ROSEN: 2008 liberal media awards

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 26, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

December 26, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Excellent, Mr. Rosen.

You caught them, red handed.
December 26, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

DakotaPlainsman writes:

Before all the liberal media appologists start hammering Mike Rosen for revealing this list, remember.... he is not a journalist, he is an opinion writer who does not hide his biases, which are admittedly conservative. He writes opinion and does not try to disguise his writings or talk show as news. Something the folks listed above should try.
December 26, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

And the Useful Idiot Award for know-nothing media commentary on a weekly basis goes to... Mike "Head in the Sand and Defender of Broken Conservative Politics in America" Rosen.

Congratulations Mike - you beat out a deserving crowd of other Useful Idiots such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, BillO the Clown, Gunny Bob, and Dan "Living in a Dream" Caplis.
December 26, 2008

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

intothelens writes:

Rosen, I simply don't believe anything you say.
December 26, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Coco writes:

Lighten up everybody - we all say goofy things from time to time. I'm no fan of Rosen or the conservative ideology, but come on, you have to admit these are amusing. If you want to be clever, sit down and write your own list of goofy things said by neocons. Plenty to work with on both sides!
December 26, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

bxwatso writes:

intothelens: you don't have to believe Rosen. do this: highlight the quote you don't believe; ctrl c; go to google; ctrl v; press enter. i don't recall all of these quotes, but the several I do are accurate.

Not all of the quotes are from reputable sources, so the fact that they are fools is unremarkable. I guess I just don't set a high bar for brains for the View.

On the other hand, MSNBC is nothing but a sham.
December 26, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

RJS07 writes:

intothelens--so don't believe Mike Rosen. Go out and read these things for yourself. Oh wait...that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions. You are truly brilliant. I am in awe.
December 26, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gee, is there anyone of any intelligence out there who hangs on every word said by talking heads, actors and other entertainers? I don't drive to Boulder to get the latest interpretation of politics and world events from street singers and musicians on the pedestrian mall!

I am an environmentalist but I still remember the anger I felt at being lectured by Barbara Streisand on energy efficiency as she stood in the glare of scores of lights on her 2 acre Malibu estate. Another celebrity in history famously advised her subjects to " eat cake" when told that her people were starving for want of bread. Celebrities run in circles of their own kind and tend to be very out of touch with what matters to the rest of us. Their are many exceptions, of course (Tom Hanks for example).

Even though I disagree with Rosen on most subjects, I agree that actors, singers and, yes, politicians too, occasionally let their mouths get ahead of logic and common sense. When that happens, why shouldn't we laugh, after all, the jokes on them!
December 26, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

socrates writes:

Intothelens raises a good point. Mr. Rosen has never been truthful in the past, so why attach a level of authority to him which he has not earned? Because he writes in a newspaper? Not a very high bar.
December 26, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

I like good humor Mike, but these aren't even funny. Could you not find better quotes to bash us liberals with? Even as a liberal I like a good liberal bashing once in a while. These are pretty laim. I'm sure Oberman, or Mathews have said much more stupid things than this. I'm guessing you did not research this very well? Better luck next time Mike. I do like a good laugh, but these are not helping me achieve that.
December 26, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

so reporting on the absent mindedness of republican candidates makes for "left wing bias"... BULL!

I must have turned 100 votes away from McSame/Palin with one statement.
"YOU are more qualified to be VP! I can prove it. Answer these two questions.
1)Is Africa a continent or a country?
and
2)name a Supreme court case other than roe v. wade?

Secessionist Sarah answered
1) a country
and
2) roe v. wade.

darn those "gotcha" questions. after all she reads "ALL of the media" without naming one source specifically.

so if the truth makes for liberal bias... so be it.
December 26, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

rosen is an idiot
December 26, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Where does Rosen's column fit on the list? How about his radio program?

Is he asserting "the" media is liberal? (in which case the presence of his column and radio is counter-evidence),

Is he asserting that opinions different than his represent media bias (see Rodgers quote for example)? Anyone can take a selection of quotes and make them stand for about anything. For that matter, quotes offered out of context can say just about anything too.

Maybe's he's asserting both, hoping that something will stick.

Rosen's message to his audience: You're at WAR with liberals (i.e., someone opposes YOU).

What the quotes offered above indicate is how trite some of our media is. They are, after all, trying to sell a product. Matthews and Williams' quotes illustrate this.

The truest quote offered was Moyers': that Wright was being assasinated by 20 second soundbites. That is both an accurate summation of the Wright story, and an indictment of mainstream media today. Wright isn't the only one subject to such treatment.
December 26, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

I'm a liberal, I often can't stand Rosen, but he was upfront in this column that it came from conservative bias and was meant to poke good fun at liberals, some of whom were absurd.
If they said it, they deserve it.
Didn't Molly Ivins -- now there was a columnist! She was the Texas legislature's worst enemy -- publish an annual column "honoring" people with Equal Rites awards to those who, in her opinion, contributed the most the past year to deny the advance of women? The column was in the same vein as this Rosen column.
Mike Rosen is sometimes thoughtful and sometimes humorous. He's disastrous when he writes his smug, sanctmonious "Conservatism Is The Only True Path" columns.
But then, there have been liberal writers at the RMN who have written similar columns.
December 26, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clarence_Boddicker writes:

anderson writes: "Where does Rosen's column fit on the list? How about his radio program?"

He clarifies that in the first paragraph, did you even read it?

Mike Rosen wrote: "I'm honored to serve, once again, on MRC's distinguished panel of conservatively-biased judges"
December 26, 2008

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

He insinuates a liberal bias in the media, notwithstanding his admission to be a conservatively-biased judge. His columns frequently refer to "the liberal media" as a fact. Maybe next time he does this, or the time after, or the time after that, we should give him a pass because on 12-26-08 he admitted to being a conservatively-biased judge (all toward his theme that there's a WAR between liberals and conservatives).
December 26, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

rcop writes:

After reading the past posts, it is clear that shooting the messenger is still the preferred method of avoiding ownership of notable quotations by the liberal authorities in the main stream media.

Sticking one's head in the sand still only reveals what most liberals consider their best side.
December 26, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

This column marks two consecutive weeks that Rosen has cut and pasted someone else's work to fill out his column.

He ought to refund two weeks pay to the Rocky to help them stay solvent.
December 26, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

7Dave7 writes:

If the mass media isn't liberally biased, than why are all you left wing kooks so eager to bash Rosen for providing you with a few examples of it? It's obvious that you liberals are in agreement with most of what you are spoon fed by the mass media and are thereby offended when someone points out media bias. In essence you have just proven Rosen's point by coming to the defense of people who subscribe to your liberal ideology. These people are also known as the "liberal media" in case you're wondering.
December 26, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

If these are the silliest comments he could find from the so-called liberal media then Rosen obviously doesn't read much or bother listening to the news.
December 26, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Romulus writes:

Wow, Mike Rosen has discovered that liberals sometimes say stupid things. One could make a list ten times longer just using a Fox News transcript of any random hour.
December 26, 2008

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

There's an entire book of quotes from just one politician over the past eight years. Just one guy. Something about 'bushisms' or the like...

Remember Rumsfeld with the Unknown speech:
"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
December 26, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

OMG! What is wrong with you liberals? Yeah, this is obviously not Rosen's best work...but the ridiculous 3rd grade level attacks on it just make you look stupid. If you disagree with someone is it too much trouble to just give a reasoned argument as too why?

taoist: all you can come up with is a post about how a list of conservative commentators are idiots? Oh yeah, that's right, an actual specific argument would take some thought.

intothelens: What a stupid statement about not believing anything he says. He provided references that anyone can look up. But I guess it's just easier to say "I don't believe you" rather than have a dialogue based on ideas.

socrates: You claim he has "never been truthful in the past". Again, he provided references to everything in his column. Can you show us any actual proof that he "has never been truthful in the past"? I could take your lack of thought in posting and claim that you are a high school dropout living in his mother's basement but that wouldn't make it true.

marshdale: For once I agree with you. The format of this column does have a sort-of “uh-oh…the deadline is in twenty minutes” look to it.

inc: I agree. Politicians gaffes are legitimate news. But if you look at the column you’ll see that Rosen is complaining about the ridiculous baseless attacks from The View, not the ones you so disingenuously claim here.

oma: you wrote “rosen is an idiot”. You prove my point. Maybe you should stick with crayons.

anderson: How clueless can you be. You claim that Mike Rosen’s radio show is proof that the media is not biased. As Rosen has stated himself many times, he is NOT A REPORTER who is supposed to present the news in an unbiased fashion. Rosen’s JOB is to be a CONSERVATIVE talk show host and columnist. News anchors are supposed to be able to report the news without bias.

peterpi: Thank you! It’s so nice to have someone with whom I can disagree with on issues but who is able to have a dialogue with well reasoned arguments.
December 26, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

romulus: Can you back up that statement with references? And do you know the difference between a anchor or report and a commentator? For the most part, I personally find the NEWS portions of Foxnews to be pretty (as they say it) “fair and balanced”. There have been quite a few times where there would be a statement like “to be fair, the Republicans have had their fair share of these problems…”. And I can cite one example from the current headline at Foxnews.com. The headline is about the UAW and their multi-million dollar country club that is wasting so much of the members’ dues. I did a quick google search with “uaw country club” and the only other hit was CNS. Nothing on CNN, NY Times, etc. Before you liberals say “see, I told you so” because this story is criticizing unions, look back at earlier Foxnews headlines where the top story was about the Big 3 executives flying to meet with congress on their corporate jets.

I, like many or maybe most conservatives am not looking for a conservative-biased new source. I would just like to see the majority of persons calling themselves anchors/reporters to try and present BOTH sides.

hank: I agree with you here. While I definitely feel that Bush often does not get a fair shake in the media, he has gone overboard in providing us with verbal gaffes.
December 26, 2008

4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

come on...it's christmas...let rosen sling some mud. he and the other dittoheads have had a very tough couple of decades, they no doubt need a laugh or two.

darkman ironically illustrates a great point.

one needs to be careful when determining where to get "fair and balanced" news.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics...

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
December 26, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

darkman: my comment was short,truthful and to the point. sorry you don't like it. but in response to above, his job is to be a conservative talk show host, why don't you call him for what he and a the rush's of the world are: propagandist. there are two sides to all arguments and never has rosen one time acknowledged anything positive about the progressive side. if like you said, he is not a journalist, then yank him from the rnm.
December 26, 2008

4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"if like you said, he is not a journalist, then yank him from the rnm."

That's absurd, Oma, unless you advocate the removal of any and all editorial content from RMN. The opinion pages are full of the writings of people who are simply commentators, not journalists. That's the entire point of the opinion pages.
December 26, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
I absolutely love your Media Matters links. These guys can really be masters of stating the obvious. Take this gem for example:
"According to the Times, the memo, among other things, "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency"

This is in regards to a memo sent to "Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials" meant to serve as a guide for discussing the Bush presidency in public speeches.
Well, no sh*t! Seriously, what kind of idiot would expect otherwise? Did the Clinton administration advise cabinet members to give public speeches highlighting the Lewinsky scandal as much as possible? Did Bush Sr. circulate memos advising high-ranking officials to be sure that they underscore the Savings & Loan scandal in public speeches? Did Reagan advise his cabinet to be sure to drill home to the press everything they could about Iran-Contra? Did Carter go out of his way to make sure his staff was mentioning record gas prices and a failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran as much as they could?
What lunacy!
December 26, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

really...that's all you've got, eli?
December 26, 2008

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

oma writes:

"darkman: my comment was short,truthful and to the point. sorry you don't like it. "

Whether or not I like someone’s comment here is irrelevant. I just think it’s childish and doesn’t exactly reflect on you very well. Do you think highly of conservatives that respond to a Paul Campos column with comments like “he’s an idiot” or “same liberal tripe”?

oma writes:

“but in response to above, his job is to be a conservative talk show host, why don't you call him for what he and a the rush's of the world are: propagandist. there are two sides to all arguments and never has rosen one time acknowledged anything positive about the progressive side.”

Why is he a propagandist? Is it just because his opinions are all different from yours? And as for conservatism, he is pretty much fiscally conservative but pretty liberal on social issues. I am for the most part an all-around conservative so I usually disagree with him on social issues. On those non-social issues, yes, he IS conservative rather than a “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road” guy. Face it, in many if not most issues, the liberal and conservative positions are pretty much opposite. If his job is to provide an OPINION, why should he have to say positive things about the other side? And you yourself don’t’ seem to live up to that standard. Your first comment here “rosen is an idiot” with no specific arguments would indicate to me a lack of willingness to give the conservative side any credit.

oma writes:
“if like you said, he is not a journalist, then yank him from the rnm.”

I am beginning to wonder if you understand anything about this discussion. Of course Rosen is not a journalist. As he states himself, HE IS A CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOST AND CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST. That’s why his pieces appear on the OPINION page rather then the NEWS pages. Pretty much all newspapers have OPINION pages and columnists with certain points of view. Do you think Paul Campos is a journalist? How about Molly Ivins? Tina Griego? Mike Littwin? Bill Johnson?
December 26, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

For now, jay, yes. That is all I've got for you. Just thought I'd provide an example of the foolishness of one of your favorite sources of information. When I have some more time to waste filtering through the garbage on that website, I'll gladly give you some more. Merry Christmas!
December 26, 2008

5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

jay writes:

"really...that's all you've got, eli?"

Wow jay...good argument. I'd sure hate to ever have to face you in a real debate.
December 26, 2008

5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so you can in no way refute any of the information presented on those links, eli, but instead are just whining about it?

well...then you too illustrate a great point here.

you can lead a horse to water....

darkman, two points:

"HE IS A CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOST AND CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST."

stop screaming. calm down, take a breath.

two...just because he's a commentator doesn't mean he can suspend journalistic integrity.
December 26, 2008

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"so you can in no way refute any of the information presented on those links, eli, but instead are just whining about it?"

Come on, jay. Even you can't tell me that such a story is anything short of moronic. If anybody is whining, it would be Media Matters. They published an entire article on their website whining about how the Bush memo *to his own cabinet members* fails to instruct said cabinet members to highlight in public speeches the things people criticize him for! And you say I'm whining? Get real!
December 26, 2008

5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

jay writes:
“so you can in no way refute any of the information presented on those links, eli, but instead are just whining about it?
well...then you too illustrate a great point here.
you can lead a horse to water....”

Jay, why is it that just as in past discussions (and I use the term loosely in your case), you have to accuse the other person of whining when they don’t agree with you?

And why should everyone automatically take information from that source at face value? I went to the “about us” section on that website and here is the first paragraph:

“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
The only “media watchdogs” I am willing to take at face value are those who point out lies or inconsistencies on BOTH sides. Based on the above paragraph, you can’t seriously tell me that this group is unbiased.
jay writes:
“darkman, two points:
"HE IS A CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOST AND CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST."
stop screaming. calm down, take a breath.”

I am not screaming. ;-) Certain posters here seem to be unable to understand the difference between a journalist and a commentator and I was trying to underscore that point for them.

jay writes:
“two...just because he's a commentator doesn't mean he can suspend journalistic integrity.”

Well, he actually, as an opinion person,yes he can, but I absolutely agree with you on this point—NO, he should NOT suspend journalistic integrity.

My arguments above with posters in this discussion were mostly related to the whole opinion .vs. news realms and also the few that I felt were being unfair to Rosen. As I have stated before, even though I am a staunch conservative, I want the truth. It really pi$$e$ me off when either side deliberately distorts the truth or puts out a piece that could’ve been correct with 10 minutes of research.

I’ll give you an example. Recently Mike Rosen wrote a column about the incident in which an Indian navy ship sunk a pirate ship. I am guessing that Rosen’s reaction when the initial story first broke was the same as mine: “Yay! Yippee! It’s about time!...”

And then in a later news story we find out that it may have been a captured fishing vessel that the pirates were using rather than their own. When I read this is was really bummed. And when I saw Rosen’s column a week or two later and it didn’t mention anything about the ship being a possible captured fishing vessel I was very disappointed in Mr. Rosen. Either he didn’t do any research or he chose to ignore that point. I personally hate it just as much when a conservative twists the facts.
December 26, 2008

6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Jay, why is it that just as in past discussions (and I use the term loosely in your case), you have to accuse the other person of whining when they don’t agree with you?"

this is inaccurate.

i could care less if you disagree with me.

however, if you try to pass off your opinions as facts or refuse to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts (no matter who is pointing them out), then yes, i'm going to call you out on it.

as usual.

stop pouting about it.

furthermore, i love the fact that we caught you playing sockpuppet.

wow.

your crap has been exposed as such so many times on these blogs that you're forced to change names in order to try to write with some credibility.

i'm not picking on you, eli, and wouldn't even bother, but you write such distasteful and inaccurate things that i find you harm the quality of the discourse.

any who....

you can try to shift the blame for so many conservative journalists getting called out on their bs to those who expose them...but as always...it's not going to do your cred any favors.

there simply isn't enough lipstick on the planet.
December 26, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

Well jay, I have to go pretty soon. But I’ll do one more post first. You didn't disappoint me. You did your usual-- resorting to outright lying and refusing to actually discuss the points in my post. I find you amusing.

Just like in the last time you and I posted in the same place, you make accusations of whining and pouting instead of an actual argument. And you made up another lie-- about my changing names and about my "crap has been exposed as such so many times".

It's funny how you just make up fantasy and post it here. So, just to address your latest lies:

* You say that my "crap has been exposed as such so many times"

That's interesting because I've posted to the RMN forums on less than 10 stories. I only recently (around two or three weeks ago I think) registered a username with RMN. Exactly what “crap” was exposed? I only recall having one other “discussion” with you and then one other brief reference you made to one of my posts in one of yours. Why do you continue to lie when anyone reading this forum can find the truth for themselves?

* You say: “furthermore, i love the fact that we caught you playing sockpuppet.”

I’m not really sure what that means but it’s hilarious and just like the one other “discussion” you and I were in. Rather than refuting anything I said you make weird accusations. And by the way, I like the way you use “we” again. Like you are in charge here or you speak for others here. I firmly disagree with some of the above posts and I think the posters did themselves a disservice in some of them. But you are in a class, or reality, or maybe world all of your own. You are strange.
December 26, 2008

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

jay--

* You say “you're forced to change names in order to try to write with some credibility”

Again, I officially accuse you of being an outright liar. I just recently started posting here and have never used another name. Where do you get this stuff? And if I was to stoop to your level and be a liar, how would you even know if I were to change names? As anyone can see from my posts, I unlike you would have no reason to change names. Unlike you I haven’t posted any lies.

* You say “however, if you try to pass off your opinions as facts or refuse to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts (no matter who is pointing them out), then yes, i'm going to call you out on it.
as usual.”
Again jay, please give a specific thing I said that was wrong and refute it in a logical manner. And what’s the “as usual”? I’ve made posts to so few RMN articles and I’ve only seen your name in a few of them. You are making up things again. Just like in the first one where you credited other people’s posts to me and then refused to admit it.

* You say “i'm not picking on you, eli, and wouldn't even bother, but you write such distasteful and inaccurate things that i find you harm the quality of the discourse.”

I find this one of the most laughable things I’ve seen you write. You say eli wrote something distasteful and inaccurate” but as usual you refuse to explain what he supposedly wrote that was wrong. And everyone reading here can scroll up and see the posts by eli.

Jay, I am thankful that you are not a conservative. I get upset when I see the posts from the conservative “black helicopter” or “obama is a muslim” crowd but you are so far over the top it’s laughable. I don’t know how anyone can take you seriously. Hopefully most casual readers of the RMN don’t consider the average liberal person to have your intellect or lack thereof.
December 26, 2008

7:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

my apologies, darkman, i thought i saw eli's name on top of your post, i'm a little sleep deprived right now so you'll have to excuse me.

otherwise, the point i made about your ironical stance on "fair and balanced" news sources still stands, however.

march on my little footsoldier.
December 26, 2008

7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

jay-- apology accepted. and I _sincerely_ hope you and I can have real dialogues in the future. I apologize for the "intellect" comment.
December 26, 2008

8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

darkman writes:

"Why is he a propagandist?"

I will indirectly answer your question.

I wrote Vince Carroll an email (editor of the Opinion page) criticizing his letting Rosen getting away with the inaccurate tag "Democrat Party." Carroll wrote me back that while I was correct, and he would not let such a use pass in straight news, when editing a "partisan polemicist" like Rose he allowed more latitude.
December 26, 2008

8:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

And then there's this:

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
December 26, 2008

11:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"i'm not picking on you, eli, and wouldn't even bother, but you write such distasteful and inaccurate things that i find you harm the quality of the discourse."

Hmm...this is interesting...can you provide even one single example of where I have written something distasteful and/or inaccurate? Or maybe you were referring to darkman, given your apparent confusion with screen names....but given the fact that he's fairly new to these threads that wouldn't make much sense either...
December 27, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

oma writes: “[Rosen's] job is to be a conservative talk show host, why don't you call him for what he and a the rush's of the world are: propagandist. there are two sides to all arguments and never has rosen one time acknowledged anything positive about the progressive side.”

darkman: "Why is he a propagandist?"

1. Oma gave just gave you the answer (Rosen gives nothing but a one-sided argument). I guess you missed it.
2. You have to know that propaganda is (purposeful misinformation), and recognize the signs (e.g., strawmen, red herrings, loaded arguments). Rosen probably engages in this less than, say, Rush, but nonetheless, you'll probably get nothing from him but a one-sided point of view.
December 27, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

darkman to anderson: "How clueless can you be. You claim that Mike Rosen’s radio show is proof that the media is not biased."

No. That's not what I said, and that's not my position. I'm convinced, however, that anyone who listens to a steady diet of talk radio tends to lose to the ability to argue without exaggerating facts, or other's positions--because those are oft-used techniques on talk radio.

"As Rosen has stated himself many times, he is NOT A REPORTER who is supposed to present the news in an unbiased fashion. Rosen’s JOB is to be a CONSERVATIVE talk show host and columnist. News anchors are supposed to be able to report the news without bias."

So are you telling us Rosen is not part of "the media", and that when he and others talk about media bias, they are only talking about news anchors and columnists, and not talk radio, and opinion pieces, and bloggers? That's funny. See recent letters to the RMN about the Rocky's perceived liberal bias, in which *opinion* columnists Littwin, Griego, and Johnson are cited as evidence of said bias (where any is offered at all).
December 27, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

This column is written about a set of "awards" that were given by a committee that awards them every year. Rosen just picked the highlights. If you really want to take on the authors of this commentary follow his link and post there.

I find Rosen too liberal in many cases. I don't listen to him except when I'm checking the news or have to be busy so turn him on so I can listen to Rush (my granddaughter is listening to his last month at full vlume on her computer since she got the present) without getting bread dough or chocolate on the radio.

Sometime listen to NPR and compare how they report an event to how the local papers and the local media cover it. We generally have a pretty good group here in Denver. Yes, I make her listen to other viewpoints. I often go to KOA and get the midnight guy's broadcast. He is fantastic most of the time.

Problem is that we all prefer our own opinions to any opposition. If you want to make sense, read what Jay says. He is making rational arguments with good logic. Answer him if you disagree but answer his facts not your own opinions.
December 27, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

p_myers661 writes:

"If you want to make sense, read what Jay says. He is making rational arguments with good logic."

Sorry, must disagree on this one. I'm a liberal, and while I agree with a lot of where Jay is coming from, I find his arguments to be thinly sourced and polemical in nature. His style of debate tends to do more harm to our side than good. Of course, I think he's not nearly so bad as many on the other side...
December 27, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

For instance,

I think Eli is a very articulate and informed conservative who makes much more reasoned arguments than the average Con here (as do you PM661.) But Jay thinks he's a wingnut.
December 27, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

"Problem is that we all prefer our own opinions to any opposition."

Radio and television marketers are banking on it, as they target their broadcasts to a certain demographic, telling the targeted audience just what they want to hear and not much else.

The midnight guy is probably Jon Caldera. I've heard him briefly and he seemed to have a sense of humor and he didn't engage in the sort of propaganda that I've heard from Rush Limbaugh and Bob (Obama's creating a private police force that will ignore the 4th amendment!) Newsome.
December 27, 2008

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Thank you FN

The voice overnight on KOA is liberal, not Mr. Caldera although he sometimes substitutes. I looked it up. It's Rick Barber. He's seldom boring and a great lot of fun to listen to. (My alarm goes off at 4 AM every day so I can take some heart meds that make me dizzy)

We have to listen and learn. Most of us are already forming an argument either for or against what we hear. My husband and I keep throw pillows and catnip mice handy when listening to any talk radio. (You just imagine what that cat is doing to the pillow or the mouse is what is happening to the speaker.)

Jay does get emotional but usually he posts some links that I would never find or hear about. That is the joy of reading all the posts. I'll re-read Eli and see what I missed the first time.

Happy Saturday. Today I don't cook. Tomorrow I roast the turkey, smoke the pork loin and get the veggies ready for New Years. My neighbors are coming over. They have been great friends.
December 29, 2008

5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Thanks Faux, I appreciate that.
December 30, 2008

midnight

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

So.....regardless of whether jay was referring to myself or darkman, it seems that he has the audacity to accuse others of saying things that are "distasteful" and "harm the quality of the discourse".
Just for fun, let's take a look back at some of the things that jay has said that he must think are perfectly tasteful and improve the quality of the discourse:

"you are a lying piece of crap"
-jay's way of improving the quality of the discourse

"you are still a lying piece of shite"
-jay's way of further improving the quality of the discourse

"go get an education"
-jay's idea of arguing without involving personal insults

"you embarass the uniform"
-jay's response to a combat veteran relating first hand combat experiences to others on a thread, after purposely distorting what was said

"the actions of our troops on the field are irrelevant"
-jay's view of the current conflict in Iraq. Not really distasteful....just a fine example of absurd thinking.

"can you stop running and explain to me why you seem to believe that you know more about our troop levels than gen betrayus?"
-jay showing his high class, respectful view of military professionals

"if a guy knowingly takes the low road...does he deserve more respect in death than he did in life? i think not. i hope it hurt. glad you're gone, tony."
-jay on the death of cancer victim Tony Snow

"by the way...you bet i like poking you with a stick"
-jay adding some good quality to the discourse

"i'm smarter than you are"
-more of jay adding quality to the discourse

"i'm smarter than you are and i like rubbing it in your face"
-jay ending one of his posts with a mature, well thought out point

"you can't refute ANY of my positions.....period"
-jay displaying his open mind regarding opposing views

"you can't keep up intellectually"
-improving the quality of the discourse again...

"go play with yourself until you can keep up"
-jay really adding to the intellectual quality of a discussion

"i don't read campos"
-jay displaying his honesty....See his comments under the most recent Campos column that he doesn't read...

"i love poking his supporters with a stick"
-jay on those who read Rosen, further adding to the quality of the discourse

...Just a very, very small list. You're a classy guy, jay. Liberals everywhere should be embarrassed by you, and as demonstrated here, some liberals are. You do your cause no good.
December 30, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Eli,

I was an early poster on this thread. When I saw it was still active, I decided to check to see where it ended up.

What a corker! The best of Jay! It makes me wish that I had saved some of Sasquatch's or NotChasB's more amazing quotations (Jay if you are reading this, you should know you aren't even close to being in their league. In fact, I bet they were both kicked off the RMN forum.).
Still, I would hope that Jay sees the humor in this Eli. You can't make up material this good.

If I'm not careful, someone will do the best of greenleaf, especially when I get preachy. Should that ever happen, I'll try to accept it gracefully, you too Jay?

Thanks Eli!
December 30, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"It makes me wish that I had saved some of Sasquatch's or NotChasB's more amazing quotations (Jay if you are reading this, you should know you aren't even close to being in their league"

I actually completely agree with this, greenleaf. I've gotten on NotChasB's case on several occasions...

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: 2008 liberal media awards

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 26, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs