kasia in a nutshell

I read recently that Stewart gave the OK to make the daily show downloadable from comedycentral.com. Sorry I don't have the details for ya.

One of our local radio stations switched from one of the big (liberally-biased) news networks for news feeds to Fox News. As a result, the news is much much better.

I've never cared for the Daily Show. It's like "news" for people who don't live in reality, and like to narcissistically make fun of others.

I've seen CommonBits linked to from BoingBoing a few times. I've never tried them but I've always meant to. They seem to be clips, but you probably get all the juicy stuff.
http://www.commonbits.org/tag/daily-show

Hey "Mike", have you ever wondered why it's called the fake news? Prolly why it's on Comedy Central, huh? Anyway, good luck, Kasia.

Yep, just like I said.

I don't want to live in this reality.. and what, having a blog isn't narcissistic?

There's a handy RSS feed here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dailyshow_video/

"One of our local radio stations switched from one of the big (liberally-biased) news networks for news feeds to Fox News. As a result, the news is much much better."

As if conservatively slanted news is any better than liberally slanted news... It would be nice if there was a news agnecy that could cut the spin and just give the damn facts...

As for Daily Show torrents...
http://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=Daily+Show

You might have to dig around a little bit since the eps. aren't listed in order.

"As if conservatively slanted news is any better than liberally slanted news"

Fox News is much closer to the center than any of the big networks (and the majority of the other smaller networks).

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=daily+show is a pretty good torrent source. Pirate Bay, too.

The daily show like liberals both suck big time. I'd rather watch old people screw than listen to either one of you. P.S. God Bless The Honorable George W. Bush. and screw chappaqutic ted

"Fox News is much closer to the center than any of the big networks (and the majority of the other smaller networks)."

Hardly. If its closer to the center, its only marginally so. The Fox News Network is just like CNN, the only difference being that it just caters to the opposite end of the spectrum under the misnomer of being "Fair and Balanced."

Fox News *IS* fair and balanced. If 10 is right-wing and 0 is left-wing, Fox News is a 5, CNN is a 2.5, NPR is a 0.5, and The Nation is a -5.

"Fox News *IS* fair and balanced. If 10 is right-wing and 0 is left-wing, Fox News is a 5, CNN is a 2.5, NPR is a 0.5, and The Nation is a -5."

A five? That's way too funny because that would mean that Fox exhibits no bias and when it comes to the media, such an assertion is totally absurd. There is NO media outlet on television that can claim not to have a bias. The bias is the result of having people reporting the "news," instead of just the facts.

Fox's "fair and balanced" statement is a marketing motto, nothing more... Its like CNN saying "News you can trust."

Wow kasia....You managed to start a political debate of awesome proportions!

I've watched Fox News, it's completely Biased. As are most media sources of news. From the episodes I've seen of the daily show, if you actually watch the show and cut throw the jokes, you get more real news then most true news networks...I mean yeah...some girl got lost in Aruba while on a trip with her class to get drunk and screw the locals...but can you really milk that news source for half a year? and Why do I care *that much* that Micheal Jackson is going to court for allegedly sexually abusing little boys? Mention it to me at the beginning of the trial, a few months in, and then tell me the verdict when it's done, that's all I want, not 24/7 news coverage of BS. and who *really* cares *that* much that Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn child and dump them in the river? Is it really worth months of news coverage? At the expense of *real* news?

It seems like the only true way to get real news is on the internet, and even then you have to dig, but at least you can. The minute a news anchor takes a certain tone of voice when telling you something, you've already taken a noisedive into biased news....I don't care what you think! Read the teleprompter and tell me what's really happening in the world.

So there's my (1) (1) two cents...

Mike -

You need to do some more analysis of the news media instead of regurgitating what you've been told. Try finding some news from other countries, watch how they report those same events like the war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina/Rita, and the hundreds of other stories that somehow don't make it onto American media. THEN try to make some objective assessment. American media looks a lot different when you put it in a global context.

Kasia -

So you're complaining that the items you're stealing aren't the ones you really want? It's one thing to complain about how the cable companies put the programs into packages with one good channel and ten crappy ones so you have to buy things you don't want to get the stations you do want, but you haven't paid for anything! Sheesh.

Just stick to netflicks and quit your whining! :-)

Mike,

Did you know that in the UK bias in news reporting is a crime? If the media there really were as "liberal" as you claim, the reporters and publishers would be so far up to their eyeballs in fines they wouldn't be able to publish. The label of "liberal" on British news reports wouldn't (quite litterally) hold up in a court of law - speciffically, there is no proof to support your claim.

You are veiwing the world through the filter of your own bias. It's not at all the way you think it is. Perhaps someday you'll see that.

"There's ALWAYS bias in news."

So you admit that Fox News is bais. (After stating that "Fox News *IS* fair and balanced.")

Cool. You're making progress.

Mike, are you familiar with a man named Rupert Murdoch?

Here, I'm going to give you a leg up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

I quote: "Murdoch is generally regarded as the single most politically influential media proprietor in the world, and is regularly courted by politicians in the United States, Britain and Australia."

And: "Murdoch's desire for dominant cross-media ownership manifested early"

And: "...he has consistently lobbied, both personally and through his papers, to have these [cross-media ownership] laws changed in his favor."

And: "In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Regarding Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential bid, he said 'He's right on all the issues.'[5] His papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections."

Finally: "Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. For example, it is believed that Murdoch tried to suppress publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, in an attempt to curry favour with China. Patten's book was critical of the Chinese government. Whatever the motives, the book was dropped from publication by Murdoch's HarperCollins publishing company. It was only because of Patten's political influence that the story came to light and the book was published by another firm. It is speculated that Murdoch wanted to please the Chinese government because it happened around the time he was attempting to get a foothold in the Chinese market with the launch of Star TV.

Murdoch's British media outlets generally support eurosceptic positions, and generally show contempt for the European Union. Murdoch publications worldwide tend to adopt Francophobic, pro-Israeli and pro-American views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favour of the war. [6] Murdoch served on the board of directors of the Cato Institute."

Pay attention, man. There's no such thing as unbiased media. To suggest that FOX is anything other than slanted is not only illogical, but it makes you look like a fool.

Paul:
Sigh... Fox News is biased toward the CENTER. Comprende?

Next time, don't make stuff up about bias being illegal. That's really silly and ignorant.

Rob:
The Cato Institute is a great organization. Very respectable. And yes, I have heard of Murdoch (duh). I'm very well informed. Your assertions make you look like one of the hordes of US/Bush-hating liberally-biased delusional paranoid schizophrenics.

PM: "Your assertions make you look like one of the hordes of US/Bush-hating liberally-biased delusional paranoid schizophrenics."

How so, exactly? I read over my previous comment and didn't see anything that would suggest it.

One can easily be well informed without being correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

This is current: "It is important to avoid any increase in the federal response to Katrina relative to its prior response to natural disasters. This would create a 'moral hazard' problem by increasing the expectation of local residents and governments about the future federal response. This would reduce their own incentives to make those decisions that would avoid or reduce the cost of future natural disasters."

In other words, let people die because if you save them, they'll learn to expect it the next time a natural disaster rolls around and that would cost money.

Priorities? Apropos of my Murdoch comment: "In 1999, The Economist reported that Murdoch had made £1.4 billion ($2.1 billion) in profits over the previous 11 years but had paid no net corporation tax."

Note that the Cato institute favours the elimination of Corporate tax. How many lives could his $350M in taxes have saved? Guess we'll never find out.

"Sigh... Fox News is biased toward the CENTER. Comprende?"

Biased toward the center ?! That's a nice oxymoron.

Bias ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bias ):
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."

or

"a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

Bias means that there is a deliberate push away from the neutral center...

If Fox news really was "biased towards to center," you would not have hacks like Hannity and Colms or O'Reilly using a NEWS channel as a political soap box. Fox would simply report the facts of the day. It, however, does not do that.

Fox News is neither objective, factually pure or politically neutral (as "biased towards the center" seems to imply).

"The Cato Institute is right on..."

A thinktank is right on ?! Thanks for the laugh. I have yet to find a thinktank that's ever "right on," partly because their research process and the subsequent analysis is tainted by their political views.

Methinks you need to become aware of your biases Mike.

"Those guys are hacks? As compared to the hordes of moonbats behind blogs? Hannity, Colms, et al provide EDITORIAL."

Well, if a news source wants to claim to be unbiased, it shouldn't have editorial commentators, now should it. Editorials are inherantly biased by defition:

http://www.answers.com/editorial&r=67
"An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers."

As for that moonbat statement... Based on the use of that term, I would assume you would be what liberals call a "wing-nut" or "dittohead."

"Just like the way liberal NYT et al. But I guess you don't have a problem with THAT because editorials at NYT and the vast majority of other major news outlets is biased to the far left."

Actually, I could care less about editorials... Editorials are written by people who want to spin the news according to their agenda in an effort to sway people. That's not news. Its bullshit.

And yes, I have equal disdain for the left slant of other media agencies...

But nice try...

"So you're saying think tanks can never be right, by definition."

The only people thinktanks are "right on" with are people who already agree with their political bent. Its amazing that two or three different think tanks can look at the same facts and each come up with the "right" solution. Upon closer examination of their conclusions or their data, one can find problems quite readily.

If thinktanks were "right on," they would look at the same data and come up with almost the same conclusion. But alas, they don't.

"You make no sense."

Apparently only to you.

"YOu really need to figure out what the difference is between reporters and commentators, news and commentary."

Actually, I already knew... I figured it out a long time ago. The problem is that reporters don't JUST report the facts.

"Nice, you just contradicted yourself - you were just making a big deal about editorials."

Actually, I didn't... Stating the fact that editorials are biased is not making a "big deal about editorials."

"And editorials are by definition bullshit? Really."

Actually, it would be nice if you would read and quote what is written, not what you believe it says, which was that editorials are by definition biased. Nowhere was a statement made that by definition editorials are bullshit.

Would you like to try again ?

"You're just making yourself look more foolish."

To whom, you? Big deal.

Mike: "Dittohead isn't a liberal term. It's a complimentary term used by Rush himself."

Dictionary.com, for "ditto":

1. The same as stated above or before.
2. A duplicate; a copy.
3. A pair of small marks ( ) used to indicated [sic] that the word, phrase, or figure given above is to be repeated."

So, a dittohead is what, then? One who repeats everything Rush says? That kind of implies a lack of intellectual independence, doesn't it?

I know better than to hope that the right's obsession with 'rugged individualism' would extend to the mind. In fact, the term "moonbat" might be taken as a compliment as it clearly refers to one's ability to think outside of convention.

Mike: "I guess you've never heard of charities like The Red Cross, Second Harvest, Salvation Army, etc. The Cato Institute is right on - don't bloat the government, which does a terrible job, even more."

I have heard of the Red Cross. Perhaps you're aware of the tainted blood scandal? Here you go: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/taintedblood/. Who says that the government is the only gang that screws it up?

The difference between charities and the government, of course, is that the electorate gets to choose the government.

Mike, your party has control of the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and the government is still the problem. Is that the point? To screw it up badly enough that it needs to be put down? What does that say about your political choices? Don't you think a little ideological reflection is in order?

I hear that the size of the US government has increased by 33% under Bush, to say nothing of the balooning debt. So expenditures are up, and revenues are down. "The economy is great!" they say, but what good does it do if the government takes itself out of play by cutting taxes and eliminating regulation?

I mean, seriously. The red cross gets millions of dollars when a popular tragedy (the tsunami, Katrina) comes along, but do you expect people to donate to causes that aren't even on the radar? Do you expect the red cross to start building interstate highways? Maybe the humane society can take up wher the FDA leaves off. Maybe the Salvation Army can replace the US Army. Yeah, good idea.

Mike, if the government were to collapse tomorrow and there was no one around to protect you, what makes you think you would come out on top? You aren't exactly holding your own against a bunch of pinko moonbats. Not even Rush's rhetoric can save you from looking like... well, no need for more ad hominems. You have that base covered.

Nobody in their right mind takes advertising slogans seriously, right? None of us really believes “For trucks are ram tough”. There are no mountains of Busch for us to head to. Virginia isn’t really for lovers. These are just catchy slogans to sell products.

So why do some people actually BELIEVE “fair and balanced” reporting? How can anyone defend that position expect to be taken seriously? Don’t they realize that it sounds as dumb as arguing “cold filtering really does make beer taste better”?

It’s a slogan – like “ribbed for her pleasure” – don’t take it seriously.

"It's the Democrats who are to blame. Look at the utter and complete incompetance of Gov. Blanco and Mayor "School Bus" Nagin."

Ahh yes, the good old blame "them" tactic... How about following the facts and not spinning and admitting that the Bush administration screwed up too? Only a person who is seriously biased is unable to admit that federal, state and city governments ALL failed during Katrina.

To claim that all of the blame lays on the state and city officials is both partisan hackery and factually backrupt.

Mike, you are just as bad as the people you are railing against...

Alas, my debating skills are under attack. I'll leave some links, then. I know you won't read them, Mike because you get your news from Hannity and Limbaugh, but for the benefit of the others, here you go:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore200402020906.asp

The interesting thing about the Moore piece is that it laments 'Big Government' AND decries Bush's profligacy. Bush isn't a conservative by any measure, and his disciples don't even realize it.

Sad, really.

The heritage foundation weighs in, too:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm

[That last comment is mine, too]

"The Bush administration screwed up? Hardly. They got the gov't response in gear, overcoming the incompetence of local officials (Nagin, Blanco)."

It took them almost a week to get the federal response in motion... And during that week, the federal government illustrated its ability to screw up quite readily. But hey, you aren't concerned with facts.

"Look at how sucessful gov't response to other disasters has been - particularly Florida. Jeb is on the ball."

1. Past performance neither predicts future performance or excuses mistakes... And here's a history lesson for you... Part of the reason that Bush 1 lost the re-election bid had to do with the poor performance of the federal government after Andrew, amongst other things.

2. Considering Florida has been slammed more times than any other point on the Gulf and Atlantic, they damn well be better on the ball. Practice makes perfect. Jeb just rides on the coat-tails of emergency managers who've been tested more times than most.

Alright Mike, take your GOP talking points to another blog, this one has intelligent readers who can make up their own minds.