Great. Now Elizabeth Lauten lost her job.Follow

Gold coins, home security, life lock, and some strange organic, homeopathic pet medicine that will cure everything and undo what those evil Vets have been doing to your little dog all these years.

No ***** pills, from what I remember.


Edited, Dec 8th 2014 9:54pm by TirithRR

Media of all flavors is there for one's consumption. If no one bites it goes away.

It's all biased...always.

And those ads for websites with the guy saying "Find out the truth of what FEMA is planning BEFORE they shut me down..."

The dog food ones are my favorite. For one thing, they sound just like I'd imagine a posting from Gbaji about veterinary medicine with the whole "Those ivory tower veterinarians with their fancy degrees couldn't do what this common sense down-home dog food did!" thing. The other thing is that there's an ad for "Texas Superfood" that sounds JUST like the dog food ads except for people.

"My dog's hair was falling out and after thousands at the vet, we tried Magic Dog Chow and now his coat is full and luxurious..."
"I spent thousands at the doctors trying to cure my aching joints but after a week of eating Texas Superfood, I'm more pain free than ever..."

I hadn't heard the Texas superfood one yet. The local radios here don't carry Rush's show. The nearest station that does ends its signal about 20 miles out on the freeway. If I'm listening on a trip I can almost reach my exit and still listen as long as I don't change the channel.

Otherwise I don't here him unless I'm working in Kentucky. And the station that plays him has a little wannabe-Rush on as well during the times Rush's show isn't on.

I'm a wannabe Rush. The guy's loaded and all he has to do is be an *** day in, day out. I'm game for giving that a try.

To be fair, he's pretty glib and entertaining if you can get the past complete lack of logic or premise. Which he actively encourages, obviously. His fan's catchphrase is short for "I agree with everything you say, all the time." I'd listen to him on a drive somewhere if there was nothing else interesting on. Something I couldn't say for Ed Schultz for instance.

Rush spends FAR too much time these days promoting his books or iced tea or whatever the hell both directly and taking seven minute phone calls from someone saying how awesome his books/tea are. I used to listen to him over lunch but the signal:noise ratio got too unfavorable when you figure all the book/tea stuff is really just more commercials.

The first two during the super bowl (really just one commercial divided) were the best. Not a fan of the dozen or so since.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I used to listen. Didn't agree with him at all but he was usually at least entertaining to listen to. Just fewer of those segments now with the promotion stuff taking up all the space.

That's not actually true. The major networks are all going to provide news services. I believe they're actually required to for their broadcast licenses. What happens when ratings drop for the news programs (ie: people don't believe the garbage they're shoveling) is that they become more biased, not less. Once the news is just a loss and a cost of selling the other programming to a mass market, those running the network have no reason not to just use it to help promote their own pet political positions.

It's only when news actually competes and attempts to make a profit on their ratings that it becomes more likely to reflect the positions and views of their audience. And, not surprisingly at all, the news channel that does this to the greatest degree is Fox (I should say it's the most successful in terms of getting viewers to choose to watch their programming rather than just not turning the channel when the nightly news comes on).



And once again we see a lack of distinction between the list of studies, polls, and data, and the site that merely accumulated the list. Yes. It's not surprising at all that a conservative group would be the ones to gather together a list of various sources on media bias. But that fact does not invalidate the data they collected.

Edited, Dec 9th 2014 3:25pm by gbaji

What Smash said. It's nice that you naively think a conservative think tank whose very paychecks rely on proving bias in media will give you a full unfiltered picture of the bias in media or that "But they're using someone else's study!" is a great argument for taking them at their word but the rest of us are grown-ups.

Edited, Dec 9th 2014 5:38pm by Jophiel

Nothing is true to everyone, but everything is true to someone.

You are a shining example of illiberality.

Don't forget the months of "oversampling!"

That's still a great mystery. As we know, just because every single one of those sites was run by Romney supporters, that in no way impacted the polling statistical augments they made. Assuming you can't do basic math, of course.