This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

Topics specific to the localities in America.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#125403 by dizzizz
Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:00 am
jimmydanger wrote:
dizzizz wrote:I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly get interviewed once in a while.


You must have missed O'Reilly on Jon Stewart's show and vice versa. All O'Reilly was concerned with was the fact that Stewart's book was heavier and selling more than his book. There is a movement to have Fox News declared not a news channel; this would prevent them from attending White House briefings, etc.


O'Reilly and Jon Stewart... together? that sounds like the most god-awful bit of television ever assembled. They're both standoffish and rude, I can't see anyone actually enjoying watching that.

and if fox news gets shut down, where are people going to get reports that don't paint obama in the absolute best light they can possibly throw on him? That would be about equivalent to state-controlled media.

You want to know the real reason that the other news agencies (and their little sheep) attack fox? read it and weep.

#125405 by Hayden King
Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:28 am
dizzizz wrote:That would be about equivalent to state-controlled media.


don't we already have that?

HEADLINE: every so called "independent" news channel - Operation Desert Storm (all simultaneously)

HEADLINE: The Swine Flu Pandemic (renamed H1N1 after initial bad reaction and prior swine flu fiasco brought up) all the while there was no evidence or even an abnormal flu season.

HEADLINE (1972) The World Is Freezing; within just a few decades the northern U.S. will be in permanent winter... Just like Global Warming now, there is not only a small group corrupting the data to facilitate the greatest ever profits through taxation, but the actual data show just the opposite...
Thing haven't changed at all in the last century... people are just more oblivious to it now!

#125415 by RhythmMan
Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:00 pm
Actually, things HAVE changed.
.
There was a law requiring equal coverage of both parties - Democrat and Republican.
That law was struck down about 10-15 years ago, and then the democrat propoganda machine went into full overdrive.
They avoided most reports putting any democrat in a bad light, and actively seached out the least little transgression by any republican.
Had those actions been reversed, it would have had a major impact on the results of our elections.
People will believe anything, if it's repeated enough times, and 87% of all news reports are run by Democrats.
That 87% Democrat spin-figure is the result of a poll the news organization ran on themselves.
But -
Natural a Democrat-led organization (eg., ABC, CBS, NBC, et. al,.) will do all in their power to elect the party they represent. . . . even (gasp) making broadcasts meant to decieve the public.
(Naaahhh - they don't mislead us, do they? They can't lie on TV - can they?)
:)
.
Watch where you get your news. What they DON'T tell you is usually more important than what they DO tell you.
.
I'll never forget the report I read from an honest news source, a couple years back:
> A prominant Democrat politician was caught child-molesting, but he got off on a technicality.
OK, that was the story.
BUT -
The Democrat news-report said this, and ONLY this:
That same politician donated $500 to an orphanage; no mention of child-molesting.
Both storys were true, but it illustrates what spin really IS; . . . and how they can make you believe anything they want you to believe.

#126629 by creativ786
Sun Oct 17, 2010 2:44 am
Dr Ludwig wrote:Yeah...that's the spirit. If you don't agree with their viewpoint, "declare" them something or other in the hopes of silencing them. The "movement" was nothing more than certain administrative officials (like white house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) trying to demonize Fox beacuse they are critical of obama's policies. Don't like the message...shoot the messenger. What happened to the First Amendment rights of Fox news commentators? Oh that's right..."they aren't a real news organization" so we can ignore their rights to say what they believe....and we'll keep them out of the white house briefing room so they won't ask any more of those pesky questions about the out of control spending in washington, the failing economy or Michell's lavish trip to Spain at taxpayer expense (at least partially.) After all, we have Rachael Maddow (left wing lesbian commentator on MSNBC) to guide us through the darkness into the light, so what do we need O'Reilly for? How 'bout Keith Olberman (also MSNBC.) Think he's not biased in his reporting? Most of the people who criticize the programs on Fox rarely watch them...they're just echoing what they read or heard somewhere else.


8) funny how every one misses what is not being covered. The devil is in the details .. Dems have a present for the next three generations of your spawns..

[/quote]

#126660 by Drumsinhisheart
Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:46 pm
The United States of America is now, unfortunately, so divided and basically into making money as the top priority it would be rather impossible to have a truly balanced news organization on television. I never watch television news. It's run by huge corporations, all of it. Money controls news. Money makes the news. They do not report the news, they now make the news. The same would be true of radio and internet. Bias is everywhere. Factions want control and corporations want control. They battle it out by determining what the American people see and hear on a daily basis. The Constitution has been set aside for more than a century by federal, state and local civil servants, and the whole mess is called America.

Still, more people on earth want to come here than anywhere else, regardless of what THEIR news organizations tell them about America. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave is the bottom line for all the world, regardless of facts that true liberty and freedom is gone, in principle, and bravery can be defined by cultural likes and dislikes. What was once simple liberty and freedom is called extremism and what was once considered bravery is considered white European imperialism or stupidity.

#134821 by Dewy
Sat Dec 25, 2010 5:10 pm
To some degree there is bias in all news sources simply by the fact they must decide what is important to bring to you in a short amount of time.

So much happens today that could be considered newsworthy, simply choosing the headline will impart some bias.

In the case of Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, they were not hired to be "Fair and Balanced", yet they often air corrections and the other point of view. Those are journalistic qualities that I don't get from a Fox "news" broadcast.

More to the point, Journalists DO play on your emotions... and are concerned with ratings, just like Fox News... so to some degree they are biased in targeting the THINKING crowd being ignored by Fox News Corp (i.e. Rupert Murdoch's Media branch).

I too have to admit some bias on this topic... News should be Sacred, it should be truth... it SHOULD BE Fair and Balanced, and it hasn't been for a long time.

And when I read or watch any Fox News I hear "Dirty Laundry" start fading in as a background soundtrack until I finish that segment.

We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry

#134836 by Mike Nobody
Sat Dec 25, 2010 5:28 pm

#134852 by RhythmMan
Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:47 am
I hear a LOT more honesty on Fox News than MSNBC, Liberal Headquarters, USA.

#134882 by Mike Nobody
Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:32 pm
RhythmMan wrote:I hear a LOT more honesty on Fox News than MSNBC, Liberal Headquarters, USA.


ImageImage

It's no joke: IU study finds The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news

It's no joke: IU study finds The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news
Oct. 4, 2006

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Which would you think has more substantive news coverage -- traditional broadcast network newscasts or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

Would you believe the answer is neither?

Julia R. Fox, assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University isn't joking when she says the popular "fake news" program, which last week featured Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a guest, is just as substantive as network coverage.

While much has been written in the media about The Daily Show's impact, Fox's study is the first scholarly effort to systematically examine how the comedy program compares to traditional television news as sources of political information.

The study, "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign," will be published next summer by the Journal of Broadcast and Electronic Media, published by the Broadcast Education Association.

"It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost," Fox said of Stewart's program. "But there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news."

Most people have little direct contact with politicians and get most of their political information from the media. Given the growing number of young voters who say they look to The Daily Show to meet their political information needs, Fox thought it was important to see whether the program did so.

She and two graduate students at IU -- Glory Koloen and Volkan Sahin -- analyzed coverage of the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate by the networks and Stewart's program. They examined broadcast nightly newscasts on July 26-30, Aug. 30-31 and Sept. 1-3 in 2004. Similarly, they studied episodes of The Daily Show on July 27-30, Aug. 31 and Sept. 1-3 in 2004.


ImageImage

#134888 by philbymon
Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:28 pm
"A prominant Democrat politician was caught child-molesting, but he got off on a technicality.
OK, that was the story.
BUT -
The Democrat news-report said this, and ONLY this:
That same politician donated $500 to an orphanage; no mention of child-molesting. "


In this country, we report on alleged crime all the time. When ppl are found 'not guilty,' I don't really give a flyin' f*ck WHAT your opinion of the situation is, whether they were tried true or not - once found innocent, the matter should be closed. THAT was the intent of our forefathers, & THAT is just what we should do - NOT continue to drag someone's name through the dirt just because they were accused of something, Alan.

That is NOT biased reporting. That is JUST treatment of a man found not guilty of a crime.

Far too often, the opposite occurs, ESPECIALLY in the Rep party, who seem to love to dredge up the 'evil alleged pasts' of their opposition. Imho, that would be cause for a lawsuit by the offended party, & HE SHOULD WIN IT!

The fact remains: the Dem whose freedom so offends you was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, or by a judge. That is the END of the story, not the beginning of the next chapter of his life, that he must continually answer for, ad infinitum. That is about as anti-American a sentiment as any I've ever heard anywhere, i'm sorry to say.

#134890 by Erik Van
Sun Dec 26, 2010 5:57 pm
Ric3xrt wrote:add 1000 to that 27 and thats just to surface to the spin tales from MSNBC


No kidding. Take that 1000 and add another .

#134891 by gbheil
Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:16 pm
People actually watch MSNBC :?: :?
#134899 by Erik Van
Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:05 pm
[quote=" The minute Obama was elected, we got a lot of that back.
.[/quote]

I am going to post only once on this subject as I think this forum is for music not politcal views. Politcal views and music should not be together. Once you put them together, you turn half the population off because half will not agree with you. I am of free will and I make up my own mind even if you think I am wrong.
Mixing music and politics together makes you lose friends and fans.
Not your job to tell me what I should think and feel.

My opinion.
Obama is loved by Europeans for his socialist views. So what you know a European. I do to. The ones I know try to push socialism on me. Many of us are of European decent who left their country for a better life. They came to America for a reason. Let us not forget that.

Obama is not that loved as you think. Many leaders think he is an idiot.
The Russians think he’s a putz, The French think he’s rude.

The Germans want him to stop spending.

The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.

The North Koreans think he’s a joke.
The Iranians won’t acknowledge his calls.

And the British can’t even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.

As for the Chinese, he’s too frightened to even glance their way. [After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States.]

http://www.mypeoplesvoice.com/canadian- ... -galganov/

There are way too many sites to look up how other leaders feel about the President. It is not my job to find them for you. If you really want to know it is our there for you to find if it interests you.

Obama does represent the American people and he is who America selected. Bush is gone and blaming Bush is old. It is over now, America picked Obama and now it is time we accept who we selected to be in charge and stop blaming Bush. I noticed that Americans have an issue of accepting responsibility for our own actions. It is our punishment for being foolish, uneducated and lazy to learn on our own and listen to the agenda of the news media. It is our fault that Obama was elected. If you think he is great, good for you. I think he is the worst thing that ever crawled out from under a rock, never voted for him even though all my liberal friends did. They regret it now. Live and learn. He is in charge now and has been, his performance and selection of people for national security, treasury etc...has been anything but stellar.


Below is an article of interest because I think Obama is a sissy wimp.


Wiki: Obama is weak, ineffectual and pushed around by Arab leaders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Barry Rubin

The Washington Post's editorial, “Mr. Mubarak vs. Mr. Obama,” has two passages especially worthy of notice.

Among U.S. daily city newspapers, the Post has been the best generally at understanding the serious trouble created by the Obama Administration’s mistakes and misunderstandings. In this editorial, it urges the U.S government to get tougher with Egypt over human rights’ issues there, especially in regard to the parliamentary elections.

What interests me most, though, are two specific statements. Here they are:

“[Egyptian President Husni] Mubarak's rude dismissal of what have been gentle U.S. calls for change is making the Obama administration look weak in a region that can be quick to act on such perceptions….

“Most of all, Mr. Obama should make it clear that he will not be dismissed or pushed around by Arab strongmen. If Mr. Mubarak gets away with it, others will be quick to follow his example.” In fact, the Post was so upset about this that it followed up with a second, similar editorial.

I think the Post is trying to be subtle here and to put its argument in terms that the White House might heed. But, of course, these statements are also ironic. After all, what’s been happening during the last two years? Follow Mubarak's example? He's merely following everyone else's example.

“Look weak”?” “Pushed around by Arab strongmen?” To broaden the list a bit, here's what's been happening regarding U.S. policy:

--Lack of toughness with a Turkish regime that has walked all over U.S. interests. We now know from Wikileaks that U.S. diplomats reported the Islamist nature of the regime but this had no effect on policy.

--Acceptance of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip discouraging efforts (sanctions; Israel’s military offensive) that might have subverted that terrorist mini-state.

--Lack of support for Israel.

--Lack of pressure on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to negotiate, fulfill its commitments, to make compromises, or even to talk with Israel at all. The administration can't even get the PA to negotiate with Israel.

--Cozying up to the Sudan regime despite its involvement in deliberate mass murder.

--Inability to get Saudi Arabia to crack down on donations made by its citizens to terrorist groups, the largest source of funding for terrorism aside from Iran.

--Continuing to engage with Syria and ignore its involvement in terrorism, including killing U.S. servicemen in Iraq. This also involves Syria's ongoing nuclear weapons' program, in partnership with Iran, and its return to control over Lebanon. Here's another Post story pointing to the failure of administration policy toward Syria. And Wikileaks also shows that Syria's leader lied to the U.S. government when he claimed not to be sending missiles to Hizballah. The Obama Administration discovered he was lying but rather than change its engagement policy merely filed a secret protest.

--Slowness and weakness in confronting Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons (though it has done a reasonable job with the sanctions). Indeed, though, this is the one area where the administration hasn't been "pushed around" since Wikileaks show that the "Arab strongmen" want tougher U.S. action against Iran.

--Failure to support moderate forces in Lebanon as the Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance turns that country into a puppet. Here's another Wikileak item about how the U.S. government knew a lot about the virtual Iranian takeover of Lebanon yet did nothing and failed to raise the alarm.
--Readiness to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

--Failure to press Pakistan on its sponsorship of terrorism in India and lack of cooperation in rooting out al-Qaida. The Wikileaks reinforced our understanding of how uncooperative Pakistan has been in fighting the terrorists who attacked America on September 11.

--Refusal to confront the central issue in the region (and perhaps the world) today: the revolutionary Islamist effort to seize control of the Middle East and mount offensives against the West, of which terrorism is only one component.

No U.S. government should be expected to be tough and effective on all of these things but, equally, no U.S. government should be expected to make all of these mistakes either.

The U.S. government already looks weak and it is already being pushed around by Arab (and other) strongmen. Fortunately, for U.S. interests, the only Arab regime that really wants to push the United States around is Syria. Most of the others—even Mubarak—are horrified by what they are seeing and want America to be stronger and more determined.

A conclusion regarding Wikileaks: As I've been saying, the problem is in the White House more than in the State Department. A lot of the reporting is good and America's allies are telling it the truth. But this reality is not being reflected in top-level policy decisions and strategies.

Aluf Benn, the best analytical journalist in Israel on international affairs, says it all and I can't help quote most of his article:

“Beyond the gossip, the indiscretions and the petty lies, the cables released by WikiLeaks tell a sad story. They depict...the decline of a superpower....President Barack Obama emerges from the cables as a weak, flimsy leader, whose good intentions and lofty visions dissipate like dust in the wind in the face of the conservatism and stubbornness of his Middle Eastern counterparts.”

American diplomats: “spend their days listening wearily to their hosts' talking points, never reminding them who is the superpower and who the client state that needs military or financial aid from America…. The America of Obama and Hillary Clinton doesn't dare pound on the table and knock heads together when its friends and rivals do as they please. It takes notes, files them and moves on….

“Obama's Ankara and Cairo speeches, his moving calls for a new relationship between America and the Arab and Muslim worlds, even his quotations from the Koran, were all greeted with utter indifference….

“In its editorial ...the New York Times praised Obama and his team as outstanding diplomats who stood up to Arab and Israeli pressure on America to attack Iran....What naivete. It's hard to believe that experienced leaders...really imagined that Obama would read the cables from the Middle East and hasten to arm his stealth bombers and declare war on Iran. They knew Washington was unenthusiastic about bombing Natanz and Bushehr.

“Their pressure on the administration had a completely different goal: thwarting Obama's efforts at rapprochement with Iranian leaders Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and ensuring that America would maintain a hard line against Tehran and its rulers. And this goal was fully achieved, with some help from the Iranians, who openly thumbed their noses at the U.S. president.…

“The Arab leaders didn't ignore the Palestinians. They raised this issue over and over in their talks with American representatives. But the Egyptians and the Gulf emirates share their Israeli counterparts' view of the conflict as a nuisance that must be managed, not a problem that can be solved.

“None of them fantasized about a Palestinian state,,,,All they wanted was to get this annoying nuisance off their backs, and they didn't care how. They viewed Obama as a pest and his envoys as bothers, not as spokesmen for the global superpower. Or perhaps that's no longer what America is.”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
__________________
#134901 by Mike Nobody
Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:22 pm
Erik Van wrote:I am going to post only once on this subject as I think this forum is for music not politcal views. Politcal views and music should not be together. Once you put them together, you turn half the population off because half will not agree with you. I am of free will and I make up my own mind even if you think I am wrong.
Mixing music and politics together makes you lose friends and fans.
Not your job to tell me what I should think and feel._______________


Sheesh, I'm glad you're only going to post once. War and Peace was shorter.

I forget which musician actually said it. It might have been Gil-Scott Heron who said, "You can't remove politics from music any more than you could remove grass from the soil."

Life informs art and vice-versa. You can try masking or burying it in art. But, that just deadens it, killing it's vitality and making it more lifeless.
#134902 by Erik Van
Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:23 pm
Mike Nobody wrote:
Erik Van wrote:I am going to post only once on this subject as I think this forum is for music not politcal views. Politcal views and music should not be together. Once you put them together, you turn half the population off because half will not agree with you. I am of free will and I make up my own mind even if you think I am wrong.
Mixing music and politics together makes you lose friends and fans.
Not your job to tell me what I should think and feel._______________


Sheesh, I'm glad you're only going to post once. War and Peace was shorter.

I forget which musician actually said it. It might have been Gil-Scott Heron who said, "You can't remove politics from music any more than you could remove grass from the soil."

Life informs art and vice-versa. You can try masking or burying it in art. But, that just deadens it, killing it's vitality and making it more lifeless.



lol, yep it was long.
Perhaps but I really liked a few bands until they went political on me. When they do, I drop them. I am not the only one who feels that way.
If it is something that helps people, then I am for it. But their opinions do not matter especially selling music. It is a turn off for me.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests