HuskerNation1

Only in the mind of someone that chooses not to see it...

I'm still waiting for the call from Hillary to come claiming that Trump is going to randomly start dropping Nukes. Yes, Hillary is really running an ad like that. It reminds me of her 3 in the morning scare tactic she tried using against Obama in the 2008 primaries.

I think when you look at the purely opinion shows on Fox they definitely are biased. When you look at the hard news portions such as Special REport with Bret Baier or the Weekend show with Chris Wallace, it's a different story. In that sense, all cable news because they are 24 hours will have to fill time with opinion pieces. I actually know Shep Smith is a Democrat and he's been highly critical of Trump anytime I have watched. I've also seen Wallace and Baier drill and take it to GOP candidates just as they have the Democratic nominees. Here is a continuum of where I see some media outfits lying relative to the center which would be the most objective shows/networks. -10 is furthest to the left, +10 furthest to the right, 0 the most objective -10: Vox, Salon, Mother Jones -8: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Washington Post -7: NY Times, Yahoo News -5: CNN -4: CBS News, Politico -3: NBC, ABC News 0: Meet the Press when Tim Russert was the host. I feel he was one of the purest journalists out there +3: Wall Street Journal +5: Washington Times +6: Fox News +10: Drudge, Talk Radio

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie. Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology. I try to keep an open mind but I prefer to get my information from quality sources and not from a movie with several proven inaccuracies and that was funded and produced by Trump's current campaign CEO. Umm, it's not just the "right" claiming there is wrongdoing with the Clinton Foundation. We are now seeing far left outfits like Huffington Post and Slate call out the foundation for both perceived AND real conflicts of interest and the selling of access that was conducted under the foundation. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/19/clinton_foundation_won_t_accept_foreign_donations_if_hillary_wins_that_s.html After a donation from a military leader in Bahrain, the US magically altered its policy and began increasing its exports of arms to Bahrain. Now I'm sure some on the left will claim this is a coincidence just as the $400 million in cash was a coincidence. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias. However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda? The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down. Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump. I'm sure there were lots of reports on that. The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved. While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that. I believe most journalists are inherently liberal themselves. I think that field draws that type of person and...yes....that may from time to time leak into their reporting. However, I don't agree that there is this mass liberal agenda in the MSM like so many conservative talk radio personalities and Fox News wants us to believe. They report mostly what is going on. Now, many times, there are groups or people criticizing or saying negative things about conservatives. Conservatives have had a pathetic run politically lately. So.....if the Republicans are being criticized in the public and the Dems aren't to the same level, what is the MSM supposed to do? Is it supposed to ignore all the criticism of the Repubs just so they don't criticize them more? No. They should report the feelings the public is having towards various political groups. This is why your Katrina vs. floods argument was such a fail. When we boiled it down, we literally were talking maybe a day difference on when the MSM started reporting the complaints of either President. Who gives a rip. Both complaints were reported when the public started complaining. The point is, meh...maybe there is a little bias. But, it is nowhere close to the hysteria scandal that Republicans make it out to be. It's a worn out propaganda mode that certain media outlets promote (Fox) so that they keep their viewers only watching them. I've seen and witnessed that way too much with my own eyes and in my own life to not acknowledge that. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that isn't either opening their eyes or being honest with themselves. So do you think that when Obama and Hillary and others on the left bash Fox News for being biased, do you think it's just a case of the Democrats trying to rally their base by making a false claim?

I know that...was just being sarcastic which is why I put the smiley face on. OSU fans were claiming that Meyer was cooling on Lindsey a couple months ago when it looked like we were in the lead.

Yeah, I know our staff cooled on him a while ago once they felt more confident about Lewis.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie. Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias. However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda? The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down. Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump. I'm sure there were lots of reports on that. The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved. While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that.

It looks like Colin Powell just threw Hillary under the bus for claiming that Powell encouraged or inspired her to use a private email server. Lol. Who is Hillary going to blame now?

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias. However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda? The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down. Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump. I'm sure there were lots of reports on that. Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press. Moreover, with the floods from this past week in LA, if Bush were President and chose to stay on vacation and play rounds and rounds of golf, all mainstream networks would be devoting days of coverage to his lack of compassion and engagement. Regarding the 2008 election, if that is your conclusion, you should stop pretending you are truly an Independent thinker on here. Here's yet another source showing the slanted coverage. And as I said previously, you know I do not like Hillary, but the media was even in the tank for Obama over Hillary in the primaries...it was that obvious, but I'm sure you won't admit to that either. http://www.journalism.org/2008/10/22/winning-media-campaign/

No fail...you just elect to see what you want to see with that. How about the studies/data on the 2008 race. Are you going to tell me there was no bias there too?

Wow, that was deep. So you don't think there was any bias in the 2008 election toward Obama despite the studies done showing there was?

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary. They're reporting on the development that they announced the foundation won't accept foreign or corporate donations if she wins. They decided to do that to remove even the appearance of impropriety. The only reason this is a story is because the GOP have made it their new scandal du jour and have started tossing around negative terms like "corrupt" and "incestuous" about the foundation until they're blue in the face. They're reporting on the story because some on the right continue to grasp at straws and look for something to manufacture into a weapon. You obviously still haven't watched the video which is not focused on what she will do with the Foundation should she win. It's focused on what has already transpired to date. You claiming that this is only a story because of the GOP would be like me claiming that the only reason Trump got coverage for his comments about the Khans was a result of Democrats and the media being in bed together. Sometimes a story deserves the attention it gets, and Trump was an idiot in taking on the Khans. It's funny to listen to some on here claim to be Independent thinkers and argue they are not in the tank for Hillary, yet they continue to defend her and the Democratic party at all costs. It just undermines any credibility you have on here.

I agree with you. I just don't see TA all of a sudden becoming way more accurate and making fewer bad judgment decisions. I really hope he proves both of us wrong this season. Hopefully if we establish a good running game and roll him out more it will help the entire offense as he's never going to be a pocket passer. 2nd year in the same system...familiarity with what the coaches want. Optimism that TA will figure this out, get familiar with audibles and schemes, an throw less picks. He doesn't need to be all american, just serviceable. I hope you are right. Based upon what we have seen in practice, it seems like he has not reached the "serviceable" stage yet. I personally don't think most of his mistakes last year were a result of audibles and schemes. Many of the INTs were either really bad decisions to throw the ball, or really bad execution in terms of hitting his target.

I agree with you. I just don't see TA all of a sudden becoming way more accurate and making fewer bad judgment decisions. I really hope he proves both of us wrong this season. Hopefully if we establish a good running game and roll him out more it will help the entire offense as he's never going to be a pocket passer.

First off, the Times and Huffington Post would not be politically motivated to call out Hillary unless they see the writing is on the wall. Second, if you failed to see all the connected dots in the video in the first post of this thread, spare me the lazy commentary.

Classic response...it says all I need to know.

It looks like even the left-leaning NY Times and Huffington Post are starting to realize the corruption that exists with the Clinton Foundation. We are still in the early stages of this topic, and I think a lot more will be coming out in the coming weeks and months. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Hillary has no fan, at all, in me, but she at least has a career that includes legitimate and respectable accomplishments that benefitted people other than her. Donald Trump is a businessman and that's it, and he's not even a good one. Lol...as Carly Fiorina correctly pointed out, flying around the world is not an accomplishment. As Senator Hillary had no major pieces of legislation she sponsored or co-sponsored, and promised to bring 200,000 job to upstate New York. Did she deliver on that promise? Heck no. As SOS she inherited a situation in which Iraq had been stabilized and ISIS was under control, only to leave Iraq a huge mess and ISIS the dominant terror superpower in the world. And let's not forget Benghazi, and the fact that emails showed Ambassador Stevens requested more security from Hillary's State Dept for 12 months leading up to the actual attack. Maybe those emails somehow ended up in the Spam folder on her private email server. The world is a far less safe place after her time as SOS.

It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/ The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.

One of the things Obama will be most known for outside of being the first black POTUS is his signature legislation "Obamacare." We are six years into the law, and it looks like things still are not going well. The NY Times of all outlets has identified several major issues with the law, including premiums rising faster than planned, and fewer doctors than promised. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/upshot/think-your-obamacare-plan-will-be-like-employer-coverage-think-again.html?_r=0

Interesting indeed - I think it changes nothing w/OSU's interest however, or his announcement on the 22nd. I would agree. If he chose to play with Martel and moved cities to do so, he's planning on playing with him in college. I hope Tyjon is not out for the year and can enjoy his final year of high school. He seems like a good kid.

Why the hell would they spend the same amount of time discussing it when the current flooding isn't even a 10th of the scale of Katrina? Yesterday the news was resporting that there has been twice as much rain with these 2016 floods as there was with Katrina. Also, the rain continues to hit Louisiana today. Both are awful tragedies, and the persistent need for you to try to defend Obama is mind-blowing. He should have been engaged and on top of this and he's made a decision that golfing at Martha's vineyard is where he needs to be. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/worse-hurricane-katrina-coffins-float-8637663

There have been countless articles written by those not affiliated with the right that agree that the MSM is biased. Here are a couple of recent ones including coming from the NY Times where they referenced a study showing that journalists on the mainstream networks are twice as likely to be Democrats vs Republicans. http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/liberal-media/ http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect