CheneysHeartIs@deathsdoor.com (Bo Raxo) wrote in message news:<81bfcfe1.0307031326.1435d0f0@posting.google. com>...
> Luk <luknhard@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3F0438AD.4C9F0DC0@earthlink.net>...
> > We could indeed talk about people who spend hours and
> > hours before their computers day after day, year after year.
> > It's astonishing to see the number of posts some people send on
> > an everyday basis. I purposely use the word "send" instead
> > of "write", because it is so rare to be treated to anything that
> > should be called "writing". Few of those people spend any
> > amount of time reading worthwhile material - much less
> > sharing it with others.
> >
> > Nan is one poster who knows history and knows literature.
> > The number of posts she sends is moderate. Background
> > and substance are always evident. I can think of no
> > reason to resent Nan's writing and there is much to learn
> > from it.
> >
> > Those of you who find nothing more constructive to do than
> > write derisive posts about Nan would do well to develop
> > your own thirst - for knowledge.
> >
> > Luk
>
Bo Raxo wrote:
> Nan posts crap from right-wing web sites with no journalistic
> credibility. She seldom if ever starts a thread that is actually
> on-topic: I mean, wtf does Hilary Clinton's alleged views on
> international government have to do with crime?
>
Bo Raxo, unlike the caustic cleanser with which he identifies himself,
spreads his immature yellowed-with-biases commentary in the zeal of a
funded activist for the Bush Wackers' League. It seems Bo wants an
only one-world viewpoint published throughout all media. Bo is
threatened by Freedom of the Press.

This quote from the following article applies to Bo as well:
"The liberal [partisans like Bo] media must change the way they filter
their political ideologies through their news coverage." Hoping this
is a not
an "incomprehensible insult" aimed at you, Bo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOX NEWS FACTOR
WHY THE LIBERAL MEDIA ARE OUTRAGED
By: Doug Schmitz

The overwhelming success of the Fox News Channel has finally brought
the most corrupt side of the liberal media establishment to the
surface. As the number one-related cable news network, Fox News has
broken the leftist media's monopoly over the dissemination of news and
information. By doing so, Fox News threw a monkey wrench into the
liberals' political and special interest agendas. That's why the
liberal media are outraged.

For decades, the liberal news outlets have dominated the airwaves and
newsprint. Now, with the advent of the Internet and the emergence of
Fox News, the leftist media no longer have a stranglehold over which
news stories get spiked and which get censored.

Even the Washington Times and the New York Observer are coming out
from obscurity. They have stood the test of time and boldly reported
the very news items the liberal media blatantly ignore. Regardless of
political affiliation, the independent media are reporting both sides
of the story. As a result, Americans are getting the whole picture.

With the independent media, both conservatives and liberals are
getting their voices heard - and from the same news organization,
which is the main reason why liberals in the media loathe Fox News.

Many Americans have finally acknowledged "the elephant in the room"
whenever they watch CNN or Dan Rather, and been handed the power to
switch. Now they're choosing to turn off the village idiots of
liberal media. That's because people are actually hearing both sides
of the story, instead of having them filtered through the slanted,
one-sided gatekeepers of a corrupt liberal media establishment.

This makes Fox News a welcomed breath of fresh air for people who are
sick and tired of the liberal slant - as well as a threat to the
profusely liberal media establishment.

Bernie Goldberg - a self-professed liberal - pointed this out in his
New York Times best-selling book, "Bias: A CBS Insider's Exposes How
the Media Distort the News." According to Goldberg, the way to fix the
one-sided news reporting is not to hire more conservative writers. The
only way to remedy the liberal media slant is to do the job right the
first time by giving a voice to BOTH sides of the news.

Consequently, this is the entire mission of Fox News - and their
mandate since 1996. Roger Ailes saw the problem of the dominating
liberal bias in cable and network news and fixed it. This is also why
Fox News has surpassed left-leaning CNN.

Fox News simply picks up what the liberal media leave out. They
actually live by their motto: "Real journalism. Fair and balanced."
This also gives them the right to call themselves "the most powerful
name in news." They've earned it.

Think about it: What Fox News did is truly unprecedented. They have
restored the basic tenets of journalism: fairness, balance, accuracy
and objectivity. To the liberal media, these basic rules of journalism
have long been abandoned. And by the looks of things, the liberal
media won't be living by them any time soon.

What's more, coming up against a media establishment that is mainly
liberal in scope was no small feat either. Although Fox News occupies
fewer markets than CNN and third-rate MSNBC, they still manage to draw
a much larger audience. That speaks volumes about the hunger Americans
have for genuine, objective news coverage.

The bottom line is: the liberal media's long-held tyranny over the
news has finally been usurped by fellow colleagues who are freely
exercising their First Amendment rights. Americans have ultimately
been given the right to hear news that is fair and balanced - free of
the liberal spin.

But while the liberal press corps put Democrats on partisan pedestals,
the fiercely independent news organizations continue to suffer attack
after attack by liberal Democratics who simply don't like what they
hear. Mainly because their liberal media cohorts have protected them;
while at the same time, they've kept Americans completely in the dark
about corrupt politicians, namely their fellow Democrats. Enron rings
a bell.

For example, if the liberal media would have done its job and reported
the facts without the Democratic spin, Bill Clinton would now be
sporting an orange jumpsuit. Instead, the disbarred, humiliated
ex-president - who systematically spit in the face of the very rule of
law he hypocritically swore to uphold - is walking around free and
unashamed.

Unfortunately, Richard Nixon's corruption didn't get the free pass
that Clinton and Gore have enjoyed. Despite the political scandals
that continue to ooze from the most corrupt presidential
administration in U.S. history, Clinton skated through the entire
eight years virtually unscathed - due mainly to a supportive leftist
media.

While America was held hostage for eight years, the liberal media
ultimately never held Clinton accountable for his crimes. However,
when two investigative reporters from the liberal Washington Post
exposed Nixon in the Watergate scandal, his political career was over.
Yet Bill Clinton was given a full-fledged pass from the subversive
leftist media.

Despite Clinton lying under oath to a federal grand jury, suborning
witnesses, tampering with evidence, trying to force individuals to
sign false affidavits, cheating on his wife with a woman less than
half his age, he received a free pass nonetheless. The equally corrupt
liberal media, instead, chose to go after Linda Tripp, Monica
Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr and anybody else who attempted to uncover the
ex-president's numerous felonies.

Rather than do their jobs, the leftist media did all they could to
prop up a dishonest president. So why didn't they go after Clinton the
way they went after Nixon? Simple: Political affiliation. The fact
that Clinton was a Democrat made all the difference. The fact is, the
predominantly pro-Democratic media decided to protect one of their
own.

Hence, the very reason Democratics never complain about a liberal
media bias: they know they can always seek refuge with them. They know
they can get away with almost anything because the liberal media will
do the usual Clintonian damage control.

Moreover, that's the reason Al Gore wielded his venomous tongue at the
independent news mediums of Fox News, the Washington Times and
WorldNetDaily - because these news organizations refuse to cower to
partisan politics.

When liberal Democrats like Gore and Tom Daschle decry the independent
media, it's a sure sign that Americans are getting a side of the news
they've never heard before. Historically, liberal news outlets have
gone out of their way to appease Democrats. That's because nearly 90
percent of the media elite are registered Democrats, according to a
1996 Freedom Forum survey.

By definition, the liberal media format has always been
anti-Republican, anti-tax cuts, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights,
anti-Christian and anti-semitic: everything that symbolizes the
Democratic Party. So it comes as no surprise that liberal Democrats -
who pride themselves on free speech and the power of the press -
bemoan the independent media.

This is also why the Democratic mouthpieces at CNN, MSNBC, Rather &
Co., NBC, ABC and the liberal house organs of the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times, Time and Newsweek
make Democratics feel right at home. That's because the Democratic
viewpoint is continuously expressed and supported.

Case in point: Sen. Patty Murray. The Washington state senator's
recent comments were anti-American. Yet the liberal press was mute on
the story. But when Trent Lott made his asinine comments, the liberal
media attack dogs were all over him 24 hours a day.

The only news organizations that have held Murray accountable for her
treasonous comments to those impressible high school children were Fox
News, WorldNet Daily, the Washington Times, CNSNews.com and
Newsmax.com.

While these independent news outlets were exposing the traitorous
remarks of a Democrat senator (who's not exactly known for being the
brightest bulb on the Christmas tree), absolutely none of the liberal
press corps reported it. This is yet another example of how the
Democratics - no matter what the scandal - get a free pass from the
liberal press.

But whenever the independent news outlets report anything the
Democrats don't happen to agree with, it's declared "unfair" and
"right-wing." They want to enjoy the freedoms they have with the free
passes they receive from the liberal press, yet can't take the
criticism when the independent media actually do their jobs and expose
them.

The liberal media have been running PR for the Democratic Party for
decades. And for the majority of the time, their political views and
opinions have gone completely unchallenged. However, Fox News and
other independent news organizations have disrupted their
politically-motivated plans.

Now the liberal news outlets are trying to copy Fox News' success with
no results. In fact, when Fox News was the first cable news network to
create the ticker that runs text across the bottom of the screen, the
others followed suit.

What's more, CNN's pathetic attempt at revamping its news programs
further proves its paranoia. And of course, fledging MSNBC's
sanctimoniously anointing itself "Americaa's News Channel" only
exposes its own uncertainties.

If Fox News was the neo-conservative, pro-Republican mouthpiece the
liberal press corps accuse them of being, they never would have put
the following ultra-liberals on the payroll: Alan Colmes, Greta Van
Susteren, John Gibson - and the effervescently annoying Geraldo
Rivera.

Besides, Fox News exposes Republican as much as Democratic
controversies. Bill O'Reilly takes guff from no one - whether they are
Republican or Democrat.

If the liberal news outlets ever hope to succeed, they better start
following Fox News' lead and report the news the way it was meant to
be reported - fair and balanced, which is the main ingredient missing
from the liberal media mix.

But to make this paradigm shift, the liberal media must change the way
they filter their political ideologies through their news coverage.
However, that won't happen anytime soon. If changes were already
evident, Rather & Co. wouldn't be going down in flames in the ratings
war.

If the liberal media insist on ignoring the warnings signs of falling
ratings, they will only have themselves to blame.

Doug Schmitz is a free-lance journalist and media commentator. He
holds a master's degree in journalism and is currently writing a book
on media bias. He is a regular columnist to Ether Zone.

Doug Schmitz can be reached at: doug_schmitz@yahoo.com
Published in the January 20, 2003 issue of Ether Zone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The height of her idiocy, for me, was the long string of posts where
> she came up with an astonishing array of criticisms of George Soros,
> along with tons of cut n' paste articles that could be summed up by
> the charge that he gives money to countries and causes other than
> Israel. As was typical for Nan, she made a serious allegation about
> Soros (of insider trading) that was not only unsupported, but utterly
> ridiculous: she apparently doesn't understand that insider trading is
> impossible in currency futures, because there is no inside information
> on which to forecast exchange rate movements.
>
> Of course, when you make an actual argument about the facts she just
> insults you rather than respond. Her latest tirade directed at me was
> when she responded to one of my posts, clipped out the article that
> was posted and the link to the newspaper's web site, and then ranted
> about how I had no proof of the allegations made in my post.
>
> The woman is either mentally retarded or suffering from some
> degenerative neuro condition that impairs her intellectual faculties.
> Or, in more colloquial terms, she ain't playin' with a full deck.
>
> Background? She culls crap from newsmax and other sites that have no
> journalistic credibility or real-world reputation/business.
> Substance? She doesn't even try to comprehend an argument, she just
> answers by blathering on about how everyone who disagrees with her has
> a closed mind.
>
> The woman is seriously deficient upstairs, and I genuinely hope that
> if she hasn't been diagnosed for this mental deficit already, she see
> a doctor and get some help.
>
> Whether its a substance problem, a chemical imbalance, a brain injury,
> or whatever, she clearly has a screw loose. I find it hard to
> believe anyone can read her posts, even if they share her, uh,
> "views", and not see that she is frequently incoherent.
>
> Take care,
>
> Bo Raxo