Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!

2009-02-03T23:40:52Z

SaltLake: /* It's called humor... */ new section

==Initial queries==
Uh, I'm not sure about this one, honestly. By the way, do essays need to be true and verifiable, as the title claim is not yet? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: Addison, the essay and song do not mention a specific individual!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Come on....some humor please! An old saying, always true, is: "If the shoe fits, wear it." --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:11, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Your shameful attempts at dodging are as transparent as the water of a dead lake, Andy.
::And your song doesn't scan right. At all. "Born in the USA." Six syllables. "Born nowhere near the USA." Eight. Do you see the problem? Most of it doesn't rhyme, either. Keep your day job... haha, oh wait, you just live off your mom's money... nevermind. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Wow, TBaker, this entry really got under your skin!! Too bad your rebuttal is so pathetic. Go back to [[public school]] where they might nod their heads at your incoherence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::::Er... how is the rebuttal pathetic? Your song sucks, simply. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: TBaker, you're complaining because the song gets under your skin. You wouldn't bother otherwise. The truth does sting for those who insist on denying it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, what an impressive encyclopedic entry. What high standards here at Conservapedia. Hey, is it ok for me to write an anti-Bush song or anti-Palin song?? I promise I won't ''mention a specific individual!!!''
*You guys are Conservative alright. No doubt about that. Hating all things blue and defending all things red. But don't you dare claim to be a Christian encyclopedia. [[User:AFlaily|AFlaily]] 17:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: "AFlaily", you can't even post in your own real name. See my response to TBaker above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Has anyone noticed that [[liberals]] always have absolutely no sense of humor, and lack the ability to laugh at themselves? All they seem to have is self-righteous indignation. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:::We have a sense of humor. This simply isn't funny. It's juvenile. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::I also notice that [[liberals]] are always full of [[deceit]] as well, making and re-making socks, just to argue. And why do you Canadian liberal trolls care so much about United States matters, anyway? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: What's hilarious is how liberals delight so much in their own [[deceit]]. Go back to watching [[Comedy Central]], TBaker, if you even get cable television where you are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==Scansion==
Honestly, setting aside the content for a moment, if you want to write a parody song that's fine by me. But at least do it right. Do a scanning run-through of "Born in the USA," not syllables and the types of poetic feet, and conform your novel ideas to those. Then it'll at least be clever. Now it reads like someone who doesn't read, or doesn't understand, the point of poetry.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: You protest too much also, DavidSt. Stop resisting the truth and it won't sting so much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::I'm not disputing the truth. I'm disputing the form of its statement. Hold on, I'll write something about scansion....-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:36, 3 February 2009 (EST)
:::Okay. So scansion works like this. Tennyson's "Ulysses" scans in iambic pentameter, which means five syllabic pairs of WEAK/STRONG. Observe:where ' = strong, and _ = weak, "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" = "_ ' _ ' _ ' _ ' _ '" So you need to find how Born in the USA scans, and pattern on that.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Suggestion: to make a patternably scanned rhyme scheme, change the title to "Ain't Born in the USA." So the title and the critical phrase would scan " _ ' _ _ ' ' ' "-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== It's called humor... ==

Please everyone - you may disagree with the principle of the song (for me, "I can't even pronounce 'Pakistan'
And I also mispronounce the 'Taliban'" is the most incoherent, among other things) but to get angry over it is just childish. You could apply the same song to John McCain over his age or Sarah Palin over her gaffes (just to use two examples), and I'm sure the response wouldn't be nearly as large as this song over Barack Obama. Flawed? Yes. Something to get blood boiling? No way. If you want to make your own song about a public figure, I'm sure that would be fine too. If you don't like it, do something more constructive. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 18:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Bruce Springsteen

2009-02-02T03:37:01Z

SaltLake:

'''Bruce Frederick Joseph Springsteen''' (born September 23, 1949) is a liberal American musical artist.

==Discography==

Springsteen has a number of studio Albums<ref>http://www.brucespringsteen.net/albums/index.html</ref>

*Hammersmith Odeon London '75 (2006)
*We Shall Overcome(2006)
*Live in Dublin (Live) (2007)
*Magic (2007)
*Working on a Dream (2009)

{{Stub}}

Comedy Central

2009-02-01T16:40:39Z

SaltLake: I think this should be capatilized

'''Comedy Central''' is a left-slanting cable and satellite television channel which draws a large portion of its viewership from adolescents, such as the average [[public school]] student (who watches more than three hours of television daily).

Comedy Central features adult cartoons, including [[South Park]], and dim-witted [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. The channel is based in the Upper West Side of [[Manhattan]].
==Shows==
*[[The Daily Show]]: A so-called parody news show with an extreme [[leftist]] point-of-view, hosted by [[Jon Stewart]]. 
*[[The Colbert Report]]: A spin-off of the Daily Show, hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]] who satirically portrays conservative commentators, mocking them, portraying them as buffoons and inaccurately stating conservative values. 
*[[South Park]]: A cartoon based around the lives of four obscene elementary school children in a [[Colorado]] mountain town which pokes fun at pop-culture, traditional family values and politics. 

==Hypocritical censorship==

Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad.

[[Category: Liberal Media]]

{{Liberalism}}

Religion of Barack Hussein Obama

2009-02-01T05:28:29Z

SaltLake: clean up

'''[[Barack Hussein Obama]]'s religious beliefs''' are currently the subject of intense speculation. It is believed that he is either a Muslim, an Atheist or a Christian. There is a significant body of evidence that supports he has a faith in each.

==Obama and Atheism==

*When he initially took the oath of office on January 20, 2009 he misspoke (possibly due to [[Chief Justice Roberts]] not being prepared) and out of an "abudance of caution" the oath was retaken. On January 21, 2009 Roberts again swore Obama in, this time without a Bible. An aid claimed "A bible could not be found" <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/#cnnSTCText| Obama retakes Oath (CNN)]</ref>.

==Obama and Islam==

*[[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama_will_likely_be_the_first_Muslim_President|Article on Obama]]

==Obama being Unchristian==

*Since assuming office Obama has not attended a single church function <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story| Obama skips Church (LATimes)]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{stub}}

Noun

2009-02-01T05:21:18Z

SaltLake: typos

A '''noun''' is a [[word]] used to name a [[person]], [[animal]], [[place]], [[thing]], or an abstract [[idea]]. Nouns are usually the first words which small children learn.<ref> [http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/nouns.html The Writing Centre], University of Ottawa </ref> The bold words in the following [[sentence]] are all nouns:

"'''Jesus''' will return to set up His '''kingdom''' on '''Earth'''."

A proper noun is a name given to a person, place or company or title. "Jesus" is a proper noun, as is the Book of Genesis. Abraham is a proper noun as is the First United Methodist Church. In English, proper nouns are capitalized. A very clear example of proper nouns vs., common nouns is the word "god". God, the Christian Deity by name is a proper noun and is capped. "god" the concept of deity is not a proper noun. Consider this sentence: "The only true god is God".

In English, most, capitalized words are also proper nouns. The most common exception is the word "I" which is a [[pronoun]]. That rule varies from language to language; for example, [[German language|German]] capitalizes all nouns, while many [[writing]] systems have no concept of capitalization.

In many languages like Russian, Hebrew, Greek and Latin nouns have different forms in different [[grammatical case|cases]] to show their relationships to other words in the sentence.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Linguistics]]
[[Category:Parts of Speech]]

M. Russell Ballard

2009-02-01T05:16:57Z

SaltLake: since there is no other Salt Lake City in the world

[[Image:M. Russell Ballard.jpg|thumb|Eldter M. Russell Ballard]]
'''M. Russell Ballard''' is a member of the [[Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]] in the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Elder Ballard was born in [[Salt Lake City]] on October 8, 1928. Prior to his call as a General Authority, Elder Ballard had interests in [[automotive]], [[real estate]], and [[investment]] businesses. He served as a member of the Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy from February 21, 1980 to October 6, 1985 when he was called to his present Church position.

==External Links==
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/leader-biographies/elder-m-russell-ballard Elder M. Russell Ballard bio at LDS Newsroom]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ballard, M. Russell}}
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Guava

2009-02-01T05:12:57Z

SaltLake: we don't need the registered trademark symbol

'''Guavas''' are [[tropical]] [[fruit]], with a green, thick outside and a pink, fleshy inside that can be used for juice or eating. In drinks, "guava" [[flavor]] has been used in Rockstar (an energy drink), Rubicon's "Guava Exotic Fruit Drink," and many other beverages.

[[Category:Fruits]]

Lockheed Martin

2009-02-01T05:09:50Z

SaltLake: you have got to be kidding me - the last sentence of this paragraph is so out of place I'm going to remove the paragraph. readd when a source is found and/or we can mention stinky plastic here :)

'''Lockheed Martin''' is an aerospace manufacturer and provider of systems and IT services. It was formed in 1995 from the Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta Corporation. Headquartered in Bethesda, [[Maryland]], Lockheed Martin employs about 140,000 people worldwide. Most of the $39.6 Billion dollars in sales (2006) were to the [[US]] [[government|federal government]], primarily the [[Department of Defense]].

The Aeronautics Division of Lockheed Martin includes the "Skunk Works" (or Advanced Development Programs) which is responsible for some of the most advanced aircraft ever, in part because it works outside the regular bureaucracy of large corporations.

==Notable Shunkworks Aircraft==
*[[P-38 Lightning]]
*[[P-80]] Shooting Star
*XF-90
*[[F-104]] Starfighter
*[[U-2]]
*[[SR-71]] Blackbird
*XST (Have Blue), the prototype for the : [[F-117]] Nighthawk
*[[F-22]] Raptor
*[[F-35 Lightning II]]

==Other Lockheed Martin Aircraft==
*[[C-130]] Hercules
*[[C-141]] Starlifter
*[[C-5]] Galaxy
*[[F-16]] Fighting Falcon (design purchased from General Dynamics)

==Links==
*[http://www.lockheedmartin.com Official Site]

[[category:companies]]

Rod Blagojevich

2009-02-01T01:48:12Z

SaltLake: moving down image and reducing size... a picture of the person should always be first in a biographical article

[[Image:Blagojevich with Emanuel.jpg|250px|right|thumb|Blagojevich with Rahm Emanuel]]
[[Image:Blago.jpg|thumb|200px|Like cartoonist Mike Luckovich, most people thought "Blago" was a stupid clown]]
'''Milorad "Rod" R. Blagojevich''' (''Milorad'' due to his [[Serbia|Serbian]] heritage) was the Democratic [[governor]] of the state of [[Illinois]] from January 13, 2003 until impeachment on January 29, 2009. He was born on December 10, 1956, in [[Chicago]]. Before being elected as governor, Blagojevich served as Cook County Assistant State's Attorney and then Representative for Illinois' 5th District in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] (elected in 1996).<ref>http://www.illinois.gov/gov/bio.cfm</ref>

On December 9, 2008, Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges for attempting to sell the recently vacated [[United States Senate|U. S. Senate]] seat of [[Barack Obama]]. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_us/blagojevich_corruption_probe</ref> Liberal media outlets were disproportionately quick in declaring that then-President-elect Obama had no involvement in the scandal, despite clear evidence being available to the contrary <ref>http://flapsblog.com/2008/12/15/why-is-barack-obama-lying-about-contact-with-hot-rod-blagojevich-part-3/</ref> including photos of the two together while the governor was trying to sell Obama's seat <ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/fullosseousflap/3100630034/</ref>.

This also brings out the question of the Chicago "meat grinder" politics, as this could influence Barack Obama to the core.{{fact}}

The connection between Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel is even more condemning. Emanuel has not commented on any connections with Blagojevich<ref>CNN News</ref>. There are two separate conversations of Emanuel talking with Blagojevich.

On January 9, 2009, Blagojevich was impeached by Illinois House of Delegates. His trial before the Illinois State Senate resulted in a unanimous decision of 59-0 for impeachment. Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was sworn in as governor of Illinois on January 29, 2009.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_impeachment</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blagojevich, Rod}}

[[Category:Illinois Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2009-01-30T21:06:10Z

SaltLake: /* Conservative */ oh please

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

A lot of the statements in the article are not sourced and some are simply pure conjecture, also there is an obvious pro-Fox bias.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, please be specific! This isn't WP and trolling will be dealt with harshly! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--[[User:Cowbell14|Cowbell14]] 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

*Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

*Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" [[user:thegovernator]]

== bias. ==

this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-

owait, its already here.

facts < politics

flaming appreciated, its a bit cold here. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes??? {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}}

*Okay, I excuse you. Now, how about you doing what editors are supposed to do, and suggest specifics here, or ask that it be unlocked for you to add them? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Internal Links==
Both [[Chris Wallace]] and [[Brit Hume]] lack internal links in this article, even though there are articles on both of them. You might want to change that. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:46, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit for Fair and Balanced section ==

In the interest of full disclosure, should the fact that Fox News is the biggest backer of Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson be mentioned?

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the claim, but it is on the front page of Conservapedia right now, and a backing of a presidential candidate by a news source is something of enough import to warrant its inclusion. {{unsigned|Stitch}}-- 00:54, 7 November 2007

*Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style ==

To demonstrate the impact [[liberal bias]] has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
* "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
* "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
* "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
* "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know

In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda. ==
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False] Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.

[http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/682323/EA_Slaps_Fox_News.html EA Slaps Fox News] EA's response to Fox News' recent overexaggerated claims of pornography in Mass Effect. Farren Ballast. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVDRx-V5n4 here] Then you've got [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5dYzu1w9k Fox ignoring Ron Paul], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0 Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans], and [http://foxattacks.com/ pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.]
:MSM is garbage. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::::You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not ''what'' you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I don't get the point of complaining if you fully intend not to be taken seriously. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, please take your [[liberal]] links and your [[liberal]] stories elsewhere. Or else try being more fair and balanced, like Fox News. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Exactly. We don't allow that here, but neutral criticism is ok. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::The links above are hate-filled, I agree. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html This] clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."

Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".

Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Fox's ratings take another dive==
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/fox-news-ratings-take-another-slide/] Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::Besides, any drop in [[Fox News]]' ratings is likely due to the liberal [[MSM]], trying to draw viewers away from responsable, balanced reporting with their [[liberal]] [[propaganda]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Category change==

The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unencyclopedic ==

"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sorry (re: Fox entertainment) ==

I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::[[Fox Network]]. Checked, and expanded.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== "is a conservative ... channel" ==

I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservative ==

Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::That is very strange sir because on this thing [http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:lLVQk7Cmah8J:content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D539+"john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp] from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Rod Blagojevich

2009-01-30T03:47:28Z

SaltLake: slight copyedit

[[Image:Blagojevich with Emanuel.jpg|200px|thumb|Blagojevich with Rahm Emanuel]]
'''Milorad "Rod" R. Blagojevich''' (''Milorad'' due to his [[Serbia|Serbian]] heritage) was the [[governor]] of the state of [[Illinois]] from January 13, 2003 until impeachment on January 29, 2009. He was born on December 10, 1956, in [[Chicago]]. Before being elected as governor, Blagojevich served as Cook County Assistant State's Attorney and then Representative for Illinois' 5th District in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] (elected in 1996)<ref>http://www.illinois.gov/gov/bio.cfm</ref>.

On December 9, 2008, Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges for attempting to sell the recently vacated [[United States Senate|U. S. Senate]] seat of [[Barack Obama]]. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_us/blagojevich_corruption_probe</ref> Liberal media outlets were disproportionately quick in pointing out that then-President-elect Obama had no involvement in the scandal, despite clear evidence being available to the contrary <ref>http://flapsblog.com/2008/12/15/why-is-barack-obama-lying-about-contact-with-hot-rod-blagojevich-part-3/</ref> including photos of the two together while the governor was trying to sell Obama's seat <ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/fullosseousflap/3100630034/</ref>.

This also brings out the question of the Chicago "meat grinder" politics, as this could influence Barack Obama to the core.

The connection between Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel is even more condemning. Emanuel has not commented on any connections with Blagojevich<ref>CNN News</ref>. There are two separate conversations of Emanuel talking with Blagojevich.

On January 9, 2009, Blagojevich was impeached by Illinois House of Delegates. His trial before the Illinois State Senate resulted in a unanimous decision of 59-0 for impeachment. Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was sworn in as governor of Illinois on January 29, 2009.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_impeachment</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blagojevich, Rod}}

[[Category:Illinois Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2009-01-30T00:38:11Z

SaltLake: /* "is a conservative ... channel" */ new section

Liberal bias

2009-01-29T05:30:47Z

SaltLake: /* U.S. Universities */ this is common knowledge, citation not needed

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools which will be elaborated on shortly. It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.


Such a bias could manifest itself as one or more of the following:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention 
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention 
*an attempt to be consistent by treating men and women alike
*an obsession with race where images are used
 

==The  Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[NPR]]
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[National Academy of Sciences]]
* [[Guardian]] ([[UK]] news organization)

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is rampant in American university campuses. Leftist [[professor values|professors]] dominate the universities. "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===Associated Press===

AP has a consistent anti-police bias, for example, referring to "the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day". Their article is designed to create sympathy for a person who talked and acted like he had a [[gun]] and then resisted arrest. The AP account reads more like an [[editorial]] than a straight [[news story]]. It is not until 400 words into the story that you read the judge's reason for acquitting the accused cops. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting]

AP does a biased piece on GOP VP nominee [[Sarah Palin]]. First paragraph includes ''"the latest in a string of disclosures that left the McCain campaign defending the thoroughness of its background check "''. There isn't a string of disclosures. Everything about her was public with the exception of the pregnant teen daughter. Second paragraph, ''"her husband, Todd, had been arrested for drunken driving two decades ago"'', pathetic tabloid smear. ''"little experience"'', liberal media always ready to drive that message home with Palin, but rigorously defend [[Obama]]'s lack of experience as the real heartbeat-away from the [[Presidency]]. ''"In a brief respite from partisanship, Democratic rival Barack Obama weighed in"'' The [[AP]] should have just wrote- ''Obama, staying high above political mudslinging because he is just that good.''. ''"the pregnancy of Palin's daughter, Bristol, was aimed at rebutting Internet rumors that Palin's own youngest son, born in April, was actually the daughter's."'' AP giving credibility to Obama supporters' [[Daily Kos]]'s gross slander, actually like it so much, repeat twice in the article. "The national convention... already had been relegated to a distant second to the hurricane on TV." AP thinks Americans can care less about the GOP. ''"McCain's team dispatched a dozen operatives and lawyers to Alaska, fueling speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin's past was incomplete..."'' Rumors masquerading as worthy news with an actual GOP rebuttal cited "Palin underwent a ``full and complete'' review." <ref>[http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-top&idq=/ff/story/0001/20080901/2353662008.htm&maxphotos=6&phototerm='bristol+palin'&maxstories=4&storyterm='sarah+palin' Palin says daughter, 17, is 5 months pregnant] AP, September 1, 2008</ref>

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
In July, 2008, the [[New York Times]] rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref> This came after the [[New York Times]] had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries. The reason the [[New York Times]] cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

===LA Times===

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December of 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8th, the mainsteam media finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/10/14/bozell-column-whos-fierce-abortion Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?] NewsBusters.org, October 14, 2008</ref>

===Name That Party===

The liberal media refuses to identify the political party in their stories when a Democrat is involved in a scandal. Most times it is buried deep within the article so as to remain anonymous to the audience. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/03/name-party-dem-ma-state-senator-charged-sexual-assaults Name That Party: Dem MA State Senator Charged in Sexual Assaults] NewsBusters.org, August 3, 2008</ref> The [[Associated Press]] is the most guilty of this practice but it is in fact modus operandi by all liberal media sources. Compare that with Republican scandals which the liberal media will always includes the party name in its headlines or within the first sentence or first paragraph.

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>
==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Professor values]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberalism]]

Comedy Central

2009-01-29T05:20:42Z

SaltLake: copyedit of sorts [just wondering why the proximity to a bus depot is relevant?]

'''Comedy Central''' is a left-slanting cable and satellite television channel which draws a large portion of its viewership from adolescents, such as the average [[public school]] student (who watches more than three hours of television daily).

Comedy Central features adult cartoons, including [[South Park]], and dim-witted [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. The channel is based in the upper west side of [[Manhattan]].

==Shows==
*[[The Daily Show]]: A so-called parody news show with an extreme [[leftist]] point-of-view, hosted by [[Jon Stewart]]. 
*[[The Colbert Report]]: A spin-off of the Daily Show, hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]] who satirically portrays conservative commentators, mocking them, portraying them as buffoons and inaccurately stating conservative values. 
*[[South Park]]: A cartoon based around the lives of four obscene elementary school children in a [[Colorado]] mountain town which pokes fun at pop-culture, traditional family values and politics. 

==Hypocritical censorship==

Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad.

[[Category: Liberal Media]]

{{Liberalism}}