Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

I only watch MSNBC.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Nov. 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM
Replies (71-80):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM
2 moms liked this

Look at the facts. Romney, not Obama, spoke to the NAACP, even thought they disagreed with him on Obamacare. Obama sent Biden - an insult, if you ask me. Who reached out to the black community here?

Romney's senior advisor was a black woman, and he had a black leadership council specifically tasked to reach out to blacks. Romney ended up getting the votes of 12% of blacks - not a large percentage - but a huge increase over the past 30 years.

And Romney enjoyed the vast majority of citizens on both Medicare and Social Security. 

48% of the population, only 3% less than Obama's total, is not chump change. Electoral votes are decided based on the popular vote from each state. If Romney had received 333,000 more votes in 4 states, he would have won the election. That's close. 

It is true that the polls at D+8, turned out to be correct, and not the D+3 that Republican strategists believed it was. Misunderstanding the basis of the polls for a year makes a huge difference in how you plan the strategy for an election. And Romney should have reached out more to the minority groups his information said would not vote in great numbers.

The candidate with the more effective strategy always wins. Not necessarily the best candidate. Obama had a more effective strategy. Doesn't mean he was the best candidate, only that more people voted for him.


Quoting viv212:

He only alienated people that were not white, people on SSI, seniors, and other minority groups. He did not visit 1 black community. You're right. He lost by more than half because of it. The white vote can only get you so far which is what the Republican party realized.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Romney did not alienate half the population. His two points were that the other candidate always gets about half the population. And 48% of Americans pay no income tax. Obama was the one who demonized the ideology of half the American people.


Quoting viv212:

It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience.



Lol I thought you were talking about Romney for a second there with his 47% comment.




Quoting SallyMJ:

Good for you. Many of us don't like Rachel too much. It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience. Unlike Fox, where half its viewers are liberal. Not even close at MSNBC.

And a Pew study shows that Fox News actually IS fair and balanced - unlike Rachel Maddow's MSNBC. 


http://kpisp.net/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox.html



itsmesteph11
by Silver Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM
3 moms liked this

 throwing up

Bookwormy
by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM
I don't want my news to give me much opinion, I just want facts. I'm not looking for commentary usually. I don't want 45% anti-Obama. I don't want 70% anti-Romney. I agreed that Pew showed that MSNBC was more biased than Fox. But to me neither of those are fair & balanced. Neither of those are really news.

I don't have time to read the whole Pew report today, but my understanding is that they found that print news is less biased. I don't use TV/cable for news. If that's what they wrote, I agree with them. Although I do like NPR/PRI/BBC ie: public radio. When they do have commentators, like on Fridays, thewy typically have a conservative & a liberal on together. That seems more balanced.

We needn't agree. You can find Fox factual, fair, & balanced. I don't use tv or cable for news because find it tends to lack factual news content & be biased.


Quoting SallyMJ:

Let's look at the data - About 45% of Fox references to Obama were negative, compared to 70% of MSNBC references to Romney. Fox wasn't negative toward Obama even half the time, but MSNBC was negative toward Romney almost three fourths of the time - a difference of 55.5%. 

No other network employs and features hosts and guests with a significant mix of political viewpoints. About 31% of Fox news commentators are liberal, compared to 0.1% of conservatives at the other networks. Fox has more liberal commentators than the conservatives at all the other networks combined.

Pew Research Center did another study about the audiences of cable news channels. They found Fox News to have the most balanced audience:  39% were conservatives, 33% liberals, 22% independents, 6% other. The other cable station audiences averaged 45% liberal, 18% conservative, 25% independent, 12% other.

Recently when the White House banned Fox News from the interview of a financial czar, all the other networks demanded Fox be reinstated. So whether or not these other networks lean left, they acknowledge Fox as a legitimate news organization.

Fox News does significant journalistic investigation of their own, whether or not other news organizations do. They alone are reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attack and coverup. All networks present opinion. But Fox doesn't disparage liberals; they just disagree with them. MSNBC, on the other had, demonizes conservatives.

We need to look at the evidence, not the opinions of liberals and left-leaning news networks.


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partisanship-fox-news-and--other-cable-news-audiences

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/#s=a-d

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html



Quoting Bookwormy:

I was being serious, not funny. I don't consider either one news. I believe both are Op Ed & watch neither. The study showed both to be exceedingly biased, but MSNBC was more biased. The Republican party is the party of retirees because of conservative social views and is dying out. Many believe we need a 3 or 4 party system, & we are developing a 1 party system. What's the joke?





Quoting SallyMJ:

Read it again - I said "shows" not "said". There's a difference.

Your jokes are a bit weak. Better luck next time. 



Quoting Bookwormy:

The Pew study did *not* say that Fox "News" is fair & balanced. It simply said that MSNBC "News" is even more biased than Fox. My belief is that neither is news and both are Op Ed. I watch neither.





The Republican party is shrinking as it becomes the Retirement party. It isn't 1/2 the population any longer & better regroup before it dies out.








Quoting SallyMJ:

Good for you. Many of us don't like Rachel too much. It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience. Unlike Fox, where half its viewers are liberal. Not even close at MSNBC.

And a Pew study shows that Fox News actually IS fair and balanced - unlike Rachel Maddow's MSNBC. 


http://kpisp.net/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox.html









Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
2 moms liked this

I don't know, but that Maddow guy seems a little gay to me.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Pew concluded that Fox News is more neutral, less biased, than other networks. That is not what most liberals (or even many conservatives) would expect.

A UCLA study showed the news of the Wall Street Journal - generally considered conservative -  as liberal.

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left...Most all major media outlets tilt to the left."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Quoting Bookwormy:

I don't want my news to give me much opinion, I just want facts. I'm not looking for commentary usually. I don't want 45% anti-Obama. I don't want 70% anti-Romney. I agreed that Pew showed that MSNBC was more biased than Fox. But to me neither of those are fair & balanced. Neither of those are really news.

I don't have time to read the whole Pew report today, but my understanding is that they found that print news is less biased. I don't use TV/cable for news. If that's what they wrote, I agree with them. Although I do like NPR/PRI/BBC ie: public radio. When they do have commentators, like on Fridays, thewy typically have a conservative & a liberal on together. That seems more balanced.

We needn't agree. You can find Fox factual, fair, & balanced. I don't use tv or cable for news because find it tends to lack factual news content & be biased.


Quoting SallyMJ:

Let's look at the data - About 45% of Fox references to Obama were negative, compared to 70% of MSNBC references to Romney. Fox wasn't negative toward Obama even half the time, but MSNBC was negative toward Romney almost three fourths of the time - a difference of 55.5%. 

No other network employs and features hosts and guests with a significant mix of political viewpoints. About 31% of Fox news commentators are liberal, compared to 0.1% of conservatives at the other networks. Fox has more liberal commentators than the conservatives at all the other networks combined.

Pew Research Center did another study about the audiences of cable news channels. They found Fox News to have the most balanced audience:  39% were conservatives, 33% liberals, 22% independents, 6% other. The other cable station audiences averaged 45% liberal, 18% conservative, 25% independent, 12% other.

Recently when the White House banned Fox News from the interview of a financial czar, all the other networks demanded Fox be reinstated. So whether or not these other networks lean left, they acknowledge Fox as a legitimate news organization.

Fox News does significant journalistic investigation of their own, whether or not other news organizations do. They alone are reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attack and coverup. All networks present opinion. But Fox doesn't disparage liberals; they just disagree with them. MSNBC, on the other had, demonizes conservatives.

We need to look at the evidence, not the opinions of liberals and left-leaning news networks.


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partisanship-fox-news-and--other-cable-news-audiences

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/#s=a-d

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html



Quoting Bookwormy:

I was being serious, not funny. I don't consider either one news. I believe both are Op Ed & watch neither. The study showed both to be exceedingly biased, but MSNBC was more biased. The Republican party is the party of retirees because of conservative social views and is dying out. Many believe we need a 3 or 4 party system, & we are developing a 1 party system. What's the joke?





Quoting SallyMJ:

Read it again - I said "shows" not "said". There's a difference.

Your jokes are a bit weak. Better luck next time. 



Quoting Bookwormy:

The Pew study did *not* say that Fox "News" is fair & balanced. It simply said that MSNBC "News" is even more biased than Fox. My belief is that neither is news and both are Op Ed. I watch neither.





The Republican party is shrinking as it becomes the Retirement party. It isn't 1/2 the population any longer & better regroup before it dies out.








Quoting SallyMJ:

Good for you. Many of us don't like Rachel too much. It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience. Unlike Fox, where half its viewers are liberal. Not even close at MSNBC.

And a Pew study shows that Fox News actually IS fair and balanced - unlike Rachel Maddow's MSNBC. 


http://kpisp.net/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox.html










viv212
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM
You are probably right. Had Romney exercised a better campaign he might have won. And if that infamous 47% video didn't leak, and if he didn't flip flop so much. Who knows.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Look at the facts. Romney, not Obama, spoke to the NAACP, even thought they disagreed with him on Obamacare. Obama sent Biden - an insult, if you ask me. Who reached out to the black community here?

Romney's senior advisor was a black woman, and he had a black leadership council specifically tasked to reach out to blacks. Romney ended up getting the votes of 12% of blacks - not a large percentage - but a huge increase over the past 30 years.

And Romney enjoyed the vast majority of citizens on both Medicare and Social Security. 

48% of the population, only 3% less than Obama's total, is not chump change. Electoral votes are decided based on the popular vote from each state. If Romney had received 333,000 more votes in 4 states, he would have won the election. That's close. 

It is true that the polls at D+8, turned out to be correct, and not the D+3 that Republican strategists believed it was. Misunderstanding the basis of the polls for a year makes a huge difference in how you plan the strategy for an election. And Romney should have reached out more to the minority groups his information said would not vote in great numbers.

The candidate with the more effective strategy always wins. Not necessarily the best candidate. Obama had a more effective strategy. Doesn't mean he was the best candidate, only that more people voted for him.



Quoting viv212:

He only alienated people that were not white, people on SSI, seniors, and other minority groups. He did not visit 1 black community. You're right. He lost by more than half because of it. The white vote can only get you so far which is what the Republican party realized.



Quoting SallyMJ:

Romney did not alienate half the population. His two points were that the other candidate always gets about half the population. And 48% of Americans pay no income tax. Obama was the one who demonized the ideology of half the American people.



Quoting viv212:

It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience.





Lol I thought you were talking about Romney for a second there with his 47% comment.






Quoting SallyMJ:

Good for you. Many of us don't like Rachel too much. It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience. Unlike Fox, where half its viewers are liberal. Not even close at MSNBC.

And a Pew study shows that Fox News actually IS fair and balanced - unlike Rachel Maddow's MSNBC. 


http://kpisp.net/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox.html



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM

What about Obama's judgment? The left-wing mainstream media only bring out Romney's mistakes, not Obama's. They have been defending him for years. They defend his abysmal record. They said nothing about Obama telling the Russian president that he would have "more flexibility" in working with them after winning the election. What do you think he meant by that? Why didn't the mainstream media pounce on this? The media would never do this to Obama, because they are in the tank for him and all liberals. And these members of the media don't even investigate news stories critical to Obama - such as the coverup of the Benghazi terrorist attack.Why didn't they report on the warnings by employers and economists that the cost increases of Obamacare would result in layoffs and higher unemployment? Why have they always suppressed all the negative information about Obama's background? You know they would be foaming at the mouth to investigate all these if it were a Republican president. How do you defend such bias? Why do liberals insist these networks are "fair", and "not biased"? 

In the speech you refer to, Romney made a number of statements - most accurate, some inaccurate. It is true that 48% of Americans pay no income tax. It is not correct that all of them vote for Obama. In fact, Medicare and Social Security recipients voted overwhelmingly for Romney. It is true that most others on government assistance vote for Obama, who will continue their benefits as is with no revision of the programs. It is true that about half of voters, give or take, support each candidate, and this base on either side are not the ones either candidate generally goes after. It is also true that the deciders of the election are generally independents. So, much of the information in those statements is accurate. 

    Quoting viv212:

    You are probably right. Had Romney exercised a better campaign he might have won. And if that infamous 47% video didn't leak, and if he didn't flip flop so much. Who knows.

    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Look at the facts. Romney, not Obama, spoke to the NAACP, even thought they disagreed with him on Obamacare. Obama sent Biden - an insult, if you ask me. Who reached out to the black community here?

    Romney's senior advisor was a black woman, and he had a black leadership council specifically tasked to reach out to blacks. Romney ended up getting the votes of 12% of blacks - not a large percentage - but a huge increase over the past 30 years.

    And Romney enjoyed the vast majority of citizens on both Medicare and Social Security. 

    48% of the population, only 3% less than Obama's total, is not chump change. Electoral votes are decided based on the popular vote from each state. If Romney had received 333,000 more votes in 4 states, he would have won the election. That's close. 

    It is true that the polls at D+8, turned out to be correct, and not the D+3 that Republican strategists believed it was. Misunderstanding the basis of the polls for a year makes a huge difference in how you plan the strategy for an election. And Romney should have reached out more to the minority groups his information said would not vote in great numbers.

    The candidate with the more effective strategy always wins. Not necessarily the best candidate. Obama had a more effective strategy. Doesn't mean he was the best candidate, only that more people voted for him.



    Quoting viv212:

    He only alienated people that were not white, people on SSI, seniors, and other minority groups. He did not visit 1 black community. You're right. He lost by more than half because of it. The white vote can only get you so far which is what the Republican party realized.



    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Romney did not alienate half the population. His two points were that the other candidate always gets about half the population. And 48% of Americans pay no income tax. Obama was the one who demonized the ideology of half the American people.



    Quoting viv212:

    It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience.





    Lol I thought you were talking about Romney for a second there with his 47% comment.






    Quoting SallyMJ:

    Good for you. Many of us don't like Rachel too much. It's difficult when someone ridicules half the American population. Not exactly a good idea to alienate half of your potential audience. Unlike Fox, where half its viewers are liberal. Not even close at MSNBC.

    And a Pew study shows that Fox News actually IS fair and balanced - unlike Rachel Maddow's MSNBC. 


    http://kpisp.net/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox.html




    Analeigh2012
    by Silver Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM
    Cannot even stomach to watch the video you posted, I would much rather have Rush Limbaugh in bed with me, and I am a big fan of women. Something about her just irritates the hell out of me. I couldn't even say if I agree with her reporting, or if I think she is smart and non-biased because I cannot even watch her. I never have MSNBC on at all because I am afraid she will pop up in even a commercial. Yep. Hate her more than I hate George Bush!
    Posted on CafeMom Mobile
    imamomzilla
    by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:08 PM
    1 mom liked this

     sidesplittinglaughter

    Quoting Analeigh2012:

    Cannot even stomach to watch the video you posted, I would much rather have Rush Limbaugh in bed with me, and I am a big fan of women. Something about her just irritates the hell out of me. I couldn't even say if I agree with her reporting, or if I think she is smart and non-biased because I cannot even watch her. I never have MSNBC on at all because I am afraid she will pop up in even a commercial. Yep. Hate her more than I hate George Bush!

     

    4kidz916
    by Gold Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:16 PM
    1 mom liked this

    I'm not a fan of hers.  I don't like her hair cut and it's something about the way she talks that I can't stand. And I usually don't have a problem with things like that.  

    Add your quick reply below:
    You must be a member to reply to this post.
    Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
    Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

    (minimum 6 characters)