Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

by **Rococo4** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 15:40:30

you people probably get your news from olbermann and the gang and dont think there is anything wrong with that. but how could any of us retards watch fox right

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 15:41:03

you people?!?

by **Harpua** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 15:42:09

I'm not sure who gets news, other than things happening immediately, from cable TV stations.

by **Rococo4** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 15:44:43

Harpua wrote:I'm not sure who gets news, other than things happening immediately, from cable TV stations.

well thats true

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 15:50:19

Rococo4 wrote:you people probably get your news from olbermann and the gang and dont think there is anything wrong with that. but how could any of us retards watch fox right

Are you suggesting that they're the same thing, or that they're not?

But since you expressed it so charmingly and are so obviously interested in an intelligent discussion rather than MY SIDE GUD YR SIDE BAD!!!1, I think it's fair to say that Olbermann/Maddow are comparable to Hannity and Beck. There isn't much mystery where any of them are coming from, and they aren't much interested in preaching to anyone but the converted. I wouldn't call it news--"angertainment" maybe--but YMMV.

I don't really watch any cable news, so I can't speak to what I guess is the "real" question: whether MSNBC--to take the cable network with the liberal identity--has as much of a transparent perspective over its other 18 hours or whatever as Fox obviously does.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 16:31:15

Grayson gets punked

I'm starting to think all these guys should stay off the Tubes.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 17:00:45

Fox News... showcasing anchorbabe legs.

"Silk Stocking News". Non-obstructing studio set, camera angles that ensure every shot of the anchorbabe has at least a little leg. Subtle visual hints, sex appeal... that's the bait, how they suck you in!

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 17:28:47

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Fox News... showcasing anchorbabe legs.

"Silk Stocking News". Non-obstructing studio set, camera angles that ensure every shot of the anchorbabe has at least a little leg. Subtle visual hints, sex appeal... that's the bait, how they suck you in!

the woman on the left may as well go ahead & slip into something a little more comfortable....

note the subtle diminution of "news": not capitalized, thrown together with "live", cloaked in shadow....how soon before the term is, justifiably, tossed, in favor of something like "Fox Live True Stories" or some other more pragmatically ambiguous label?

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 17:41:14

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Fox News... showcasing anchorbabe legs.

"Silk Stocking News". Non-obstructing studio set, camera angles that ensure every shot of the anchorbabe has at least a little leg. Subtle visual hints, sex appeal... that's the bait, how they suck you in!

A few years back, someone posted a video comparison of Fox's anchorbabes and various blonde adult film stars. Pretty funny stuff.

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 17:53:44

what IS with all the blondes on fox? is it a requirement? crappy sororities don't have that many

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 17:55:10

Gomes wrote:Politico takes a look

I guess the strategy is to push Republicans to certain media outlets, who are viewed as "fringe" by "mainstream" America - thereby making the Republican Party a fringe party.

I'd rather see the same effort spent on, you know, governing.

Nothing really has to be done to make the Republicans a fringe party. This healthcare debate, as with many debates of late, is about infighting between the super-majority party

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 18:00:35

On the bright side we only have about 15 more months till Obama and the Democrats overplaying their hand on things stupidly like thinking they can define who should and shouldn't count as the media in this country makes the GOP relevant again in Washington.

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 18:04:42

will it be your and werthless' GOP, or Huckabee's? Know what I'm saying, know what I mean?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 18:11:25

Werthless and I aren't in the same GOP.

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 18:14:49

you both still pretty fairly ignore social issues, do you not?

by **Rococo4** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 18:24:01

dajafi wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:you people probably get your news from olbermann and the gang and dont think there is anything wrong with that. but how could any of us retards watch fox right

Are you suggesting that they're the same thing, or that they're not?

But since you expressed it so charmingly and are so obviously interested in an intelligent discussion rather than MY SIDE GUD YR SIDE BAD!!!1, I think it's fair to say that Olbermann/Maddow are comparable to Hannity and Beck. There isn't much mystery where any of them are coming from, and they aren't much interested in preaching to anyone but the converted. I wouldn't call it news--"angertainment" maybe--but YMMV.

I don't really watch any cable news, so I can't speak to what I guess is the "real" question: whether MSNBC--to take the cable network with the liberal identity--has as much of a transparent perspective over its other 18 hours or whatever as Fox obviously does.

yeah they are the same thing. whats the big deal. why is fox the only ones under attack from people? i hate the illusion that fox is so evil, when other networks do the same thing - just for the opposite side.

well i mean i do know, because they are conservative. and other media outlets dont approve of such stuff.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 19:37:35

jerseyhoya wrote:Werthless and I aren't in the same GOP.

Until you are, your whole "GOP relevance in 15 months" thing is probably - y'know - sorta irrelevant

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 20:20:40

Rococo4 wrote:yeah they are the same thing. whats the big deal. why is fox the only ones under attack from people? i hate the illusion that fox is so evil, when other networks do the same thing - just for the opposite side.

well i mean i do know, because they are conservative. and other media outlets dont approve of such stuff.

The disagreement is whether "other networks do the same thing"--whether MSNBC's other 18 hours are as close to Olbermann and Maddow as Fox's seemingly are to Beck and Hannity. Since I'm pretty sure you're invincibly locked into the view that they are, let's not discuss it any further.

by **Rococo4** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 01:46:11

dajafi wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:yeah they are the same thing. whats the big deal. why is fox the only ones under attack from people? i hate the illusion that fox is so evil, when other networks do the same thing - just for the opposite side.

well i mean i do know, because they are conservative. and other media outlets dont approve of such stuff.

The disagreement is whether "other networks do the same thing"--whether MSNBC's other 18 hours are as close to Olbermann and Maddow as Fox's seemingly are to Beck and Hannity. Since I'm pretty sure you're invincibly locked into the view that they are, let's not discuss it any further.

I think it would be absurd to argue otherwise. just like day time fox hosts lean right, so do the day time people at MSNBC lean left - and we arent even discussing CNN. I wouldnt want to discuss it any further if i was you either.

both sides have staked out a niche where they think they can attract viewers. fox kicks the you know what out of msnbc. thus the animosity.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 08:45:04

Rococo4 wrote:both sides have staked out a niche where they think they can attract viewers. fox kicks the you know what out of msnbc. thus the animosity.

fox viewership: home in their basement, lots of time on their hands, cowering from the joos

msnbc viewership: brainless twitterers, multitasking social butterflies, no time to watch more than 10 min of teevee unless they're on it

thus the ratings discrepancy

Archived

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD