# Liberal Media Police Bring Out the Big Stick



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman I thought you said the media was liberally biased? It appears we can squash that nonsense from now on....

When the Dems complain about a conservative bias at FOX News, FOX News says fugg you. However when the Republicans complain about liberal bias at MSNBC, *heads roll quick.*



> MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel's coverage of the election.
> 
> That experiment appears to be over.
> 
> ...


I see..... Politically incendiary hosts are only permissible when they're right-wingers.

Please make a note of it.

:beer:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

what really happened here, is the parent company, NBC, had finally seen enough. their ratings and credibility was going to hell and they had to reign in their "radical children", because too many Americans were figuring out how unjust the bias and bashing was getting......FOX has been killing them on ratings and their (MSNBC) "show" was just getting plain ugly.....finally caught up with them.....  8)


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

They werent fired because they were left-biased, they were fired because nobody watched. Kinda the same reason Air America was a disaster.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You have to be way out left field not to know the media is bias liberal.

One station fair and balanced, and the rest are way left. However, the liberals whine if it isn't 100% in their favor. How often have we seen on here over the years the demonizing of Fox News. Well, look what's happening. More of America is beginning to watch them.

What company would want to advertise with a media outlet that constantly trashes businesses? Liberal media has been dying a slow death for a couple years now. It will drag their credability to new lows this year.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

:lol:

You must not have read the whole article, or fail to comprehend the meaning behind what they were saying.

They gave Olbermann a huge contract last year, then get worried when the network took heat.

Who was giving the heat? Conservative folks who didn't like the slant being presented.

Take a look at each step of the way. Who was doing the whining and complaining? Who is behind the smear strategy to get them removed?

It had nothing to do with ratings, but more to do with the "NBC, NBC" chanting by those attending the RNC convention.

It is a huge double standard...

I guess the DNC folks should have been chanting "FOX, FOX"... right? Ohh but wait. Biden never whined about the media coverage... only Palin and the other right wing whackos did. Now we have the inverse of those crying the loudest now complaining that it isn't their fault that the program was axed. Their "complaints" and the chanting at the RNC had nothing to do with it.

right.

My bad! :thumb:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Sorry Ryan, bottom line in the television buisness is ratings. Ratings = Dollars. Plenty of people cant stand Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, or Oprah, but they remain on the air because people watch.

If Conservatives were turning blue in the face complaining about Olbermann and Mathews at the same time executives were choking on their own spit trying to sell ads on the highest rated news program your boys would still have a job. And there is nothing else to add to it. That is the crystal clear, straight as an arrow, absolute 0 BOTTOM LINE!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Gun Owner don't go and confuse poor Ryan with simple economics!!!!!!!!!  

That is the crux of the article, and when viewership drops so does the amount of money you can charge for advertising!

They tried something different than others to try and set themselves apart. CBS did it with the Kouric hire and they are also rethinking their business decision.

In comparison Olberman has the highest rated show on MSNBC and because of that his seat is still his seat.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> :lol:
> 
> I guess the DNC folks should have been chanting "FOX, FOX"... right? Ohh but wait. Biden never whined about the media coverage... only Palin and the other right wing whackos did. Now we have the inverse of those crying the loudest now complaining that it isn't their fault that the program was axed. Their "complaints" and the chanting at the RNC had nothing to do with it.


Looks like the recent PR efforts by Ryan to distance himself from Obama and establish himself as non-biased or moderate have come to a screeching halt! 

We ALL understand why there's no need for Biden to complain about the press...including Ryan.

Hey, while I've got you Ryan, how's it goin with your fact-finding mission to back up your recent concerns that Palin's daughter's pregnancy isn't her first? I haven't seen any posts by you giving us any updates on the subject...... :eyeroll:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Ryan, what don't you understand about both points of view.

Fox has both liberals and conservatives, probably leaning a little to the conservative side, but why not, they are the only game in town when it comes to being anywhere close to that side of the isle. Anyone whome wants to see more than one point of view on everything has only one network to watch.

Olberman was a psycho, period. No news value whatsoever.

There should be a law passed that when any news outlet prints falsehoods that they knew of to begin with that they should be fined $100,000.00 per person reached by the falsehood. That would end all the crap from all directions.

And yes, it is simple economics, Olberman is funny or had a bit of shock value the first time you watched, but after that, he just came off as an idiot, and everyone saw it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Csquared said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > :lol:
> ...


You aren't worth my time. I will never respond to a post of your publically again. You know why. We've archived the comment. I expect an apology.

Be careful. The ice you are standing on isn't too thick. If you get my drift...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> Sorry Ryan, bottom line in the television buisness is ratings. Ratings = Dollars. Plenty of people cant stand Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, or Oprah, but they remain on the air because people watch.
> 
> If Conservatives were turning blue in the face complaining about Olbermann and Mathews at the same time executives were choking on their own spit trying to sell ads on the highest rated news program your boys would still have a job. And there is nothing else to add to it. That is the crystal clear, straight as an arrow, absolute 0 BOTTOM LINE!!!


Yep it is all about ratings.

Until it happens to a Republican like Rush. Then it is censorship.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> In comparison Olberman has the highest rated show on MSNBC and because of that his seat is still his seat.


Agreed Ron. Olbermann has ratings. So did the other show. It was controversial and hot. Folks liked it for pushing the envelope and taking all sides to task.

Only when Republican whiners started complaining loudly did they pull it for fear of backlash perception.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

southdakbearfan said:


> Ryan, what don't you understand about both points of view.
> 
> Fox has both liberals and conservatives, probably leaning a little to the conservative side, but why not, they are the only game in town when it comes to being anywhere close to that side of the isle. Anyone whome wants to see more than one point of view on everything has only one network to watch.
> 
> ...


  "probably leaning to the conservative side" ??

Try watching BBC news, or something from Canada. But FOX? :koolaid:

I agree about Olbermann too... I'm more frustrated with the principle of the move...

Ryan


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Gun Owner said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Ryan, bottom line in the television buisness is ratings. Ratings = Dollars. Plenty of people cant stand Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, or Oprah, but they remain on the air because people watch.
> ...


Sorry Ryan, but I believe Rush has the paperwork of those from the left asking for his dismissal. Too bad his rating is so high that is won't happen. MSNBC was getting trashed in the rating from Fox. It wasn't working for him.



> Be careful. The ice you are standing on isn't too thick. If you get my drift...


As to these censorship threats, I am getting really tired of them. Give it a rest.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Really Ryan it has more to do with the flat and dropping ratings and the fact that the behavior of the on air personalties are causing embarrassment to the parent company!

There is no doubt that Matthews and Olberman are extremely biased in their positions. No different than Hannity is on Fox. Inside their own shows this is fine. It is why people watch them. However on the big three networks, that type of bias tanks viewership and advertising dollars.

Like someone pointed out, if the ratings where there and ad sales good, no amount of complaining would have changed that lineup! You want to blame it on the Rep, but the only ones to blame are Oberman and Mathews themselves.

Keep in mind that this situation would never have reached this level in my opinion if Tim Russert had not passed. Once Oberman was given free reign he thought he was untouchable or that people really liked this bias!
People still remember the Dan Rather incident and do not trust the media as it is. 
Thus NBC did not want to be viewed as the NOBAMA Channel!

Advertisers drive media and without them programing does not last.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> As to these censorship threats, I am getting really tired of them. Give it a rest.


It's not a censorship threat. It's much more than that. It was for a post he made that I immediately yanked into the Super Mod forum. Plainsman PM'd him about it.

You likely haven't heard about it.

PM me if you want the details.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Owner said:
> ...


As was the "paperwork" asking for the removal of that program. It is all semantics.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Really Ryan it has more to do with the flat and dropping ratings and the fact that the behavior of the on air personalties are causing embarrassment to the parent company!
> 
> There is no doubt that Matthews and Olberman are extremely biased in their positions. No different than Hannity is on Fox. Inside their own shows this is fine. It is why people watch them. However on the big three networks, that type of bias tanks viewership and advertising dollars.
> 
> ...


Agreed Ron.

This is indeed the crux of the issue. I totally agree with this assessment. The problem I have is that they yanked the show without trying some other kind of intervention. It makes it totally seem suspect as to motivations.

They were getting ratings as many (like me) tuned in to watch the nightly trainwreck.

I think we agree on the likely why it was canned, but disagree on how it was done, what other alternatives there were instead, and the appearance of bias due to circumstances surrounding the decision.

Have a good night.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Radicals normally come to a bitter end. Olberman is just the tip of the iceberg. For example who was the outlet for that story about the down syndrome baby belonging to Palin's daughter. If they rely on advertisers they will not be around long. Gutter politics attracts radicals like code pink etc, but in a nation of hundreds of millions of people their following is insignificant, as it should be.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> :lol:
> 
> You aren't worth my time. I will never respond to a post of your publically again. You know why. We've archived the comment. I expect an apology.
> 
> Be careful. The ice you are standing on isn't too thick. If you get my drift...


Ryan, I went back through my posts over the years and I could find only once that you DID respond to me directly, so I don't expect that to change now. But I think we all agree it would be nice if you would "man up" and have the backbone and conviction to match your opinions and stay in the discussion until it's been discussed. But prefacing with a "no response" clause does leave you an easy way out..... :wink:

I don't know what I'm worth, and I suppose that answer depends on who you ask, but I have no desire to discuss whether or not I can afford the luxury of your attention. I only request the decency of an explanation....same as my intent every time I've questioned you about your stated opinion. That's why these forums have a "reply" box. You make a statement and the rest of us reply. That's how we learn. You seem to use this forum as your personal message board, then get wizzed when someone dares to call you on any of it.

And just in case you are feeling a little mistreated, let me remind you I have had discussions somewhat similar to this one with some of your supporters here. Bigdaddy comes immediately to mind (sorry for dragging you into this BD), but he ALWAYS answered my questions. And although we will probably never agree on anything I will always respect his willingness to discuss and explain. You could use him as an example.....in more ways than one.

Back to your quote above. I have no idea why you have decided you don't want to talk to me directly......in a public format, anyway. And what is this comment of mine that has been archived? Please post it here so we all know what has gotten you so upset. If I have posted something you found personally offensive, please post it here also, assuming it differs from the archived comment. Let's practice transparency in govt right here. 

And why am I on thin ice? And no, I do not get your drift :huh:

And what did you edit out of your post 5 minutes after you posted it?


----------

