No, I didn't see that episode of O'Reilly--was just trying to make a funny. Don't everybody laugh at once. It's fun to see O'Reilly get shit thrown in his face once in a while to knock him off his high-horse. I'm sure it was entertaining.

As for other liberal programming--I certainly consider Greta to be a liberal. Perhaps they don't seem liberal to some of you because you yourselves lean to the liberal side, and therefore you see them as being centric, middle-of-the-road types. i.e. you don't realize how liberal some of your tendencies actually are. It's a 2 way street, I'm sure I feel the same way about some of my sources.

your kind of right. o'riley doesnt win them all, but you can never win them. you can only win most of them. i only watch the show occasionally, because i always forget when it comes on, but i did see one episode, where this sex guru/author of a sex book came on as a guest. the topic was obviously about the sex book she had written that had gained some controversy. if i recall it was like, "how to keep having good sex past 40 or 50", something like that. but this woman really could get into peoples minds. and she got into his. you could just see how much instead of the guest being put on the spot, o'riley was the man now put on the spot. she kept refering to his sex life, asking "hows your sex life bill?" you could expect him to say something like "really thats a personal matter, and its not my personal life we're talking about, its about your inappropriate book we're talking about. there was more to the story, but this was many months back.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz what?

It was a clever way of saying "Irony is dead", which is a clever way of saying you posted an irony-laden statement without realising it, which is a clever way of insinuating that the comment you made ("most news agency in america subconsiously get into our minds and flood us with propaganda. but they dont call it propaganda, they call it news.") was inherently ironic in nature, which is a clever way of suggesting that such a statement more accurately describes the symptoms of the news network you are defending rather than those you are attacking.

gg.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It was a clever way of saying "Irony is dead", which is a clever way of saying you posted an irony-laden statement without realising it, which is a clever way of insinuating that the comment you made ("most news agency in america subconsiously get into our minds and flood us with propaganda. but they dont call it propaganda, they call it news.") was inherently ironic in nature, which is a clever way of suggesting that such a statement more accurately describes the symptoms of the news network you are defending rather than those you are attacking. gg.

How do you know irony was born in 6000 BC? Source please

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How do you know irony was born in 6000 BC? Source please

I was operating under the presumption that irony developed with the rise of civilization, which I attributed to the rise of ancient Sumarian culture, which, upon further investigation, I note that I mistakenly dated in my former post at 6,000 BC instead of 6,000 years ago (i.e. 4,000 BC).

On the other hand, perhaps I was merely utilising the inherent mutual exclusivity of approximation (namely, the indeterminate ascention of irony as a linguistic method) and exactness (namely, the self-proclaimed knowledge of the life-span of this method) in order to form a statement that claimed deference to both concepts while admitting neither, thus forming an ironic statement of my own as a means of highlighting the irony inherent in Heinz's post: ironic, that is, because I may have claimed either exactness or artistic approximation depending on the nature of my own subjective perspective or of that possessed by the reader, yet in reality neither positions were adequately fulfilled and both require deference to the other in order for the statement to be coherent. And it is thus, in the simultaneous mutual-exclusivity and mutual-dependence of the said concepts in which the ironic nature of such a statement is realised. Of course, if this was a self-conscious, self-depricating endeavor then the limits of mere "irony" have been post-modernistically transcended, giving rise to the comprehension that such a statement may not have been - as I intended - ironic in nature, but rather post-ironic and in such a comprehension more layers of irony are added in two main ways: namely, that my attempt at irony was actually post-ironic in nature (which is ironic in itself) and the fact such an ironic overture was supplied by providing irony by attempting an ironic statement that was actually post-ironic (which is similarly ironic in itself). Namely it is ironic that such an ironic overture should have eminated from the irony created by attempting to create an ironic statement that was actually post-ironic in nature. In addition to all this, the irony of the fact that I should have used a statement that was ironic because I gleaned irony from a statement that was intending to be ironic but that was actually delivered post-ironically (this irony in itself being ironic) to identify and rebut an unintentionally ironic statement provided by Heinz is supremely ironic in itself (even more so when you consider that such rhetorical irony, ironically, wasn't ironic, but the irony of this lack of irony in attempting to provide irony, was ironic, hence providing the irony necessary to ironically highlight the irony inherent in the statement provided by Heinz).

Or maybe I'm just drunk.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

I was operating under the presumption that irony developed with the rise of civilization, which I attributed to the rise of ancient Sumarian culture, which, upon further investigation, I note that I mistakenly dated in my former post at 6,000 BC instead of 6,000 years ago (i.e. 4,000 BC).On the other hand, perhaps I was merely utilising the inherent mutual exclusivity of approximation (namely, the indeterminate ascention of irony as a linguistic method) and exactness (namely, the self-proclaimed knowledge of the life-span of this method) in order to form a statement that claimed deference to both concepts while admitting neither, thus forming an ironic statement of my own as a means of highlighting the irony inherent in Heinz's post: ironic, that is, because I may have claimed either exactness or artistic approximation depending on the nature of my own subjective perspective or of that possessed by the reader, yet in reality neither positions were adequately fulfilled and both require deference to the other in order for the statement to be coherent. And it is thus, in the simultaneous mutual-exclusivity and mutual-dependence of the said concepts in which the ironic nature of such a statement is realised. Of course, if this was a self-conscious, self-depricating endeavor then the limits of mere "irony" have been post-modernistically transcended, giving rise to the comprehension that such a statement may not have been - as I intended - ironic in nature, but rather post-ironic and in such a comprehension more layers of irony are added in two main ways: namely, that my attempt at irony was actually post-ironic in nature (which is ironic in itself) and the fact such an ironic overture was supplied by providing irony by attempting an ironic statement that was actually post-ironic (which is similarly ironic in itself). Namely it is ironic that such an ironic overture should have eminated from the irony created by attempting to create an ironic statement that was actually post-ironic in nature. In addition to all this, the irony of the fact that I should have used a statement that was ironic because I gleaned irony from a statement that was intending to be ironic but that was actually delivered post-ironically (this irony in itself being ironic) to identify and rebut an unintentionally ironic statement provided by Heinz is supremely ironic in itself (even more so when you consider that such rhetorical irony, ironically, wasn't ironic, but the irony of this lack of irony in attempting to provide irony, was ironic, hence providing the irony necessary to ironically highlight the irony inherent in the statement provided by Heinz). Or maybe I'm just drunk.

if you are drunk, share the wealth of drunken knowledge please. i still dont know how i was "defending" the news agencies as you put by saying they subconsiously send us proganda messages in support of the government. think about it, i "never" heard anything anti-war, or anti-bush messages being sent across through the news stories or coverage. it was all on how fast the troops were moving, and how the iraqi regime was finished, and how good the war was going, sometimes throwing in a "where are the weapons of mass destruction?", but really never covering that aspect.

another example is commercials. "they" get into our minds too. and we dont notice it because we see them "all the time". tell me, if i laid our a piece of paper with all the car company symbols, such as the four ring symbol of audi, and the VW symbol of volkswagen. you would be amazed how even those who dont care much about cars will knows most of the symbols. same thing with fast food symbols, and as such. most people would off the top know what a mc. donalds symbol would be, or ggive a catchy slogan such as "you gatta eat"(rallys). those seem to have a tendency to repeat over and over in a ours heads, making us more likely to become a costumer of that business.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz if you are drunk, share the wealth of drunken knowledge please. i still dont know how i was "defending" the news agencies as you put by saying they subconsiously send us proganda messages in support of the government. think about it, i "never" heard anything anti-war, or anti-bush messages being sent across through the news stories or coverage. it was all on how fast the troops were moving, and how the iraqi regime was finished, and how good the war was going, sometimes throwing in a "where are the weapons of mass destruction?", but really never covering that aspect.

Well I think it was mistook that you were standing up for fox news whilst calling other news agencies propoganda spreading machines. However, I can answer your question ... you wouldn't hear anything anti-war or anti-bush on new stations because they cannot make such statements. They must maintain an impartial stance on all issues and stick to reporting facts at hand (which many would argue foxnews crosses that line from time to time). If you want to hear opinion then you have to either tune in to specialized shows geared to generating discussion or read op-ed peices in the paper.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Well I think it was mistook that you were standing up for fox news whilst calling other news agencies propoganda spreading machines. However, I can answer your question ... you wouldn't hear anything anti-war or anti-bush on new stations because they cannot make such statements. They must maintain an impartial stance on all issues and stick to reporting facts at hand (which many would argue foxnews crosses that line from time to time). If you want to hear opinion then you have to either tune in to specialized shows geared to generating discussion or read op-ed peices in the paper.

i see i see, of course, a news agency must have a nuetral stance, but it all remains the same. each news agency, fox or cnn, nbc, whatever, all have their own agenda, (the agenda of the parent company, such as GM, AOL/TIME WARNER, and others, always on a subconsious level, send us messages in the aim to better there ambitions. if you ever watch cnn or others, ever notice how they show the same story for a few hours or all day. rotating others, then replaying the original. of course there may not be enough news to report, to make every story different every hour every day, but you can guess maybe they are changing the story a bit, adding in something the bush administration is saying or so forth, but the story will always change just bit. depending on whats changing it may not all be bad, or otherwise its a propaganda message in support of some ambition.

the US government does a swell job of letting us know only what they want us to know, also, while when they issue a statement such as rumsfeld(press conferences), theres a always message to be heard(propaganda) in support of the bush administrations aims. such as....saddam was captured at 8pm iraqi time, this say(so&so), he was found in a hole, after many monthes of intelligence gathering and the cooperation of our forces together. "this is a great day for the iraqis", "the iraqis no longer have to fear this man", we're interrogating to see where the weapons are"........meanwhile, you see iraqis in support of saddam dancing in the streets and shooting guns in the air. great day for some, a war cry for others...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz i see i see, of course, a news agency must have a nuetral stance, but it all remains the same. each news agency, fox or cnn, nbc, whatever, all have their own agenda, (the agenda of the parent company, such as GM, AOL/TIME WARNER, and others, always on a subconsious level, send us messages in the aim to better there ambitions. if you ever watch cnn or others, ever notice how they show the same story for a few hours or all day. rotating others, then replaying the original. of course there may not be enough news to report, to make every story different every hour every day, but you can guess maybe they are changing the story a bit, adding in something the bush administration is saying or so forth, but the story will always change just bit. depending on whats changing it may not all be bad, or otherwise its a propaganda message in support of some ambition.

I think their ambitions are by and large to increase their ratings. Therefore their reports cater to what will increase their user base. That's pretty much the only agenda I think they are propogating. Typically the bigger the story, the more they will replay it. If it's a really important story, than of course they are going to get the stance of the Bush administration since it's important to know what our leaders think. I would hardly call that subliminal, subconscious messages attempting to sway us. Watch bbc world, they do the exact same thing. I think that there is a much maligned stygmatism against the US media in general. The only network that I can detect a thinly vieled bias, is Fox news. People need to differentiate bias from sensationalism imo. While it is true that US news primarily focuses on (duh) news stories revolving around the US, so do media outlets in other countries. Does that mean that they are biased in our favor ?

quote:

the US government does a swell job of letting us know only what they want us to know, also, while when they issue a statement such as rumsfeld(press conferences), theres a always message to be heard(propaganda) in support of the bush administrations aims. such as....saddam was captured at 8pm iraqi time, this say(so&so), he was found in a hole, after many monthes of intelligence gathering and the cooperation of our forces together. "this is a great day for the iraqis", "the iraqis no longer have to fear this man", we're interrogating to see where the weapons are"........meanwhile, you see iraqis in support of saddam dancing in the streets and shooting guns in the air. great day for some, a war cry for others...

Well I have never heard of any government that did not make statements that support or aide that government. It should be obvious to all that the government is always going to focus on its successes and devote less time to its faults. However, with respects to your depiction of his capture, I watched CNN all day, and in virtually every segment where they showed people dancing in the streets, happy for his capture, they cut to a shot of Tikrit and stated that nobody was celebrating there. I think they actually did a good job of covering the reaction of the people. I don't know what everybody's beef with the news networks outside of Fox are ... unless you don't like the sensationalism. If people are so convinced that there is an obvious bias than I would like to see concrete proof ... I have yet to see any so far ... which makes me wonder why so many are jumping on the anti-CNN bandwagon. I get the idea that people don't read the news a lot.

___________________
Retro ...

This following quote applies to basically every news network except for Fox.

From the Whit Stillman movie Barcelona, spoken by the man playing the US Consul:

"I think the US is sort of the ant farm for the rest of the world. But people in other countries can't observe the ant farm directly, because they're not inside. They must rely on journalists and commentators for a description of everything that goes on there. The problem is that all these people seem to hate ants."

Ok. Back to Fox now.