Posted by jimimou:

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm not going to say whether I support or do not support those that protested yesterday. But I did want to comment on the news coverage. It was childish and pathetic. Instead of 3 major news channels reporting the facts and letting us decide what we thought was going on. You had 3 news channels representing two political parties. Not attempting to hide their bias in the least little bit. And openly bickering like spoiled children over which party is the best. Several reporters actually using sexual references to insult americans who(right or wrong) were exercising their right to free speach. Is it too much to ask for my news stations to leave the childish comments to the viewing public and just report on what is happening? Is there anywhere you can go nowadays where someone will just state the facts and then let you decide?

FIU

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm not going to say whether I support or do not support those that protested yesterday. But I did want to comment on the news coverage. It was childish and pathetic. Instead of 3 major news channels reporting the facts and letting us decide what we thought was going on. You had 3 news channels representing two political parties. Not attempting to hide their bias in the least little bit. And openly bickering like spoiled children over which party is the best. Several reporters actually using sexual references to insult americans who(right or wrong) were exercising their right to free speach. Is it too much to ask for my news stations to leave the childish comments to the viewing public and just report on what is happening? Is there anywhere you can go nowadays where someone will just state the facts and then let you decide?

shyt was a joke and a thinly veiled Klan meeting...so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??...Hmmm, what a coincidence.

Not the media's fault that the teabaggers chose to describe their collective as such and in doing so wrote the joke themselves.

There were so many contradictions and fallacies involved with that shyt, that I literally dont know where to begin. It failed miserably anyway, so whatever for now.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??


[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-16-2009 4:45 PM]

Was that "you guys" directed at me? If so, what does me being upset with the media coverage have to do with Bush? Did I protest? Did I even give an opinion. Are you so closed minded that anything that does not attack the protestors needs to be insulted and put down?

If it wasn't directed at me, I'm still not sure what that has to do with the media coverage. Again, do you have a problem with your news media taking sides on political debates? If not, do you understand how easy it is to take the next step in completely reshaping the news? It's bad enough on a daily basis having to fish through the daily stuff. But yesterday was shameful. You simply can't find an objective person in the media anymore. It's literally two sides fighting against each other. Our news is officially entertainment and not news.

"you guys" were the people protesting --- not a shot at you. I assume you werent out there, and even so most of the protesters had ulterior motives which were painfully obvious.

I mean, reporters are humans too, I could only imagine how hard it was to take this "protest" serious.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm not going to say whether I support or do not support those that protested yesterday. But I did want to comment on the news coverage. It was childish and pathetic. Instead of 3 major news channels reporting the facts and letting us decide what we thought was going on. You had 3 news channels representing two political parties. Not attempting to hide their bias in the least little bit. And openly bickering like spoiled children over which party is the best. Several reporters actually using sexual references to insult americans who(right or wrong) were exercising their right to free speach. Is it too much to ask for my news stations to leave the childish comments to the viewing public and just report on what is happening? Is there anywhere you can go nowadays where someone will just state the facts and then let you decide?

shyt was a joke and a thinly veiled Klan meeting...so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??...Hmmm, what a coincidence.

Not the media's fault that the teabaggers chose to describe their collective as such and in doing so wrote the joke themselves.

There were so many contradictions and fallacies involved with that shyt, that I literally dont know where to begin. It failed miserably anyway, so whatever for now.

Again personal feelings aside regarding the protestors........Do you think it's right for our news media to be choosing sides?
[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-16-2009 4:45 PM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm not going to say whether I support or do not support those that protested yesterday. But I did want to comment on the news coverage. It was childish and pathetic. Instead of 3 major news channels reporting the facts and letting us decide what we thought was going on. You had 3 news channels representing two political parties. Not attempting to hide their bias in the least little bit. And openly bickering like spoiled children over which party is the best. Several reporters actually using sexual references to insult americans who(right or wrong) were exercising their right to free speach. Is it too much to ask for my news stations to leave the childish comments to the viewing public and just report on what is happening? Is there anywhere you can go nowadays where someone will just state the facts and then let you decide?

shyt was a joke and a thinly veiled Klan meeting...so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??...Hmmm, what a coincidence.

Not the media's fault that the teabaggers chose to describe their collective as such and in doing so wrote the joke themselves.

There were so many contradictions and fallacies involved with that shyt, that I literally dont know where to begin. It failed miserably anyway, so whatever for now.

Again personal feelings aside regarding the protestors........Do you think it's right for our news media to be choosing sides?
[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-16-2009 4:45 PM]

Yes, I do actually. The media have an obligation to be *objective*, not *neutral*

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm not going to say whether I support or do not support those that protested yesterday. But I did want to comment on the news coverage. It was childish and pathetic. Instead of 3 major news channels reporting the facts and letting us decide what we thought was going on. You had 3 news channels representing two political parties. Not attempting to hide their bias in the least little bit. And openly bickering like spoiled children over which party is the best. Several reporters actually using sexual references to insult americans who(right or wrong) were exercising their right to free speach. Is it too much to ask for my news stations to leave the childish comments to the viewing public and just report on what is happening? Is there anywhere you can go nowadays where someone will just state the facts and then let you decide?

shyt was a joke and a thinly veiled Klan meeting...so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??...Hmmm, what a coincidence.

Not the media's fault that the teabaggers chose to describe their collective as such and in doing so wrote the joke themselves.

There were so many contradictions and fallacies involved with that shyt, that I literally dont know where to begin. It failed miserably anyway, so whatever for now.

Again personal feelings aside regarding the protestors........Do you think it's right for our news media to be choosing sides?
[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-16-2009 4:45 PM]

Yes, I do actually. The media have an obligation to be *objective*, not *neutral*

And you thought yesterday's coverage was objective? Which station do you think actually was objective? You are okay with media members calling protestors with a particular point of view, sexual names. Are you okay with it because you disagreed with the protestors? Would you be okay with it if Fox did the same thing in reverse.

I personally do not take sides in this issue. I think Cnn was out of line. MSNBC and Fox were worse. It was embarrassing that this passes for US news. I can't beleive that anyone would be okay with our news media throwing out childish sexual references because they disagreed with the protestors. Too me, it's just plain insanity. These aren't objective "news" stations. These are entertainment channels run by really rich white guys who have a personal agenda and paint the news with their personal opinions. And we americans seem to be okay with it

What sexual names are you referring to? I did not hear that.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

so now you guys are protesting after letting Bush run roughshod over the country??


[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-16-2009 4:45 PM]

Was that "you guys" directed at me? If so, what does me being upset with the media coverage have to do with Bush? Did I protest? Did I even give an opinion. Are you so closed minded that anything that does not attack the protestors needs to be insulted and put down?

If it wasn't directed at me, I'm still not sure what that has to do with the media coverage. Again, do you have a problem with your news media taking sides on political debates? If not, do you understand how easy it is to take the next step in completely reshaping the news? It's bad enough on a daily basis having to fish through the daily stuff. But yesterday was shameful. You simply can't find an objective person in the media anymore. It's literally two sides fighting against each other. Our news is officially entertainment and not news.

I assume you werent out there, and even so most of the protesters had ulterior motives which were painfully obvious.

If you watched CNN or MSNBC most of the protestors had ulterior motives. If you watched Fox you would think ALL OF THE PROTESTORS were angels sent from above to save us from the government. The reality is that the real story was not told, and never is by these stations. All I know is that the line between Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz(all people paid to give their opinions) and those that bring us the news(people paid to give us information) has not just blurred, it has disappeared. That is a scary thing.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

Bippity,

You do realize that the organizers of the protests coined it "tea-bagging"? That's what is so funny about all of this your mad that the news reporters were making fun of them when in reality they were the ones that started with the tea-bagging.

So the news took an immature sexual reference and ran with it. Great, I'm happier now. But is that the major part of my issue, or was it the lack of objectivity conducted by both sides.

I know this is a difficult conversation to have with you because unless I'm bashing a republican or fox than my point is invalid. But I thought the coverage was horrible. Not sure how that turned into a republican vs. Democratic debate. Next, I'll say I don't like hot dogs at the Knicks games, and someone will call me a Skinhead.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-17-2009 12:41 PM]