Who are they polling??

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Where are they polling to get these #'s
----N.O. or D.C. ??

Dec 3rd

In one example of the pessimism, an ABC/Washington Post poll taken in the month ended November 13 showed 64 percent of Americans described the economy as poor or not so good, with only 36 percent judging it to be good or excellent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051203/bs_nm/bush_economy_dc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
however even from liberal abc Nov 29th

Consumer Confidence Number Soars in Nov.
The Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 98.9 this month, the highest level since August, when the reading was 105.5. The November figure surpassed analysts' forecasts for a reading of 90, and it was also up from 85.2 in October. The results reversed a two-month decline.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1356729

and the only negative thing also ultra liberal Reuters could come up with in Fridays economical report was--
"One weak spot was a decline in the length of the average workweek, which dipped to 33.7 hours from 33.8 hours in October."
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,177412,00.html

Now once again I ask "WHO" they are polling--apparently NOT the people spending (consumers) or earning money or remotely look at market or economical data.
--and what makes it absolutely absurb is robust economy right on heels of highest oil prices ever and biggest natural disasters in history--wonder if they forgotten last oil price surge that threw economy in 2 year recession.

 

[Master Capper]

Other than Fox News which we all know has their own agenda, which news services do you feel are not bias against Bush?

 

[Nosigar]

Other than Fox News which we all know has their own agenda, which news services do you feel are not bias against Bush?

Goddamn, you're ridiculous. You see no agenda in not only editorials but simple news reporting from the liberal 5 or 6 MSM? Because if you call Fox as havig an agenda, you must admit that all others have one too. Maybe FOX caters to what you would call the ignorant, white, working class republicans with yellow journalism. Am I right?
I haven't been able to watch any MSM news broadcast or major AP, UPI, Reuters et al. main news presentation in over 5 years because it makes me puke, yet you say FOX has an agenda because it doesn't cater to your twisted own agenda? Of course, FOX is simply selling, which is what companies do, regardless of their politics, but when your socialist newscast buddies promote an agenda which is proving over time to be less and less profitable for them that's fine, huh?

Fuqking unbelievable, when people start to realize that the MSM has been chitting on us for decades, suddenly neo-socialists start accusing the slightly more conservative network of being biased and having an agenda. You guys definitely are brazen, but more likely just don't give a fuk who you offend or trample on.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I would say AFP is pretty non biased.

On Fox would agree they are probably the most conservative but in most situation on programs I view they have both sides debating and you can decide for yourself. Most net works I refer to as liberal give you a steady diet of one-sided opinion.
The Liberman-Murtha ordeal was prime example--You have ex president/vice presidential candidate come back after 4th visit to Iraq and they tell readers/viewers zilch on his reports but run Burtha 24/7. If you watch/read Fox-wall street-AFP ect you could view/read about both and make your own determination.
I can put up page of retractions of false reports-fabricated hype-false documents on prime time ect--from your liberal sources--how many can you put up from FOX?

 

[Nosigar]

On Fox would agree they are probably the most conservative but in most situation on programs I view they have both sides debating and you can decide for yourself.

Yeah, they also seem liberal to me some times. Sometimes conservative. Couldn't really define them because you ahve to compare them to the extremist MSM.

An in top of all, if you refrer to Fox as middle of the road (as opposed to liberal only) you are accused of being a backwards Cromagnon neocon (which actually I don't have a problem with). Still these folks won't accept the facts out there that demostrate that the MSM is biased and liberal to an exteme. Man, they wanna have it both ways, as usual. It's like spoiled brats.

Well, I barely watch TV anyhow.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I watch quite a bit now with it getting dark so early.
I like the news with Shepherd Smith. Don't care for Gibson--skip Cuvuto also--Watch Britt Hume-- always like the debates between the libs and conserves on issues of the day--bonus if Krauthammer is guest.Watch oreillys introduction (talking points)--also get preview of quests and issues--if interesting I'll watch remainder if not flip to CSI.Lately with his Christmas issue and missing persons haven't watched whole show in a couple weeks.
on the Christmas issue of his--while I don't find it that newsworthy I have to say I was impressed by his results on issue--got many including JC Penny-Macy-ect to change their tune--might do update on it tomorrow--amazing what he got accomplished especially in putting ACLU in check.

 

[djv]

I will say many news outlets are deemed liberal and it's been that way for years. I believe part of it is the stand they have to show another side of the story so our goverment does not just run over us any way it might feel. It's much to easy as Fox does at least most of the time. Just take the conservative side or say our President and all he is doing, is right. If Americans don't ask the tough questions and take stands at times. Well then we are not paying attention. Debate in our country is part of it's greatness. And our political parties in power to long with out to many questions. Breeds Corruption.

 

[kosar]

I like Fox during the day during the week. I like Juliette and Mike, Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto. That's what I usually have on all day at work.

I can't stomach O'Reilly, Hannity and Brit 'recently been exhumed' Hume.

MSNBC has conservatives Pat Buchanon, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson to counter Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann at night. Dan Abrams and Rita Cosby don't lean either way. I don't see how that's biased at all.

CNN? Hate it.

Haven't watched ABC or CBS nightly news in probably 15 years.

 

[gardenweasel]

dan abrams is pretty good....for a lawyer...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

What time Abrams come on--might give him a look--like rita also.
Matt I think you'd like last 20 minutes of Britt Hume--its entirely a panel discussion of both sides--however Britt does control the talking points.

 

[kosar]

Wayne,

Abrams comes on at 6.

I can't watch Brit, buddy. Just looking at him and listening to him creeps me out.

 

[dawgball]

CNBC -- We Report America's Business

Squawk Box is the best cereal eating TV. I think I have a crush on Becky Quick, too. She throws these dirty looks around at times.

Their nightly programming is lacking after Cramer. I don't really care to watch Apprentice re-runs. Donny Deutsch is somewhat of a deuchebag in my opinon but he has a pretty good stream of good guests.

Kudlow and Company has great debates, but I rarely catch that show because it is too early in the afternoon.

djv--your point is well taken, but many of the liberal networks are not doing that. there is a huge difference in keeping someone in check and reporting with an agenda. I don't watch enough of any of the channels except CNBC to say this is what they do, but we have all seen journalists hide behind the "asking the tough questions" facade.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Another to add in addition to the classic Liberman/Burtha reporting.

Was decision made on yesterday on Earles co-charges against Delay. One was thrown out one will continue. Lets see bold headlines from our major media and see which one has the "fair and balanced approach. If one was just skimming headlines Where would they get the only accurate report?? Mind you I am not defending Delay and as I said when this started I think it doubtful he wins re-election next out--this is just liberal biased media issue.

Judge allows DeLay trial on money laundering
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051206...cVZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

DeLay's Money Laundering Charges Upheld

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206...N9I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Top US Republican DeLay must stand trial: judge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005120...wyFOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

DeLay Conspiracy Charges Tossed, Money Laundering Case Remains

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,177753,00.html

 

[Master Capper]

Was decision made on yesterday on Earles co-charges against Delay. One was thrown out one will continue. Lets see bold headlines from our major media and see which one has the "fair and balanced approach. If one was just skimming headlines Where would they get the only accurate report?? Mind you I am not defending Delay and as I said when this started I think it doubtful he wins re-election next out--this is just liberal biased media issue.


In all fairness, was not the charge that was thrown out the lesser of the two charges? How would you want this to be reported? Of course most news agencies are going to lead with the fact that the serious charge still stands as that news outweighs the news of a lesser charge being dropped. I only looked at one of the links you posted and at Reuters and both had in the first paragraph of their story about the lesser charge being dropped. Think back to the Clinton impeachment saga the news agencies always lead with what was the most sensational in order to grab the reader.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

In all fairness, was not the charge that was thrown out the lesser of the two charges?

I think both were pertinent. The fact that the one thrown out was the only charge till someone informed Earle it was not even against the law -would be quite informative--which leads to another issue all failed to mention and that they determined also to continue with prosecutorial misconduct investigation on Earle-relevant?-I think so.
Can't see any way they get guilty verdict -and not because he isn't guilty but because takes rock solid facts to convict on this issue.

 

[djv]

Some time those polls are taken as, we don't watch polls. But both parties when polls swing in a direction that makes them feel good. Then polls will be mentioned.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Depends how they want to spin it. You can take a certain point in time where #'s depict want you want your readers to see--aka Washington Post.
Headline---Bush's Poll Position Is Worst on Record


Compare Bush's Gallup numbers taken in late March to poll numbers taken at the same point in the presidencies of the six previous men who served two terms:

Clinton: 59 percent approval versus 35 percent disapproval

Reagan: 56 percent versus 37 percent disapproval

Nixon: 57 percent versus 34 percent

Johnson: 69 percent versus 21 percent

Eisenhower: 65 percent versus 20 percent

Truman: 57 percent versus 24 percent

or you can look at facts that headline (tried to represent) until it was spun in another direction that suited of what he wanted readers to think "worst on record"--and things look entirely different--

Bush's lowest approval rating to date was a 35-percent mark in a CBS News poll from October 30-November 1 (with a margin of error of +/-3 percent). According to the polling archive of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Reagan's lowest approval rating was also 35 percent, in a Gallup Poll from January 28-31, 1983. The Roper Center lists Clinton's low at a 36 percent, according to a Yank/Time/CNN Poll from May 26-27, 1993.

 

[djv]

Didn't Tricky Dick have one at 30%, and that was lowest ever. Bush won't go that far unless layoffs start and stocks head wrong way. Maybe another terror attack he could get blamed. Americans for sure middle class don't give much slack. I see he Bush has comeback to 39% and 40% depending what poll you see. So he is on a little swing.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Clinton: 35 percent disapproval

Lower than Bush's. But seriously who cares about poll numbers anyways. Especially in Iraq. The war is being run accordingly with recomendations by our military commanders on the ground in Iraq, not by CNN poll numbers of people forcefed negative anti-Bush news by the American liberal media.

 

[djv]

Read it again looks like 36%. On up.