Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for November 01, 2010

So it’s all coming out now, is it?

Yeah, real subtle.

Almost as subtle as the MSM’s shilling for any Democrat, including the now-out-in-the-public phone conversations plotting to make up stories to damage non-Democrats at the polls.

Almost as subtle as even MSM execs admitting that the MSM was totally in the tank for Obama.

So…one station shills for Bush, the entire rest of the media shills for any Democrat. Seems fair and balanced to me, sure.

Orion

Orion-13 makes less sense than the spammers.

Orion-13, you think the so-called MSM shills for Democrats only because they don’t fawn all over the GOPers. There’s a bit of a difference.

All TV news is a joke, but I have to wonder why all the hand wringing about Fox. Are the liberals so doctrinaire that they can’t abide a single opposing viewpoint?

wonder what a short tank woman looks like?

Orion-13 struck a raw nerve among the Dan Rather libs.

I guess that by being the only network at the time that didn’t schill AGAINST Bush, Fox became the de facto network that schilled FOR him.

Perhaps in retrospect, Fox should have joined the pack by selling Obama themed merchandise in its sovenier gift shop (NBC/MSNBS sells 29 items, including Obama Action Figures and “Yes, We Did!” t-shirts), or manufactured false evidence against Bush as CBS did. Then again, perhaps not going there was the right thing, as it’s rating and financial statements appear to validate.

Of course, Garry (“Palin Doll Plots Death of Sleeping Children”) Trudeau never schills for or against anyone. Nope, never.

JosephBidenJr99 said, about 1 hour ago

“Orion-13 struck a raw nerve among the Dan Rather libs.”

So I guess a years-old reference is all you got? It seems to me. if there was a provable “liberal bias,” it would be easy to keep your references current.

I facelifted my bar and it looks great!

billdog, a schill is a fish, and congratulations! You’re the first sucker I’ve baited and caught today, and only 45 minutes in.

I guess you had to say something, but when the discussion turns to comments about spelling instead of comments about substance, it’s like you’re running up the white flag.

@sanfan … There is a vast difference between an opposing viewpoint and a lie. Example; Fox news pundits said nothing to contradict the two people who stated there was no terrorist attacks on Bush’s watch. They conveniently forgot about 9/11.

shill    [shil] Slang –noun

a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

schill - no dictionary results

Doppelspammerflaggen!

All: The only thing that bugs me more than spam is people who make comments about the spam’s content. Don’t you realize it will be gone soon and your posts won’t make any sense?

Bildog: Be careful in posts criticizing people’s spelling. You misspelled syllable. (“Sylable” in case he has edited it.)

Orion13:

I think you mean MSNBC. MSN is Methylsulfonylmethane

Yeah, reeeaaal subtle.

Just an update: I took action today with the appropriate persons. Now we will see if anything happens with the spam.

It’s not just MSNBC (the worst offender), but NPR and the broadcast networks all fawned over Obama. The nomination, in front of those styrofoam Greek columns in Denver was comparable to canonizing Obama as a saint for that crowd.

http://tinyurl.com/2f2y8x9 shows Mallard’s version.

Maybe Nemesys meant Curt “The Big Schill” Schilling - another republican toolbag.

I read today’s Doonesbury strip at the Doonesbury website & then turned to Gocomics, thinking, The first comment will try to justify Fox by saying that the other networks were AGAINST Bush-Dick. I was wrong. It was the sixth comment, about two hours after the first. Since then, though, the claim that the non-Fox channels were either against Bush-Dick or for President Obama has reared its ugly and misguided head multiple times.

Let us be clear: The problems with Fox News are

(1) It is biased.

(2) It denies that it is biased.

(3) It promotes only one view.

(4) It distorts or ignores facts.

To state this neither ignores nor denies that the mainstream media lean toward the right. They are slightly biased in that direction. Of Fox News’ four problems, the mainstream media share at least the first two. The mainstream media’s bias, however, is much less than that of Fox, and we, occasionally see & hear discussion that presents a fair view with a hope of getting at the truth.

Across the spectrum of mainstream media, Fox News stands at one of the greatest distances from getting at the truth or of being fair. Thus, Doonesbury’s joke that Roland thought that Fox News shilled for Bush-Dick subtly.

I encourage all to turn off their televisions and take up reading—and not just books by Fox pundits. Try a few intelligent magazines and newspapers: Harper’s, The Nation, The Progressive, National Review, The New York Times, The Washington Post, & The Wall street Journal, &c.

A note on grammatical & orthographical correction: I applaud anyone who tries to get other opiners actually to read & proof-read their remarks. I find that most of the semi-literacy & unintelligibility comes from the regressive remarks, which, unfortunately, re-enforces notions that regressive political stances stem from lack of education, perhaps even stupidity, carelessness, and lack of consideration of others. One doesn’t want to feel this way, but when people don’t make their remarks readable it is the equivalent of entering the elevator reeking of body odor. This becomes, unfortunately, the aura of the right-wing.

Ok, so what do you call networks that don’t report on the fact that Bryan Lentz, a Democrat candidate in the state of Pennsylvania put forth a “shill” candidate in his race against Pat Meehan in order to draw voters away from his opponent rather than trying to convince them to vote FOR him.

^I’m not in Pennsylvania, so that wouldn’t be in my area news. However, show me the documentation for this. I’m trying to figure out how you get a “shill” candidate. And if I understand you to mean he got someone else to run as a third candidate in order to draw voters away - well, that’s a strange but not dishonest tactic. And unless you can show proof of it, it’s not a newsworthy rumor. And even if it is true, what makes it newsworthy?

Isn’t it amazing that with Fox shilling for Bush and every other news outlet dumping on him America elected him anyway…twice.

And what about the free ride Obama got past Hillary and McCain in 2008?

Isn’t it amazing that with Fox shilling for Bush and every other news outlet dumping on him America elected him anyway…twice.

And what about the free ride Obama got past Hillary and McCain in 2008?

…yawn… flagged the last two comments, which were spam - so what else is new?

Now that Karma has stated her preference for the “Giant Pelosi’s”, we can turn back the tea on Tues.

Go forth and vote. What’s the worse thing that can happen?

I still think Buster Posey has the best baseball name in the Majors.

Yes, Belt, that is amazing, because, except for Fox’s shilling for Bush-Dick, none of what you said happened.

psychward, if you don’t see something seriously sleazy about one candidate putting up another with opposing views to his own to try and siphon off votes from his main competitor, I shudder to think what sort of ethics you’d expect from the persons you elect to represent you. A person who would do that obviously believes that his political stance is not sufficient to win the election at hand, and therefore works to subvert the will of the majority of voters in his district. I’d say the same about any Republican candidate who did the same thing. And of course we do have an historical basis to look at how elections can be influenced by third party candidates. When President Clinton was elected over President Bush (the elder) he was elected with a plurality of votes and not a majority. One could truly say in that election that the majority of voters voted against President Clinton, (and at the same time of course, say a majority also voted against President Bush), but the major difference in that election is that Mr. Clinton ostensibly had nothing to do with Ross Perot’s candidacy.

Edit to add link to story:

http://tinyurl.com/26ktajf