In Your Considered Opinion... The Best Most Trustworthy News Channel is...

13 years ago

Generally I would say the BBC because pretty much every country you go to, especially ones with very heavily regulated news, people listen to the BBC World Service.

Dan

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427353].message }}

Sunfyre7896

13 years ago

Most trustworthy = BBC ; Least = Fox News (Only right wing news) ; Somewhere in the middle = CNN

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

We can all do our part
Candle fundraiser|Non-profit fundraising
Non-profit fundraiser

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427383].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Sunfyre7896

Most trustworthy = BBC ; Least = Fox News (Only right wing news) ; Somewhere in the middle = CNN

I literally tasted puke in my mouth after I read your post? CNN in the middle??? OMG...there goes that taste again.

I turn to FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News for their fair and balanced reporting.

[ 4 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427392].message }}

HomeBusinessMastery

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

I literally tasted puke in my mouth after I read your post? CNN in the middle??? OMG...there goes that taste again.

I turn to FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News for their fair and balanced reporting.

Ditto! Fox gets my vote too!

Thanks

Signature

What if you had invested in Google EARLY?
Now is Your Chance

Niche Marketing for Dummies (FREE Download)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427403].message }}

Sunfyre7896

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

I literally tasted puke in my mouth after I read your post? CNN in the middle??? OMG...there goes that taste again.

I turn to FoxNews .com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News[/url] for their fair and balanced reporting.

I don't down people who watch FoxNews, however, it is commonly known that they are pretty right wing in their views. Every show is hosted by anywhere from slight conservatives to Sean Hannity. I consider myself a conservative, but I would like a news station that isn't only pro one side. There is a definite spin and bias to them. The news really should be objective as possible in which really, neither FoxNews or CNN is not.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

We can all do our part
Candle fundraiser|Non-profit fundraising
Non-profit fundraiser

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427412].message }}

Steven Wagenheim 13 years ago

Trustworthy news?

Isn't that an oxymoron? :confused:
- [ 10 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427652].message }}
- Daniel Evans 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim
  
  Trustworthy news?
  
  Isn't that an oxymoron? :confused:
  
  I'm glad someone said it, even if it was 6 posts deep...
  
  People will understand the news and media better when they are involved in a story themselves - either personally or someone they are connected with. Only then will a person understand the extent of how skewed it can be...
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4597125].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Sunfyre7896

I don't down people who watch FoxNews, however, it is commonly known that they are pretty right wing in their views. Every show is hosted by anywhere from slight conservatives to Sean Hannity. I consider myself a conservative, but I would like a news station that isn't only pro one side. There is a definite spin and bias to them. The news really should be objective as possible in which really, neither FoxNews or CNN is not.

interesting you should bring up HANNITY! ****WRONG EXAMPLE FOR YOUR POINT****!

Hannity & Colmes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And NOW, watch it! There is a guy that is often there that makes COLMES look conservative! And that is HARD to do.

As for CNN, I COULD tell you one of it's nicknames, but all I will see is that it relates to a guy that was between two guys that almost have the same name!

As for "commonly known", that is certainly an incorrect view.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428484].message }}

Thomas

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

I literally tasted puke in my mouth after I read your post? CNN in the middle??? OMG...there goes that taste again.

I turn to FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News for their fair and balanced reporting.

"...fair and balanced reporting"?

I think I have puke in MY mouth now too.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4427903].message }}

mattlaclear 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Thomas

"...fair and balanced reporting"?

I think I have puke in MY mouth now too.

That must be from that extra Guinness you had at breakfast this morning.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428500].message }}

DPM70

13 years ago

For my sins, I still like to get the mix from matt drudge.

Thanks

Signature

I don't build in order to have clients. I have clients in order to build. - Ayn Rand

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428548].message }}

Doran Peck

13 years ago

I learned a lesson when I was 17 about the powers behind the media.

In 1983 there was a major US airlines strike (pilots). The company was trying to break the union so it could eliminate pensions, benefits and significantly reduce salaries. The pilots went on strike to protect their livelyhood. The other unions soon followed in support.

My Father ( a pilot) took up volunteering in one of the two main union headquarters. As time oressed on the airline company would put TV commercials out that were very pro company and villified the unions. I said to my dad...why don't the unions pay tp have commercials too so people get both sides of the story. he said ...son we HAVE produced several TV spots but the networks refuse to air them. He started to go into detail but then just said... to put it simply son,the owners of the airlines and big business and buddies with the news media, thats just the way it is.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428816].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Doran Peck

I learned a lesson when I was 17 about the powers behind the media.

In 1983 there was a major US airlines strike (pilots). The company was trying to break the union so it could eliminate pensions, benefits and significantly reduce salaries. The pilots went on strike to protect their livelyhood. The other unions soon followed in support.

My Father ( a pilot) took up volunteering in one of the two main union headquarters. As time oressed on the airline company would put TV commercials out that were very pro company and villified the unions. I said to my dad...why don't the unions pay tp have commercials too so people get both sides of the story. he said ...son we HAVE produced several TV spots but the networks refuse to air them. He started to go into detail but then just said... to put it simply son,the owners of the airlines and big business and buddies with the news media, thats just the way it is.

Things must REALLY have changed then. TODAY, nearly every network is PRO union! HECK, those on the networks ARE in unions! And the unions are trying to BUST the companies, which is why almost ALL of airlines have gone BANKRUPT! Seriously, has ANY besides south west NOT gone bankrupt?

OK, OK, I take that back! I guess AMERICAN Airlines, and maybe continental, didn't go bankrupt either! Stll, look at all the others that HAVE including northwest, delta, united, and usair! And those are only the ones I have flown recently!

Airline bankruptcies in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if the unions feel SO powerless, then why do they even exist? Oh well, I will LWAYS remember those AIRLINE workers that had on those shirts that said

Create
Havok
Around
Our
System

NOTE the akronym CHAOS!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428869].message }}

garyv

13 years ago

I like watching all of them, just so I get a balanced opinion on a story. Or at least I know all sides opinion on a story.

But I find it funny when people say things like "I'd never watch Fox/MSNBC News because they are biased". How do you know then that they are biased? You either watch them all of the time, or you really have no idea if they are biased or not.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428835].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

But I find it funny when people say things like "I'd never watch Fox/MSNBC News because they are biased". How do you know then that they are biased? You either watch them all of the time, or you really have no idea if they are biased or not.

GOOD POINT! Hannity is a good example! He is FAMOUS for being a conservative. But he DOES have liberals on. What do people think? That he just spouts his views? Heck, even O'reilly has had people on that he didn't agree with and treated them ok. And they DO state the unions reason for being angry, etc... Truth be known, if money really DID grow on trees and there was a way to make everything 100% equal and fair, I doubt ANYONE would have said anything against the unions in wisconsin, for example. HECK, **I** would like such a deal. Alas, it ISN'T that easy. Heck, the 2008 problem happened because they were handing out home loans on the theory that money grew on trees.

And is fox biased towards conservatism? YEP! Are they biased SO much that they say this is what it is, and never allow anyone to chime in? NOPE! O'reilly even has a section where he reads letters of some people that are VERY angry with him.

One reason why beck may have left is because his format WAS more biased and even more conspiracy based.

For the record, I have watched MSNBC AND FOX, and CNN, etc... I CAN'T STAND rachel maddow or ed, but I have still listened to them. With rachel it has been on the radio AND TV. There is another guy that I have watched also, that is almost like ED. I mean change the voice and the face, and you wouldn't know which was which. I recently watched a video on you tube where that guy tried to disprove an item. He use techniques to prove his point that would more easily disprove it.

Now THAT is BIAS! When you scrutinize in an attempt to prove that one item is fake, because it claims your item is fake, and present arguments that more clearly disprove your item.

I have to admit, for the past couple weeks I have just listened to one radio station. It is conservative. But it isn't related to fox. In fact a couple say they were banned from fox, and a couple more just say they won't go on. But they have a major network, I think it is ABC, broadcasting the current news.

These are my opinions and observations, not to argue, etc...

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4429054].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Reuters (reporters without borders) and I like Drudge, too. If it's not free press, I don't care what they have to say because if we get told at all it will be spinning like a freaking top.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4428873].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Reuters (reporters without borders) and I like Drudge, too. If it's not free press, I don't care what they have to say because if we get told at all it will be spinning like a freaking top.

Yeah, keep an open mind, but not SO open that someone just comes in and throws garbage. Remember, many PEOPLE have spin. A particular reporter, company owner, witness, or even some bum on the street, may spin stuff. That is true ANYWHERE!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4429066].message }}

Caleb Spilchen

13 years ago

Fox. Fair & Balanced.

I wonder if that has ever existed. I must be too young to remember.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Canadian Expat Living in Medellin, Colombia

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4429071].message }}

Devid Farah 13 years ago

I'm sorry, none of them.
- Thanks
Signature

Wso of the Day - 1570+ SOLD!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4429119].message }}
seasoned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Caleb Spilchen

Fox. Fair & Balanced.

I wonder if that has ever existed. I must be too young to remember.

OH ICRSM!!!!! Suffice it to say I think the claim is more relative than absolute.

Of course, a lot of people may not give it a chance. It is like that video I pointed to recently. The first response said that he thought I was LOSING IT until he got past the first half of the video.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4429127].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Caleb Spilchen

Fox. Fair & Balanced.

I wonder if that has ever existed. I must be too young to remember.

You missed the days of real investigative reporting. Watergate, I think was the last of it. After that the corporations moved in and bought all our news circuits - since then it's just been a game of hide everything until enough people know that you have to say something -- then spin it however you can get a dime from it.

News is now listed as "entertainment" for a reason.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4435146].message }}

Mark Andrews

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

You missed the days of real investigative reporting.

What do you think of the BBC for investigative reporting Heysal?

Plus, not directed at you but I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up any of the other news reporting channels or programs.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4435581].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Pete Walker

What do you think of the BBC for investigative reporting Heysal?

Plus, not directed at you but I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up any of the other news reporting channels or programs.

I haven't really got the background on them to make a real solid decision on them but can say they seem to be much better than anything here. Not going to pass judgement either way without knowing more about the ownership, history, etc.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4437267].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Pete Walker

What do you think of the BBC for investigative reporting Heysal?

Plus, not directed at you but I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up any of the other news reporting channels or programs.

Well, I'm not heysal, but....

I think sometimes the BBC is a bit left, at least in reporting foreign news.

In the US, they abandoned keeping normal free broadcasts viable. So a lot of places RELY on cable. So people tend to refer to cable channels. and we don't generally get the BBC televised here. OH, we often CAN, but generally don't. Hey, I've even watch deutsche welle here. They even have a show where they do it in english and in german.

And places like the AP(Associated Press) are rather low key. They are almost like wholesalers. Perhaps every news agency uses them. The right and left agencies merely pick with a related bias. You WILL generally see credit in the byline, if they are used, but that may be it.

I DID say how I have been listening to ABCnews lately. You can get a taste of how they report at: ABCNews.com: Daily News, Breaking News and ABC News Video Broadcasts - ABC News I didn't pick the channel, but it is one of the older ones, and probably more centered. It is older than CNN, FOX, or even CABLE TV!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4438863].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

I'm surprised nobody has yet brought up any of the other news reporting channels or programs.

You mean, like Al Jazeera, which is widely considered to be up there with the BBC for objectivity and thorough reportage?

We Americans tend to be both geographically and ideologically provincial about our information sources.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4601373].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

You mean, like Al Jazeera, which is widely considered to be up there with the BBC for objectivity and thorough reportage?

We Americans tend to be both geographically and ideologically provincial about our information sources.

Paul

OH, I figured it might turn left/right. Frankly, I am surprised at the turn. I thought it would be more the other way.

I HAVE looked at the BBC, Deutsche Welle, CNN, MSNBC, etc... One of my most common retorts when people said I have listened to rush YNW so much, not even to mention that I listened less than 5 years, and it was last about 13 years ago, was that I have heard bill press MORE! HECK, in LA I listened to a talk show that was probably 70% left, and 30% right. On the right, people like rush. On the left, people like bill. and YEP, they were BOTH on the same station who's now WORLD FAMOUS tagline was..... *****GUILTY***** of no BULLSH... YEP, THEY were the ones that during the OJ trial put up the GUILTY and INNOCENT signs around town, and had the liberal attorney on the court steps with signs that said "FREE O.J."! He was offering free orange juice!

IWICSM.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4601752].message }}

garyv

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

You mean, like Al Jazeera, which is widely considered to be up there with the BBC for objectivity and thorough reportage?

We Americans tend to be both geographically and ideologically provincial about our information sources.

Paul

I agree w/ you about Al Jazeera. They got a bad rap early on in the Afghanistan war because they often received the propaganda beheading videos. But to their credit they never actually aired a beheading. They would show the kidnapping videos, but never a beheading as some would falsely report about them.

But during the recent disasters around the world, Al Jazeera often had the best coverage.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602121].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Gary,

I remember when a single newsman was so trusted that he could turn the tide of public opinion in this country single-handedly if he was convinced of a position. A lot of people could guess, but you have to be over 50 to actually remember seeing one do it.

Most of these lame idiots on Fox and MSNBC aren't even pale shadows of real journalists.

CNN has a few. Christiane Amanpour, John King, and Anderson Cooper don't suck. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (on the right) and Rachel Maddow (on the left) are honest, if slanted. But they're openly slanted and intellectually honest, which I admire. The thing they all have in common is that they're damned smart people. Probably the smartest in the game in this country.

O'Reilly'd be in there with them if he wasn't so bloody angry.

Start up Crossfire again, but put Maddow and Scarborough in as the hosts. I'd never miss an episode. That would be op-ed worth watching. Intelligent, informed, and civil antagonists, making people look at reality from more than a single perspective.

I'd pay good money to watch that.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602258].message }}

TimPhelan

13 years ago

Did you see when Jon Stewart went on the CNN version of crossfire several years ago Paul? It was brutal.

jon stewart on crossfire - YouTube

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Start up Crossfire again, but put Maddow and Scarborough in as the hosts. I'd never miss an episode. That would be op-ed worth watching. Intelligent, informed, and civil antagonists, making people look at reality from more than a single perspective.

I'd pay good money to watch that.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602332].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Gary,

I think Rather got railroaded, but that's not a discussion we could have here without going waaay over the line. CNN has another good one on in the afternoon, by the way. Bald guy, whose name I don't remember.

Did you know Maddow is a Rhodes scholar? Or that O'Reilly has a master's degree in public administration?

Matt,

I don't think anyone here was confused about your political leanings.

There are exactly two members here who could reasonably articulate mine, and neither of them comes out back to the shed real often...

Is there such a thing as a bias in the media? You bet there is. All the way around the Mulberry bush too.

Amen, brother.

It's only a problem, as you say, when they try to disguise it as hard news.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602441].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Did you know Maddow is a Rhodes scholar? Or that O'Reilly has a master's degree in public administration?

Yep...I knew that. I had to chuckle when she interviewed "scientist" Art Robinson, who was running for political office, and he kept trying to insult her intelligence. He didn't have a clue who he was talking to.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602460].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Kurt,

IMO, Morning Joe is the most "fair and balanced" politically orientated show on TV.

As an opinion, that one doesn't suck. I'm just getting geared up to get back into the talk news shows (I'm an election geek from way back), and he's scheduled to go on the daily DVR list.

I had to chuckle when she interviewed "scientist" Art Robinson, who was running for political office, and he kept trying to insult her intelligence. He didn't have a clue who he was talking to.

Sh_t, I missed that. I'll have to look it up on her site. That'd be almost as funny as "Arguing with myself."

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602496].message }}

Paul Myers 13 years ago

Tim,

It's not on anymore Paul. It ended a few months after Stewart went on and trashed it.

If it can't survive a vigorous lampooning, it's not worth the TV time.

Paul
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602504].message }}
- Paul Myers 13 years ago
  
  But saying that CNN is "Somewhere in the middle" well that is plain BS.
  
  From a Texan perspective, sure. From a global perspective, they're well to the right of center.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602530].message }}
  
  salegurus 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  From a Texan perspective, sure. From a global perspective, they're well to the right of center.
  
  Paul
  
  Good one Paul, i had a bit of a chuckle
  But yeah, everybody has a point of view, at least we have a choice
  as to which "news channel" we prefer to follow.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  
  ― George Carlin
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602575].message }}
- TimPhelan 13 years ago
  
  The ratings were already down. The hosts at the time were Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, not exactly fascinating personalities. I think Stewart's criticism contributed to it's demise though. I think Stewart may have also been responsible for Carlson's decision to stop wearing bow ties.
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  Tim,If it can't survive a vigorous lampooning, it's not worth the TV time.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602546].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 13 years ago
  
  Kurt,
  
  Now all we need is a show featuring Bill Mahr vs. Dennis Miller...We can call it "Misfire".
  
  I shall be sending you the bill for my EX-keyboard, sir.
  
  It's been splorfed to death.
  
  I love watching Buchanan. You can see him choking back his urge to walk the party line and saying the honest thing, even when he doesn't like it. That's integrity. You don't see nearly enough of that in the news, or even in op-ed, these days.
  
  Paul
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602593].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 13 years ago
  
  Guru,
  
  But yeah, everybody has a point of view, at least we have a choice as to which "news channel" we prefer to follow.
  
  Or to support.
  
  Kurt,
  
  I'd rather see Olbermann v. O'Reilly.
  
  Nah. Too much anger there. Murdoch and Soros would be more civil.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602644].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 13 years ago
  
  Kurt,
  
  Put Carville up against his wife.
  
  I've seen that. They're evenly matched, except that Mary's not as funny as he is. Every bit as savvy, though.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602681].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 13 years ago
  
  I'm not sure Murdoch is as political as his "news" network. A real good article about FoxNews was in the Rolling Stone recently. In it Murdoch talks about the guy really in charge of Foxnews, Roger Ailes: "You know Roger is crazy," Murdoch recently told a colleague, shaking his head in disbelief. "He really believes that stuff." I think to Murdoch, FoxNews is just a business opportunity. It was a market he realized he could exploit just as he does with the tabloid newspapers in England.
  
  Here's that article:
  
  How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory | Rolling Stone Politics
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  GuruMurdoch and Soros would be more civil.
  
  Paul
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602994].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Kurt,As an opinion, that one doesn't suck. I'm just getting geared up to get back into the talk news shows (I'm an election geek from way back), and he's scheduled to go on the daily DVR list.Sh_t, I missed that. I'll have to look it up on her site. That'd be almost as funny as "Arguing with myself."

Paul

Moring Joe is fair and balanced. I don't watch all the time, maybe once a week on average...But you have good, honest, fair discussion between people like Ed Rendel and Pat Buchanan. And I agree with your earlier post that Joe Scarborough has intellectual integrity and doesn't play party lines, even if he leans to the right.

Last I checked, the Maddow/Robinson interview was on Youtube. It is one of the strangest interviews I've seen in a while. It's worth a watch for entertainment value, if nothing else.

I'd post the video here, but technically it's a political interview. However, it really didn't end up that way.

Now all we need is a show featuring Bill Mahr vs. Dennis Miller...We can call it "Misfire".

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602554].message }}

garyv 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Now all we need is a show featuring Bill Mahr vs. Dennis Miller...We can call it "Misfire".

I think that would actually be a fun combination. I'd watch it...
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602592].message }}

ThomM

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Moring Joe is fair and balanced. I don't watch all the time, maybe once a week on average...But you have good, honest, fair discussion between people like Ed Rendel and Pat Buchanan. And I agree with your earlier post that Joe Scarborough has intellectual integrity and doesn't play party lines, even if he leans to the right.

Last I checked, the Maddow/Robinson interview was on Youtube. It is one of the strangest interviews I've seen in a while. It's worth a watch for entertainment value, if nothing else.

I'd post the video here, but technically it's a political interview. However, it really didn't end up that way.

Now all we need is a show featuring Bill Mahr vs. Dennis Miller...We can call it "Misfire".

Kurt how did you listen to the whole interview:confused:
At 10 mins. in, I want to cut Robinson's tongue out

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602963].message }}

Paul Myers 13 years ago

Thom,

Kurt how did you listen to the whole interview

Kurt's put up with me for better than 10 years. I suspect he can handle 10 minutes worth of dumb.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602980].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Matt,

I don't think anyone here was confused about your political leanings.

There are exactly two members here who could reasonably articulate mine, and neither of them comes out back to the shed real often...Amen, brother.

It's only a problem, as you say, when they try to disguise it as hard news.

Paul

I guessed your leanings when you complimented George Will.

And by the fact that you yourself are going out of your way to be fair and balanced with your comments on this thread.

You're a Libertarian through and through!

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607334].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Gary,

I remember when a single newsman was so trusted that he could turn the tide of public opinion in this country single-handedly if he was convinced of a position. A lot of people could guess, but you have to be over 50 to actually remember seeing one do it.

Paul

I gave up completely on real news from media when Katie Couric won a reporting award. Yeah she's cute, but I've never seen her able to tackle anything with any gumption and have never seen her go against the view an interviewee was spouting even when everyone else and their dog knew they were lying through their teeth.

For politics, I am stoked about C-span. Can't get any better than watching someone draw a knife across their own neck with no middleman giving some creative interpretation on a situation.

Once a reporter gets their name on the Journolist, they could tell me a volcano is erupting and even if I can see the fire from my window, I don't want either their news or opinion on the subject.

To me news media is something I glance at to see what issues I want to investigate. It's just become to damn difficult any more to know who can be trusted, so I decided that it was better to find out myself what the exact situation is if the issue is important to me.

As far as your political leanings.........after moderating this forum for as many years as you have, I'm guessing even if not before, by now........Nietzsche?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602834].message }}

Paul Myers 13 years ago

Sal,

Couric isn't even in the same group as the lame twits from Fox and MSNBC. And she's sure as hell not in the group with the guy I was referring to earlier.

Nietschean? Nope. I'm too patient for that.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602849].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

You missed the days of real investigative reporting. Watergate, I think was the last of it. After that the corporations moved in and bought all our news circuits - since then it's just been a game of hide everything until enough people know that you have to say something -- then spin it however you can get a dime from it.

News is now listed as "entertainment" for a reason.

well, watergate had an informant!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4438777].message }}

HeySal 13 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

well, watergate had an informant!

Jeezes Steve - of course they had informants. That doesn't lighten up the investigation of situations. We have whistle,blowers now, too, but we also have news stations whose journalists are not allowed to pursue news or investigate unless it is in the owning corporation's interest that they do so.

I tried to report something really screwed up in Denver and talked to several reporters. Each told me they were not allowed to pursue the matter. I was at the time seeking a job with the paper.

The news I tried to give them would have exposed a judge who bought a run down apartment complex, evicted everyone and hired a collection agency to make people pay for damages that existed when they rented their apartments. He evicted everyone having pets for the reason of having a pet in the apartment even though they had paid pet deposits - raised rents with no warning. None of the tenants were told that ownership was changing or rents (legal was 30 day notice). He gave an illegal amount of time for people to get out. Come to find out he had acquired the complex through completely illegal means, too.

Nobody was allowed to report it even though they were handed all the facts and paperwork to prove the issue.

And that is what we are supposed to trust? Corporate owned news is not news. It is either entertainment or propaganda and there is no in between. For some reason people understand a lot of the other corruption in corporations, but they aren't getting their heads around what corporate news is or what it means to society to have corporate owned news channels.
- Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4446924].message }}

dipti

13 years ago

According to me its starplus news channel is best. very User friendly

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4436749].message }}

hardraysnight 13 years ago

channel 1 tvnz, but they dwell too much on international as opposed to local; news

and lots of sports which is most important
- Thanks
Signature
These guys helped me with the feedback for my site
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4436990].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

I don't trust any of them, that's why I get my news from very diversified sources.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4437565].message }}

derekwong28

13 years ago

I personally prefer the International Edition of CNN for International news. But I also use BBC at the same time as well. Although BBC does provide in good depth reports, I find their altitudes towards developing countries somewhat patronizing and often biased.

Thanks

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4439025].message }}

dagaul101

13 years ago

The BBC I have to say they do seem neutral all things considered

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4445357].message }}

Joe Mobley

13 years ago

Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...d-news-sources

And you know that if it's a poll it must be accurate. :rolleyes:

Joe Mobley

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4447741].message }}

Jollibee 13 years ago

I think that Infowars is trustworthy. To give you an idea, search the films titles on YouTube.
Charlie Sheen's Video Message to President Obama
Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed - PT 1/2
Fox News is not trustworthy.

You may also wish search keywords like Illuminati, New world order, Illuminati and the new world order, Illuminati satanic 2012. Perhaps you have been believing the usual belief of UFOs and Extra-terrestrials. If you already have an idea, search for the title (MUST SEE) Illuminati Satanic 2012+ UFO event, Bill Cooper and silenced NWO researchers.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4596929].message }}

techbabyy

13 years ago

BBC and CNN are trustworthy

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4596946].message }}

dorianjohn425

13 years ago

For me is CNN

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4600222].message }}

valerieSONORA

13 years ago

Alex Jones of course.

Thanks

Signature

siggy taking a break...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4600727].message }}

BloggingPro

13 years ago

What do I think the most trust worthy source of news is?

Google News

Easily. Takes the cake. I can search for anything and I will get a billion results that I can PERSONALLY read to form my OWN opinion on the matter. I use it religiously. I can get left, right and even pot-head news from this thing.

I can read articles from the BBC, Associated Press, FOX, CNN, and every damn news affiliate in America and throughout the world. I can read opinion posts, editorials and thousands of REAL (usually emotional) comments at the touch of a button.

I feel sorry for those who gather their news from one source and one source only. With a world of content just waiting for you to find it, its hard to believe these 24 hours news channels still exist.

If I want trustworthy I head to the place where I can find every opinion and report fairly represented... and that's Google News.

Thanks

Signature

You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4600857].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

I prefer Jon Stewart and The Daily Show or ESPN.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4600896].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Who else read the headline and thought, "Yep. That'll turn left/right political fast?"

Thanks

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4601362].message }}

Onlinework4all

13 years ago

I believe BBC is quite popular and news covers all details and quite fast. Moreover it is not biased to any particular person or any strong political party. I hate NDTV,AajTak,Jaya TV these channels are inclined to political party.

Thanks

Signature

Onlinework4all - How do I make 5 figures in 30hrs.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4601853].message }}

Sumit Menon

13 years ago

Don't watch much news but hate BBC.

Why waste time watching news when you can watch reality TV?

Sumit.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4601874].message }}

salegurus 13 years ago

Another vote for FOX News.

Originally Posted by Sunfyre7896

Most trustworthy = BBC ; Least = Fox News (Only right wing news) ; Somewhere in the middle = CNN

There is a difference between reporting the news vs subjective views related to the news eg:
Sean Hannity and co.
But saying that CNN is "Somewhere in the middle" well that is plain BS.

Originally Posted by Caleb Spilchen

Fox. Fair & Balanced.

I wonder if that has ever existed. I must be too young to remember.

Surprised you even whatch the news, most kids your age are too busy with reality TV, Celeb gossip, the latest iPhone app etc. to care about the news.
- Thanks
Signature
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

― George Carlin
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602502].message }}

garyv

13 years ago

I agree with you Paul. I watch a lot of news, and those names you mentioned above are some that I watch most often. I'm completely opposite of Rachel Maddow on the political spectrum, but I do enjoy how she comes up w/ her slant in an intelligent way.

One other that I really like watching, and that's Dan Rather on HDnet. He did get caught up in that unfortunate false reporting scandal a few years ago, but the news he puts out on HDnet could almost be art. It could probably go straight to documentary without anyone knowing the difference.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602335].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

I'm a huge Fox News addict so that tells you a little something regarding my leanings. But the way they are fear mongering over the natural disasters this year is absolutely appalling. I'm sure they're not the only network to resort to sensationalism to keep viewer numbers up.

A fearful crowd watches the news. They know that and they exploit it.

But fearful people do not operate their lives at 100% efficiency. We live in a day and age where folks need to be encouraged to perform at their peak performance. The last thing we need is for all of us hiding in our rooms drooling with fear watching network news worrying about earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear reactor breeches and oil spills.

Those of you who are not so high on Billy at Fox News need to understand that he is not a hard news anchor. His show is 100% pure opinion based. He admits that. So when you watch his show you're getting his take on things is all.

It's the folks who are in hard news who interject their opinions into their reporting is who you should avoid. They seem to gather at some networks more than others.

I thought reporters were suppose to report the news. Now they just seem like farm systems for whatever political party they lean towards.

Is there such a thing as a bias in the media? You bet there is. All the way around the Mulberry bush too.

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602340].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Tim,

Nope. I haven't watched the show in a long time. Not for more than a few minutes, at any rate. I remember once when Buckley was on "for the right," and it was some of the best debate I've ever seen.

I forget who he was discussing things with, but they were having a ball. They had the nerve to have fun with people who disagreed with them. Real, genuine fun. George Will is good at that, too.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602382].message }}

TimPhelan

13 years ago

It's not on anymore Paul. It ended a few months after Stewart went on and trashed it.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Tim,

Nope. I haven't watched the show in a long time. Not for more than a few minutes, at any rate. I remember once when Buckley was on "for the right," and it was some of the best debate I've ever seen.

I forget who he was discussing things with, but they were having a ball. They had the nerve to have fun with people who disagreed with them. Real, genuine fun. George Will is good at that, too.

Paul

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602492].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

IMO, Morning Joe is the most "fair and balanced" politically orientated show on TV.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602400].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Tim,

The hosts at the time were Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, not exactly fascinating personalities.

Smart people, but no. Not the most fascinating.

Here's another pair that would be fun, but for different reasons than the Scarborough/Maddow pairing: Carville/O'Reilly.

Can you say "Fireworks?" Ah knew you could...

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602564].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Tim,Smart people, but no. Not the most fascinating.

Here's another pair that would be fun, but for different reasons than the Scarborough/Maddow pairing: Carville/O'Reilly.

Can you say "Fireworks?" Ah knew you could...

Paul

I'd rather see Olbermann v. O'Reilly. Put Carville up against his wife.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602581].message }}

garyv

13 years ago

Anyone here watch Red Eye? It's more comedy than news, but it's a lot of fun to watch. In fact one of my favorite clips of all time came from there about 2 weeks ago...

TV's Andy Levy Apologizes To Chris Brown And His...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4602618].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

My fav Pat Buchanan moment was when Lawrence O' Donnell called him a liar on national TV and Mr. B. just chuckled.

Larry said something like...

I am not going to allow Pat Buchanan to lie on national TV. I refuse to allow it.

And he repeated it loudly a couple of times and all Pat could do was chuckle and hide behind his coffee mug.

I think MSNBC refuses to allow Mr. B. & Larry O' to hook up on the air any more because every time it happens, Larry rips him a new one.

Here's another example of their encounters...

Lawrence O'Donnell Humiliates Pat Buchanan | Crooks and Liars

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4605397].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

TL,

My problem with O'Donnell is that he seems so convinced of his version of things that he doesn't allow for the possibility that he could be wrong. Or simply interpreting things from a different set of assumptions.

That's a dangerous blind spot for a news reporter.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4606548].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

TL,

My problem with O'Donnell is that he seems so convinced of his version of things that he doesn't allow for the possibility that he could be wrong. Or simply interpreting things from a different set of assumptions.

That's a dangerous blind spot for a news reporter.

Paul

O'Donnell like Mr. Buchanan is on the opinion side of the business - not news.

Many people continue to get the two confused.

They are both paid by MSNBC to give their opinions and O'Donnell has a opinion show at night.

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607351].message }}

philipf

13 years ago

fox is a bit one sided in my opinion
i'd go for BBC or CNN

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4605461].message }}

Martin Luxton 13 years ago

Originally Posted by philipf

fox is a bit one sided in my opinion
i'd go for BBC or CNN

There's no way I'd trust the BBC any more. Although it has always been 'establishment' the way it was set up meant there was quite a lot of editorial freedom and a commitment to report the news in an unbiased way.

Nowadays, I take everything it says with a pinch of salt.

Regarding the media and the truth, one of the best comments I've heard came from British comedian Bruce Forsyth after one of Rupert Murdoch's rags tried to vilify him.

He held up a copy of the newspaper to the camera and said,

"If you want to read something truthful in 'The Xxx', it's here in the top corner. It's called the date."

Martin
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607189].message }}

David Maschke

13 years ago

Lately, I've been watching MSNBC, and I find I must make a conscious effort not to put a sledge hammer thu my T.V.

But I'm starting to see how other people view the world, and I can see some logic in their arguments.

For the most part, the more local the news is, the more professional the reporting seems to be. At least in my area.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607134].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Lately, I've been watching MSNBC, and I find I must make a conscious effort not to put a sledge hammer thu my T.V.

But I'm starting to see how other people view the world, and I can see some logic in their arguments.

For the most part, the more local the news is, the more professional the reporting seems to be. At least in my area.

Chris Matthews is the one who caused my wife to block MSNBC from our cable remote. I never have seen a more smug arrogant personality on TV in all my years. I literally felt like throwing my remote through the TV whenever I saw his face. The way he gets a little grin acting like he knows something the rest of us don't really rubs me the wrong way. My wife I guess got tired of the routine and made her move to bring piece into the LaClear household.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607390].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

Chris Matthews is the one who caused my wife to block MSNBC from our cable remote. I never have seen a more smug arrogant personality on TV in all my years. I literally felt like throwing my remote through the TV whenever I saw his face. The way he gets a little grin acting like he knows something the rest of us don't really rubs me the wrong way. My wife I guess got tired of the routine and made her move to bring piece into the LaClear household.

But Rush, O'Reily, Hannety and Beck aren't smug and arrogant? Please...

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607778].message }}

Paul Myers

13 years ago

Matt,

I guessed your leanings when you complimented George Will.

Why? Because I respect intellectual honesty and education? You'll note that I also complimented Rachel Maddow.

Don't try to guess on this one, Matt. You won't get more than a small part right. I did a 20-some page series on the marketing lessons in the last US Presidential election and not a single person could pick up a clue where I stood on it. I had two people screech at me in unsubscribes about how I was a filthy extremist. One said I was left and the other right. They both based their opinions on the same comment.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4608468].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Matt,Why? Because I respect intellectual honesty and education? You'll note that I also complimented Rachel Maddow.

Don't try to guess on this one, Matt. You won't get more than a small part right. I did a 20-some page series on the marketing lessons in the last US Presidential election and not a single person could pick up a clue where I stood on it. I had two people screech at me in unsubscribes about how I was a filthy extremist. One said I was left and the other right. They both based their opinions on the same comment.

Paul

You wouldn't happen to have that 20 page series available would you? Would be very interested in the read.

Usually the ones most secretive about their leanings are on the right from my experience. Being geeked about social equality is hard for folks to keep quiet about.

Walter Cronkite pulled it off though. No one had a clue which way he leaned from his broadcasts. So I know my theory doesn't hold the wash 100% of the time.

So I'll quit trying to out you. Just having some fun attempting to put you in a box you have absolutely no intention of getting in.

But I would love to get at your report if it is still available.

Thanks

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4608650].message }}

mattlaclear

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

But Rush, O'Reily, Hannety and Beck aren't smug and arrogant? Please...

Yeah, I know. But I agree with them so I never notice. I just walk away getting good and angry at the other side every time I listen to them.

It's when the other side does it that makes my blood boil.

Double standard? For sure. No doubt about it. That what makes things so heated during election season.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Training for SEO Providers in the United States - https://happyseoclients.com/happy-seo-clients-training/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4608681].message }}

garyv

13 years ago

Originally Posted by mattlaclear

Yeah, I know. But I agree with them so I never notice. I just walk away getting good and angry at the other side every time I listen to them.

It's when the other side does it that makes my blood boil.

Double standard? For sure. No doubt about it. That what makes things so heated during election season.

I'm finding that anymore my blood boils when I listen to my own side almost as much as when I listen to the other side. I'm a hard-core conservative and I agree w/ 98% of Rush's political leanings. However, his language is often incendiary. And he does it on purpose. I like Rush - but I can't stand the loss of civility that our Country is going through right now. - And it's coming from both sides, and most of it has to do with ratings.

If you sincerely believe that your side is on solid ground, and the other side is mired in muck, I see no benefit in constantly poking the other side with a stick. Personally I'd rather be sinking in muck than get near someone that has a history of poking me w/ a stick. We need to find a path back to some old fashioned civility, but right now I'm just not seeing it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4608983].message }}

Dennis Gaskill 13 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I'm finding that anymore my blood boils when I listen to my own side almost as much as when I listen to the other side.

I can understand that because I'm an independent, and both sides rile me up. What really irritates me isn't the party leaders, I expect them to be lean heavily toward their side, but it's the followers that grind my gears. There are so many that are so convinced their side is the side to be on they don't even listen to the other side. Half of them don't know what they're talking about anyway, they just parrot what they hear. Try to have a discussion with them and it's obvious they haven't given much thought to "their" position.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4609882].message }}
- Paul Myers 13 years ago
  
  Matt,
  
  I'm not "secretive" about it offline. It just has no bearing on what I do online. My political beliefs have no place in this forum, and my subscribers don't care and didn't sign up to hear about them. I occasionally take the liberty of warning people about the increasing tendency to villainize those who disagree with them, but that's relevant in almost any topic.
  
  I will say this much: I am registered as an independent.
  
  Yes, the series is available online. I was wrong about the length, though. It's 35 pages. http://talkbiz.com/SellingThePresidency.pdf
  
  Gary,
  
  I can't stand the loss of civility that our Country is going through right now.
  
  Amen.
  
  I am a firm believer that there are times when what most people call rudeness is appropriate. I don't think debate on public affairs is ever among them.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4610065].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

Speaking of Mr. Will...

Over 20 years ago I was playing basketball on some courts near American University in D.C.

The crowd was mostly college students and mostly Caucasian.

Mr. Will was spotted walking with a young kid about 75 to 100 yards away and 99% of the players - almost on queue, began to loudly boo Mr. Will.

There was also a chant of "you suck" directed towards Mr. Will.

This went on until Mr. Will was out of sight.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607533].message }}

Kay King 13 years ago

I just saw an example what I dislike about cable news. CNN discusssion of Crowley and a union leader. The union guy was complaining that "Honda wants to build a plant in Mexico and we shouldn't allow that".

Crowley just nodded and let him spout - a good anchor might point out Honda isn't exclusively an American company....nor was it at any time. There is an American branch but they could form a Mexican branch if they want.

I discarded MSNBC when they hired Sharpton - no thanks!
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607745].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Actually, I like O'Donnell and Buchanan for the very same reason...It's not their views on political issues, it's their knowledge of how politics actually work. They have similar backgrounds with O'Donnell working for Tip O'Neil and Buchanan with Nixon.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4607762].message }}

In Your Considered Opinion... The Best Most Trustworthy News Channel is...

Trending Topics

Struggling with Conversions: Seeking Insights on Boosting Paid Subscriptions for My Chrome Extension

Can we do bulk Permanent 301 redirection in a website*?

Best SMS Marketing Software

How can I start and where? Cold emailing is forbidden in GERMANY, since GDPR, which paid networking

kicking diet coke...