• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Air America on XM

> Because whoever does the imaging for that channel is
> clueless.

The imaging on the entire talk cluster is so bad it wouldn't pass in Oxnard-Ventura.
 
> 21 years? I respect that. But let me ask you a question. Why
> would you support a party or station's talk format of a
> party that hates your guts. That has tried to downgrade the
> military into pacifist. Fight a war with your hands tied
> behind your back. What's your motto....support us troops as
> long as were not winning? That's the problem. Support the
> station that sleeps with the enemy.

This is total nonsense from someone who never listens. Both Franken and Rhodes are big boosters of the troops. Rhodes even defends the troops caught up in Abu Gharib, blaming the contractors and higher-ups instead. Franken visits the troops overseas at least twice a year. Rhodes is a veteran herself.

Disagreeing with an incumbent administration's policies, which is now shared by the majority of the country, is not "sleeping with the enemy," nor anti-American. In fact, it represents what is great about this country - that dissent can bring new ideas to the table that could potentially accomplish more than one party rule and a stable of yes men who won't challenge the president.

Don't accept the talking points thrown out by those who wage bizarre campaigns opposing the very presence of liberal talk radio. Virtually all of them have been debunked. The News/Talk board regularly deals with these questions.
 
> Chris Mathews,

Chris Matthews? HA! Media Matters awarded him Misinformer of the Year Award 2005 for relying on GOP talking points for his program. In fact, not a week ago he compared Michael Moore with Osama bin Laden leading to huge protests by the progressive community against him. He also just called Breakback Mountain Bareback Mountain leading to an apology from NBC after GLAAD went after Don Imus and him for it. Matthews has thrown away his pretense of being a journalist by practicing access journalism - he says favorable things about powers that be so that he can continue to have access to them.

Matthews also dwelled considerably on the Lewinsky story and drumbeated the impeachment affair back when Clinton was in office. He's no defender of Democrats.

> Larry King

This is like calling David Frost anti-Republican. Larry King lobs softballs at EVERY guest on his show. His agenda is booking more guests, and he handles them gently to make sure they will come back.

> Alan Colmes

Alan is the token liberal on Fox News, and he's roundly dismissed by liberals as being ineffective. His liberal radio show is promoted to conservative audiences with liners like "call Alan and give him a piece of your mind." I'd hardly call him the liberal standardbearer, and he has no power on Hannity & Colmes.

> Network News ABC, CBS, NBC

You haven't been watching this either then. Media Matters has been launching protests at all three networks for sloppy journalism and accepting talking points as facts without bothering to check them out. Read www.crooksandliars.com or Media Matters for an almost daily roundup of examples of right-slanted reporting and the total absence of ANY liberal on any of their news shows. What you get are reporters who appear on these shows as objective and the rest of the panel is stacked with conservatives like David Brooks or Tony Blankley, etc.

There is precisely ONE liberal regular panelist on any news/cable show. It is Rachel Maddow who appears semi-regularly on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC. That's it.

> C-Span 1 2& 3

Is C-Span is so biased, why do callers on the Republican line always praise it as being "fair and objective." Actually C-Span is neutral disengaged territory on this question. Their hosts are not permitted to express political viewpoints, and accept all callers at face value.

> the whole entire staff of CNN, MSNBC, the whole
> local news in most major cities, (I don't live in all of
> them,)

I live in a city with a Sinclair station in it. It's the only station in the market that forces political commentary segments into its newscasts. "The Point" by Mark Hyman compares the ACLU to Osama bin Laden, said John Kerry lied about his medals and didn't deserve to be president, and that questioning wiretapping defends terrorists. He's a real left wing moonbat.

> Ever here of Hollywood? I'm sure you bought your tickets
> tonight for Brokeback Mountain.

I actually went and saw the movie. I'll bet you didn't. It emotionally devastated me not because it was some shallow tale of "cowboy gay sex" which I routinely see people who never saw it dismiss it as, but because the themes within it are universal and could apply to anyone. Go and see it and then come back and comment about it.

> Daytime TV talk shows. They
> relate to tolerance or tolerance of freaks and sleaze.

Jerry Springer and other shows like these perform just as well in red states as blue states. Voyeurism is not a political issue.

> Even the whole coffee industry where you probably hang out
> at...Starbuck's.

Starbucks is a secret lodge for liberal Democrats? What in the world are you talking about?

> Editorialists in practically every newspaper.

You mean all those southern papers that endorsed George Bush, or the Washington Times, or Murdoch's papers, or the Wall Street Journal? Or are we talking about Miss Run Amock Judith Miller at the NY Times who reprinted Bush Administration talking points as fact during the run up to the Iraqi war?

The funny thing is, I keep hearing about this liberal media bias and liberal monopoly on the media. But I keep hearing about it on talk radio, on cable news, and on TV political panel shows from dozens and dozens of different people. It's amazing how regularly I get to hear about how conservatives are locked out of media in this country and their voices can never be heard, except on 1000+ radio stations, every network and cable news show, and in every newspaper in the country.

Then I ask myself, when is the last time I heard a firebrand liberal appear on one of these radio or TV shows. Outside of Air America, Jones, and a tiny handful of independent local shows, I never do.

Fair and balanced my butt.
 
> We have more of a one party system all the time. We have
> people who like to play angles, and switch over to become
> opportunists all the time.
> But what your mentioning or comparing are light issues
> compared to what's facing us that is dangerous. Natalie
> Holloway. If we don't here about her, it's that Hilton sl**,
> or the Simpsons, etc.

Here is where we agree. The corporate media has replaced the news with Entertainment Tonight. There is little to no "news" content in our media. If you want to know what's going on here, you have to watch the BBC, CBC, and read The Guardian and The Economist.

> But it's the liberals that seem to switch lanes on us to
> take things that are real concerns off our mind, and the
> republicans whether their talk show hosts or actual
> politicians don't aim on the real serious issues and what as
> to be done about them. Which makes both parties swing to the
> left.

Here's where we disagree. Because the corporations control the media, any time there's bad news to be had for the Bush administration, the media finds some other distraction. If you compare and contrast the coverage (number of stories, how many minutes) of Whitewater and the NSA spying scandals, Clinton got hammered by the press and Bush is getting off easy.

> As far as serious issues being address, for example the
> border, free trade, our manufacturing, the whole press
> eithier shys away from, or defends against us.
> Don't tell me that doesn't happen on C-Span.

C-SPAN puts a camera in the room and lets it roll without telling us what to think. It's the only unfiltered look at the government we get.

> Yes you just admit were two liberals like Couric and Dean
> like to twist facts. And Liberals are notorious for chopping
> the ends off your last sentence and counter act by twisting
> the facts. They don't care about saving our culture, they
> just only care about winning an argument. Because they can't
> win a fight.

No actually, you're describing the Rovian tactic of 'if you can't win with facts, then smear the character of your opponent.' If you really think Katie Couric doesn't slant stuff to the right, you haven't been paying attention.

Anyway, we're way off topic now. We should probably take this to e-mail. <P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>
 
> > Because whoever does the imaging for that channel is
> > clueless.
>
> The imaging on the entire talk cluster is so bad it wouldn't
> pass in Oxnard-Ventura.
>

It's obvious that noone is paying attention to any of the ID's on XM. Half of the Air America sweepers are telling you you're listening to the wrong show, and words are always clipped off on the spots/promos going back into the network.

I know that Dalet can do better than that. I've programmed automation to sound much tighter than any of the XM talk channels do.

Either noone at XM is listening to the talk channels, or they just don't care about quality.<P ID="signature">______________
...co-moderator of the Satellite Radio, Phoenix, and San Diego boards...</P>
 
> > We have more of a one party system all the time. We have
> > people who like to play angles, and switch over to become
> > opportunists all the time.
> > But what your mentioning or comparing are light issues
> > compared to what's facing us that is dangerous. Natalie
> > Holloway. If we don't here about her, it's that Hilton
> sl**,
> > or the Simpsons, etc.
>
> Here is where we agree. The corporate media has replaced
> the news with Entertainment Tonight. There is little to no
> "news" content in our media. If you want to know what's
> going on here, you have to watch the BBC, CBC, and read The
> Guardian and The Economist.
>
> > But it's the liberals that seem to switch lanes on us to
> > take things that are real concerns off our mind, and the
> > republicans whether their talk show hosts or actual
> > politicians don't aim on the real serious issues and what
> as
> > to be done about them. Which makes both parties swing to
> the
> > left.
>
> Here's where we disagree. Because the corporations control
> the media, any time there's bad news to be had for the Bush
> administration, the media finds some other distraction. If
> you compare and contrast the coverage (number of stories,
> how many minutes) of Whitewater and the NSA spying scandals,
> Clinton got hammered by the press and Bush is getting off
> easy.
>

Clinton got hammered because sex sells no matter who's in office. But Clinton did his own switching off the topic.....Bomb the Serbs.



> > As far as serious issues being address, for example the
> > border, free trade, our manufacturing, the whole press
> > eithier shys away from, or defends against us.
> > Don't tell me that doesn't happen on C-Span.
>
> C-SPAN puts a camera in the room and lets it roll without
> telling us what to think. It's the only unfiltered look at
> the government we get.

We get Sandy Berger, Kennedy, Feinstein, Carl Levin (on the prisoner issue)and even though I don't watch C-span much, it seems like the replays that are shown from the days activities are mostly focused on their views.
>
> > Yes you just admit were two liberals like Couric and Dean
> > like to twist facts. And Liberals are notorious for
> chopping
> > the ends off your last sentence and counter act by
> twisting
> > the facts. They don't care about saving our culture, they
> > just only care about winning an argument. Because they
> can't
> > win a fight.
>
> No actually, you're describing the Rovian tactic of 'if you
> can't win with facts, then smear the character of your
> opponent.' If you really think Katie Couric doesn't slant
> stuff to the right, you haven't been paying attention.
>
> Anyway, we're way off topic now. We should probably take
> this to e-mail.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom