Foxnews NORTH?

[Shady]

It literally draws millions.

LOL! Good one. You must be counting every viewer several times.

Our tax dollars at work.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Shady

[BubberMiley]

LOL! Good one. You must be counting every viewer several times.

Have you looked up "literally" in the dictionary yet?

"A whopping two million viewers tune in to 'Little Mosque'". The Globe and Mail. 2007-01-10. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wlilmosk1010/BNStory/Entertainment/home.

Edited October 12, 2010 by BubberMiley

[guyser]

LOL! Good one. You must be counting every viewer several times.

Our tax dollars at work.

You cant count past 5 can you? Sorry I didnt know.

Edited October 12, 2010 by guyser

[dre]

Have you looked up "literally" in the dictionary yet?

Shit! Theres goes THAT narrative!

[Shady]

Have you looked up "literally" in the dictionary yet?

Have you looked up satire?

However, it doesn't suprise me that you've now moved on to something else. Since I utterly destroyed you with my last few posts. You all caught up on media, academia, and General Electrics political donations now?

Good.

[BubberMiley]

However, it doesn't suprise me that you've now moved on to something else. Since I utterly destroyed you with my last few posts.

I would have thought you're used to having your pants removed by now, but I guess you still have a hard time admitting when it happens.

Still, it's kind of odd to be in denial that Krista Erikson has a Conservative MP for a boyfriend and is now employed with FoxNews North.

[Shady]

Oh and apparently Bubbles has broken the CBC bias story wide open! It's not really bias because the biased journalist has a conservative boyfriend.

And we all know that couples always share the same politics.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Shady

[Shady]

Oh, and it's also not bias because it was a couple of years ago.

[BubberMiley]

Oh and apparently Bubbles has broken the CBC bias story wide open! It's not really bias because the biased journalist has a conservative boyfriend.

Are you saying that a Conservative Party MP has such poor judgement of character and discretion that he would be in a relationship with someone who would sacrifice her career to stack the deck for the Liberals? What kind of fools are you saying this government is made of?

[bloodyminded]

Have you looked up satire?

However, it doesn't suprise me that you've now moved on to something else. Since I utterly destroyed you with my last few posts. You all caught up on media, academia, and General Electrics political donations now?

Good.

I'm still waiting for the actual examples of the actual bias.

So that your thesis can move out of the stage of untested hypothesis, with the help of real evidence. But you seem to be avoiding the matter altogether.

[BubberMiley]

But you seem to be avoiding the matter altogether.

A sure sign he feels humiliated and beaten is when he claims to have "utterly destroyed" you in a debate. You won't be hearing from him again, other than perhaps a further claim to victory on his personal update.

[bloodyminded]

A sure sign he feels humiliated and beaten is when he claims to have "utterly destroyed" you in a debate. You won't be hearing from him again, other than perhaps a further claim to victory on his personal update.

Yep. The matter's settled, as far as he's concerned. Asking for something as radical as hard evidence is only an irritant that muddies up the pristine narrative of "left-wing bias."

[Shady]

I'm still waiting for the actual examples of the actual bias.

I've already provided some. I'm not going back several pages to repost things again because you didn't read them. This thread is 25 pages long.

[bloodyminded]

I've already provided some. I'm not going back several pages to repost things again because you didn't read them. This thread is 25 pages long.

I'm not talking about one or two examples. We could find one or two examples which could "prove," literally, any sort of bias at all.

I showed you one example where the CBC played out the deceptive propaganda piece about the fall of Saddam's statue. Do I think that "proves" a right-wing, pro-Iraq War bias? Not at all.

But this is precisely your argument.

If you can't prove your assertions (which are ostensibly fact-based), then just admit it. Quit dancing around like a desperate marionette.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

I'm not talking about one or two examples. We could find one or two examples which could "prove," literally, any sort of bias at all.

I see, so in otherwords, it doesn't matter how many examples, and to what extent the examples illustrate bias. You're biased attitude is set in stone, that CBC is fair and balanced.

Riiiight.

[bloodyminded]

I see, so in otherwords, it doesn't matter how many examples, and to what extent the examples illustrate bias. You're biased attitude is set in stone, that CBC is fair and balanced.

Riiiight.

Wrong.

First of all, I don't consider the CBC to be "fair and balanced"...especially since only retrograde knuckledraggers ever use that term without irony.

I don't even like the CBC! So there's another of your illusions shattered.

Second--again, since you didn't read what I wrote: one or two examples proves, literally, nothing.

If you think it does...then you think, thanks to my example, that the CBC had a pro-Iraq War bias.

You've got to do better than talk about one biased journalist, and then think this "argument" is powerfully buttressed by untested hypotheses with no evidence to support any claims of bias.

Sweet Godzilla on His Throne...do you think that when you, personally, have faith in something, that it must be true?

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

[Shady]

[Shady]

[Shady]

Lot's of "mistakes" and "statements of regret." It's interesting that these mishaps all seem to be toward one certain side of ideology and party. Probably just a complete and utter coinsidence.

Our tax dollars at work.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Shady

[bloodyminded]

Lot's of "mistakes" and "statements of regret." It's interesting that these mishaps all seem to be toward one certain side of ideology and party. Probably just a complete and utter coinsidence.

Our tax dollars at work.

You're really helping to undermine your own claims, and underline mine. I appreciate that.

You have offered no clear examples of bias beyond the one you've already discussed, about the journalist writing the questions.

Your other videos:

The first was not about CBC bias; it was about an Ignatieff political operative, making some claim about the vaccines; the CBC didn't even know who he was. These "man on the street" mini-interviews are common as hell (as you know); and there is zero indication of CBC bias here.

The second is the one already mentioned.

The third is about a misrepresentation of Harper's words, thanks to poor contiguity. That's not clear evidence of bias. (It could be, mind you; but it's not perfectly obvious.)

Another is some wayward remark by the meterologist; it's utterly trivial, proof of nothing, as you surely knew yourself even as you decided to include it.

The final one is about some footage of Canadians in Afghanistan, when they meant to show footage of Americans in Iraq.

I quote:

"Among shots of American soldiers in Iraq, we included two shots of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan."

And that's the CBC's liberal bias....how again????

And why would you include examples that don't show any evidence of bias, at all? To what purpose?

You're really reaching there, big guy.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Like I said, it doesn't matter how many examples are provided. Or what the extent of the bias is in those examples. You're a hyper-partisan CBC apologist.

[bloodyminded]

Like I said, it doesn't matter how many examples are provided. Or what the extent of the bias is in those examples. You're a hyper-partisan CBC apologist.

Again, I'm not a partisan, as I think the Liberals are corrupt, venal, and, lately, incompetent.

And again, I don't even like the CBC.

I repeat: I don't even like the CBC. I consider it a perfectly usual, perfectly middle-of-the-road, unremarkable news organization.

You're the only one of us two that wastes any time defending a news organization. You know, that "fair and balanced" one that you admire.

You understand? I don't support nor defend any of them.

You do. Is that clear now?

As for examples: your examples suck ass, Shady. YOU don't even believe that final one is "CBC bias towards the Liberals," (much less "left wing"...which the liberal Party certainly is not, another note in your cacophany of confusion on the subject).

So, your "evidence" about "CBC bias towards the Liberals" demands that you include ones totally and completely irrelevant to your argument, Shady?

Why would you do such a thing?

To pack your "argument" full of unrelated fluff, to make it appear more expansive?

Some might call that dishonest. Since it is.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Just because you don't like the Liberal Party, doesn't mean you're not partisan. You clearly are, just as the CBC has a bias towards the left. It's a similar case with every publicly funded government media outlet. Just take a look at the BBC, or NPR in America. If you can't acknowledge basic realities, you're not just partisan, but hyper-partisan.

[bloodyminded]

Just because you don't like the Liberal Party, doesn't mean you're not partisan. You clearly are, just as the CBC has a bias towards the left. It's a similar case with every publicly funded government media outlet. Just take a look at the BBC, or NPR in America. If you can't acknowledge basic realities, you're not just partisan, but hyper-partisan.

You simply make the same claims over and over, until you're pressed for evidence, after which you post "evidence" that is nothing of the kind.

You got nothing.

If you want a serious analysis of media bias and propaganda, read Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent. (And for the record, they don't claim a right-wing bias, either.)