Hi Gang:
How did you like MSNBC's dirty tricks tactics of providing 2 to 3 hours of critique and analysis of the Republican debate on 10-09-08[yesterday] BEFORE the debate was actually aired by MSNBC.

If you don't mind I'd like to see the actual debate BEFORE you provide your opinions,critique and analysis,thank you.

I know MSNBC is pro liberal,they even had Chris Matthews providing his opinions BEFORE the debate...and he was the moderator for the debate.How biased can you get ????

hippolips

I didn't see it, but I don't see anything wrong with speaking about the positions various candidates have previously taken. Background sets the tone for what the debates are about. It's not as if the candidates were unknown quantities going into the debate.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
I didn't see it, but I don't see anything wrong with speaking about the positions various candidates have previously taken. Background sets the tone for what the debates are about. It's not as if the candidates were unknown quantities going into the debate.

________________________________________________

Hi dg:

They showed actual EXCERPTS of the debate and commented upon the statements made BEFORE the actual debate was shown to the MSNBC audience.

The actual debate was shown at 6:00 pm Pacific although the debate took place at 4:00 Pacific[1:00 Eastern].

But from 2:00 Pacific until 5;00 Pacific they analysied and critiqued the debate which did not air until 6:00 Pacific.

This is what I was objecting to.I would have had the same objection if it had been a Democrat debate.

I want to hear the actual candidates's words ,during the debate, without having some talking head telling me what to think about what was said.

hippolips

Well Hippo, whether you have realized it or not, you have just proven that the analysis by MSNBC given is totally irrevelant & not worth the film it is recorded on.

Sad thing is it probably wouldn't be worth looking at, even if it was recorded after the actual debate.

Has MSNBC covered the Democratic debates differently?

'MSNBC, which featured extensive political coverage during the 2006 mid-term elections and the start of the 110th Congress, will preview the [South Carolina Democratic Party’s presidential primary] debate during the day on April 26th. The network’s signature political program, “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” will air live from South Carolina State University at 5:00 pm (ET) with key interviews and analysis in anticipation of the debate. The network will also air comprehensive analysis of the debate upon its conclusion.' insidecable.blogsome.com

I get that it's annoying to have people talking about the debate when the debate itself could be shown, but it's hardly 'dirty tricks' if they do the same to both parties - more a sign, maybe, that they've found a cheap way to fill the schedule.

Is using Chris Matthews a sign of liberal bias?

Other than finally coming around to criticizing the war, Chris Matthews is hardly a liberal. He has Tom Delay on all the time and tells him "You're great!" He says Rudy "owns" 9/11.

It's where we are nowadays. There's NO network that comes CLOSE to the bias of FOX -- they admit it and are proud of it; people who love it will hate everyone else. And vice versa. The fact is that whenever any talking head says something with which the listener disagrees, that's considered bias. To me, in most cases, it's a matter of the factual vs the ideological.

I don't disagree that most of the "analysis" on any network isn't worth the air it's printed on. For most "analysts" it's about the game of politics, and their point of view is generally insular and esoteric. Except, of course, for those at FOX, who overtly want to promote the right wing agenda and to disparage anyone who disagrees. At least we can say that when it's that obvious, it's not worth wasting much time discussing it.

quote:

Other than finally coming around to criticizing the war, Chris Matthews is hardly a liberal.

Now, that is a real funny joke there, Sid.
That's almost like saying Ron Reagan, is hardly a Conservative.

Must say that there is something a little disturbing about a news network that keeps referring to itself as 'fair'. Fox has what it terms 'fair debates' Why do they feel the need to call them 'fair'? This is reminiscent of that saying of Emerson 'the more he spoke of his honor the faster we counted our spoons' or men in arguments who address you as 'my friend' when their thinking is quite the opposite.

That said, Fox is great fun to watch. It is like having a tabloid newspaper on TV.

Fred, Fox has to tell you it's fair. If they didn't, how would you ever know?

quote:

Fred, Fox has to tell you it's fair. If they didn't, how would you ever know?

Sounds like some of the other MSM, just with a different point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Fred, Fox has to tell you it's fair. If they didn't, how would you ever know?

-----------------------------------------------
Hi dg:
If Fox is a conservative ,right wing tv channel....
and there are no liberal ,left wing tv channels ...
where are all of the liberals getting their tv news and views???

Could it be that all of the channels ,
other than Fox ,
are liberal,left wing channels????

If there are no liberal,left wing tv channels...it makes good sense to me.

hippolips

Going through the different news chanels & network news channels, perhaps we ought to drop the "liberal" & "conservative" labels. Those of the conservative persuasion are not afraid to admit they are conservative. But those of the liberal persuasion seem to take a certain amount of offense to being labeled a "liberal".

As for watching any of the TV news, sure FOX shows more of the conservative leanings than the others, yet I have seen times I thought they were displaying some rather liberal views as well.

quote:

But those of the liberal persuasion seem to take a certain amount of offense to being labeled a "liberal".

Yeah! They want to be called "Progressive" now.

quote:

...Those of the conservative persuasion are not afraid to admit they are conservative. But those of the liberal persuasion seem to take a certain amount of offense to being labeled a "liberal".

On what do you base this? Doesn't Fox, for example, claim to be fair and balanced - i.e. rejecting the label 'conservative'? Surely all the mainstream TV news channels want as many viewers as possible and therefore would all object to being assigned to a particular niche in the market.

It does seem that non-mainstream, internet sources are aimed at particular groups of people. Googling "conservative news" gets you a page of hits of self-described "conservative news" sites. Googling "liberal news" gets you much the same - but maybe there are more 'conservative' sites talking about 'liberal' sites in the mix. And, yes, 'progressive' does come up. Maybe liberals have larger vocabularies than conservatives . (But what on earth is "conservative news" or "liberal news"? Do they actually report on different events?)

Could there be people so insecure or complacent that they'd use only those news sources that tend to reinforce their beliefs?

I agree that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' could be dropped. They each have such a multitude of definitions and usages that they're not very illuminating. Scotty, for example, implies above that Reagan was absolutely a 'conservative' - yet Reagan illegally sold weapons to the Iranian regime in order to finance terror in Nicaragua, and also pursued ideologically based Friedmanite economics. Those are hardly the actions of a 'steady as she goes' conservative leader.

On the other hand, the provincial 'liberal' party here in BC is right wing in the Thatcherite mold, and in most European countries the idea that the US Democratic party is politically 'liberal' or 'left-wing' would raise a laugh.

I was lured to FOX because of its excellent Katrina coverage (which was hardly pro-administration). I found a network whose pure news coverage appears to have little bias, and whose talk shows normally include either hosts or guests from both sides of the political aisle. That, to me, is balanced.

This is off topic but I have to share that I got stuck watching Fox news in a waiting room the other day. They were discussing the ice melt on Greenland and managed to put an overwhelming positive spin on it by proclaiming that it would expose many untouched oil reserves. I can't imagine how that could be looked at as a balanced manner of looking at Climate Change in such an almost insane manner, but I guess people love to be told it will all be just fine.

Then Ann Coulter came on and I have to say I've never heard a nastier person in my life. Whether she is Liberal or Republican, she is ignorant and very nasty and I have little respect for the opinions of anyone that listens to her.

Nastiness seems very commonplace on Fox - the little I watched of it the anchor was interviewing a woman who was passing some admittedly ridiculous anti-smoking laws and he said "I tell you that if you tried to bring that to my town that I would come right down your throat!" I'm not sure what he meant but he was in a rage and I'm sure it made John Stewart's program.