1. MSNBC isn't owned by only GE, but also Microsoft. 2. May I suggest you to take a look at this page before start blabbering about economical support for bush elections campaign. 3. With more or less, I included buying bulletin posts for the public eye. Those white'n black american native people are interested in money and therefore they take some cash for doing nutjobs for anti-american interests. That's why I said more or less. 4. Most of NY Times posts is some of these ordered nutjobs, but sometimes they wake up from the money rain and may do something good for everyone. Altough, that happens too little these days. 5. Atleast Fox News is honest.
Sorry, Microsoft, is that the Microsoft that's owned by Arabs and Chinese or the one that's owned by Bill Gates? Thank-you, another good source to show that there isn't a bias in the US media - (at least the majority of it) looks pretty close to a 50-50 split. Not the sort of thing I'd expect to see if the media was full of anti-Bush Arabs and Chinese as you so foolishly claim. So now you're proving your own claims wrong? I guess it saves me the work! Apart from not having a clue what you're ranting about here, (Do you mean they take advertising money?) So when you said more or less owned by You didn't have a clue what you were talking about? Can you give me one instance where a US media conglomorate is owned by a Chinese or Arab company? Maybe you're counting Al-Jazeera in that If by honest you mean biased then you're correct The Most Biased Name in News
ROTFL LOL Laterhorn, your a perfect example of the stereotypical retarded right wing nutjob. You actually believe that shit. Do you wear stars and stripes underwear?
May I ask you wtf are chinas president doing in Microsofts Headquarters? 59 to 41.. that's quite a difference. More than the election results usually difference and Bush approval rate is somewhere around 40%. I am talking about black affairs. LOL, your source is from a purely anti-bush network. Hint, look at their front page. Fairness & Accurancy LMAO.. they should rather be called One-side & Leftist in reporting. Your comment is a joke as usuall. Thanks for the laugh
I said that foxnews is honest(mostly). Most people that blame foxnews havn't even watched it. I suggest you to go to their homepage and check out some trailers. And thanks for calling me retarded just because you disagrees with my ideological opinion.
LOL, you're mad! You're suggesting that sice the Chinese president visited Microsoft then he owns it? So by your logic he's also running America. All hail the most important man in the world! The figures you posted don't take any account of the reach of those companies. The larger conglomorates who actually have the ability to influence people such as Clear Channel, News International heavily favour the Republicans. Huh? Biased how? Just because you don't like what they say doesn't mean they're biased You sure you're not reading your post? I'm still waiting for an example of how the US media is Or are you going to admit you're either lieing or don't know what you're talking about again?
I have watched fox news and CNN and a lot of american channels. Fox is about as balanced as that deranged lunatic you have as president. and you dont have idealogical opinions You have nationalistic reactionisim.
Your confusion doesn't decide my logic. Chinas President decided to visit one of the most powerfull company on earth. Is it normal for a foreign prime minister to visit a powerfull company in a country that you have a cold war against? 1. You tell that those are half to half. 2. When I found out that you lied, you try to excuse yourself. As for the rest of your comments, I assume I allready answered them. Learn to read!
I am not an american and I am not a hard die nationalist. I like Bush for pure ideolical reasons. Also, I rarely watch fox, but I have to say that they aren't as biasad as their biasad reputation. They are actually hading out proffesional stories.
Dude, all joking aside, are you seriously suggesting that the Chinese own Microsoft? No as I said, there're pretty even, not heavily biased against Bush as you were suggesting. They don't take audience reach into account which would be a major factor when it comes to influencing the general public. Sorry, I must have missed where you showed me an American media company owned by the Arabs or the Chinese, perhaps you can post it again?
They co operate for sure. Now, I am suggesting that China more or less owns the media Microsoft distrubutes through MSNBC. China needs propaganda and China can easily buy propaganda reports about China through Microsoft and probably also over to their friends at General Electrics. Everything black and unofficial ofcourse. They don't want people like you to notice it. Every political thing you noticed that stands against your government is because free press. FYI. So an 18% gap is pretty much like 0% in your logic? I never said that they owned a company literrally, just that they more or less ownes the media.
So do you have anything at all to back this up, I mean you've not exactly impressed me with you knowlege on anything else so far.
I am going to write a mod that requires someone to pass an IQ test before they can post in a forum. It will get rid of a lot of these rightwing idiots. perhaps I can pass it on to shawn. Keep an eye on PHPBBhacks Later.
Yes here. 18% clearly in the total money sum spent. Oh.. among the mainly democratic channels are NBC, NY Times.. I can go on and list a numurus democratic companies that's more important than CCC.
That report doesn't seem to mention Arabs or Chinese? Do you think there may be a second possablity that some Americans don't like Bush?
Are you kidding me, latehorn? Fox News? Honest? After being spoiled with quality BBC news reporting for many many years, I had the misfortune to endure a couple of hours of Fox News this weekend. If they were honest they wouldn't have broadcast almost completely one-sided, totally emotive stories about the troubles in the Middle East right now. Lebanon got a swift mention with its civilian injuries, casualties, damage & evacuation. There wasn't enough airtime given to that side of the story to relay any detail. On the other (BIG) hand - the overwhelming majority of the "reporting" that day was biased toward sympathy for Israel and filled with utterly emotive nonsense. The nicely repeatable soundbites kept on cropping up in the reports, with turns of phrase like "rain of rockets", "under attack" and "the onslaught continues" forgetting the fact that there's a far greater, and disproportionate amount of damage on targets and non-targets on the other side too! To say the anchors & reporters were "laying it on a bit thick" would have been an understatement. If Fox News really was honest it would do the right thing and unplug itself. Unbiased media allows YOU to make the decisions. Fox News makes the decisions FOR you. Freedom? My arse!
No, he's not kidding, nor am I. Spoiled by the BBC? That says a lot. Considering how terrorist sympathetic they are. But that can't be, you say? Let's observe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5213174.stm "Disproportionate?" There's a fancy new term the left wing has come up with. And a one sided story (as usual). In fact, so anti-Israel is it, at the end of the story, they call on readers to contact them with more anti-Israel stories with: Yeah, there's some real "quality BBC news reporting" we can all count on You'll need a source, because I do watch Fox quite often and your "version" of the truth here is quite different. One can only wonder if you actually watched it, or not. Probably "or not." Maybe you were disappointed they didn't soley paint hezbollah and hamas victims for hiding behind civilians? Doubtfull, to say the least. I'v seen tremendous coverage from both sides. Though not like CNN's coverage where they admit they were tools for terrorists: http://newsbusters.org/node/6552 Yeah, quit while they are ahead! Of course, they've been the number one news source for so many years now, while other News entities continue to enjoy lost subscribers (NYT) and ratings drop (CNN). Decisions like these: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Bush Bad! Bush Good! Anything else new to say? No? Then what's the point of continually bringing up Bushy on a Internet webmaster forum? No one gives a crap about the "thoughts" being voiced by you deranged idealogues. Arguing politics on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, it's still the Special Olympics.