Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Will Signal, For Most, The Official End of The Downturn

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
    Its nice to have an objective news source.
    Can you name one? I didn't think so.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by gm
      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
      Its nice to have an objective news source.
      Can you name one? I didn't think so.
      You're talking about editorial stance but some news sources actually do air both sides. Actually, even FOX claims to air both sides (i think).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What Will Signal, For Most, The Official End of The Down

        Originally posted by bijanc
        Housing sales and credit markets are up. Retail sale prices fell for the first time since 1955. Citigroup, Bank of America and G.E. had surprising positive quarters. The Dow hasn't dipped significantly since March (has gained six straight weeks- though admittedly after a huge collapse). These are just gasps, but what would signal an abating of the recession that media or government would deem a certain rebound?
        That's not good news but a lessening of bad news. Non-farm Payroll Reports are a lagging indicator but give an idea of the level of the recession.

        cman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gm
          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
          Its nice to have an objective news source.
          Can you name one? I didn't think so.
          I cant think of one that strikes me as objective.

          Although PBS comes to mind for some reason.

          When your existence depends in part on donations, its good strategy to try to be fair and balanced.

          But even ESPN sportscasters tell us what they think.

          Remember when you could tune into sports and the only thing they'd tell you was what happened during the game and the score?

          Now, everyone not only has an opinion, they get paid to tell what they think. :roll:
          The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daisy
            Originally posted by gm
            Originally posted by TrackDaddy
            Its nice to have an objective news source.
            Can you name one? I didn't think so.
            You're talking about editorial stance but some news sources actually do air both sides. Actually, even FOX claims to air both sides (i think).
            You are correct.

            I didnt mean to pick on Fox.

            I only mention them because they actively claim to be objective through their advertisements, but also seem to be the most criticized for being biased.
            The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

            Comment


            • #21
              I live in a dying industrial city--not as bad as Detroit but similar in many ways. Around here the downturn began about 28 years ago and hasn't stopped yet. And honestly, that may be true many places. Krugman recently pointed out that the non-financial services portion of the economy has been stagnant for 15 years.

              One good thing about the housing downturn is that the march of the suburbs has slowed. When the feed store down the street from my in-laws' house gets a Starbucks, it will be over. And by that I mean both the downturn and their quality of life.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                Originally posted by Daisy
                Originally posted by gm
                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                Its nice to have an objective news source.
                Can you name one? I didn't think so.
                You're talking about editorial stance but some news sources actually do air both sides. Actually, even FOX claims to air both sides (i think).
                You are correct.

                I didnt mean to pick on Fox.

                I only mention them because they actively claim to be objective through their advertisements, but also seem to be the most criticized for being biased.
                I don't know why I am even bothering to comment here. Maybe I am a masochist. Fox, imo, is the only news source that offers any political balance. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS are all undeniably left and MSNBC is left of left. On the other hand, Fox tolerates Shepard Smith and the Geraldo virus and allows dissenting "experts" on controversial issues..

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lonewolf
                  Fox .... allows dissenting "experts" on controversial issues..
                  I thought Pat Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Daisy
                    Originally posted by lonewolf
                    Fox .... allows dissenting "experts" on controversial issues..
                    I thought Pat Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC?
                    I did not know Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC. I don't see Pat as a conservative but sometimes, imo, he gets it right. And, I forgot about Scarborough but Olberman cancels all MSNBC objectivity.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lonewolf
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      Originally posted by lonewolf
                      Fox .... allows dissenting "experts" on controversial issues..
                      I thought Pat Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC?
                      I did not know Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC. I don't see Pat as a conservative but sometimes, imo, he gets it right. And, I forgot about Scarborough but Olberman cancels all MSNBC objectivity.
                      I forgot about Scarborough. Buchanan seems to be on Hardball a lot. When ever I've seen that show they normally have two view points represented. Olberman's show is a strange mix of comedy and opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lonewolf
                        Originally posted by Daisy
                        Originally posted by lonewolf
                        Fox .... allows dissenting "experts" on controversial issues..
                        I thought Pat Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC?
                        I did not know Buchanan was a staple on MSNBC. I don't see Pat as a conservative but sometimes, imo, he gets it right. And, I forgot about Scarborough but Olberman cancels all MSNBC objectivity.
                        What would you say Hannity does to Fox's?

                        And wouldn't you say that more politicians in the center and to the left are wary about being guests on Fox than conservatives are about being guests on the other networks?

                        I believe most people would.

                        When Clinton, Obama etc agree to do an interview with Fox its much bigger news than if Bush agrees to talk to CBS or ABC.

                        No?
                        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lonewolf
                          Fox, imo, is the only news source that offers any political balance.
                          Time for a new set of glasses . . . :twisted:

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            This thread is way off topic. I am bowing out.

                            There are regulars here who I consider good track friends that I know, while preferring that I didn't, are 180 degrees from my political leanings. That is OK. I am sure they are as sincere in their opinion as I am in mine and it doesn't lessen my admiration for their knowledge of and interest in our sport.

                            I try to refrain, not always successfully, from making or responding to gratuitous political comments that have nothing to do with the topic and rely, not always successfully, on the mods to .police it even handily. We can argue, civilly, the athletic supremacy of one athlete over another but there is no room here for aspersions on anyones ancestry, intelligence, religion or politics.

                            I doubt anyone has ever been proselytized to an opposing point of view by written or spoken debate; nor would I try. And, this is certainly not the place.

                            Observation of history and events sometimes will do that. Unfortunately, enlightment usually comes too late.

                            lonewolf out.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lonewolf
                              This thread is way off topic. I am bowing out.

                              There are regulars here who I consider good track friends that I know, while preferring that I didn't, are 180 degrees from my political leanings. That is OK. I am sure they are as sincere in their opinion as I am in mine and it doesn't lessen my admiration for their knowledge of and interest in our sport.

                              I try to refrain, not always successfully, from making or responding to gratuitous political comments that have nothing to do with the topic and rely, not always successfully, on the mods to .police it even handily. We can argue, civilly, the athletic supremacy of one athlete over another but there is no room here for aspersions on anyones ancestry, intelligence, religion or politics.

                              I doubt anyone has ever been proselytized to an opposing point of view by written or spoken debate; nor would I try. And, this is certainly not the place.

                              Observation of history and events sometimes will do that. Unfortunately, enlightment usually comes too late.

                              lonewolf out.
                              That's not true.

                              Or why else would people have them?

                              Religious conversions, for example, come to mind.

                              Many people are influenced by opposing opinions and over the course of time their persectives can be changed or altered.

                              Just because you don't get the see the effect of the discussion doesnt meant their isnt one.

                              I agree that the thread is off topic and a number of people (including you and I) contributed to the distraction.

                              That said, it's no reason to get snooty.

                              We're adult enough to return to the topic w/o getting our feelings hurt just because people don't agree with our opinions.

                              We should expect that before we get here.
                              The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The problem with the US media is not that a few media outlets take a political stance, but that most don't. If there was a far-left version of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh and a spectrum of voices in between as is common in other countries, my best guess is that our military would not be in Iraq right now. I also think this lack of variety of perspectives on the news is one reason why the newspaper industry is dying.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X