Kayne West is an ass

[flarendep1]

Why because 3000+ people havent been blown up in a terrorist attack yet?

I love people like you and vols fan and the rest mensa international community didnt say crap when the largest terrorist attack on america soil happened under the watch of your laureate leader.

Man, ignorance is bliss................


p.s i need the ravens defense to have a off week versus rivers and sproles.

You Dems cant stop blaming Bush for everything, 9/11 was planned for years before while Clinton was getting BJs in the Oval office. OB closes Gitmo, weak.

Dems are hell bent on destroying our CIA and weakening our country, Nancy Pelosi could be the dumbest woman ever.

Now the health care scam, nobody is buying this crap.



Now for the Raven/Chargers

Ravens may be a little weaker on defense this year but still solid. Their offense is way better.

LT wont do crap but Sproles scares me. Should be a great game.

[BettorsChat]

This is a great site with some really good people. I do not know Jordan Follows.... I know this is America and you do have freedom of speech but I would like to know if Jordan would say say these things in front of people. It is real easy to hide behind the computer....

No, because he was supposed to meet musclemann in Chicago and was a no show

[jordanrules23]

Why because 3000+ people havent been blown up in a terrorist attack yet?

I love people like you and vols fan and the rest mensa international community didnt say crap when the largest terrorist attack on america soil happened under the watch of your laureate leader.

Man, ignorance is bliss................


p.s i need the ravens defense to have a off week versus rivers and sproles.

MM, i have the Ravens D as well

[jordanrules23]

No, because he was supposed to meet musclemann in Chicago and was a no show

ill meet my man MM, but u wont give me his email

[BettorsChat]

ill meet my man MM, but u wont give me his email

[KazDog]

Everyone person that walks this planet is a racist, bigot chauvinist etc. Some are worse than others. Some like Jordan aren't afraid to share their views and opinions on controversial topics. I'm certain there are others that share the same views of Jordan but don't have the balls to post their opinion on hot topics.

And most people self-proclaim themselves as unprejudiced and impartial.

It takes balls to sit behind a computer screen and make racial posts? No, it really doesn't.

And maybe in your world everyone is a racist, but not in mine. Look up the definition. Racism is about hate and superior races. See, Adolf Hitler....

KAZ

[KazDog]

EXACTLY!

I'll take it a step further. It isn't about one particular story presenting both sides or being biased. It is what is chosen to be covered as a whole.
______________________________________________
"According to a comprehensive study conducted by the Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In the six weeks between Sept. 8 and Oct. 16, a period extending from the end of the two national conventions through the third and final presidential debate, 56 percent of the stories featuring McCain were negative, far more than the 14 percent positive and the 30 percent neutral. By contrast, Obama stories had a slight favorable slant: 36 percent positive, 35 percent neutral, 29 percent negative.

The research cast a broad media net that included five outlet categories: newspapers (New York Times plus six other dailies), five Web sites such as CNN.com and Google News, network television (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS), cable television (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh, and two other talk shows--one liberal and one conservative). To be labeled negative or positive, a story needed at least three mentions in one direction for every two going the other way.

_________________________________________

Looking at each story on an individual basis, you could say there is nothing wrong with artcicle A or article B, but when you look at article A, B, C, D, E, F, G........... and there is a large disparity in the amount of positive and negative stories, it shows bias.

First off. No one has been able to provide a single biased story on here. Surely someone can find at least one from the NY Times website. I'll continue to wait for it to be posted.

Monte's one story about a woman who spilled coffee on herself and was looking for 1 million, didn't say crap about media. His one paper that buried the story on page 8 was a lame attempt. Monte should know that it's out of the ordinary for someone to sue for a million for spilling coffee on herself, WHEN SHE SHOULDN'T BE DRINKING WHILE TRYING TO DRIVE IN THE 1ST PLACE, and to win the suit. So that belonged on the front page.

It's completely ORDINARY that it was appealed and her reward was reduced to $100K. THAT HAPPENS EVERYDAY! Welcome to America! I'd put that on page 8 every time as an editor. Losing an appeal for a million dollars over her OWN negligence, isn't uncommon.


Second.....Unfortunately Harold, you left out the most important part to that research you posted above. And fortunately for you, I've copied and pasted it for you to read below. It was oddly left out of your post.

It basically states, the research was inconclusive because it was found, when a potential candidate was losing, the stories reflected that as negative. The stories about McCain were equal to those reported when Gore was losing in 2000.

Nice try though....


____________________________

From the same story posted by Harold above off the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age website...


One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise?

The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions.

Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

And from another story reporting the same....
Although the authors said some observers would use the findings to argue that the major media have a pro-Obama bias, they said their data did not provide conclusive answers. They noted that coverage of Republicans and Democrats in this and other recent presidential elections seemed to have more to do with their success than with their party affiliation.

The group's research in 2000 found, for example, that Democrat Al Gore got a level of negative coverage almost identical to the level Republican McCain is receiving this time. Coverage of then-Gov. George W. Bush that year was more positive than Gore's, but more negative than Obama's has been this time.

The findings present "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage," the Washington-based group found. "Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain." (The entire study is available at Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age.)

[BettorsChat]

First off. No one has been able to provide a single biased story on here. Surely someone can find at least one from the NY Times website. I'll continue to wait for it to be posted.

Monte's one story about a woman who spilled coffee on herself and was looking for 1 million, didn't say crap about media. His one paper that buried the story on page 8 was a lame attempt. Monte should know that it's out of the ordinary for someone to sue for a million for spilling coffee on herself, WHEN SHE SHOULDN'T BE DRINKING WHILE TRYING TO DRIVE IN THE 1ST PLACE, and to win the suit. So that belonged on the front page.

It's completely ORDINARY that it was appealed and her reward was reduced to $100K. THAT HAPPENS EVERYDAY! Welcome to America! I'd put that on page 8 every time as an editor. Losing an appeal for a million dollars over her OWN negligence, isn't uncommon.


Second.....Unfortunately Harold, you left out the most important part to that research you posted above. And fortunately for you, I've copied and pasted it for you to read below. It was oddly left out of your post.

It basically states, the research was inconclusive because it was found, when a potential candidate was losing, the stories reflected that as negative. The stories about McCain were equal to those reported when Gore was losing in 2000.

Nice try though....


____________________________

From the same story posted by Harold above off the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age website...


One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise?

The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions.

Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

And from another story reporting the same....
Although the authors said some observers would use the findings to argue that the major media have a pro-Obama bias, they said their data did not provide conclusive answers. They noted that coverage of Republicans and Democrats in this and other recent presidential elections seemed to have more to do with their success than with their party affiliation.

The group's research in 2000 found, for example, that Democrat Al Gore got a level of negative coverage almost identical to the level Republican McCain is receiving this time. Coverage of then-Gov. George W. Bush that year was more positive than Gore's, but more negative than Obama's has been this time.

The findings present "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage," the Washington-based group found. "Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain." (The entire study is available at Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age.)

You're wrong Kaz as Jury awards for big money get put on the front page all the time. However, what the media fails to show everyone later on is how the Appeals Courts reduce the amount significantly or the Judge on the Case. I call that biased as it gives people the wrong impression of what really happens on Cases like those. And that played a big part in Big Corps getting a cap put on Punitive damages.