are these boundaries blurred or clearly defined, With the recent off color description of Chelsea by a person in the media is there a journalism rule that differentiates a news broadcaster, editorial, pundit, journalist? 1, Is there a clear line of journalism vs pundit? and who determines it. does ownership like Fox determine it because they state they are fair and balanced?

Below is an example of a person who was a columnist in his career and I can not ever remember reading anything as politically biased as demonstrated by his below comments. Is he typical of the media? Can you site specifics that are as beyond this level of what I believe is gross intellectually inexcusable bias in print as shown here by another columnist.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ci_827192...ce=most_emailed

1, Is there a clear line of journalism vs pundit? and who determines it.
Eye of the Beholder, Ear of the Listener. One person's speaker of truth is another person's Goebbels' heir. Like all things in life it is Buyer Beware. Your example is a small time columnist from what looks like a penny news paper more famous for news about local BBQ's and the excitement of 4H events than anything else, but like any columnist great or small they are in the business of "truth" as they see it. Often very colorful truths as well.
His attempt at humor was as lame as when it was first written long ago by someone else and he didn't even bother to change it up very much. It is an old joke from talk radio that is adjusted to meet the news events of the current moment. There are Liberal versions of it as well. They are not meant to be objective whatsoever. They ARE designed to be jabs whose intent is to malign and cause hurt.
Sadly there are often only one Dave Barry or P.J. O'Rourke at a time -- or perhaps not sadly as we would not appreciate such talent as it would be mundane. Ability to criticize or debate in an intellectual manner that doesn't devolve into shouting matches and demands of meeting at dawn out on the lawn at 10 paces is rare.

Even here at the moderators are sometimes run ragged as they police debate threads looking for inappropriate and hateful deviations from acceptable and useful debate such as this actus reus from a more recent thread about Hugo Chavez and his rants;


Apparently Mr. Minch has devout disciples.

so do you think Reagan was some kind of intellectual. Well I have news for you, he was not... are you saying there are not idiots out there? even some that still to this day spout his trash. Again we are where we are on energy dependence because the research and direction was halted. Even heard a person recently on the radio who use to work for one of these oil companies, he said their job in the research area for solar was to get as many patents as possible to lock out any competing technologies to oil.

As far as small time columnist, there are probably more small time columnists out there than big time ones is my bet. and the big time columnists generally start some where.

A issue is did he step over the line with such talk that is sanctioned in the paper. How many of these closeted people are there. again what is the line specifically? or do you believe these were not over the line what so ever?

You left out a role, reporter. Reporters gather facts and write informative stories. At most "mainstream" news outlets, reporters are expected to be objective, and keep their opinions out of their stories. This may be desirable, but it's difficult in practice. A minimum standard, I think, is that news stories written by reporters should be accurate (get the facts right), and fairly represent the positions of the people discussed in the story.

Journalist is sometimes used as a synonym for "reporter," but it can have a larger scope, as well. Anyone who writes for a news outlet can be called a journalist. This includes reporters, commentators who give their opinion and analysis of stories that are already known to the public, and columnists who are also expected to give their opinion and may or may not do their own fact-finding reporting.

TV news personalities are all over the map. Most of the network news organizations (ABC, NBC, CBS) aim for objectivity as a matter of policy. The cable guys are often more opinionated on their "named" shows: O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity and Colmes, etc. Sometimes a more "straight news" show like PBS's NewsHour will break into a panel discusion, where commentators with various opinions will discuss a story that was just presented in a more "objective" way by a reporter.


I don't know if I can top your example of "inexcusable bias," but this one's in the ballpark:


That's more or less typical Mark Morford. He writes a few columns like that every week. It's okay, because he's an opinion columnist, not a reporter. Robert Minch is on the other side politically, but they're both opinion columnists, so they're not breaking any ethical rules about bias.

The line is not so clear, but in the realm of politics and media, how in the world could it possibly be black and white? Even cold hard facts can be disputed. Unless you are opining that media outlets should not include commentary, satire, opinion or analysis, then I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. It is interesting that you included satire in your opening post, while attempting to once again smear any form of right wing commentary. Not the example I would use if I were trying to make your point, whatever that may be.

Everyone in the media works with facts at some level. It is up to the informed [or misinformed] viewer/listener/reader to determine the level of bias, and draw a line between journalist and pundit.



Now you've provided us with an example of opinion. Are you the authority on what or who constitutes intellectual? My opinion might be that an intellectual would not continually include in his arguments name calling and pejoratives, like 'hate' and 'idiots', but would use rational logic and reason.



Are you referring to satirists and commentators, who reside on both the left and the right, or something else entirely?

Let me put it this way, Reagan was no intellectual.... I know intellectuals... many of them, Reagan did nothing in his life that is intellectually accomplished. Oh so while president you are saying he finally came out of his shell? No that was alhiemers.. read the book of Speaker O'Neil first meeting reagan as he took office, reagan was delusional even then. acting out one of his plays... He was a second rate actor that took his specific type of acting to politics.

Name calling has been very effective for the right wing pundits who control the airwaves, thus it needs to be elevated by the left to make the right wing stop. Until Rush, Savage et al stop for an extra 20 years to be equal I will continue. Feminazis, what was he calling Hillary and her daughter?

I like the old political comedy shows/clips like Johny Carson, Letterman, and Leno. I like the new ones like the libertarian Bill Mahr and now the comedy channel. Those are expected. But the daily newspapers like the one I cited are not comedy central, I know comedy central and that red bluff is no comedy central. Even if it is a recycled joke as eluded to.

And to Jobius that is the difference in the article he cited, the SF gate is not a comedy and is not so unfactual it is unreal.



the above was from wiki, if true and that article is the best ya have for an example my case is closer to proven.... his satire was on the subject with facts. The one I pointed out was just trashing for the sake of trashing without any basis for the day. Please show me what facts are relevant to the world in Minches vs Morfords.

And again, we thank you for your opinion.



So you would admit that you are no better than those you vilify, since you engage in the same activity.



And that's the beauty of the 1st Amendment, media outlets can print/air virtually any opinon or commentary that they wish, and the market decides if it is wanted or acceptable. People who do not wish to hear or read commentary, satire, opinion or analysis, can go elsewhere. Don't like a pundit because he's a 'righty'? Don't listen. Don't like a columnist because you've slapped the 'hate' label on him? Don't read it.

Hmm, I have found myself somewhat radicalized against the main stream media- no matter who is doing the writing- due to the obvious campaign against Ron Paul's campaign for president- how does every news agency seem to ignore him when he is doing so much better than losers like Guliani or Thompson?

I don't think media is monolithic in nature though- so that means the definitions we are throwing about here are somewhat irrelevent other than to name a proffession for a writer?

For instance- there is no credentials you have to have to be a writer, of any type. though some outlets may very well demand a degree in journalism, but it is not like you need a license with some board of testing and standards that a "reporter" needs to take.

So, what you are seeing, is capitalism at it's most pure- the goverment just doesn't get to interfere- so that means that the market determines the media- to a great degree. Or rather, it really did, before "deregulation" and the monopoly on news sources we are seeing today.

Up until very recently in our country's history, a reporter or journalist, to a great degree, was on his/her WORD as a journalist or reporter, was how the people bestowed credibility upon that person- like Walter Kronkite- very well trusted, considered by many to be completely objective- and it was his reputation, not really his degrees, which made so many people take his word for what was happening in the world today.

So, really, there is no difference between all those variations of those that are employed by the news and opinion outlets definitions of " journalist" or "reporter" etc- accept that the person claiming to be one's own credibility on the subject.

For instance, I have learned to just turn off Faux news where ever and when ever possible- it is 90% lies, the rest innuendo - I can barely believe anyone even watches them, except for entertainment value, and to see what Jon Stewart is going to make fun of that night.

However, the McNiel Lehrer news hour seems to try to pretty objectively report the news, and they have some credibility it seems, nationwide.


So really, most of the terms used here are as accurate as someone who labels others 'conservative" or "liberal"- they are just a descriptor that may or may not fall under the dictionary definition, depending on the individual using the word.

Again give me facts then if you think he did something of intellectual enlightening before he was president. And again no-one has said Tip was lying when he wrote his book when he described reagan and his talk where it later was framed from a movie Ronnie was in. and we are all very well aware that Alzheimers is not a sudden disease, it took him completely out of the public so soon after leaving office. And we know people with Alzheimers are not in their intellectual best years. so show me what the moron did in his life that one could find he was known for anything intellectual. Start a thread and show me your info. See I grew up not far from where he grew up, maybe 90 miles. I do remember stories written about him initially from people that went to school with him. Wish I would have cut these articles out.

wow you think a blogger posting in a debate forum is somehow on the same par as a one sided megaphone that has 20 million listeners is not of the same level. Those I vilify have the airwaves for a one way editorial. Here you get to debate me without any question, give any partisan liberal equal time with them right wing jerks please make my day... and no I do not come close to the levels of these right wingers.... and I never will, but I do wish some liberal would. again I do believe when the right wing will not stop and they have been asked you do onto others as they do onto you to a degree. Doesn't the right believe in an eye for an eye justice to the point of killing...

tooo funny the first amendment does not say the right wing owned press? The problem with your next analysis is the fact that the media is owned and controlled by the right wing corporatist. Yest the right cry foul about an unbalanced media in their minds. It is the right that complains about equal opportunity on everything should not be given. The right has no interest in equal opportunity.

Well I can see that this thread will clearly degenerate into another classic inventor thread. Name calling, everything right wing is horrible........

The argument that the right wing owns all media and no liberal voices are heard has been beaten like a decomposing horse carcass. Nothing said will change your mind, no why did you even ask the question?

The debate question had promise, but I fear nothing rational will come of it.

Inventor- I agree that most MSM is owned by right corporatists, that much is pretty obvious- however that does NOT mean that all folks that work in that industry are owned by right corporatist- though it seems to be going more and more that direction.

So that being said- it is pretty obvious that the MSM crowned the winner and losers of this primary, left or right, quite early on.

America media is not really right or left as a monolithic entity IMHO- though it is completely "American-centric" in that it does not desiminate much knowledge or usable information on the rest of the world.

So, on subject- there IS no hard and fast definitions that really apply to the real world here.



I would say it is accurate to call main stream media "corporatist"- after all, big business does own the media- I do feel that is accurate and true- there are very few, if any, news outlets that get wide spread viewership nationwide, meaning, lots of people can access it readily and easily, and it costs little to nothing.

So, inventor does have a point that corporations pretty much have a lock on all public news outlets, for the most part, and the right wing really owns radio, with no attempt at equal time for opposing views.

But, I don't hate the "vast right wing" in the manner that inventor does- I just hate certain individuals and entities, on a case by case basis - right wing and conservativism, unfortunately for those that actually value freedom, has been hijacked by this new definition of "conservativism" that came about right about the time of Ronnie Raygun's election- which actually does advocate goverment solutions to societies problems- such as the DEA and "just say no" and the "moral majority" that Ronnie gave voice to.

It is rather silly, IMHO, to call the media overall "right" or "left" wing- it is completely Americanized propaganda. It is America-centric to the point of some kind of mental illness- as if we are the new Rome, the center of the universe and all things holy (or is it wholly? )

So, back to the subject at hand- there is no licensing, there is no minimum educational experiances, there is no regulation whatsoever on the industry of "news" in this nation- so what you get is the lowest common denominator of a complete corporate takeover, and the quality of the "news" in this coutry has pretty much gone downhill ever since.

If me and DTOM wanted to start a news outlet, on printed media, and call ourselves reporters, journalists and columnists and editor- what is to stop us? Financing seems to be the only hurdle.

With a definition that fluid, you have no real objective definition at all.

Facts like evil corporations murdering uneducated kids for fun and profit? Or Democrats starting their convention with flag burning? They're both hyperbole and shouldn't be taken seriously. Like when I started a gun control thread with the claim that D.C. requires rifles and shotguns to be stored "unloaded, disassembled, melted down, and buried in a concrete vault in the backyard." Eh, maybe it's not funny to anyone but me, but I'd laugh even harder if someone had taken it seriously and demanded that I cite a source or retract it. Hyperbolic exaggeration is a legitimate tool of rhetoric, especially if you can make it funny.

Minch apparently believes the Democrats hate America. Morford believes that Republicans hate freedom and believe in killing for profit. I think both columnists are a bit deranged, but I don't want the government to shut them up.

Apparently you are forgetting the basic requirements of debate here at AD. If the best you can do is offer base insults and justify it by the oldest excuse of children in the world--because everyone else is doing it-- this thread will go nowhere.

columnist, reporter, pundit is all dependent on the ear of the listener. One of the basics of a free society is the necessity of its members to be able to discern for themselves the difference between opinion and fact.



CR the option to create one's own media outlet is completely up to the individual. with today's technology it is possible to do even broadcasts available to the global community--youtube for one. Blogs online newsletters, radio etc are all easily accessable. If you are worth a salt the following will grow. news is available from many sources for you to choose from. people are ALWAYS trying to get the word out. cable access channels are even available for a reasonable price. Do the groundwork and get some advertisers to pay your bills--just like the big stations all do. Harder, yes...but I would say that it like everything else would be worth the fight if you really feel strongly about it.
Networking software and social sites abound--and are free.
There is valuable and accurate information in your libraries and your book stores and online.
Hell colleges like MIT are putting courses online free for the taking.
To build a world to your liking is within reach but it will require some assembly. find others who share your interests and DO SOMETHING.

People need to lose the attitude that others are supposed to provide us with what we demand.

Don't like the world as it is then do something instead of talking about it. C'mon CR I've read your posts so i know you are capable of engineering and rigging the world around you in the physical sense--bike frames and such. you already know you have ability. DIY time Brother.


I would think someone named inventor who talks endlessly about all he has invented could come up with something. If anyone is actually interested in your opinion they will support your efforts and the movement will begin.

Look at what Mike and Jaime have been able to do.
The forum does well and is always busy at political moments and the radio show is available on mp3 for free download. Is it still small--yes, but they are still here and improving all the time. I fully expect AD to someday be well respected in the political world.

This is not 1920 any longer folks. political ideas and foundations from that era are no longer able to meet the needs of today's world. The days of a small handful of news outlets meeting the needs of the global world are long gone.
There are no longer a handful of jobs to go around and there is an incredible amount of competition for everything now.
Today's amateur has the potential within reach to compete with the highest levels of professional anything if they are willing to put in the effort. failing to do so is the result of laziness -- both intellectual and spiritual -- to do anything at all.
We cannot wait for some Aurthurian character to come and save us. for the left and the right JFK and Reagan are dead and buried. No replacements are on the way. You are the people you have been waiting for. Start a movement or a community or a web page--anything.

Just stop expecting your desires to be met by someone else's effort or just flat out taking from others.

As for this thread jobius has it right:

Here in Arizona a local paper ran an April Fools new story ( a repeat of an older hoax once run before )a few year ago that said because homeless people were being assaulted in higher numbers we would have no choice but to go out and arm them for their safety. They even went to the effort to stage some photos of homeless people being given AK47s and crowd-sweeper shotguns.
Give Piece a Chance
Museum of Hoaxes

Sadly a great many people went into a panic about armed and deranged homeless people terrorizing the nation. 60 minutes almost looked very stupidDisarm the Clueless.


point is some people like many well known pundits have jumped the Shark, and some people will believe anything without ever even thinking about it logically even once -- and you cant fix Stupid folks.

Point of order- when I say main stream media- I did say- national level coverage.

Yes, you can open your own station, yadda yadda, and you can operate a printing press as well- but to get to the mass media we are talking in reality- corporations are the only ones with the money to do this- try buying a real broadcast license sometime!

There is a HUGE difference in communication and outreach from a little underground paper or radio station and, oh, Clear channel radio-= dig?

And those are clearly right wing owned.

Whether they completely control the content of news channels is another argument- but they certainly do own the main stream media.

I do believe that the internet is changing things- but nothin' gets out there like mass communicatin' to this day.

I could build a transmitter, with the help of a couple of friends, that could take advantage of some of the open frequencies and I could even make it run 1 million watts of power- but that would be illegal, as i don't have a license to do that- so even though I have the ability, the equipment to do so- I am prevented by the goverment from really competeing with oh, clear channel radio.

I think Clear Channel sucks, BTW

Not for political reasons- I just think they have ruined several of my favorite music stations dammit!

I think you're missing the point CR.

There are tools available now that can reach as far and as wide as Clear Channel and do not require a broadcast license.
It just takes some initiative. Lets use Drudge as an example. he got a leak and turned it into a goldmine. people couldn't wait to slip him info he could use.
Look at You tube. make a video with any info and it is instantly available globally.

Building a network is something you can do as easily as Facebook. While i wouldn't base my network on facebook the social software is very intriguing for use as a news tool.



Wannabe journalists are everywhere. Bloggers world wide are reporting on what goes on outside their doors and in their communities. Info on the real world events in Iraq are shouted to the world.
Nothing can be hidden for very long any longer. Someone will always let it out.

It just requires some new thinking and vision. Stop thinking in terms of 1990 and look ahead. Just like the internet is killing newspapers it will soon kill the monopoly of radio and television.

Sorry about your radio stations but myself I haven't listened to FM in a few years now. I make my own. Hella more fun.
I am actually working on a network to illustrate just how many powerful media forms are now available to the amateur. networking sites, research efforts, community investment to fund science and social efforts. All independent of the professionals if need be and free from corporate and governmental pressure if need be.

I understand your point and agree with most of it- however- that is fledgling and the recent campaign by Ron Paul shows it is not quite as effective as you think it is- still, everybody doesnt' own a computer- and let's not forget how many Americans sole source of "news" is right wing radio

True- you can't inform the stupid or religious, they will believe whatever they wish to believe- and no "reporter" or "journalist" will have any effect on those groups-


the corporate world still rules the roost here yet- maybe not forever- but for now, they rule supreme.

Actually it shows just how effective it is. The problem wasn't the technology or the movement but the fact most Americans dont pay much attention until it is time to do the final vote, and even then very few bother to look into anything at all but vote party or don't vote at all.
To the non political junkie Ron Paul offered little, as in no one was actually interested in his message.
We're not normal here you know CR. Even the talk show listeners are not completely mainstream.

We live for this stuff.
Other people have others things to occupy their time.

Paul got the buzz and the money, but most people don't agree with Libertarian views. they like government.
They just argue over where it should and shouldn't interfere. A Ron Paul world scares most Americans.
The only way for it to not is for us to build solid examples showing it is actually a better idea.


PS here is a quick link to citizen journalist and news sources. Mediagiraffe

Apparently you are forgetting the basic requirements of debate here at AD. If the best you can do is offer personal insults directed specifically at me -because everyone else is doing it-- AD will go nowhere. Again do onto others as they do onto you.... so do not cry on other threads because I do onto you the same. seems someone else who has done this many times and here again is using this tactic. As I have suggested maybe he should use ignore vs the crying game.

Now using tactics that are being used on a daily basis by the right, that seems to resonate with the right is wrong? No, sometimes you have to get people to see it in the mirror before they will wake up and demand their heros stop these actions. Some people just do not have the intellectual ability to figure some things out on their own. this talk is so popular with the right they must like it. So I deliver what they like, just a lite version.

But my challenge again is show me how Reagan is not as I have challenged. If he had a brain surely there is something in his life before being president at 70, that is remarkable showing some high intellectual accomplishment other than being a guard on the football team. Did you ever see his movie bedtime with Bonzo.... what did he do that commands some respect from the average person before he was 70 for intellectual ability.. I have to date seen nothing about him that would show any intellectual achievement. show me what ya got. OK in grade school he was a football player and thespian. Great he made his summer money by being a life guard, maybe the sun got to him. Did you ever read how many people he claimed he saved??? as a life guard. please start a thread so I can be shown the great intellectual accomplishments of him.

Now there is no question corporations do kill for profit, do you know they have done cost benefit analysis before they release new drugs? and there is no reason why these energy companies do not come out in public and spell out everything that was discussed in closed doors with Chaney. If they have nothing to hide why do they hide everything. another good book by another former right wing person is the book confessions of a economic hit man. I have heard him on the radio many times now that we have AAR (what other media allows him on). Yes these corporations using the world bank do some very unethical things to get their way, many people are harmed and some die because of their economic control. so the writer is accurate. vs your al gore invented the Internets guy. and as I said this is timely Exxon as he posted just set records for making money, kids getting killed in Iraq have a lot to do with their record profits.

I think that we as free-thinking Americans determine who espouses truth from our point of view. The phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" can be applied to the debate between honest journalist and firebrand pundit.

I think any news program, story, or coverage designed to spin events from a certain point of view for a certain political ideology with some kind of calculated endgame in store would qualify as a pundit. Clear cases of this are Bill O'Reily on anything, and Lou Dobbs on the immigration debate.

Honest journalism would be stories without a spin, things that stick to fact and not interpretation.

No the topic of the thread is about media and its biases. Since you started the thread i would hope that you yourself could remember the topic.
For your Reagan is evil rants there are already numerous Reagan threads available for you to pursue.


Again separate thread removed from your own topic. Feel free to start one.


and again the same.

Once again for the cheap seats, what is opinion and what is factual should be obvious. The tone of the language and the descriptives used to refer to elements of the article will illustrate the difference.

IMO your last few posts have been opinion as you have no sources at all to back anything you've said. You have sounded exactly like Minch. You have even admitted to not even trying to be factual but hateful and your excuse is that it is only fair for you to do so because others have used the same tactic. The most famous of playground rationals.
I will agree with DTOM on this one. obviously all you are going to do is rant and name call and blur the thread's topic with endless unrelated diatribes against those whose opinion is different from yours.

I see no reason for continued participation at all.

that is your choice...... maybe you were confused in the reply but most was not meant to your reply. But I think your replying said it all anyway.

again if someone replies I will give explanations/examples. and I asked others to open new threads on Reagan several times, seems you are just trying to close this one with your rant. If you do not like the thread including a person you can turn it off and keep your rude comments to yourself, I really could care less about your personal spewing.... turn the channel...

too bad that you missed the debate between the examples I gave and how they relate.. Just because you do not have the ability to understand how they relate to the debate does not mean it is not. As I have said there are some people who will just never understand simple things like the theory of relativity and some who will never understand a simple machine like a engine. for example my argument about the differentiation of the writers point of killing kids is accurate and on subject.

Here as an example I would like to see a liberal writer print something on par with the one I quoted. Here let me give it a shot.


This just in: Agenda for the 2008 Republican National Convention. It may not be official, you understand.
After the opening cross burning, there will be a pledge of allegiance to the confederate flag while everyone removes their white hoods, David Duke will propose a toast, a prayer meeting with the Grand Dragon and Skinheads will be held, a ceremonial tree lynching will follow another Timmy Boy McVeigh and Eric Rudolf toast, a presentation will be given by exxon titled "How I sucked the life out of America, and I don't care.." followed by a Saddam Memorial Rally by Cheney with a kiss and hug and a haliburton contract, note using a wide stance. After meeting with all energy officials behind closed doors, another toast by some of the investors that Bush took the money from, does kenny boy Lay have a wide stance too? a collection for the Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant hosted by Barbara Bush and Bush one, a free ticket out of the USA for the mass murderers relatives without questioning a day or so after taking down the a few buildings in NY, the right wing way with instructions detailed by republican militia man Timmy Boy McVeigh, a talk on Oval Office affairs by Richard Milhouse Nixon concluding with a "Truth in Broadcasting and erasing tapes" Award "I am not a crook" award presented to Bush brain Rove on gee where did all the emails go?. All fanciful, but highly entertaining, when each person pulls out his gun with a wide stance and like Chaney fires at their friends and not go to the hospital with that road kill.... Bush promises not to trip on his tongue or pretzel too many times and slotter what ever language he speaks. I wonder if the Republicans will have a convention, let alone an agenda?
* * *
inventor is a lifelong resident of Bluff and former columnist for the Bluff . His column runs on Fridays. He can be reached at

now that is what I would call on par with this trash by the right wing of the media. who tell us the media is liberal and they are fair and balanced... . is parody hateful?? Or is war hateful? you decide?

Obviously, what you wrote would be satire or parody, and could certainly be the contents of an opinion column. It's not very original, but I don't understand why anyone "on the right" would get all excited about it.
Did I mention that it's not very original?

Anyway, here is one of the many satirical 'agenda' pieces out there. I am officially not outraged.



Anyway, back to the debate question - yes, this is typical of the media. It's called sarcasm. Parody. Wit.

If I may speak for not only myself, but some others here on AD.......this is obviously not the first media/rightwing thread you have started. The problem occurs when you start treating the thread like a blog. This is a debate forum, by and large filled with rational members who are passionate and opinionated, but if not completely open-minded, at least engage in the exercise of give and take.

Nobody is forced to participate in any debate, but while you may start with a good topic, you often don't appear to be interested in actually debating. Journalistic standards and practices is a fine idea for spirited discussion, but overt rudeness towards anyone who doesn't agree with you is only going to lead to a dusty, cobwebbed thread.

that was a good attempt.... and you can now quote the AD of my parody, but please find that in the print, a real newspaper as I found with that guy in the real media... if typical for the media then please show me ones in the media like the one I found.

Jobius example was on target, but to me not nearly the abstract level of the one I cited. I explained my reasons and obviously hit a cord because some have gone over the edge with personal insults to me for attacking reagan not them... Also as I found that person Jobius found was inferred by wiki as the most out there liberal in a large print, and his writing was not close to the level of the red bluff guy. Now I do agree this guy is a pundit, but his writing was again not to the level of the red bluff. and since the right says the media is so liberal I want to see examples of it in this direction.

Now you did find one that was getting close but you would have to agree it did not hit the lie level of gore invent the internet"s" ..... remember Bush inventing the internets is true.




here let me talk to you as for not only myself but mankind, you are a moderator here. I have reported you several times for your irresponsible actions from my perspective. and I can tell you again your words here are just plain stupid and irresponsible for a moderator again. Considering you are a moderator and you seem to know AD if one had any brains one would go insulting and complaining take it to PM. See if I do it to you, I get in trouble... but gee it is fine for you. If you have some personal complaints PM me, believe me I can take it and dish it right back.

Now I generally start threads to see if there is a credible other side to my findings. as you know I am very fond of the media generalization by the right that the media is liberal, and vote fraud. see to me both of these items are essential to democracy. other things are too but these are just high frauds to me. you can either participate or PM me with your expert critiques.

inventor, are you just looking for a liberal columnist who makes things up? Does Maureen Dowd's BushWorld fantasy work for you? It's obviously satire (like your example), but she's putting her words in the mouths of real people. Scandalous?

Here try this guy, is he op ed?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sw...linton_cla.html





http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_08_18_archive.html



wow here is the media calling a person a congenital liar. those nice people in the media..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A960958260
January 8, 1996



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A9669C8B63





here is an interesting relationship, is he a pundit when he and other big wigs of the media bigfeet eat with rummy??
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9659C8B63
From the 'Spider Hole'


Saffire and his vince foster conspiricies as a op ed at the NYT.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature...fire/index.html


http://mediamatters.org/items/200408300011



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will


http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140009



http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150016

inventor, in your opening post, you quoted some third-string former columnist for the Red Bluff Evening Post (or whatever it was) as an example of unforgivable bias by right-wing columnists. and challenged us to find a similarly biased column from the left. I responded with what I thought was a similarly biased column by a left-winger, Mark Morford. You didn't think much of that, and digressed into attacking Reagan's mental faculties. You also refined your challenge so Morford's column wouldn't satisfy it, since you believe the column is factually supportable. Apparently, it's the lying that's the problem. Innocent readers of the Red Bluff Enquirer might have been duped into believing the Democrats really intended to open their convention with a flag burning.

Fine. You want made-up facts before you'll condemn a columnist. I offered a link to a Maureen Dowd column that had completely imaginary dialogue attributed to members of the Bush administration. Does that satisfy your criteria? I don't know, because your response doesn't actually respond to anything I wrote. Instead, you pull up a twelve-year-old column from retired columnist William Safire, and a bunch of links from your favorite reformed right-winger David Brock's Media Matters. (Did you know that David Brock had become a fan of Hillary Clinton? Did you kinow that everybody else knew that, too?)

I responded to the questions in your initial post. I responded to your challenges since then. Quit moving the goalposts, quit introducing new distractions. Are we supposed to be talking about Robert Novak? If so, why didn't you say so earlier? Or is "Robert Novak" your Pavlovian response to "Maureen Dowd"?

Thank you Inventor, I had no doubt that you would make my point for me far better than even I could.

Will you explain to us the point of posting snippets from Safire, Will and Novak? How are they different than Huffington, Rich, Krugman, Dowd, Corn, Kristof, Kinsley, Malveaux, Ivins, or Sheer to name just a few? Are conspiracy theories, satire, humor and wit only acceptable to you if the target is the right wing?

If you talk about the news you're a commentator.
If you talk about the news and have aligned and identified yourself politically you're a pundit.
If you edit other people's work you're an editor.
If you write regularly in a newspaper but do not report news you're a columnist.
If you gather facts and present them as news worthy you're a reporter/journalist.

Let me clear this up once and for all:

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity (et al) are NOT journalists. They talk about what journalists produce.

Frankly, anyone who can't tell the difference between commentator and journalist is either intentionally being dense or is actually dense.

OK the gods have rung in and specifically reminded that the thread is to stay on target. You have in the last three posts in this thread gone rude and nuke, and one of the others I did not reply to was rude too, but just mildly enough to let you escalte. See if someone does not call you you escallate. So please as a representative of AD as a moderator show me how your first part has anything to do with the thread. Else go cry where someone cares about your rants and crying. again it was specifically stated "Make sure your posts to this topic answer the debate questions." now please explain to me how you abided here. Or are you not able to abide as a moderator, or you above the rules?

Now here are tidbits of every one of your posts except the last one which again is attacking the poster not the subject. again every one of your posts from the first one have been to attack the poster not the subject.



Again explain how those relate to the debate question vs your norm of nuke persoanl attacking the person. Again me attacking Reagan on another thread is not attacking a poster. And how that had anything to do with this thread is another issues with another poster, but you jumped right in with your persoanl insults. But in the proper or other thread it was brought up in it was on target for Reagans stupidity and why we are dependent on Oil to this day even more so. again that was on target americans and humans are dying right now for oil.

again if you want to cry and whine take it to a PM, after all you are a moderator and you of all should not be a serial personal insulter in every post you made here. I even suggested you take it to PM, and Jamie came on and re-enforced the ground rules and you just went off again. again take it to PM... believe me I can take it and will dish it right back to ya.

Well, I was going to try and post to the actual topic, but it seems the originator of the thread is more interested about griping and groaning about an ongoing feud he has with a specific Moderator.

As a actual, practicing, credential journalist I thought I might have something to contribute, but after reading the last few posts it seems this thread is more about inventor not playing well with others. Oh well, BaphometsAdvocate seems to have made the point for me both accurately and succinctly. Too bad nobody wants to talk about it.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled sniping...until the thread is locked.

I'm not sure how any of the prior post was on topic in the slightest. Continuing in this fashion will only get the thread closed, as Nigttimer points out. It would help if you would address the question DTOM posed, namely:



Others here have also pointed out to you that for every right wing pundit you cite, a similar entity on the left can be found. So, what is the issue, other than that you agree with those on one side, and not those on the other?



BA, I would agree in general with your descriptions, and with the lines quoted above, but would add that most commentators are very good at blurring the lines.



By all means, please contribute. This has the makings of a good topic, if we can just stick to the actual topic. There are those here who would appreciate your input.

Actually, the charge of this thread is about the media, not Reagan. If you want to discuss Reagan, why not begin a thread on Reagan? Aside from that, no matter what anyone posted, you would either not believe it, or trash it based on political motivation. What sense does it make to demand someone start a thread to prove a negative? Yes, you are much more intellectually competent than me, again!



It is also just as much of a satire as the article you cited. Parody is not hateful, it is humorous. From Merriam Webster:
Satire: Parody and war are not even close to being comparable. You continue your usual attacks and incoherent ramblings, we will continue to be entertained.

Please see Maureen Dowd's column, New York Times. Basically, every single time it appears it contains lies and misrepresentations about those with whom she disagrees. She distorts people's words in quotes so often, there is a word for it - Dowdified.

Example:
Mo Dowd:
Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They're not a problem anymore."

GW Bush (actual words, without dowdification):
Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.

See? She deleted the bold part and inserted . . . . which made it seem like Bush said "Al Qaeda" (they) are not a problem any more. What he obviously said was that (the half that are dead or in jail) are not a problem anymore.

Similarly, your example of Bush saying "now watch this drive" - it had nothing at all to do with 9/11, but you don't seem to know that. Because Michael Moore took it out of context.

Is any of this making sense, or don't the New York Times or Michael Moore count as "the media?"

Ok once again let me clarify, another poster brought up the Reagan post I made in a completely different thread and posted it in this thread in post number two of the thread. This was posted not having anything to do with the thread, just as some kind of attack me. Which Dtom who complains about off the subject but can not even see his hypocrisies of on his first post started complaining about name calling of Reagan from a completely different thread, funny how he did not complain about that poster for bringing a post from a completely different thread into this one that had virtually nothing to do with this thread. If that poster did not like my post in the other thread he could have debated me in that thread where I stated as a fact basically that Reagan virtually abolished all the research to make us energy independent. IE only an idiot would do something that stupid. And again I will reply to this type of activity... even scubatim is also doing this. Again if you do not like the Regan stuff go to the person who brought it to the thread, and complain to him.

Now the rest see to me the postings I made are obvious, ever play chess? see in Engineering we do not have to explain everything we are expected to be able to add everything up. My posting was to Jobis, (I have to comment Jobius as he has been outstanding in this debate no insults what so ever and good/excellent points) It was specifically showing another reporter at the NYT that he quoted that was the opposite. IE balance in that paper. Then I went on to add name callers on the right who are not Rush et all to dispel the fact that people around here say that rush is a pundit so he can name call. Well I posted so called (are they journaists, commentators or pundits) when they name call? Next I posted two who are not just in one newspaper in fact George Will and Novack are in how many major newspapers in the USA?

http://journalism.about.com/b/2007/09/13/g...op-ed-pages.htm



A few opinion columnists.
http://www.creators.com/opinion.html

Could not find the specifics for Novak but here is a listing of his well bias. and we know he is syndicated all over the place.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/robert_novak

Now the person I cited robert Minch is listed as a columnist in the paper. He is not an op-ed listed by his own paper. Thus If people are following the debate here, the cited people by Jobius were op-ed people so I listed other op-ed people who own huge shares of the so called liberal media" distribution. so that is the issues of the debate, clearly op-ed is pundit laden. but here I listed a columnist as so listed by his paper, who I say have definitely blurred the line.

Here is the page the paper lists what they classify him as right or wrong that is their position. http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/opinion

So you have posted snippets of columinsts on the right, and links to biased "media watchdog" groups. What exactly sets your examples apart from the liberal columnists I named? The media watchdog agencys on both the left and the right have only come to the conclusion that each others opposition is biased. That illicits a resounding 'duh' from the informed public.

Is there some sort of fundamental difference between the two that you are trying to prove? If so, then you are definitely going to have to explain yourself.

But Op-Ed is a page. A piece of real estate, the page opposite the editorials. There's no essential difference between an op-ed column and any other column, other than that a paper is less likely to run an "agony aunt" advice column on the Op-Ed page. Columnists are always expected to be opinionated. If they didn't have opinions, they wouldn't be columnists.

Right. Their numbers only included syndicated columnists, not local. Obviously, they do have information on local columnists, since they read all of the top papers. Then again, we know that David Brock is a liar so there you go. They are a well-funded organization, and they could very easily have an intern (or 5 or 10) read columns from each of the top local papers in the top 20 - 50 metro areas and label each local columnist as 'liberal' or 'conservative' and then include it in their calculations. Of course, they won't do this, because it would disprove their hypothesis. Local columnists, just like most other journalists, are far more likely to be liberal than conservative.

I could easily argue that, since mostly conservatives make it to the 'big time' syndicated market, there must be more demand for their product, or they are better writers, or both.

Here are the columnists for the Chicago Tribune. Only one or two of the local guys could be considered conservative, vs. 4 or 5 which could be liberal, and a few who don't really address politics. And this is the more conservative of the two Chicago papers. At the New York Times, it is 9 to 1, with Bill Kristol being the only conservative. And this is the 'paper of record' in America.

For whatever reason, most liberal columnists are not syndicated. Exceptions being Garrison Keillor, Clarence Page, etc.