hi Steve...just a little technical tip. If you want to get the YouTube to fit on the page properly, look at the YT's HTML and change width to "395" and height to "325" both at the top and the bottom.
BC'r in Toronto has a very nice shot of Iggy working on a house - Habitat for Humanity/Cobourg with a comparison shot of Harper.
Is it me, or do you smell fear - NDP doing silly ads/stuff again. Journalists deciding how it's going before it's done - he's only been on the road a couple of days.
MI appears to be getting stabbed in the back by his own people. The Liberal MSM has been withering.
The Tories have been surprisingly quiet. Even considering his bus got fixed at "Harper's".
All in all, it is a good way for him to spend his summer and he should ignore criticism and in my opinion ignore the twits in his own party that keep telling him what to think. There is just too much politics coming out of the Liberal backroom.
Sorry to be blunt, but anybody who actually thinks we have a liberal MSM is a complete and utter moron, bereft of the most basic of deductive reasoning. Period.
Media rips Ignatieff to shreds for, well, everything and it's not because maybe they're not as liberal as you thought, but because the collective media has decided to stab him in the back.
Sorry to be blunt, but anybody who actually thinks we have a liberal MSM is a complete and utter moron, bereft of the most basic of deductive reasoning. Period.
Every study and survey ever done on the news media in North America says exactly the opposite: that a large majority of reporters and journalists identify themselves as 'liberal'. No surprise there at all...the left are drawn to this kind of vocation in the same way as social workers, actors, entertainers, etc. The people who have the audacity to call CTV News a 'right-wing' organization are the real morons, sorry.
It is funny how so many conservatives cling to this mythical study.
Even if it actually exists, all it apparently says is that many journalists identify themselves as liberal. It does not say their journalistic ethics have been sold to their political views, and that their reports are skewed to support the liberals. Basically, Fred here is saying that anyone who has a political leaning cannot possibly be at all objective, in any manner. Which means, Fred, that you are clearly NOT objective in your assessment of the media.
Now let us get to something I have noticed on political blogs.
Liblogs has bloggers who are openly critical of their party.
Conservative bloggers do not dare say anything against Harper. If they do, the masses attack. If, however, another conservative happens to do something to embarass Harper, well that person gets thrown under the bus, with all the venom conservatives can muster.
It is not hard to tell which group of partisans is capable of being objective.
Oh, he'll come up with something, there are items to support one side, at the exclusion of others. I'll bet one thing- he won't cite the McGill study that looked into coverage of the parties for two separate elections. No, no, you'll NEVER hear mention of that from these two dimensional, intellectually dishonest, ideologues.
Oh, he'll come up with something, there are items to support one side, at the exclusion of others. I'll bet one thing- he won't cite the McGill study that looked into coverage of the parties for two separate elections. No, no, you'll NEVER hear mention of that from these two dimensional, intellectually dishonest, ideologues.
So you've already looked into this, then? Good...then I don't need to post links to studies by UCLA, U of Connecticut, U of Missouri, Harvard, etc (just the studies done by Universities) or any of the reported "dozens" of independent studies/surveys. I also won't need to post the two pages of quotes by journalists themselves I found (many, if not most, working for left-leaning publications, or radio or TV stations) admitting that they and most of their colleagues were liberals. These are some of the best known journalists in North America...are they all lying?
Go look for yourself, Steve. Type into your favorite search engine "liberal media bias" if you have a few HOURS to kill...
It is funny how so many conservatives cling to this mythical study.
Which one in particular, Gayle? there are many...I personally counted 12-14 or so before giving up. It's not my job to educate you and my time is worth money, sorry.
Even if it actually exists, all it apparently says is that many journalists identify themselves as liberal. It does not say their journalistic ethics have been sold to their political views, and that their reports are skewed to support the liberals.
Actually some of them do. Again, LOOK IT UP yourself. Very simple to do.
Basically, Fred here is saying that anyone who has a political leaning cannot possibly be at all objective, in any manner. Which means, Fred, that you are clearly NOT objective in your assessment of the media.
Then, by extension, NEITHER ARE YOU.
(awww...that was way too easy...;)
Now let us get to something I have noticed on political blogs.
Liblogs has bloggers who are openly critical of their party.
So do the Blogging Tories. Just not the ones you troll, I guess. Celestial Junk, The Blog of Walker and Gerry Nichols have all ripped strips off Harper for not being fiscally Conservative enough, Jonathan Narvey just castigated Harper for not buying into the Global Warming industry (didn't go over well with some; others defended him). We're a Big Tent party, Gayle...there is lots of room for dissent. All those bloggers are still active; no one has been ostracized or "thrown under the bus", sorry.
It is not hard to tell which group of partisans is capable of being objective.
Right. If only people weren't attacking Warren Kinsella, For Liberal Justice, Morton's Musings and a couple of others I can't remember offhand for their anti or pro Ignatieff stances, you might have a point. There is absolutely no difference between the Liberals and Conservatives in this regard.
Every study done has shown that the more education one acquires, the more knowledge, the more they tend to move towards the left of the spectrum. In other words there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and conservatism. Given that journalists are educated, and have a sense of a world outside of their ears, I hardly see it as a bad thing that they report with this heightened perception in mind. Unfortunately, that's considered "liberal" by people like you. I call it evolution.
Hey, at least you did some research today, good for you Fred. Now go look up "global warming" or something.
Every study done has shown that the more education one acquires, the more knowledge, the more they tend to move towards the left of the spectrum. In other words there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and conservatism.
You mean EDUCATION, not intelligence. Big difference (huge, in fact)....there is a gorilla in the US with over a 2000 word vocabulary; it's 'educated', but I wouldn't want to see it on Jeopardy...
Many people ascribe the results of those studies (if they trust the source of them) to the fact that almost all universities are hotbeds of liberalism and political correctness, where students are indoctrinated rather than educated. Lots and lots of stories out there about the experiences of various people shocked to discover that if their papers/assignments weren't deemed to contain the 'correct' thinking they would be failed ('global warming' is apparently a prime example, as was the presidency of George Bush).
Given that journalists are educated, and have a sense of a world outside of their ears, I hardly see it as a bad thing that they report with this heightened perception in mind. Unfortunately, that's considered "liberal" by people like you. I call it evolution.
I call it a product of the left-wing educational system, and apparently many of them agree with me. There's a reason that most journalists are liberals, in the same way that most entertainers are liberals and most military/police are not: certain people are drawn to certain occupations based on their political beliefs, which in turn are probably based on their personality type and upbringing (my theory, anyway).
Hey, at least you did some research today, good for you Fred. Now go look up "global warming" or something.
They call it "climate change" now. Had to change it when the predicted warming didn't occur...:)
20 comments:
He's gonna do 10 provinces and three territories in his bus?
Either he's got people building that road to someplace in Nunavut or there's a major bus conversion in the works somewhere north of the tree line.
hi Steve...just a little technical tip. If you want to get the YouTube to fit on the page properly, look at the YT's HTML and change width to "395" and height to "325" both at the top and the bottom.
Thanks. I've done that before, but this one formatted fine- for me anyways.
Ignatieff looks like he's actually enjoying it.
BC'r in Toronto has a very nice shot of Iggy working on a house - Habitat for Humanity/Cobourg with a comparison shot of Harper.
Is it me, or do you smell fear - NDP doing silly ads/stuff again. Journalists deciding how it's going before it's done - he's only been on the road a couple of days.
Journalists deciding how it's going before it's done - he's only been on the road a couple of days.
This has been a bit over the top hasn't it? I was a bit shocked to see the venom directed at him along the left side of NNW yesterday.
MI appears to be getting stabbed in the back by his own people. The Liberal MSM has been withering.
The Tories have been surprisingly quiet. Even considering his bus got fixed at "Harper's".
All in all, it is a good way for him to spend his summer and he should ignore criticism and in my opinion ignore the twits in his own party that keep telling him what to think. There is just too much politics coming out of the Liberal backroom.
"The Liberal MSM has been withering."
Sorry to be blunt, but anybody who actually thinks we have a liberal MSM is a complete and utter moron, bereft of the most basic of deductive reasoning. Period.
Awesome thought process Tomm.
Media rips Ignatieff to shreds for, well, everything and it's not because maybe they're not as liberal as you thought, but because the collective media has decided to stab him in the back.
Steve V said...
"The Liberal MSM has been withering."
Sorry to be blunt, but anybody who actually thinks we have a liberal MSM is a complete and utter moron, bereft of the most basic of deductive reasoning. Period.
Every study and survey ever done on the news media in North America says exactly the opposite: that a large majority of reporters and journalists identify themselves as 'liberal'. No surprise there at all...the left are drawn to this kind of vocation in the same way as social workers, actors, entertainers, etc. The people who have the audacity to call CTV News a 'right-wing' organization are the real morons, sorry.
Please provide studies Fred or is this another of your excursions into hot air?
Yeah Fred From BC, Gene, is right can you provide any links, or reports, or any kind of evidence to back up your typically uesless bullshit?
Or are you just pulling facts out of your big fat ass again?
Loser.
It is funny how so many conservatives cling to this mythical study.
Even if it actually exists, all it apparently says is that many journalists identify themselves as liberal. It does not say their journalistic ethics have been sold to their political views, and that their reports are skewed to support the liberals. Basically, Fred here is saying that anyone who has a political leaning cannot possibly be at all objective, in any manner. Which means, Fred, that you are clearly NOT objective in your assessment of the media.
Now let us get to something I have noticed on political blogs.
Liblogs has bloggers who are openly critical of their party.
Conservative bloggers do not dare say anything against Harper. If they do, the masses attack. If, however, another conservative happens to do something to embarass Harper, well that person gets thrown under the bus, with all the venom conservatives can muster.
It is not hard to tell which group of partisans is capable of being objective.
Oh, he'll come up with something, there are items to support one side, at the exclusion of others. I'll bet one thing- he won't cite the McGill study that looked into coverage of the parties for two separate elections. No, no, you'll NEVER hear mention of that from these two dimensional, intellectually dishonest, ideologues.
Haskell is Associate Professor of Journalism at Wilfrid Laurier University’s Brantford campus and author of 'Through a Lens Darkly: How the News Media Perceive and Portray Evangelicals'
He cites three studies (one his own).
I'm not offering an opinion either way, as I haven't read the studies, just throwing up an answer to the question.
Cheers,
lance
If casting scorn on the idea that evolution is a theory, makes on biased and lefty, call me unconcerned. Axe meet grind.
Thanks Lance but it doesn't really prove Fred's points. The thing is Fred never proves his own points.`
Steve V said...
Oh, he'll come up with something, there are items to support one side, at the exclusion of others. I'll bet one thing- he won't cite the McGill study that looked into coverage of the parties for two separate elections. No, no, you'll NEVER hear mention of that from these two dimensional, intellectually dishonest, ideologues.
So you've already looked into this, then? Good...then I don't need to post links to studies by UCLA, U of Connecticut, U of Missouri, Harvard, etc (just the studies done by Universities) or any of the reported "dozens" of independent studies/surveys. I also won't need to post the two pages of quotes by journalists themselves I found (many, if not most, working for left-leaning publications, or radio or TV stations) admitting that they and most of their colleagues were liberals. These are some of the best known journalists in North America...are they all lying?
Go look for yourself, Steve. Type into your favorite search engine "liberal media bias" if you have a few HOURS to kill...
Gayle said...
It is funny how so many conservatives cling to this mythical study.
Which one in particular, Gayle? there are many...I personally counted 12-14 or so before giving up. It's not my job to educate you and my time is worth money, sorry.
Even if it actually exists, all it apparently says is that many journalists identify themselves as liberal. It does not say their journalistic ethics have been sold to their political views, and that their reports are skewed to support the liberals.
Actually some of them do. Again, LOOK IT UP yourself. Very simple to do.
Basically, Fred here is saying that anyone who has a political leaning cannot possibly be at all objective, in any manner. Which means, Fred, that you are clearly NOT objective in your assessment of the media.
Then, by extension, NEITHER ARE YOU.
(awww...that was way too easy...;)
Now let us get to something I have noticed on political blogs.
Liblogs has bloggers who are openly critical of their party.
So do the Blogging Tories. Just not the ones you troll, I guess. Celestial Junk, The Blog of Walker and Gerry Nichols have all ripped strips off Harper for not being fiscally Conservative enough, Jonathan Narvey just castigated Harper for not buying into the Global Warming industry (didn't go over well with some; others defended him). We're a Big Tent party, Gayle...there is lots of room for dissent. All those bloggers are still active; no one has been ostracized or "thrown under the bus", sorry.
It is not hard to tell which group of partisans is capable of being objective.
Right. If only people weren't attacking Warren Kinsella, For Liberal Justice, Morton's Musings and a couple of others I can't remember offhand for their anti or pro Ignatieff stances, you might have a point. There is absolutely no difference between the Liberals and Conservatives in this regard.
Keep trying, Gayle.
Fred
Every study done has shown that the more education one acquires, the more knowledge, the more they tend to move towards the left of the spectrum. In other words there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and conservatism. Given that journalists are educated, and have a sense of a world outside of their ears, I hardly see it as a bad thing that they report with this heightened perception in mind. Unfortunately, that's considered "liberal" by people like you. I call it evolution.
Hey, at least you did some research today, good for you Fred. Now go look up "global warming" or something.
Steve V said...
Fred
Every study done has shown that the more education one acquires, the more knowledge, the more they tend to move towards the left of the spectrum. In other words there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and conservatism.
You mean EDUCATION, not intelligence. Big difference (huge, in fact)....there is a gorilla in the US with over a 2000 word vocabulary; it's 'educated', but I wouldn't want to see it on Jeopardy...
Many people ascribe the results of those studies (if they trust the source of them) to the fact that almost all universities are hotbeds of liberalism and political correctness, where students are indoctrinated rather than educated. Lots and lots of stories out there about the experiences of various people shocked to discover that if their papers/assignments weren't deemed to contain the 'correct' thinking they would be failed ('global warming' is apparently a prime example, as was the presidency of George Bush).
Given that journalists are educated, and have a sense of a world outside of their ears, I hardly see it as a bad thing that they report with this heightened perception in mind. Unfortunately, that's considered "liberal" by people like you. I call it evolution.
I call it a product of the left-wing educational system, and apparently many of them agree with me. There's a reason that most journalists are liberals, in the same way that most entertainers are liberals and most military/police are not: certain people are drawn to certain occupations based on their political beliefs, which in turn are probably based on their personality type and upbringing (my theory, anyway).
Hey, at least you did some research today, good for you Fred. Now go look up "global warming" or something.
They call it "climate change" now. Had to change it when the predicted warming didn't occur...:)
Post a Comment