| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30817 Activity:insanely high |
6/12 Fox News gives positive review to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Damn liberal
media!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
\_ Damn liberal movie critics! Damn liberal movie goers! Damn liberal
movie renters! Who else did I miss?
\_ Damn liberal movie directors! Damn liberal movie distributors!
Damn liberal people in damn liberal documentaries!
\_ "Damn hippies" -S. Crothers. You forgot that. -- ulysses
\_ It's called "Fair & Balanced". Fox isn't a conservative news
outlet. They do shit like this all the time, you just ignore it
in favor of the other stuff you don't agree with.
\_ Sorry, I call bullshit. Editorial policy drives bias no matter
how much is done to prevent it - hence rightward tilt in WSJ
articles or leftward tilt in NYTimes articles. Truly
"objective" reporting is an impossible fantasy, and striving
for it usually does more to obscure the truth than to reveal
it (i.e. "White House reports sky is green; some Democrats
disagree"). Fox reporting oozes bias.
\_ objective "reporting" a fantasy? ok, sure. reporting is
crap anyway. the only media model i'll accept is a combination
of original source material, like cspan, with a moderated
comment forum, like slashdot. until we go to that model,
the press will continue to undermine, not bolster our
democracy.
\_ HAHAHA! moderated comment forum! jeezus. And CSPAN isn't
original source material, it's politicians blabbing.
\_ Let me guess, you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC,CBS, LAT, are
all centrist sources of information?
\_ They are corporate sources of information. They will
print whatever they thinks makes money. Let me guess,
you buy into the "liberal media" myth?
\_ LAT, NYT, WP do not apply -- these newspapers are
driven at least equally by personalities as well as
corporate profit. TV stations, it's debatable either
way.
\_ Let me guess, you buy into your own "corporate media"
myth? The newsrooms and editors are predominately
liberal. Why is that so hard to understand?
\_ well, they are (1) corporations and (2) media,
therefore: corporate media. What, you think they
do this for free?
\_ Since they control all information and they're
mostly liberal, there is no competition so they
can charge for their own version of the news.
Only very recently has more centrist news been
available which in the last ~5 years has over
taken their leftist competitors in TV viewship,
and radio listenership. AFAIK the newspapers are
still left controlled. I'm not aware of any mass
market printed news that isn't left biased.
\_ It's not hard to understand, it's just untrue.
\_ Uh, whatever. That's been checked a few times
over the years. You're simply ignorant or lying.
Don't bother coming here with one liner bullshit.
\_ I bow to your superior 3-liner lying ignorance.
\_ Sure, most reporters are liberal. Most owners
are conservative. They kind of balance each
other out, but when push comes to shove the
owner fires the liberal reporter.
\_ Reporters don't get fired unless they fake stories
and even then it takes dozens of stories and years
to come out. The owners are not vetting stories
and you know it. The editors who are mostly on
the left do it. How far do you think a reporter
would get in the typical newsroom if he was known
to be a registered Republican? His career would
be dead and you know it. It does not balance out
in any way in the general case.
\_ "Fox isn't a conservative news outlet."
So if you compare Fox to CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, would you
say Fox is the "least liberal" of the aforementioned stations?
\_ Good try. I would say CNN and the others are losing ratings
share to Fox because they cater to the left, not the center
where most people, by definition, live.
\_ Are you insane? Are we watching the same stations?
The same CNN that ran like a gajillion fawning non-news
reports about Reagan last week? THAT is a liberal media
outlet? I'd like some of what you're smoking, if you don't
mind.
\_ Reagan is not a good example. Every station wanted
to out-do the other in pro-Reagan coverage; now he's
dead, the liberals don't want to appear as if they
are dancing on his grave.
\_ Nice dodge. I suppose the coverage of the run-up
to the Iraq war isn't a good example either, or
anything else substantial? Nope, the boogeyman of
the Liberal Media is still out there, never to be
defeated!
\_ Hey, all I said was that Reagan was not a good
example.
\_ Pre-war, everyone but whatshername in Ber/Oak was
in favor of it. We didn't instantly find 100 tons
of WMD (until it recently started showing up in
other countries) so that makes them sycophants?
How many times have you seen Kerry described as
"arch-liberal, John Kerry, jr. Senator from Mass,
under Ted Kennedy"? Never. How many times have
you seen, "arch-conservative so-n-so, Senator from
xyz"? All the fucking time because anyone who
isn't a Democrat has a 50/50 chance of being
tagged as an arch conservative. Or better yet,
extreme or ultra conservative. You will *never*
see an extreme ultra arch leftist like Kerry
described that way.
\_ You are confusing cause and effect. Fox *is* a
conservative news outlet -- whether the cause is corporate
profit, a vast right-wing conspiracy, the little green
men in your pants, or all of the above -- the effect
is still the same.
\_ Fox provides left, right and center. You only see the
right because you're blinded to how left the left
really is. Left looks normal to you so only the right
stands out for you.
\_ Wow, you really need to look in the mirror and think
about this statement. The center, as defined in this
country is somewhere between the democrats and the
republicans, and most mainstream media outlets run
stories that give voice to both of the major parties.
Those newspapers that endorse candidates endorse both
republicans and democrats. In other words, they are
centrist, at least to those not blinded by their
right-wing prejudice. Fox news aligns itself with
the extreme right wing of the republican party, and
doesn't give any voice to the opposition. They only
look "normal" to extremists like you.
\_ Once William Hung's CD sold 100k copies, everything, including
this, is possible. -- Coming soon -- flying pigs and hell
freezing over.
\_ I have to admit that I bought 99,998 of them. He bought one
for his mom and this drunk dude picked up the other copy.
\_ thank you, NERFAMC |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html Clive Davis 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element. But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail. As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" -- as we saw last night -- is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty -- and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice. Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families. If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon? And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and "The Passion of the Christ" seems like "Mary Poppins" in retrospect. Before anyone's even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect. But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely middle-American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her. "F9/11" isn't perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African-American congressmen and women presenting petitions on the Florida recount, and wondering why there are no senators to support them. Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not supporting these elected officials, and I would have liked to have seen that. On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience. The most indelible is Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of Sept. Bush was reading to a grade-school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes. Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode. More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career. When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits such as "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills." But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom. The proposed merger of Sony Music and Bertelsmann Music Group may wind up saving Michael Jackson. I have known for some time that Jackson's advisers had come up with a plan under which Jackson's 50 percent ownership of Sony/ATV Music Publishing could be used as leverage in a plan to extricate the beleaguered pop star from his financial straits. Now, because Sony might be forced to sell off its publishing unit in order to merge with BMG, the likelihood of that scenario stronger than ever. Recently the proposed merger of the two music giants met with frowns from European regulators who saw the combining of the conglomerates as a huge monopoly. One way out would be for the companies to sell their publishing units in order to win approvals here and abroad for their plan. In the end, Jackson could wind up owning a merged version of Sony/ATV and BMG Music Publishing. Sources tell me this is the newest plan on the drawing board and one that would resolve at long last Jackson's huge financial loans and massive debt pertaining to what is commonly known as the Beatles catalogue. The songs of John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the core of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, but Jackson has used his 50 percent ownership as collateral for over $200 million in loans. Thanks to the Sony BMG merger, Michael may finally have a way of paying back that loan, plus another $150 million, all to Bank of America. Needless to say, Bank of America execs are probably whistling "We Can Work It Out" to each other. A third publisher, not presently owned by either company, could also be involved, I am told. Earlier, Jackson had hopes of using his stake in Warner/Chappell Music for a similar deal, but that fell through when the owners of Warner Music decided not to sell their publishing company. The third publisher -- whom I cannot yet name -- would then combine to put Jackson and his publishing adviser, veteran Charles Koppelman, in a unique position. One problem, I am told, is that Jackson is totally unaware of the daily strategizing by his legal advisers and financiers with regard to Sony/ATV. He is utterly clueless, in fact, about what really goes on in his financial life. There has been almost no communication for quite some time between him and John Branca, the music attorney who manages to keep track of Michael's Sony situation and hold all the elements together. For the last couple of weeks Jackson has been back in Florida, staying in Miami and spending a fortune while the mansion he rented in Beverly Hills sits empty. The rental agreement on that house runs out on June 30, with Jackson still spending no time at his Neverland Ranch or "in the community of Santa Maria" where his trial is scheduled to begin in September. Davis Triggers Velvet Revolver Wouldn't you like to be Clive Davis? Davis' latest hit, the first album by supergroup Velvet Revolver, will be No. The album appears on the RCA label, which came under Davis' purview when he took over BMG North America earlier this year after making his J Records a huge success following his unpleasant easing-out from Arista Records. Velvet Revolver comprises Slash, Duff McKagan and Matt Sorum from Guns N' Roses and Scott Weiland of Stone Temple Pilots, as well as David Kushner of LA punk vets Wasted Youth. The wittily titled album, "Contraband," is a return to regular old rock 'n' roll, with lots of slicing guitars and heavy drums. As a concept, it hearkens back to Asia, the supergroup of the late '80s. As a hit, it's something that every record executive will wish they thought of. Davis isn't the only one getting hits these days, even though it sure seems like it. Over at Epic Records' Or Music division, Los Lonely Boys are the breakthrough story of the year, jumping from No. Larry Miller and Michael Caplan really built this little label up from nothing. Now they should sign Maine's hot Vacationland and really show the record business how it's done! Meantime, just circling back to Sorum: He replaced Steve Adler in Guns N' Roses after... |