Since last post: 2760 days Last activity: 2757 days
#1 Posted on 1.12.03 0014.11 Reposted on: 1.12.10 0016.27
It was on Showtime tonight. I thought it wasn't going to be aired until january or something, but whatever. Did anyone else catch it? What I saw seemed not at all controversial, but I got bored with it and stopped watching by the time he became president. Regardless, it doesn't seem to say anything too terribly controversial. More boring than anything.
Since last post: 1773 days Last activity: 1500 days
#2 Posted on 1.12.03 1835.56 Reposted on: 1.12.10 1835.56
I saw the first half hour, now while I normally like the work of Judy Davis a great deal, she really bugged the crap out of me in "The Reagans." So much so that I turned it off and watched the VH1 Big in '03 special instead.
But what I saw didn't seem that controversial or blatantly fabricated to me.
#5 Posted on 1.12.03 2333.34 Reposted on: 1.12.10 2333.43
Notice I said "Corporate Media" not "Liberal Media." The Republican party has taken a page out of the liberal handbook lately and claimed victimhood and bias over the silliest shit. Someone (I forget who) put it best when he said "Liberals are never more obnoxious than when they wrap themselves in their victimhood, and conservatives are never more obnoxious than when they wrap themselves in the flag." Unfortunately, the GOP has been doing both quite a bit as of late.
I personally wouldn't have hired either Rush or Michael Wiener - Rush because sports people should be on sports shows, not political commentators (or commedians Dennis Miller), and Michael Wiener because Joe Scarborough fills that role much better for MSNBC (still waiting on ex-Liberal Democrat Representative to have their own nightly show on one of the Cable Networks though), but as I said before, if you're going to hire them knowing who they are, don't get all surprised and indignant when they act like it.
I still say MSNBC missed a HUGE hit opportunity by not casting sex-advice columnist Dan Savage opposite Michael on that show.
#6 Posted on 2.12.03 0148.22 Reposted on: 2.12.10 0149.14
Well, if you put it like that we are actually in agreement. It sickens me that there is even a need for this argument, of who backs who, would it be too much to ask to have one media group that just presents the facts and let the chips fall where they may? Or, have one that has the balls to back what they say, instead of apologizing for every subtle reference that offends a segment of a segment of the population. If they want to apologize for anything they ought to apologize for the filth that passes for entertainment these days.
What it's turning out to be in regard to the media and politics is The Smith vs The Jones. Which is a worse case scenario. What is going to happen, and you folks watch, will be a society on both sides of the fence too blind to disagree with their frat boys on radio/TV. It would as much use to this country to dress one group in blue shirts, the other in red and give them machines guns and hand granades, because there is nothing worse then a blind (insert belief here). I'm all for being passionate, but not blind.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE