BBC is the standard for good news. Didn't have to hear much about Anna Nicole Smith, just that she was unremarkable, dead, and that there was a bit of controversy surrounding the money the old pervert left her. Barely had to hear about Tiger Woods, rarely see Sarah Palin and her retard baby, and never have to see cats playing pianos.

I'm wondering, is the BBC also plagued by the 24 hour news cycle mentality? We get BBC America over here, but it's sandwiched in between a number of other shows. Problem with the concept, arguably, is that there's going to be as much non-hard news (or more) as not in order to keep people's attention and try to avoid losing audiences to each other. Thus, when people like Jackson or Smith die or get into big trouble, there's an oversaturation by all the 24 hour networks of the story. The tabloidization of the news, driven by ratings (someone's got to pay for it, the alternative being a lot of the vapid and/or insipid crap you get on public stations like NPR and whatnot, but paid for w/your tax dollars).

What Fox DOES do better than the other stations is give air time to the opposition. CNN and MSNBC stick with showing a relatively one sided debate. Fox does give the other side a chance to talk, and actually gives them equal time(believe it or not, use a stopwatch). They just don't question them fairly. They talk over, and give them hard questions while the conservative guests get softball questions and a sympathetic ear.
You forgot they call them names in an attempt to belittle them, they choice their opposition guest carefully so they have no trouble acting superior and they use arguments rife with ad hominem arguments. If you can’t beat the message attack the messenger, but it does work for them (most of the time – unless the other side is very passionate about a subject, like gamers. Although my mother still thinks I’m a pervert after this Fox News gem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU)).


They would have to change their argument behavior to post in Kavars. :xp:

You forgot they call them names in an attempt to belittle them, they choice their opposition guest carefully so they have no trouble acting superior and they use arguments rife with ad hominem arguments. If you can’t beat the message attack the messenger, but it does work for them (most of the time – unless the other side is very passionate about a subject, like gamers. Although my mother still thinks I’m a pervert after this Fox News gem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU)).


They would have to change their argument behavior to post in Kavars. :xp:
Didn't someone get a ban for essentially reposting Foxnews...

As for the choosing the guests carefully, CNN and MSNBC do that as well. Though Fox is more prevalent at the ad hominem attacks. But MSNBC has been far worse and blatant in their attacks. They have simply attacked persons without even the little attention Fox has given to actually finding arguments. I've heard the term "Repugnant clan" used a number of times on MSNBC. Trust me I'd far sooner watch CNN than MSDNC. At least they, while biased, aren't frothing at the mouth biased


and you are a pervert...Just not because of that haha.

I could really give two ****s if he's reading a teleprompter or not. Doesn't effect his ability to be a president.

However I will say that at least he can read a teleprompter...unlike the previous president.

Before I start getting idiots bashing on me, I'm not pro-Obama. Every politician to me is a crook and a liar. However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.

EDIT: Also who in their right mind would believe that Obama would choose the set-up in the classroom? His advisors and PRs are the people that set that stuff up, not him.

EDIT: Also who in their right mind would believe that Obama would choose the set-up in the classroom? His advisors and PRs are the people that set that stuff up, not him.
I don't buy that for one minute. If Obama wants it set up a certain way, Obama gets it the way he wants. The staff may do the actual set up of the equipment, but I would be willing to bet good money that Obama told them he wanted a teleprompter.

Serious mode for one moment: He was using the time not merely address the students in the classroom, but to address the nation and the world through Television, so the teleprompter was warranted. Showing the Teleprompter in a 22 second clip and saying it was for a speech to a 6th grade class is funny, but it hardly the truth of the situation.

Before I start getting idiots bashing on me,
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm not pro-Obama. Every politician to me is a crook and a liar. However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.

Ok, so perhaps you feel you're just left leaning. (as the allleged "idiots who would bash you" can already see)

While I am in agreement with you over every politician being a crook and a liar (and you forgot a "cheat" BTW), frankly none are the lesser of two evils because it's two sides of the same damn coin. They're really all just in it for their own benefit primarily, while throwing table scraps to the people secondarily. The tide seems to be progressing in one direction regardless: We're screwed no matter what.

Before I start getting idiots bashing on me, I'm not pro-Obama.
I know you're not. You certainly weren't among the group of people going absolutely ga-ga over him a year and a half ago.
Every politician to me is a crook and a liar.
Agreed.
However, he was the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.
Well, in spite of McCain's identity crisis (which was disgusting), I had to go with the lesser of the two socialists. ;)

I think he was referring in the end there to Palin. ;) Btw, I agree that McCain looked a lot like Obama lite.

A little reality check here:

First, My ex works in real estate in California. She said the economoy was going to tank after 2000 because 'The democrats won't be in office, and the Republicans aren't going to throw money at the problem when it does'. It had begun to slide before 9-11.

Second 9-11 was what started it on the major slide it went through. When people are no longer confident they are safe, they tend to grab the money and run. All of that stock money being yanks caused the market to plummet.

3rd: A lot of the corporations that went out of business, Enron, Fanny mae et al, had been bolstered by free money or perks from the government. As an example, the (Admitedly Republican based) decentralization of electricty services in California and the (Democratically pushed) clean air laws took one third to half of electricity generation capability out of action, causing the Energy shortage that drove California into the start of their recession. That was caused by then governor Gray Davis (Dem) to buy electricity from outside the state. Enron (Who deserves their own special level in hell) then had their California affiliates sending their electricity to Oregon, Nevada and Arizona so that it could be 'sold' at the higher rates back to Californians.

That casued the 'governator' to be elected, which would have been a fine joke if he could have fixed it.

So don't point fingers kiddies. I can take any 'great' or 'retard' president you name and show you how wrong you are.

As for myself the best president we have ever had was a democrat, Theodore Roosevelt. In the start of the 20th century, he had finished a term as Secretary of the navy, and assumed the presidency. The Dems were the majority party, and to forestall foreign adventures, they cut not the navy's numbers, but cut their fuel supplies. If they can't sail off to Europe, obviously we won't get involved, right?

Roosevelt ordered an 'emergency readiness' exercise. He sent the Atlantic fleet to the west coast, then sent the combined fleet off to the Phillipines. When they arrived they had already burned their entire fuel budget.

Everyone panicked. Our fleet was 6,000 miles away, what could we do? Congress and the senate ordered Roosevelt to return them home immediately. He replied 'Oh, I'd like to. But we have to wait until the next budget because they don't have enough fuel'. Between them the two houses voted an emergency measure to supply the fleet with enough fuel to get home.

Roosevelt replied to the wording by rodering the entire fleet to make an around the world tour, the Great White Fleet.

Don't mess with him. Ever.

Well, that sounds like TR, speak softly but carry a big stick. In that case the stick being devlish ingeniuity. :p

A little reality check here:
I am a CA resident! :p

First, My ex works in real estate in California. She said the economoy was going to tank after 2000 because 'The democrats won't be in office, and the Republicans aren't going to throw money at the problem when it does'. It had begun to slide before 9-11.

Check, although it was a lot more than just that--corruption in the correctional facilities, people who work cheaper also end up living with a need to be more heavily subsidized by the government.

Budgeting has been a mess for at least 10 years if not longer. Neither side is fiscally conservative anymore which is a major problem.

Second 9-11 was what started it on the major slide it went through. When people are no longer confident they are safe, they tend to grab the money and run. All of that stock money being yanks caused the market to plummet. There was a lot of that. Yes.

However, it seemed whatever was left behind, there was some enterprising types there soon afterward to claim it.

3rd: A lot of the corporations that went out of business, Enron, Fanny mae et al, had been bolstered by free money or perks from the government. As an example, the (Admitedly Republican based) decentralization of electricty services in California and the (Democratically pushed) clean air laws took one third to half of electricity generation capability out of action, causing the Energy shortage that drove California into the start of their recession. Ah, bipartisan action minus any sense of fiscal constraint equals inevitable disaster.

You know there was a beautiful initiative proposed a few years ago that would have rewarded people making their houses more self sufficient, proposed regulation in a minimalist fashion to assure there was competition in the energy market (and new jobs because of it) and it would have made a clear standard for service. BTW research done into transportation.
(At least it didn't stop the invention of the tesla roadster nor their produciton in CA.)

Alas...
Big power companies fought it: though they are natural monopolies and publicly owned, they still love their income. This would have introduced small competitors in the market and protected them from being rubbed out.
Oil fought it: it spoke of alternatives to petrol based fuel, etc.
Sierra club fought it: It would "damage the environment of the area and endager the wildlife, and make eyesores"--the reality was that they wanted to install solar power plants in the desert, windmill power where ridges on mountains and cliffsides get wind and gusts. Relying on their club to take them at their word instead of looking at what actually was being proposed.

Now it looks like we'll have to settle for a government run capitalism of the main big competitors.

As one who believes in self sustain-ism, I've not seen more harm done to the prospect of citizen energy independence than this. It took a double whammy by both democrats and republicans.

I'm rightward leaning and I think that's ****ed up. I see a fairly grass roots based free market potential in new alternative energies field that make homes self sufficient. I am no longer convinced free market and capitalism are one and the same. And I know free market is not freedom from responsibility. In fact this is a shatterpoint where capitalism has snuffed out free market.

That was caused by then governor Gray Davis (Dem) to buy electricity from outside the state. Enron (Who deserves their own special level in hell) then had their California affiliates sending their electricity to Oregon, Nevada and Arizona so that it could be 'sold' at the higher rates back to Californians.
Interesting. Link please?

What's that psychological thing where people take in stuff that supports what they believe in and ignore evidence against it?

Confirmation Bias