you feel so superior that you can not only admit that you're network is deceitful, but you brag about it as well.
I guess we now know the real reason why Olbermann, as well as MSNBC, is consistently at or near the bottom in cable news ratings.
One other point you may wish to ponder... Why did Edwards advance book airtime to denounce Bush before he ever heard the address?
And how can Edwards ever again claim to be an objective politician after such an arrogant display of bias?
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 11:28 AMKW--
"Many" people say you're an idiot. Using your logic, I guess that makes it true.
Given the inane rambling of your post, I have no doubt it is true.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 11:35 AMGP - Funny how you failed to discredit the facts I presented and replied instead with insults.
Care to refute? Or are you leaving with your tail between your legs again?
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 11:49 AMWhat fact? I sure didn't see any "facts" set forth. You failed to provide even one single fact to demonstrate "liberal" control of the media. Just the same old "if I say something that's wrong enough times it will be right" mentality of the right.
As to your totally ignorant questions of "so why did Edwards feel the need to "buy" airtime to denounce Bush's address Thursday evening?"...
Well, let's see--a second tier presidentail candidate trying to get himself in the public view. Really not that hard to understand--if you have a brain.
And speaking of brains, anyone with a functioning one had a pretty darn good idea of what the content of W's speech would be-even beforehand. Hardly a surprise.
Now, you want to prove something--show me where liberals have ownership (and thereby control) of the majority of the media.
Hell, I'll even give you Media Matters--one little website that scares the crap out of you and your ilk. Now, how many does Murdock control?
Posted by on September 15, 2007 12:08 PMK.W.-
It is useless to introduce facts to moonbats like GOT PROOF or GK.
They sit so far left that ANY news that doesn't bash Bush or Conservatives in some way is deemed "pro Republican".
In the past I have furnished links to sites like http://www.newsbusters.org/ , and http://www.mediaresearch.org/ , that document daily examples of liberal media bias in the stories they report, and, more importantly ,stories they choose not to report.
On the flip side,there is Media matters,that attempts to expose the "right wing,corporate media".
These sites provide direct links to the MSM stories they are critical of.
I urge anyone to explore these sites and judge for themselves.
If you are intellectually honest,you must admit there are far more credible examples of MSM bias towards the left, and not the right.
Charles B.
"Holy "Left Wing Conspiracy" Batman!"
Thanks -- I loved that one! A little humor goes a long way in making a point succinctly....
Posted by mongoose on September 15, 2007 12:13 PMGet real - I tried to provide the link to Blowbermann's slip up but the blogmeister held it up for review.
But I wholeheartedly agree, even after providing these people a direct quote they still cover their ears and scream la la la la just to avoid having to face reality.
I've also visited mediamatters but refrain from that anymore. Multiple times I found what they quoted someone as saying was so far out of context I was amazed they even make such claims.
Example -
OReilly: "I'm not saying we should boycott so and so"
mediamatters: OReilly claims we should "boycott so and so."
Too funny.
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 12:23 PMKW did you even watch the Edwards comercial? While he denounced the president's policy on Iraq, what he really did was call congress out. Pointing the finger at his congressional rivals to defund this invasion. Also only by your projection would you call ANY politition objective. As for booking aritime prior to the speech, rough drafts and final drafts had been available for days.
Furthmore everyone that paints "the media" as a monolithic bunch is being simplistic. For example, you point to Olbermann on MSNBC to confirm it's a liberal channel, yet MSNBC has several conservitive pundints with their own hour long shows. Proof? Scarboro, Abrams, And Tucker all have their platforms. Mathews and Russert are centrists with leanings to the right. The same can be said with CNN. That cannel has it's share of conservitive pundints.
Make no mistake we have a corperate media, that airs programs that sell airtime to the demographics the ratings say they can.
GR--
You wouldn't know what ''intellectually honest" if it bit you on the arse. But then, given that there are far more creditable examples of GOP'ers being sexual deviants, you'd probably enjoy that.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 12:28 PMGR.
mongoose and charles b. drink the koolaid too.
Rick, Rick,
I assume you wasn’t born yesterday. The RMN, like other major and local “news” providers follow a simple rule; print nothing or say nothing positive about any issues not in line with the liberal doctrine, and if you must, bury it far enough in the paper where hopefully most people don’t read that far. This includes the war on terror and Bush, or any connection thereof.
"Get real - I tried to provide the link to Blowbermann's slip up but the blogmeister held it up for review."
Yeah, we know how heavily monitered this forum is. LOL...
Posted by Suuuuuure you did on September 15, 2007 12:34 PMk2ken - You may want to revisit those MSNBC ratings again.
Nielsen has them consistently in the toilet week after week and this is directly tied to the networks lineup.
Sure, they have a few conservative commentators to appear fair, but the majority of their lineup is not just left wing, but far left. Even Olbermann admitted the stations slant.
Why would he make the statement if it weren't true?
Sure - Don't be so ignorant, it isn't very becoming. You're obviously either new here or don't understand how to post a link if you've never had a post "held for review."
HOW CAN SO MANY PEOPLE BE SO BLIND!
BUSH THE LIAR HAS THE CORPORATE MEDIA IN HIS BACK POCKET! THEY NEVER CRITIZISE OR QUESTION ANYTHING HE DOES.MURDOCK OWNS ALL MEDIA AND SPEWS PROPOGANDA LIKE HITLER DID.
PEOPLE WITH BRAINS KNOW CHIMPY AND THE NEOCONS PLANNED 911 TO GET TO IRAQS OIL! WHERE ARE THE MEDIA ON THAT FACT?
PROGRESSIVES RULE!
Posted by on September 15, 2007 12:44 PMWhat's the matter KW, can't find any real, tangible, non-biased proof? Or are you just running off with YOUR tail between your legs? I guess you're just waiting for someone else to tell you how to answer.
You truly are king of the strawmen.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 12:46 PMHow whacked is k2ken to think mathews and russart are centrists that lean to the right? Holy crap!
And the real scary thing is there are many more like her!
z
You want proof? I vaguely seem to remember reading somewhere that liberals own 76.327% of the media. Doesn't this statistic, by itself, prove the original letter's writer's point that RMN buried the story about the German terrorist plot because they are controlled by the liberal elite, and thus of course want the terrorists to win?
Posted by on September 15, 2007 12:56 PMNope, seems to work just fine--no hold-up, no review, no nothing...
Guess that makes you the idiot, idiot.
Posted by Suuuuure you did on September 15, 2007 12:57 PMCan't handle the proof - You are truly a specimen of the blind liberal variety.
Do you have any intelligent comment or opinion about what Olbermann said, or is this flailing of insults more to your expertise?
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 12:59 PM"I vaguely seem to remember reading somewhere that liberals own 76.327% of the media"
Boy, if that isn't just the most solid, undeniable proof ever! Way to go to 12:56.
"Vaguely", "seem to remember", "somewhere"!!! Wow...
Posted by You can't argue with that on September 15, 2007 01:03 PMShorter KW--Olbermann is a dirty liberal, so the media MUST be controlled by the liberals.
Yep, King of the Strawmen.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 01:06 PMSo no intelligent comment or opinion then.
Got it!
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 01:20 PM12:28-
GOP sexual deviants are purged from my party,
too bad Dems champion and re-elect theirs.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17357&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&gd=10032006
BTW-
Get some guts.
You really don't have to be afraid to sign your regular screen name to an anonymous post you are to lazy, or unable to intellectually respond to.
You're not fooling anybody.
Seriously, that's all you got? Where's that link? Perhaps it was the voices in your head?
I love you way you tie "liberal" control of the media to one commentator on one cable network. And, you can't even proof he said it.
Little picture for little minds, I guess.
Priceless.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 01:31 PMPeople who write tripe like this...
"You really don't have to be afraid to sign your regular screen name to an anonymous post you are to lazy, or unable to intellectually respond to."
...should go back and study English.
Posted by Get Real is a Failure on September 15, 2007 01:37 PMPost 12:44, thank you for your honesty about what “progressives” regard as facts, it’s insightful. So Bush and conservatives was behind 9/11. And the corporate media is in Bush’s back pocket, thus not reporting it. Well, something tells me that Bush’s political rivals are not in his back pocket. So, therefore shame on Hilary, Obama and the rest of the Democratic party for keeping this important information hidden from the American people. If progressives believe that, than it’s must be true, and the people must know the truth. I urge you to bring this fact to all the people of this nation, so we can be stripped from the darkness of ignorance, and take appropriate action against Bush and his cronies. No mass murder on this soil must go unpunished, especially if it’s only for oil.
Posted by Uno on September 15, 2007 01:53 PMA few weeks ago, AP reported that a liberal group called Americans Against Escalation in Iraq bought TV time to attack Senators in their home states. (Except, of course, they weren’t called "liberal," just "anti-war.") The AP reporter mentioned MoveOn.org was one of the members of this coalition, but there was no explanation of who was providing the commercial cash.
But when AP writer Jim Kuehnenn covered a new blitz from the Bush-supporting group Freedom’s Watch, I notice how they got out their investigator’s hats to find the "billionaires" and "conservative philanthopists" and former Bush men providing the dough:
Among those who have been publicly identified with the effort are billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a fundraiser for Bush and chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corp., and conservative philanthropist John M. Templeton Jr. of Bryn Mawr, Pa. Both men have been major contributors to conservative causes.
Why do they only provide this info for the conservative investors? Why do they label them "conservatives" but avoid the term liberal when reporting on liberals?
So that's MSNBC and the AP so far.
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 01:53 PMGee, I don't know. Perhaps because it isn't just the "liberals" that are against the war these days?
Not many "liberals" contributed to GW's campaigns, did they?
Look--it is very simple. Your brother Keith said that liberals own 80% of the media. I asked for proof to back that statement up.
Now, you can provide that proof (doubtful) or keep making an idiot of yourself.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 02:12 PMProof - Why are you asking me to back up something I didn't say?
That makse less sense than your other rants.
I think we're done here. Have a good day. Let me know if you have any more of those imagined epiphanies about the supposed right leaning media bias.
Gosh, I can't even type that nonsense with breaking into laughter.
Posted by KW on September 15, 2007 02:20 PMAh yes, the last refuge of a loser...
You're the one that jumped so quick to supposedly give me proof. Change the goalposts--nice.
Whatever. I knew you couldn't prove anything.
Posted by Got Proof? on September 15, 2007 02:39 PM12:44 sounds like your typical,run of the mill Dem these days,
and the lack of libs to distance themselves from this lunatics rhetoric is disgusting.
Posted by Get Real on September 15, 2007 08:01 PMKW, Get Real, and Uno say it:
So it must be true!
Heheheheheheh ha.
Whadda Joke.
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 08:41 PMCharles, you are a joke.
Posted by Uno on September 15, 2007 09:17 PMI went to the site with th ratings, but Fox wasn`t listed was it?
Olbermann was leading every week day, of the programs on MSNBC.
What whould I look for next?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 09:26 PMFNC, never mind I found it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 09:31 PMLetter writer Rick Piggott wonders why the RMN put an important story about the Germans stopping a terriost attack on page 38.As someone that has followed the media on the gun issue for 20 years I can explain.It works like this,as we know the media is controled by the liberals.The liberal Democrats want the terrorists to win the war. When we have a victory against the terrorists the media hides the story so the citizens will still think we are losing the war like the Democrats are telling them.The media does the same on the gun issue.The Democrats are cowards and want to ban guns so their media friends will bury a story on page 50 if someone defends themselves with a gun.On the other hand if someone misuses a gun the media will put it on the front page so the citizens will be sure to see the negative side of guns.It is so blatant that the media will pick up a negative gun story that is only of local interest and spread the story nation wide.If there is a story that is local and people save their lives with guns or stop crime the national media will never pick it up.This way they help the Democrats give a negative image to guns.It is the same principle on the war.I hope you will understand what is going on now!!
Posted by An American on September 16, 2007 12:50 PM