backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jul 18 at 10:17 AM

The deal allegedly cost $300 million

Back when the web was [relatively] new, a lot of major news organizations were attempting to get a foothold on the evolving digital space. One of these notable projects was a partnership between Microsoft and NBC on MSNBC.com and the MSNBC news channel. MSNBC.com launched in the mid-1990s, but Microsoft is no longer part of the venture.
 
As of Sunday night, MSNBC.com became NBCnews.com ending the partnership that has spanned well over a decade. NBC paid Microsoft about $300 million for its 50% share in the website according to sources cited by the New York Times. Sources close to the deal weren't allowed to speak on the record. The full purchase price is not being disclosed.
 
NBC executives report that bringing the television and NBCnews.com staff closer together will improve the digital distribution of NBC-TV programs and allow for the distribution of more apps and the optimization of websites for mobile devices.
 
“It’s undeniable how big a part of all of our businesses the digital properties are going to be,” Steve Capus, president of NBC News, said in an interview at his office at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan. “We think we have a much better opportunity to shape them, and frankly grow the news division over all, if we have direct control over all of it.”
 
NBCnews.com will become part of the NBC News Digital division led by Vivian Schiller. "Some really talented journalists have passed through the doorway of msnbc.com and taken us to the point where we have something that is an outstanding set of properties, and we value them to such a degree that we decided that we wanted to own them outright," she said.
 
For now, MSNBC.com is redirecting to the homepage of NBCnews.com. Eventually MSNBC.com will become the web address of MSNBC TV, giving the television network its own dedicated website. Currently, content on the NBCnews.com website will be little changed from before.

NBC says that it will take at least two years completely separate Microsoft from the mix. NBCnews.com will continue to provide news for the MSN.com web portal.

Sources: New York Times, MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

To make things more confusing...
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2012 10:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
While ABC.com is the online presence of ABC, and NBC.com is the online presence of NBC, MSNBC.com actually had very little to do with MSNBC. They're two completely different companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Msnbc.com#Brand_name_...




RE: To make things more confusing...
By rkgriffin on 7/16/2012 10:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
Could be two different companies but they still are linked a lot. But even that seems to be changing too. From NBCnews.com

"MSNBC TV will launch a new digital home in 2013, as an extension of the MSNBC TV on-air brand, creating in-depth content and a community for the passionate audiences of MSNBC programs. Until then, MSNBC TV’s digital content will continue to be available on this site, right where you’ve always found it."


RE: To make things more confusing...
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2012 11:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
That's the problem. They were two completely separate companies, but they were linked somewhat, confusing people. Over time, the two companies went in different directions trying to attract an audience. Now you have this divergence where NBC News wants to be politically neutral but MSNBC wants to adopt a strong liberal bias. But having a neutral website (msnbc.com) run by NBC news with links to liberal programming like Rachel Maddow just made no sense from a branding perspective.

MSNBC will be a liberal shill station much like Fox News is a conservative shill station. With that new focus, the websites needed to reflect that change. MSNBC will need a website, so msnbc.com will eventually be it. But right now it's still owned by the other company so it's being redirected to nbcnews.com. NBC will eventually sell the msnbc.com domain name to the MSNBC network and order will be restored to the universe.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 5
Not that it matters because their marketshare is completely in the tank. I'm willing to bet their web traffic is also stagnating.

People have realized, for the most part, if you want the "news" you'll have to go somewhere else. If you want radical Leftist lying about everything and having no integrity, go to MSNwhatever.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By 91TTZ on 7/16/2012 11:21:17 AM , Rating: 3
It's a shame that people nowadays lack critical thinking skills so they no longer have any objectivity. And profitable businesses reflect that fact, giving the clueless people what they want. Being a cheerleader and preaching to the converted is more profitable than being objective.

You have Fox News preaching to people who are already conservative. You have MSNBC trying to reinvent itself as the liberal anti-Fox. Each station tailors and "tweaks" the news to appeal to their biased audience.

Where do objective people go to get actual news?

It's like if you wanted to open a business in an area populated by obese people. What those people really need are gyms and healthy food. What those people really want is junk food and entertainment. Guess what kind of businesses will be profitable in that area?


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
"You have Fox News preaching to people who are already conservative. You have MSNBC trying to reinvent itself as the liberal anti-Fox. Each station tailors and "tweaks" the news to appeal to their biased audience. Where do objective people go to get actual news?"

That is a very good point and a very good question. Reuters maybe? I dunno. CNN over a decade ago, but definitely not anymore. Fox is as much of a biased joke as MSNBC.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 1
Except if you watched Fox, you would at least KNOW what's going on in the country. Meanwhile Liberal outlets like MSNBC are doing everything in their power to keep Americans in the dark.

I'll never forget the day the whole Fast and Furious thing broke, when Holder was held in contempt and we learned the White House was engaging in a cover up. This is obviously a HUGE story and scandal and news stations should be all over it.

I'm at this bar and there's a TV showing Fox News, and another showing MSNBC. The Fox News show was covering the story. Meanwhile MSNBC was showing a "Retrospective" of Nixon and Watergate. Seriously? So they can't report the news because it makes their Democrat hero Obama look bad, so they run a story about something a Republican did in the 1970's!? When a massive controversy is unfolding before their eyes and everyone wants to talk about it, they're playing up Nixon! LMAO

There's a difference between bias and just outright abdicating your journalistic principles to support a political narrative. People are just sick and tired of that stuff.

Fox could not have the ratings and viewership they have if they were some right-wing propaganda outlet like people on the Internet claim. The reason Fox gets this label is whenever Fox News reports a story differently from how other networks do, people cry foul and proclaim that they are lying, fear-mongering, distorting facts, etc. They never consider that the predominantly liberal mainstream media may be the true culprits behind such underhanded tactics.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 12:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Fox could not have the ratings and viewership they have if they were some right-wing propaganda outlet like people on the Internet claim."

Actually they could and they do. There are several major left biased news outlets and only the one right. With the country basically 50/50, the one right leaning station is the higherst rated based on users watching. Duh.

As far as thier bias, yes, it is a HEAVY bias. Being that you are so extreme to the right you dont notice it, but anyone anywhere near the middle sees it clearly. They are exactly as biased as MSNBC is.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 1:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
I see you don't understand how ratings works lol. If you added up ALL viewership for the big 3 lefties, it wouldn't equal Fox New's.

The country is NOT split 50/50. That's garbage. Most Americans when polled identify themselves with Conservative ideals. Even if they don't call themselves a Conservative, their ideology leans right.

quote:
They are exactly as biased as MSNBC is.


Well that's your opinion. One that, in reality, a minority of this nation shares. MSNBC is radically Liberal and far less informative. Their blatant hatred for all things good in this country turns off a massive number of viewers.

Repeat after me retro, "right is right ". :)


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 1:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
" Most Americans when polled identify themselves with Conservative ideals. Even if they don't call themselves a Conservative, their ideology leans right."

Yet when they vote, they vote for the guy that will directly help them and their viewpoints, not giving a shit about the rest of the country so the distinction is meaningless. Anyhow it proves the point why Fox gets higher viewer #'s.

If the country is so "conservative" then why do they keep electing all these dems?


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the country is so "conservative" then why do they keep electing all these dems?


Historically poor voter turn-out? Plus McCain was just....meah.

quote:
Yet when they vote


I said polls, not voting trends.

quote:
Anyhow it proves the point why Fox gets higher viewer #'s.


Yeah it just CANNOT be because it's a better network, with a better format, and people feel they are more informed while viewing.

Keep carrying the liberal water there buddy.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
"Keep carrying the liberal water there buddy"

I am not a liberal. You are just so far to the right you cant even identify the middle as the middle, it seems left to you. Like I said, for the same reason, Fox News seems like a better format and more informative to you, but it's not. It's totally biased, and totally transparent at it, just like MSNBC. Both should be ashamed of themselves for even using the word "News" because it isn't. It's the distribution of ideology served up with a side dish of skewed vaguely semi-truthful newsbits. And you're eating up like a sheep.

How does it taste?


RE: To make things more confusing...
By NobleKain on 7/16/2012 3:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Retro, I'd have the disagree.

The NEWS of FOX News is very straightforward and unbiased. If you listen to the news of Fox, you'll find that their reporting is solid, informative, and generally offers more exposure to real events than the other news stations.

However, not to be misunderstood... FOX as a station widely caters to a conservative base, and thus, liberals (or liberal-moderates) like to misplace "bias" with the NEWS... it just ain't so.

Does FOX have very biased EDITORIAL shows? Absolutely. No one would deny it. Bill O'Reilly, and the like, who speak on news topics in a very conservative manner are totally biased... but they are EDITORIAL shows, not the true FOX NEWS. Applying a bias label to the News because you disagree with their other programs is unfair and lame.

FOX is just as bad as CNN and NBC and MSNBC and ABC at their editorial bents, but people like to pretend otherwise. However, I'd go as far to say that the other stations NEWS is also biased.. if in varying degrees. This can be seen in their choice of headline verbiage, commentary, and even in their choices of stories to run (or not run).

While, I won't say there's no exception to every rule... the basics of the rule still apply. Very rarely will FOX NEWS not cover the same stories as the other stations... but it's not infrequent that they cover additional new the other stations choose to ignore (for whatever reason they feel necessary).

Additionally, you should spend some time comparing the general tone/wording of the stories that all the stations cover, and I think you'll find that overall, FOX NEWS tends to remain more neutral.

But yes, FOX as a station carries very conservative programming... just don't confuse that with FOX NEWS program.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: To make things more confusing...
By NobleKain on 7/16/2012 3:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you call yourself a news channel and have a half dozen hate spouting blowhards, showing one side of avery issue and not the other, then you in fact are a biased channel period.


You're a class A fool then. To say that a news program is Biased because a different program is Biased is simply a joke.

Why do you even care then? Every source of news also carries blogs and/or editorials as part of the affiliate. Therefore, by your standard, you'll never hear the truth anywhere, so who cares where you go to hear your lies? Stop griping.

Oh, and also, to continue the commentary... you yourself are a hate spouting blowhard because you disagree with fox news and have called them hate spouting blowhards... but then I guess that also makes me a hate spouting blowhard... tsk, it is a vicious circle.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 4:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
That is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Whatever man, enjoy your cluelessness.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I think he's dead on. I like you, but yeah, it's clear you're just speaking about Fox News from what you hear others say, without actual experience. Even in that other post, you're like "oh yeah, I lumped the opinion shows in with the news, ooops!". Wtf man, that changes the entire dynamic.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 5:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
We were talking about MSNBC, Foxnews etc. these are cable news networks NOT individual news shows. Yes I have seen and it yes, I do think its highly biased. Both state the news (whatever happened) and have guests on to talk about it with thier own "spin" most networks do the same thing, I am not really faulting Fox for it. It's as guilty as many others... Then they have commentary shows that are through the roof right biased. Add that all up and yes, fox news is heavily biased.

I don't expect you to see it. You are extremely right therefore it just makes sense to your perspective.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you call someone "extreme right" is proof of how MSNBC and the Liberal media has biased the entire population in the way they think about ideology.

In the same way, this is how Fox is "extremely right biased". Because anything that clashes with the established Leftist view on everything is "extreme". No, THEY are the extremists!

I'm an American and a Conservative. Sorry if that's too "extreme" to you lol.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 5:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
You dont honestly consider yourself "far right" ?

Dome on man, be honest.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that Libertarians? Wouldn't they be more "right" than a Conservative?

You make me sound like an Anarchist, wtf. You're always up my ass giving me crap and insulting me. I'm not going to change because you think being to the "right" is a bad thing. Get over who I am, and get back on the issues.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 4:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't call you a Liberal. But you carry water for them at the drop of a hat.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 4:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Calling Foxnews Network biased does not make me liberal, or mean that I am carrying water for liberals... It makes me observant. I call MSNBC biased as well, doesn't mean I am carrying water for conservatives. I call CNN a joke, doesn't mean I am against comedians. I call RIM a loser, it doesnt mean all canadians are losers........ Hmm... well, maybe on that one ;)


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 5:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
If someone criticized Obama, you're right there with the water bucket. MSNBC? Same thing, you're all with the "Fox Sucks". The economy? There's retro, the waterboy.

When you aren't being a straight up apologist for the Left, you're going full time full throttle with the moral relativist position.

Or maybe you just like arguing more than even I do...


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 5:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
"If someone criticized Obama, you're right there with the water bucket"

Obama? The change guy that walked into Washington promising to change the way it works and went straight into the BS stimulus package? The guy that bowed down to Harry Reid and that c%^t Pelosi without so much as an attempt to fake a fight? The guy that promised transparency in govt? Lets not even get into his spending issues.

Out of the bucket enough for ya? That is my honest opinion of Obama. I am totally disgusted with him. I DO say the economy wasnt his fault, and that Bush left him the worst mess since the 1920's, that doesnt make me an apologist.

See what I mean by you are so far to the right you cant see the middle. I say something against some righty and you paint me liberal. I say something wasn't Obama's fault and I am apologist. I call it like I see it regardless.

"Or maybe you just like arguing more than even I do..."

WTF is that supposed to mean? There is no way in hell that could be true. I could go into a multi bullet point andwer as to shy but.... ;)


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 4
"Oh please, you say that stuff NOW. But every time someone criticizes Obama and the Left here, you come in with the "both sides are the same, leave him alone!" bullcrap."

No, when you blame the current economic mess on Obama, I step in and call BS, because it was crashing long before he took office much less could have affected it. Bush's 8 years destroyed our economy. Obama made it worse. If you think that comes out as "leave him alone" then I dont know what to tell you.

". I point out the obvious truth about MSNBC, and you counter with a Fox News bash. You just can't help yourself."


Look again above. 91TTZ mentioned "You have Fox News preaching to people who are already conservative. You have MSNBC trying to reinvent itself as the liberal anti-Fox. Each station tailors and "tweaks" the news to appeal to their biased audience." I replied to that agreeing that they both are biased. YOU came in with a rant about how Fox isnt biased and then proceed to get mad at me becasue I say they are LOL. You crack me up man.

" About everything!? So if you pick a side, on anything, you're an extremist?"

Of course not. But if you always pick the same side and blame everything on the other, you just might be an extremist =)


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 6:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
"lol So almost 4 years later, we're still feeling the effects from some Bush economic policy?"

Uh...yes. In a Major way.

"The economy we have now, is 100% Obama's. FACT."

I agree that the president "owns" the responsibility to get it done and that means working with Congress to right the ship. I agree Obama did a piss poor job of that, and that the recovery should have been faster. I agree that he sucks and I cant think of a single thing he did economically that I liked. I might argue the bank bailouts (not the stimulus) had to be done, because if it weren't you and I would both be standing in soup lines having this conversation... But Bush broke this.

It's like your like saying your previous mechanic (Bush) drove your truck off a cliff and your pissed at the current mechanic (Obama) for being too lame to know how to fix it. Both suck, but Bush sucked worse. Bush took good and made it shit. Obama took shit and made it... still shit.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 6:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But Bush broke this


Prove it. Find the Bush policy that lead to a housing collapse and subsequent banking crisis. Also show me how Bush was responsible for GM and Chrysler going under.

I guess it's also Bush's fault 911 happened and we lost trillions from the stock market too in a matter of weeks.

And you accuse me of being biased! Jesus. 4 years later and Bush is still the only scapegoat you people can come up with.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 6:41:49 PM , Rating: 1
So the guy in charge gets a free ride when the house collapses on him? Like I said its the presidents job to work with congress and get the budget in order. Bush just kept spending like there is no tomorrow. The housing collapse happened on his watch, signs were there and signs were ignored. You just cant give the guy a pass.

Consider this scenario. What if the housing collapse happened 6 years into Obama's presidency with 6 years of a dem congress. Would you give them a pass? Hell no, you would go totally ape-shit ballistic about it and you know it. The thought of that scene actually cracks me up. I think i'd be peeling you off the ceiling LOL.

" Bush is still the only scapegoat you people can come up with."

You act like this should change over time. It happened, he was in charge. Its not going to suddenly change. 100 years from now, it will still be his fault. To be fair, 100 years from now Jimmy Carter will still suck too.

"you people"

There you go lumping me in with those people. I am not "you people" I hate those people with a fucking passion.

Hey, I give up. I am not pulling you toward the middle any more than you are pulling me to the right. On a note we can both get behind... This Galaxy S3 is simply freegin amazing. It surprisingly solid for being so thin and light. Or its surprisingly light for being so solid. Its amazingly fast and fluid and the screen... OMG, the screen is just breathtaking. I will never EVER go back to a smaller screen again. I look at my old Droid 3 with a 4 inch screen and just looks like crap now. I look at iPhones and laugh.



RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2012 8:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
All I did was ask for the bill, act, or policy he signed into law that lead to the housing crisis. I totally hate all the money he spent, but how exactly did that lead to toxic assets building up in banks and a mortgage crisis again?

quote:
The housing collapse happened on his watch, signs were there and signs were ignored.


Yeeaah except it's documented that Bush went to Congress about it. Guess what? The Democrats told him to stuff it, and that it was more important that the poor and "minorities" have affordable mortgages, even if they can't pay them and the banks suffer.

From the NEW YORK TIMES, you'll note. But yeah, there I go being "far right" again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-age...

The Democrats in congress stopped President Bush’s plan for this major overhaul of Feddie and Fannie. Now here we are years later and because congress choose to do nothing, we are in the middle of this major meltdown. It’s real easy to point a finger at President Bush and use him as a scapegoat, but when we really look at the truth of the matter, we see the finger prints of the Democrats all over this mess.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 12:21:41 PM , Rating: 1
"Yeeaah except it's documented that Bush went to Congress about it. Guess what? The Democrats told him to stuff it,"

So Bush the republican went to Congress in 2003 which BOTH House and Senate was controlled by republicans and didn't get it done and its the dems fault? OK... I dont realy see that logic. Sounds like an Epic fail to me. He couldn't get his own party to agree. This problem was ignored by both parties, but whatever. Like I said, If that happened 6 years into a dems term with a dem controlled congress you would go crazy on it but you dont see the bias.

It's all good. I persist that both aprties are 100% full of shit, and you seem to think the reps are better. We'll have to agree to disagree.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Once again you show a clear lacking of an understanding how Washington works. It didn't matter who controlled Congress, for this measure to pass it had to get past Barney Frank's committee, and he refused to allow it. Did you even read the article?

Jesus I work my ass off to find the most unbiased to the "right" source I could, the New York freaking Times, and you still blow me off and claim it's not true? What more do you require of me? Sorry but now the burden of proof is on YOU, and covering your ears with your hands and yelling "la la I can't hear you" isn't cutting it.

And you claim I'm the biased one and won't listen to reason. Whatever, I'm done with this whole thing. You're beyond obtuse.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
"Once again you show a clear lacking of an understanding how Washington works"

Really, calm your nerves man... Because I thought that the majority party led the committees. Your article has Frank as the ranking democrat, but not the committee chair.

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.p...

????

I show Michael Oxley a rep as the committee chair with 39 reps and 32 dems on the committee.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 5:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
You thought wrong. What are you, 12? You actually believe it all comes down to pure Democracy? Oh so the Republicans had 7 more votes, clearly that's all it takes!!??

And Jesus Christ, Oxley? If you don't know that Frank was calling all the shots, we're done here.

Even if it got past the committee, it would have died in Congress. What are you not getting about this? The Democrats did not WANT any reforms. They were the ones who created the "Sub Prime" mortgages in the first place. It started with Carter, Clinton modified it, and there we have it.

Anyway I've proved my point. You claimed the meltdown was Bush's fault. You said BUSH, not Congress. Bush identified the problem, attempted to have it fixed, and they rejected it. Hence, you were wrong, and I was correct. No policy or bill by Bush caused the housing crisis, as you claimed. Instead something he came up with that likely would have prevented it, wasn't even given a chance. Frank killed it. End of story.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 6:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
"You thought wrong. What are you, 12? You actually believe it all comes down to pure Democracy? Oh so the Republicans had 7 more votes, clearly that's all it takes!!??"

All I am saying is the republicans had the oval office, the senate, the house, the committee in question, the majority of votes on that committee AND the chair seat on the committee. Clearly, you are correct its the dems fault and the reps that had t otal control of all entities had nothing to do with it.

I am not saying Frank isnt a corrupt ASS, but you CANT just give all those in power a pass and blame only the dems. WTF is wrong with your brain? I repeat "the republicans had the oval office, the senate, the house, the committee in question, the majority of votes on that committee AND the chair seat on the committee."

"Anyway I've proved my point. You claimed the meltdown was Bush's fault."

I said Bush left the worst mess since the great depression, and that is correct. You cant just get a pass when you and your party are in charge, regardless of how you and/or Fox spins it.



RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 7:23:11 PM , Rating: 1
You can't even get THAT right. Great Depression? Bush's economy wasn't even close to being as bad as Carters. Hell the economy we have now isn't a hell of a lot better!

You keep saying both sides are equally as bad, yet you spend ALL your time criticizing Republicans and 4 years later blaming Bush for everything. Your colors are showing.

And again, I've proved "Bush" didn't leave the mess. For the 5'th time, point me to the policy or bill that Bush signed into law that caused the specific failure in the sub-prime mortgage lending market. Ooops, you can't!

And I've solidly disproved that he sat and did nothing while it happened. He tried twice, years before the collapse, to do something. Both times it was shot down. And it doesn't matter WHY that happened, it only matters that your claim of "Bush wrecked the economy" is still bullshit.

Honestly Retro, you embarrass yourself. 8 years of Bush bashin was quite enough. But to extend that all the way through the Obama Presidency is just morally and intellectually bankrupt.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 7:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
"You keep saying both sides are equally as bad, yet you spend ALL your time criticizing Republicans "

Actually that isnt true at all. When I am debating with YOU, that is what you see because YOU spend all your time blaming everything bad that goes on in this country on 1/2 the govt, and cant even see that its the other half too. It's all of them. I am not even pro dem or left, just trying to point out that your side is as full of it as the other.

"And again, I've proved "Bush" didn't leave the mess."

Fine, I concede. Bush did a bang up job. Righty Ho then.

I give up. I must be totally incorrect here. Even though Bush was in office for 6 years with the house and Senate when it happened, it clearly MUST be the dems fault. By my logic , I thought that because the republicans had the oval office, the senate, the house, the committee in question, the majority of vote on that committee AND the chair seat on the committee that could have stopped it that kind of made them at least partially accountable. I guess I was wrong and those in power arent actually in charge. I must be way off base. I am gonna go have a few beers with my wife and try to re-evaluate my entire life now.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 7:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
So you're entire point is both sides are just "as bad"? After all this typing, that's it? Really?

Thanks for wasting so much of my time. Do you realize what a waste of time it is debating with someone who's only tools are apathy and moral relativism? Retro why even argue at all if you really don't even care?

Hey what car should I buy Retro? The Accord or the Impreza? Meah, they're both the same Reclaimer. Gee thanks, brilliant insight! I'm so glad we had that talk.

quote:
I give up. I must be totally incorrect here.


Good, I'm glad you can finally admit that.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 9:05:34 PM , Rating: 1
"So you're entire point is both sides are just "as bad"? After all this typing, that's it? Really?"

Yup. it shouldnt be a surprise. We have had this same conversation before. You blame everything that goes wrong in this country on the left and give the right a free pass. They have had just as much power and control as the other side, even more in recent times by my count, yet you let them off scott free. I dont mean this as an insult, but as food for thought. You are to the right as Tony Swash is to Apple. Extremely closed off to any point of view that isnt already formed in your head.

"Thanks for wasting so much of my time."

I need to point out that you sound like a pussy liberal right now, playing the victim doesn't suit you. As if I made you click the reply button. LOL - sorry had to say it.

" Do you realize what a waste of time it is debating with someone who's only tools are apathy and moral relativism?"

If I cared I might have an opinion on that comment ;)

have a good night my friend, may the government teet give you all that you want out of life


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 8:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ah now you've resorted to outright trolling and insults. Translation: You lost.


By retrospooty on 7/18/2012 10:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
OK, it may not be all Bush's fault, I'll give you that. Certainly not the housing crisis, but you have not answered the rest of it. How can it all be the dems fault when the reps are in charge?

As far as insults, come on man, see the humor. I was messing with you. The victim thing is a chicken s%^t liberal tactic and you know it. So, we know Bush brought it to the attention of congress in 2003 to try and do something.

The republicans at that time had the oval office, the senate, the house, the committee in question, the majority of votes on that committee AND the chair seat on the committee that could have stopped it yet didnt.

How is that all the dems fault? 50/50 maybe, 60/40, but all of it? Come on man, do the math.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By knutjb on 7/17/2012 3:24:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I DO say the economy wasnt his fault, and that Bush left him the worst mess since the 1920's, that doesnt make me an apologist.
Buying into MSNBC again. When Reagan took over from Jimmy Cater the economy was worse than in 08. The reason the left has difficulty dealing with that is Reagan had positive outcomes and ran for re-election with a working economy to brag about. Jimmy left us with stagflation and it really sucked bad. It is NOT how bad it is when you take over but what you make of it while in charge. If you are unable to improve it all you are left with is to blame the last guy for leaving you a pile.

Now that you mention the 1920's we had a full on depression in 20-21 that was entirely caused by excess growth of the government, a 90% top tax bracket, and too much federal debt. They cut the government in half, slashed tax rates and low and behold the roaring twenties happened.

When the stock market crashed in 29 things were bad. What made it worse was the government trying to fix it so it could never happen again. With those acts the government made it last until the war was over. The only reason it didn't continue is Truman cut the government by about 40%. Left overs from FDR's administration wanted to return to prewar policies. Good thing Truman didn't listen...

BTW I watch Fox Business channel, Fox News, BBC, and read the aforementioned on my phone plus the Drudge report too. Tried watching MSNBC but I could stand the blatant lies on stories I knew the background on. It was lying through omission of details. Like when the edited the Zimmerman 911 tapes to get a desired outcome. CNN followed MSNBC and I don't know how they stay on-air. CNN International is the worst media I have ever watched.

All media outlets will have bias. So I try to use countering POVs, but MSNBC, CNN, and the (not so)Big three broadcast channels have deluded themselves into believing the public is stupid. I guess that's why Fox is doing so well...


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 6:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
I like how Retro just ignores this. Because he can't stick the "far right" label on you to cover up his failed ideology.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By retrospooty on 7/17/2012 6:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
WTF are you even talking about? My failed ideology? What ideology is that exactly? I hate the overspending as much as you, my only point here that differes from you is that you blame it all on the dems. I put up info that shows the reps do it too. I think both sides are full of shit and this pisses you off for some reason. Whatever man. I think you just like being angry.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/17/2012 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
No it would just be really cool if you could admit you were wrong here.


By Ammohunt on 7/16/2012 2:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
when it comes to news Fox News is very objective people often confuse the conservative personality shows with the "News" at fox news. The best way to tell this is to compare it to what say BBC reports. You will find that the core of the News is reported as it without overt ideological bias inserted just like Fox News. This is not the case with the three letter "News" programs; leftist bias is inserted repeatedly in everyday news reports.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/16/2012 3:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do objective people go to get actual news?


I know what you mean. I used to watch Headline News because it was exactly that. Just news. Now it's a bunch of lame shows. I might as well be watching MTV reality shows... I now enjoy watching BBC news since it's got more world news than all the other news channels.


By retrospooty on 7/16/2012 4:18:52 PM , Rating: 3
" I used to watch Headline News because it was exactly that. Just news. Now it's a bunch of lame shows."

Ya, CNN has gone so far downhill its not even funny. They used to be one of the most respected news organizations out there, now its just ratings and half assed news. When giving the news how is JohnnyCA3432's opinion on the matter relevant? If I wanted to hear some anonymous loser on the internets opinion I would be on the internet. It's supposed to be news FFS!

A good friend of the family is an ex producer at CNN. She left because of it. They made a conscious decision to go for ratings and abandon the true news.


By The Raven on 7/16/2012 4:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have Fox News preaching to people who are already conservative. You have MSNBC trying to reinvent itself as the liberal anti-Fox. Each station tailors and "tweaks" the news to appeal to their biased audience. Where do objective people go to get actual news?
Unless a news organization could accurately determine what each and everyone of us are interested in on a personal level, I wouldn't want "unbiased news" because it is impossible to present. Some sort of pipedream idea that people want so that they can turn off their critical thinking skills and leave them more time to tune into the Kardashians.

The fact of the matter is that some people are interested in news on the economy or some are interested in immigration or smaller gov't or women's rights, etc. How can you prioritize these without showing a bias? And then some things just get left off the map completely. Yes it is superficial news to me but when I want gaming news I don't go to MSNBC or FOX. I go to Gametrailers or Gamespot or something. And if you work in the game industry you need to know more about the Xbox than you do about what is happening in Afghanistan or what kind of music Romney has on his iPod.

Also when you do have what some purport to be unbiased (take NPR for example) you end up with an organization that maybe neither left nor right but it is certainly pro big gov't since it gives you the sense that everything is fine here you don't have to worry about anything.

Even during the financial meltdown Planet Money went through all these scenarios and presented all these proposed solutions and then when confronted with the question "What if the gov't does nothing and we let the banks fail?" they just were like "Oh we wouldn't want that to happen, ?derp?" No explanation. That certainly showed a bias to me that they wanted the gov't to intervene. And when Geithner and other Obama appointees were caught in tax trouble Steve Inskeep seriously asked the question, "Do you think our standards are too high?"

On the other hand there was an instance where "right-wing media" was reporting that Google was trying to influence the election of Obama because all these pro Clinton or McCain Blogs we being shutdown on Google's Blogger without any explanation. Well the right jumped to the conclusion that it was Google behind it all since they control the site. It was easy to figure out that it was not Google but rather those who were reporting abuse and Google would automatically block them. Well 'the right' got it wrong but to their credit that is a somewhat significant story even if Google wasn't to blame and no one else was reporting it.

This is all up to the customer. They determine what is important. They can figure out what is true or false. We need the lefty media to keep the right in line and vice versa. I am so sick of hearing about bias this and lies that. Everyone has an interest in what they are doing. There will always be bias. Get over it everyone.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Uncle on 7/16/2012 12:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah,if not MSNBC, your suggesting maybe Fox news. Left meets right. Thats what one calls balanced news reporting, watch in PIP.:)


RE: To make things more confusing...
By omnicronx on 7/16/2012 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People have realized, for the most part, if you want the "news" you'll have to go somewhere else. If you want radical Leftist lying about everything and having no integrity, go to MSNwhatever.
I didn't realize there still was a US news agency with any remaining credibility..

You are kidding yourself if you think you are informed if you only watch news leaning to a single side.

The truth often lands somewhere in the middle..


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Uncle on 7/16/2012 1:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Where would PBS news be in your thoughts?


By DuncanMacdonald on 7/16/2012 7:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
For less biased news on the US use the BBC and other non US news services. As they have less of an axe to grind about the US there tends to be less bias (not no bias just a bit less). (For the UK use Bloomberg and CNN for anything related to the government which the BBC automatically supports.)

As a non US citizen, the quality (or rather total lack thereof) displayed by US news media when I was on holiday in the US was dire. Try sometime comparing US newspapers with the heavyweights from the UK (like the UK Times).

If you have to use US news services - use the text on the websites instead of listening to the commentators. Extreme bias is a lot easier to identify in a written article than in a spoken one.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Samus on 7/16/2012 10:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Fox and MSNBC felt like competitors for the same audience. Needless to say MSNBC's brainwashing skills were lacking.


RE: To make things more confusing...
By Iaiken on 7/16/2012 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MSNBC.com actually had very little to do with MSNBC


This right here. This is what the NBCNews.com re-branding is clearly intended to address.

MSNBC.com was the web division of NBC News, a proper news outlet focused on professional reporting of the news and investigative journalism. Conversely, the MSNBC cable channel is essentially a left-leaning version Fox News focused on editorializing the news. Why they left this glaring branding problem to fester for so long is beyond me.

MSNBC.com will re-launch later as the web presence of the MSNBC network, which is a shame really. IMHO, Fox News and MSNBC are just two different brands of intellectual poison.


Darn
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2012 1:02:27 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft is no longer involved in a leftist news organization.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki