BuffettNews.com

RinglingRingling wrote: and I love how those whose only apparent source of news is Fox are so quick to claim that theirs is the one true source

Actually, I very rarely watch the news on TV at all and, when I do, it's usually CNN.

and then resort to name-calling if questioned.

Really? Who did I call names?

Did they measure you for that horse Mike? It seems awfully high for you.

Charming little fella, ain't ya?

Spider Johnson wrote:Where did anyone claim Fox News was the one true source of hard news?

Who knows. He's trying to demonize me by claiming that I only watch FOX, which every good liberal knows is just a conservative mouthpiece for Republicans, so of course I would defend them.

ph4ever wrote:

alphabits wrote:This movie looks strangely familiar ......

ya think?

Extra butter, please.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

alphabits wrote:This movie looks strangely familiar ......

ya think?

Extra butter, please.

kool aid to wash it down?

ph4ever wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

alphabits wrote:This movie looks strangely familiar ......

ya think?

Extra butter, please.

kool aid to wash it down?

as long as it's spiked.... it's been one of those days....

yeah, a nice rum punch sounds good....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

alphabits wrote:This movie looks strangely familiar ......

ya think?

Extra butter, please.

kool aid to wash it down?

as long as it's spiked.... it's been one of those days....

yeah, a nice rum punch sounds good....

of course it's spiked!!!!!

ph4ever wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

alphabits wrote:This movie looks strangely familiar ......

ya think?

Extra butter, please.

kool aid to wash it down?

as long as it's spiked.... it's been one of those days....

yeah, a nice rum punch sounds good....

of course it's spiked!!!!!

then I'll take one too!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LIBuffettFan wrote:There should be another news group that does nothing but interpret the other news agencies and come up with something that resembles whats really going on.

Their ALL supposed to be telling us “what’s REALLY going on”. Unfortunately, the press deliberately and negligently abdicated their responsibility to do this in favor of advocacy. Given this, it was inevitable that opposing media advocates would appear to fill the void.

RinglingRingling wrote:

mikemck wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:one might think that unless they issued an apology, given that it was done under their broadcasting license, that it is their position.

Not sure I understand that logic. I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Keith Olbermann's calling President Bush a facist means that President Bush is a facist is MSNBC's official position, would you?

When Dan Rather was caught fabricating evidence to support a news story that turned out to be true (this eventually ended his career), CBS made no apologies. Does that mean that it's CBS' official position to make up evidence for fake news stories?

I misspoke, as was pointed out, a disclaimer is all that is evidently needed. But the fact still remains: "hard news" vs "spoof of news". comparing this piece to The Daily Show is a bit of a stretch. And the fact that some blowhard behind a desk who probably has never heard a shot go past his head is hardly in a position to insult the Canadian AF. If the Canadians were the equivalent of the Costa Rican military, Americans would not have joined them in WW1 and 2 before this country got into the war, nor would they have fought beside them at Dieppe.

Costa Rica has a military? When did that happen?

diverg wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

mikemck wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:one might think that unless they issued an apology, given that it was done under their broadcasting license, that it is their position.

Not sure I understand that logic. I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Keith Olbermann's calling President Bush a facist means that President Bush is a facist is MSNBC's official position, would you?

When Dan Rather was caught fabricating evidence to support a news story that turned out to be true (this eventually ended his career), CBS made no apologies. Does that mean that it's CBS' official position to make up evidence for fake news stories?

I misspoke, as was pointed out, a disclaimer is all that is evidently needed. But the fact still remains: "hard news" vs "spoof of news". comparing this piece to The Daily Show is a bit of a stretch. And the fact that some blowhard behind a desk who probably has never heard a shot go past his head is hardly in a position to insult the Canadian AF. If the Canadians were the equivalent of the Costa Rican military, Americans would not have joined them in WW1 and 2 before this country got into the war, nor would they have fought beside them at Dieppe.

Costa Rica has a military? When did that happen?

1821 - 1949

ph4ever wrote:

diverg wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

mikemck wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:one might think that unless they issued an apology, given that it was done under their broadcasting license, that it is their position.

Not sure I understand that logic. I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Keith Olbermann's calling President Bush a facist means that President Bush is a facist is MSNBC's official position, would you?

When Dan Rather was caught fabricating evidence to support a news story that turned out to be true (this eventually ended his career), CBS made no apologies. Does that mean that it's CBS' official position to make up evidence for fake news stories?

I misspoke, as was pointed out, a disclaimer is all that is evidently needed. But the fact still remains: "hard news" vs "spoof of news". comparing this piece to The Daily Show is a bit of a stretch. And the fact that some blowhard behind a desk who probably has never heard a shot go past his head is hardly in a position to insult the Canadian AF. If the Canadians were the equivalent of the Costa Rican military, Americans would not have joined them in WW1 and 2 before this country got into the war, nor would they have fought beside them at Dieppe.

Costa Rica has a military? When did that happen?

1821 - 1949

I know that.

diverg wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

diverg wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

mikemck wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:one might think that unless they issued an apology, given that it was done under their broadcasting license, that it is their position.

Not sure I understand that logic. I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Keith Olbermann's calling President Bush a facist means that President Bush is a facist is MSNBC's official position, would you?

When Dan Rather was caught fabricating evidence to support a news story that turned out to be true (this eventually ended his career), CBS made no apologies. Does that mean that it's CBS' official position to make up evidence for fake news stories?

I misspoke, as was pointed out, a disclaimer is all that is evidently needed. But the fact still remains: "hard news" vs "spoof of news". comparing this piece to The Daily Show is a bit of a stretch. And the fact that some blowhard behind a desk who probably has never heard a shot go past his head is hardly in a position to insult the Canadian AF. If the Canadians were the equivalent of the Costa Rican military, Americans would not have joined them in WW1 and 2 before this country got into the war, nor would they have fought beside them at Dieppe.

Costa Rica has a military? When did that happen?

1821 - 1949

I know that.

well then why did you ask???

Connie, I like to ask questions I already know the answer to, and if you look at my first question it is in the present tense. Hence the second question of when did that happen.

wiscoleeds wrote:Anyone who thinks the show Red Eye is really a news show probably needs the warning on McDonald's coffee cups that the contents are hot.

Cheers
Wiscoleeds

Hmmm look at this report. There may be more people who possibly think Red Eye, John Stewart's and other shows of the same type are serious.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ws_outlets

Nearly One-Third of Younger Americans See Colbert, Stewart As Alternatives to Traditional News Outlets
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets.

Thirty-two percent (32%) of adults ages 30-39 believe this to be true, while 42% disagree, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Thirty percent (30%) of those ages 18-29 say programs like the two Comedy Central shows that feature news reports with a comic twist are replacing traditional news outlets, but 35% disagree and another 35% are not sure.

Among all Americans, 24% say programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news venues, but 45% do not think so. Thirty-one percent (31%) are undecided.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of adults say programs of this nature are making Americans more informed about news events, while 21% believe they make people less informed. Twelve percent (12%) say they have no impact.

Twenty-one percent (21%) characterize programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show as at least somewhat influential in shaping their political opinions, including seven percent (7%) who say they are Very Influential. Most (70%) say they are not influential, with 44% who say they are not at all influential.

Americans under 40 again are far more likely than older Americans to view programs like this as influential. Fourteen percent (14%) of those 18-29 say they are Very Influential, compared to just one percent (1%) of those over age 65.

Younger Americans also tend to think the programs make them more informed about news events, while older adults are more skeptical.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show,” while 35% have a favorable view of Stephen Colbert of “The Colbert Report.” Twenty-two percent (22%) regard both Stewart and Colbert unfavorably.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Republicans, 22% of Democrats and 21% of adults not affiliated with either party say programs like those of Stewart and Colbert are taking the place of traditional news outlets.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Democrats and 21% of unaffiliated Americans say programs like these are at least somewhat influential in shaping their political opinions. Just 15% of Republicans agree.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say the programs make them more informed about news events, as do 38% of unaffiliated adults and 28% of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans (35%) say the programs make Americans less informed, a view shared by 21% of unaffiliateds and just 10% of Democrats.

The findings are more bad news for one traditional news outlet - daily newspapers. A survey released earlier this month found that most young readers are rejecting daily print papers but are not going to the local paper’s website as an alternative.

However, most adults now find online reporting comparable to that in their local newspaper.

Colbert had 13% voter support in October 2007 when he announced he was thinking of running for the presidency. Eight percent (8%) supported Stewart’s bid for the White House.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

diverg wrote:Connie, I like to ask questions I already know the answer to, and if you look at my first question it is in the present tense. Hence the second question of when did that happen.

I know - just ragging you a bit

diverg wrote:

wiscoleeds wrote:Anyone who thinks the show Red Eye is really a news show probably needs the warning on McDonald's coffee cups that the contents are hot.

Cheers
Wiscoleeds

Hmmm look at this report. There may be more people who possibly think Red Eye, John Stewart's and other shows of the same type are serious.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ws_outlets

Nearly One-Third of Younger Americans See Colbert, Stewart As Alternatives to Traditional News Outlets
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets........

.

That's what I mean. C'mon, Jon Stewart arguing with Cramer and accusing him of influencing Wall Street wasn't comedy, and his argument with Cramer was the pinnacle of hypocrisy, as his show influences more people than Cramer does.
While I wouldn't waste my time on either show, sadly there are younger people out there who's opinions are being molded by these two slime ball shows.

C-Dawg wrote:

diverg wrote:

wiscoleeds wrote:Anyone who thinks the show Red Eye is really a news show probably needs the warning on McDonald's coffee cups that the contents are hot.

Cheers
Wiscoleeds

Hmmm look at this report. There may be more people who possibly think Red Eye, John Stewart's and other shows of the same type are serious.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ws_outlets

Nearly One-Third of Younger Americans See Colbert, Stewart As Alternatives to Traditional News Outlets
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets........

.

That's what I mean. C'mon, Jon Stewart arguing with Cramer and accusing him of influencing Wall Street wasn't comedy, and his argument with Cramer was the pinnacle of hypocrisy, as his show influences more people than Cramer does.
While I wouldn't waste my time on either show, sadly there are younger people out there who's opinions are being molded by these two slime ball shows.

Jon Stewart doesn't try to tell you where, or when, to invest your money.
He may have been wandering out of his yard a little re: Jim Cramer...but he wasn't wrong in his assessment.

To say "ride this one out" as banks/brokerage houses began to fail in Sept... was bone-headed at best.
That includes Jim Cramer, Erin Burnett..et al. They are all shills for Wall Street, and they have been exposed

Anyone who couldn't see that a meltdown was imminent last year doesn't really pay close attention to money...period.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

C-Dawg wrote:

diverg wrote:

wiscoleeds wrote:Anyone who thinks the show Red Eye is really a news show probably needs the warning on McDonald's coffee cups that the contents are hot.

Cheers
Wiscoleeds

Hmmm look at this report. There may be more people who possibly think Red Eye, John Stewart's and other shows of the same type are serious.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ws_outlets

Nearly One-Third of Younger Americans See Colbert, Stewart As Alternatives to Traditional News Outlets
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets........

.

That's what I mean. C'mon, Jon Stewart arguing with Cramer and accusing him of influencing Wall Street wasn't comedy, and his argument with Cramer was the pinnacle of hypocrisy, as his show influences more people than Cramer does.
While I wouldn't waste my time on either show, sadly there are younger people out there who's opinions are being molded by these two slime ball shows.

Jon Stewart doesn't try to tell you where, or when, to invest your money.
He may have been wandering out of his yard a little re: Jim Cramer...but he wasn't wrong in his assessment.

To say "ride this one out" as banks/brokerage houses began to fail in Sept... was bone-headed at best.
That includes Jim Cramer, Erin Burnett..et al. They are all shills for Wall Street, and they have been exposed

Anyone who couldn't see that a meltdown was imminent last year doesn't really pay close attention to money...period.

I'm not saying his assessment was right or wrong, merely pointing out his show is "supposedly" a comedy show, not a news program, and not the place for that type of confrontation. If Jon Stewart wants to do news, then do news. If he wants to do comedy, then do that. But to straddle the fence way he does is BS.
The show Red Eye shouldn't be on a News Network, just as Jon Stewart should stick to comedy, and not do real interviews of serious subjects. For him to do that blurs the lines even more...is his show comedy, or news?