The “I’m just a news commentator not a reporter” is convenient bs that they can hide behind when they get caught twisting the facts. This applies to all news commentators not just the ones on fox news. Bottom line is people go to them for news and people like Bill’O even report to have “no spin” which is the vary distinction between news commentary and reporting. So they get to dance on the line not having to worry about whether or not they have their facts strait and twisting information to fit there views. 

I'd really like to think that was the case, simply a matter of jaded capitalism at its best.  But the facts put the lie to that.  The 'other half' of the electorate had no money?

Speaking of BS, the dismissals from the left that CNN's reporter was just an 'exception' and that CNN insists on impartiality are just that.  The culture of Obama Adoration is rampant there and she felt perfectly safe letting her hair down, so to speak.  Had her bosses truly laid down the impartiality law, that never would have happened.  She, and her bosses, had a pre-conceived negative opinion of the tea parties and were determined to portray them in a negative light.  You never would have seen her demean or argue with participants in a gay pride demonstration.

Having achieved their objective of getting Obama elected, they (the traditional media, all but Fox) are out there protecting his flanks at every opportunity.  They want nothing to tarnish the One.  I can make a very safe bet here - no matter how bad things get over the next 3 years, not one thing will be blamed on BO.  He will have made zero bad decisions - he will be portrayed as having been dealt a bad hand and having done the best he could.  Having elected Jesus, they'll carry the narrative that not even Jesus could save us from Bush.

what the fuck is this critical thinking thing? its just a buzzword.

I think, actually, that secular, fiscal conservatism will win out in the long run despite the course of the immediate present.

To be honest, things like gay marriage and abortion rile people up but most people care about what's happening on the homefront...as in their own homes. Gays who can get married and are successful will likely vote fiscally conservative. Once people get older the worry about abortion rights in theory is hard for those who easily afford birth control.

My sister is pretty liberal on social issues but is a die-hard fiscal conservative. She feels NYC is robbing her as she states "Not everyone is willing to work 80-100 hours like me and Rajiv (her fiaance). They don't deserve our money." I am not agreeing or disagreeing with her (economics is a tricky subject to write about critically) but note that it is an anecdote that deserves further statistical study:

How many so called liberals are really just social liberals waiting for secular, fiscal conservatism?

Abortion is orders of magnitude more expensive than birth control, if you have unprotected sex because you cannot "afford" birth control you are a moron.

Anyone with half a brain is a fiscal conservative, I mean, I am an ATHEIST, I couldn't care less about the religious "morality" of the right. But when it comes to money, math, science, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, it is an absolute, there are no shades of gray here. 2+2 = 4. And anyone who understands anything about economics is a fiscal conservative...

Well, actually its only called conservative in the USA where they are trying to conserve what the founding fathers put in place, an extremely liberal (liberty, not multiculturalism) fiscal system. In china the fiscal conservatives are communists and the fiscal liberals wish they had a system like that of america... or rather, like what america HAD. we lost it, we need to take it back.

Ehhh.. not what I meant. I meant that there get more viewers/readers/suscribers if they publish more stories about Obama than if they published more stories about McCain. One looked better in the camera, the other did less.

There might be a culture of adoration of Obama in the media, but then again, I am sure it's not because of his political leanings. It's because HE SALES PAPER. You put his face on the news, and you get viewers. These news network are only after what "people care about" and less about objectivism.

Which is why I think you seriously lack some objectivism in the United States. Canada's governement news network is reputed to be much more unbiaised all around compared to private ones, as they don't go after the ratings first, and they have to answer to everybody, where the private news network just love going into the populism. At least, in French-Canada (Radio-Canada being the name of the network), I don't know how CBC is faring.

As a result, eventually, there is a good chunk of the population who got attuned and used to the kind of non-sensationalism news presented in R-C. It's far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

I recently discovered that the Boston Tea Party happened because the english LOWERED the tax on tea trade. The founding fathers were against tax cuts

I guess that explains CNN's ratings.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

The political leaning is a consequence of Rating Inertia that I talked about, not because of the ideological preferences of the reporters (mostly). In the same order of idea, that explains why so many pro-war reports happened all over US news in Jan-Feb 2003, while anti-war reports in Canada at the same time.

I think basic economics explains the situation, not a general conspiracy of the liberals. As to wonder wether it's a good thing or not... errr.. Well.. personnally, I'd say it's not. Or at least, not entirely.

Abortion is orders of magnitude more expensive than birth control, if you have unprotected sex because you cannot "afford" birth control you are a moron.

Think accessible rather than affordable then. Or acceptable even - no social stigma to pregnancy when you're married, as well as your parents can't blame you for having sex.

And anyone who understands anything about economics is a fiscal conservative

Not sure that's true - why would it be? It might take me awhile but I should be able parse your argument - I majored in econ LONG ago but recall the basics when pressed. <<insert appropriate smiley>>

If I remember right, one important aspect of macroeconomics is governement spending. It's not the best tool for all jobs, but it's still there (along with monetary policies). The government NEEDS funds. So... I dunno, really. There is no pure black and white. I'd say anyone who understands anything about economics and is not blinded by ideologies can swing either way.

I've never believed or claimed that there was any 'general conspiracy' of the liberals, any more than I believed that 'vast right wing conspiracy' crap dreamed up by liberals during the Clinton administration.

But I would argue that there is a collective or shared political point of view, both subconscious and overt, that is reflected in their reporting.  And further, that this is in spite of the economic incentives, as if they feel obliged to somehow 'protect us from Fox' no matter what that means to their ratings.  You can call that 'inertia' if you wish.

Birth control is more accessible than abortion everywhere in the world... even in africa it is easier to find a condom than it is to find a DOCTOR who is trained in performing an abortion.

Abortion has a much bigger social stigma (if any) than using birth control.

Married couples are REALLY not the issue here are they?

Why are you working backwards from your CONCLUSION and desperately try (and fail) to find an explanation that justifies it? shouldn't you first look at facts and then draw a conclusion? maybe then I would have a little bit harder time davastating your arguments. This is part of why people say liberalism (multiculturalism not liberty) is a religion.

It would be true because economics is a concrete science based on facts, just like chemistry. Some people misunderstand it, but that means that they are WRONG, not that it is less concrete a subject.

Majoring in economics apperantly doesn't necessitate you understand anything about it.

Ask some successful investors, they "get it".

Critical thinkers are just people that can disseminate information and break it down in a form that can be conceptualized then used in such a manner that it has the potential to solve a problem when applied.

Now, a buzzword is love.  People in the States love everything from inaminate objects to animals to people.

Or maybe you can just say that disseminate is a buzzword along with the United States.

Translation:

Critical thinkers are just people that can disperse information throughout and break it down in a form that can be formed into concepts and then used in such a manner that is has the potential to solve a problem when applied.

Translation of translation:

Critical thinkers are people who can solve problems by taking information, dispersing it, breaking it down, forming concepts from the pieces (specifically concepts that can be used to solve a problem), and then applying those concepts to solve the problem.

As I said, buzz word. Basically all that junk means "able to solve problems". With a variety of stupid qualifiers about dispersing information, breaking down concepts, etc...

AFAIK you cannot teach a person to be a problem solver, either you got it or you don't. Maybe I am just being cynical, but I always was a problem solver, critical thinking classes were always bullshit, and I have never seen someone come out of a critical thinking class going "So that is how you break down information and disperse it in order to form it into concepts that have the potential to solve problems when applied"