peterson - it is so obvious you and wry are one and the same, you both use the same terminology and same phrasing.  Another huge clue is if you are so up on those "old" stories, you are older than dirt, same for wry.  Nothing wrong with that, just a clue who you "two" are...........  Reply...

all I know Peterson is if you miss fox, you miss half the news.  Fact.

Go Vikes...

Reply...

Jack, I never waste my time confusing conservatives with inconvenient facts,  which is likely why people like tail gunner Joe and that entire era make your eyes glaze over I suppose. You'd like to pretend it never happened, and are all too willing to say it isn't important because it happened over 50 yrs ago. I'd bet money you were in the McCarthy cheering section, or would have been if you had been old enough at the time. I was simply pointing out that at that time in history, every conservative newspaper editor in this country was screaming bloody murder about liberal media bias. It was BS then and it's BS now. Fox however, is well known for blowing it's own horn as being a ' conservative' news outlet.  If that isn't bias I don't know what is. They openly admit they're biased.  I suppose next you're going to seriously try to tell me that Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Newscorp are totally unbiased? LOL right.

 Conservatives need to get a new whiney song to sing, because the ' media liberal bias' song, and the ' poor poor picked on republican'  song have been worn out for upwards of 50 yrs..They make you look silly.  If you people had any clue, you'd ignore any bias even if it existed and go out and get an idea that worked, instead of whining like lil babies every time some news outlet points out the obvious and myriad failures of what passes for a conservative agenda in today's world.

Reply...

""""""""Jack A.  So you admit that there is a conservatively biased news outlet, namely Fox News, and seemingly have no problem with that, then proceed to rail against what you perceive as liberal bias on some media outlets? Do I perceive bias in your statements?

Practically every single newspaper in this country has an editorial staff that espouses a certain political slant........

If you don't want to see liberal bias in the media, I'd suggest to you that you don't have to watch it, or agree with it, Just as anyone else has the right to switch channels away from Fox News. But to say that media in this country is government controlled is a bit over the top. If it were to be government controlled, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a conservative government were to be elected, it would also be controlled by them?""""""""

Mr peterson, you need to read a little closer, I did not say there is a conservative biased NEWS outlet.  FOX News channel does have both news and political commentary.  I would say their actual news is more fair and more balanced than the rest of the major networks.  What I did say is that the political commentary shows are expected to be biased, whether on FOX or MSNBC.  So just because the FOX News Channel is named as such, does not mean that everything on that channel is "news", it is obvious what is and is not. 

The Murrow, McCarthy thing is old old news that the majority of the country does not even know about, or even care to understand.  They may be important, but most peoples eyes glaze over when this history is mentioned.

...and as I said earlier, if you would have read my text, I DID state I expect bias on the editorial page (even from the Minot paper).

So you're saying "don't hold the networks that are passing off bias as "news", don't hold their feet to the fire"?  Just don't watch it?  Just let them do their best to indoctrinate the populous, to propagandize the news the get "their" political party to get control of power?  I should just look away?  Wow, that is not the way to keep the spirit of the First Amendment alive, with a news media not reporting the news, and all of it, but a news media that has a political agenda.  And if you would have read, I did not say it is government controlled, it is in fact a media that wants to control the government, and who gets elected.  So which party is in office is moot......it's which party the news media WANTS in office.

If you didn't, go to the link I provided, read the whole thing.....  

Reply...

I will take the Vikings, and predict that Jay Cutler will throw 18 interceptions, effectively doubling his seasonal interception stat.... Just kidding, I think this will be a Vikings game. It probably will be close because most divisional games are but I fully expect to win at home. Reply...

Sick~O, your so correct. Who you taking in the Vikes game? Reply...

I am pointing out that there is about a half and half bias throughout the "evil" mainstream media. Reply...

Sure, sure, privacy concerns over Google's satellite thing are sort of unfounded, when you think about it, not much you can really do with those satellite shots, of course, most of which are at least six months to a year old anyway, even though it seems now weirdly easy to track down people after you've Googled their name and address and credit report and every scrap of data ever written by or about them, like, ever.

But still, it's one thing to have to study a regular map and read actual directions to get someplace, but quite another to actually see a photograph of the block, the street, the damn building itself, anytime you want, zoom in, zoom out, play God, play B-2 bomber. There's just something about actually seeing the street/building that adds a dimension of potent voyeurism to the mix. It feels a little, you know, soiled. Invasive. Intimate. Stalkeresque. And, as such, totally addictive. Which is exactly why Americans will love it.

It's true. We love this crap. We love our rampant fascinating mildly disturbing technology even if we barely comprehend what the hell we're doing and even if we can't imagine all the ramifications and insinuations and implications and even all the stuff we know they're already doing with it.

Which is to say, we are just all too willing to click on through in blissful ignorance of how the government is leveraging the same technology in far more sinister and unsettling ways, choosing to block out the fact that they can probably zoom all the way in and tell you the color of your shoes and x-ray your goddamn house and watch you shower and pick your nose and scarf down two giant bags of Salt and Fresh Ground Pepper Kettle Chips and a fistful of Xanax and a case of Corona while watching "America's Next Top Model" and neglecting to pay your taxes while your roomfuls of hydroponic pot grow like a verdant garden of love in the basement.

Oh, rest assured, they know. They're watching. They just maybe don't care. Yet.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/04/08/notes040805.DTL#ixzz0YG3UgUTP
Reply...

The landmark San Francisco Chronicle building sits like a grizzled old cinder block at 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103. It's squat and bulky and desperately needs a paint job and a deep colon cleanse and some shrubbery. Do you want to see it?

 Do you want to see its cluttered rooftop and see all the buildings surrounding it and zoom in to the point where you can, if you squint just right, see various cars in the street and the giant parking garage next door and to where you can almost, if you get a good magnifying glass, observe various sunlight-deprived writers and editors milling about Mission Street smoking cigarettes and discussing how to win more Pulitzers?

Because now, of course, you can. Just click here. Be sure to move the slider on the left all the way up. Boom. There we are.

Alamo Square Park? That's right in my neighborhood. Very famous, in lots of postcards. Here's a nearby address. (It's a B&B.) Click it. Use the slider on the left to zoom all the way up. See the green patch? That's the park. Look closely and you can almost see the people strolling, the dogs frolicking, the slackers slacking. I walk through that park almost every day. Isn't that cool? Isn't that weird?

My favorite coffee shop? Right here. The best place to buy dildos in the City? Right here. Danielle Steele's monstrous mansion? You got it. I had sex in a parked car once right on this corner. Easiest street on which to buy pot? Well, duh. I could, of course, go on.

This is where we are right now. This is Google's much-hyped and strangely provocative new satellite mapping service (a result of their latest acquisition, Keyhole), part of the company's aggressive rollout of Google Maps that lets you type in almost any address in the nation and pull up a remarkably detailed satellite shot of that area and zoom into it with ominous CIA-like precision (not as frighteningly close as TerraServer's USGS maps, but far more comprehensive), and of course this means you can type in the address of your ex and see his street and see his building and imagine him walking in and out of his front door and then imagine him suddenly spontaneously combusting and exploding into a million tiny painful screaming bits for what he did to you back in college goddammit, and it is at once satisfying and bizarre and totally unnecessary. But in a totally fascinating way.

Go ahead. Poke around. Check your home address. Your parents' address. Your sister's. Grandparents. Your first apartment. The address where you lost your virginity. Your childhood home. (Hopefully, these are all different addresses. If not, seek help.)

And if you're like me, you see these shots and you squint and you say, dammit, just one or two more focal lengths of zoom power and I could really see what the hell's going on and what my neighbors are building in their backyard and whether that weird Jamaican restaurant next door that never ever seems to have any patrons is really a front for a badass drug cartel, and how can I get me a slice of that action, and this is when it hits you.

This is when you say to yourself, holy crap, if happy semi-innocuous little Google is offering satellite shots this good and this detailed free to the populace, if this sort of tech has reached the mainstream, just imagine how far the government has gone. Just imagine their photos. Ten times more powerful? One hundred times? No doubt. Not to mention all manner of listening devices, sniffers and e-mail tracers and Gonzalez-approved soul-sucking top-secret all-knowing Roving Eyes. Patriot Act II, anyone? Look up and wave to the dark dreary ominous satellites, honey. And then give Big Brother the finger.

Does it make you feel just a little woozy to know that Keyhole, the company that made the satellite lookup service possible, was initially funded by the CIA? Because, well, maybe it should.

Know this: Google is the new Microsoft. This is the word. They are carefully and calmly aiming to be so insanely powerful and so deeply integrated into your everyday e-life that you won't be able to open your refrigerator without first searching for "leftover pizza" on a Google window in the fridge door. Google's thirtysomething geek-boy founders are already billionaires. Already strategizing on how to rule the e-world. And Bill Gates is so very 1992.

Not to mention how, whereas the toxic Redmond leviathan worked like a thuggish demon to monopolize - - and in many ways worsen to the point of savage screaming pain - - your desktop experience, Google is aiming to control your need for information, your personal data and e-mail usage and cookie profiles and credit card databases and search data and maps of your house. Just, you know, for future reference.

Sure, sure, privacy concerns over Google's satellite thing are sort of unfounded, when you think about it, not much you can really do with those satellite shots, of course, most of which are at least six months to a year old anyway, even though it seems now weirdly easy to track down people after you've Googled their name and address a Reply...

Must be talking about FOX crap, and Fat boy  (little b) Rush. Reply...

Jack A.  So you admit that there is a conservatively biased news outlet, namely Fox News, and seemingly have no problem with that, then proceed to rail against what you percieve as liberal bias on some media outlets? Do I percieve bias in your statements?

 Practically every single newspaper in this country has an editorial staff that espouses a certain political slant, be it conservative or liberal, and has for as long as newspapers have existed. If you want to see conservative bias at the local level, go no further than the editorial page of the Minot Daily News.

If there is a liberal bias in the major news media, it isn't too hard to understand how it got there. I can remember when people like Edward R Murrow were lambasted by every conservative news outlet in this country because he had the audacity to attack senator Joseph McCarthy, right up to the point where mr McCarthy started naming people like General MacArthur as communist sympathizers, at which point these same conservative editorialists were suddenly silent on the subject of the senator, because they knew he was wrong, some of them anyway. Some others would have defended McCarthy to the grave, and some did. Common sense, at least to these aforementioned conservative news outlets, didn't trump following the party line. Was Murrow biased? Probably. He was also right, and informed the masses through the medium of television exactly what tail gunner Joe was up to, leading to the senators fall from grace. Kudos to him and all who followed after him doing the same thing. If that's bias, I happen to think it's better than giving rise to possibly another McCarthy by not reporting the facts, which is all Murrow did. Murrow didn't have to invent facts about the senator, the senator was his own worst enemy, and the facts about his vendetta against what he percieved as communist infiltration into the US government, and the fallacy of his assertions, did him in .

If you don't want to see liberal bias in the media, I'd suggest to you that you don't have to watch it, or agree with it, Just as anyone else has the right to switch channels away from Fox News. But to say that media in this country is government controlled is a bit over the top. If it were to be government controlled, wouldn't it stand to reason that if a conservative government were to be elected, it would also be controlled by them?

Reply...

"""""So what we have is a lack of non-biased media.""""""

sick-0, I would have phrased it - "So what we have is a lack of non-biased news media."

And that is my major gripe, that we have major network news and major city newspapers that are very left leaning, they deny it, any many out here deny it.  I really don't care if "entertainment" talk radio, cable political show, and the editorial page is biased.  That does not make up for biased news.  Two examples, glaring. Palin's book.  AP assigned 11 reporters to fact check her book.  Have they ever done that with ANY liberal politician?  Palin's VP campaign.  Even though she was only running for VP, they were determined to vet her fully (I call it trying to "Dan Quayle" her).  They did NOTHING to even began to vet P BO, the PRESIDENT AL candidate.  Talk radio and the political cable shows had to do it, and "news" kept  that minimized as much as possible.  And there will be people on this site that say this is b.s., that is truly unbelievable......

So why does it have to be that talk radio and political shows even have to attempt to keep "news" medias feet to the fire, they ought to be doing their job without an overseer?

Reply...

Too not admit that the tv national news is mainly left biased is to dilute your sanity.

However the right largely makes up radio.

Print media tends to average itself out.

So what we have is a lack of non-biased media. Reply...

....if government watches you in the name of liberalism, it is a good thing......if the government watches the bad guy, the terrorist, it is trashing of the Constitution and civil rights (as if terrorists have any civil rights).  That seems the the PC thinking of taday...... Reply...

""""just like you did a while back, when you inadvertently told the truth, then immediately changed your story, when your thread blew up in your face.""""

....what in the hell ARE you talking about?  Is your dementia setting in big-time,wry?  You have gone so moonbat, and you don't even see it...... 

Reply...