Of course they're going to have liberal/left wing rags, they're not going to ignore half the newspaper buying market, the name of the game is the almighty dollar after all.

Since you're not American I don't blame you for being ignorant of the fact that newspapers in America are losing money at an alarming rate.

One of many links: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-y...re-losing-money

Blame Bill Gates for that, you don't need to be American to work out the changing trends in the media. They don't use drums or message sticks much any more either.

Do you ever read before you post a reply?

from the link:

"Total internet revenues grew 2.6% for July and Internet advertising revenues increased 5.5%. Internet businesses include NYTimes.com, About.com, Boston.com and other Company Web sites. But, About.com had a revenue increase of 14.6% so revenue from the newspaper websites was close to flat compared to last year."

It's not like everyone is migrating from the print edition to the Internet. The NYT is probably the largest newspaper in the world. The online edition doesn't have everything the print version does. It's just over the past few years the NYT has been publicly humiliated numerous times for it's out-and-out biased bullshit and today are constantly getting "scooped" by other media who aren't wearing Obama Blinders.

I stand by my original statements, political scientists, like whores, can be bought.

from the link:

"The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said."

OK.... slowly and step by step.... the bias is created so the left will pay to read the news.... the bias is created so the right, those that can read, will remain convinced that the left is a genuine threat to their way of life.

It's not rocket science.

By the way, I used to watch Fox when I lived in the PI for it's "on the spot" news coverage. (Always turned the sound off though).

I stand by my original statements, political scientists, like whores, can be bought.

from the link:

"The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said."

OK.... slowly and step by step.... the bias is created so the left will pay to read the news.... the bias is created so the right, those that can read, will remain convinced that the left is a genuine threat to their way of life.

It's not rocket science.

So the journalists - who are overwhelmingly Democrats - have no interest other than making money for their shareholders? That's bullshit and you are just afraid to admit it. Out of stubbornness or ignorance or both.

One TV host even went so far as to say it was his job to help Obama succeed. He also has one of the lowest rated news/opinion shows on TV.

By the way, I used to watch Fox when I lived in the PI for it's "on the spot" news coverage. (Always turned the sound off though).

Off topic, but, we just got FOX News again onthe local cable TV outlet and boy is it enjoyable to watch. CNN and the BBC and Sky News and Al Jazera are such a bore in comparison.

I ignore the real right wing nuts like Hannity and Glen Back, but O'Reilly is really middle of the road and usually sensible. However, it is the news babes and all the other stuff that makes it entertaining as he11. I could watch it all day if I had nothing else to do.

Despite its bad reputation with Eurotrash and loony liberals, it is no suprise that FOX has just blown away any competition.

Off topic, but, we just got FOX News again onthe local cable TV outlet and boy is it enjoyable to watch. CNN and the BBC and Sky News and Al Jazera are such a bore in comparison.

I ignore the real right wing nuts like Hannity and Glen Back, but O'Reilly is really middle of the road and usually sensible. However, it is the news babes and all the other stuff that makes it entertaining as he11. I could watch it all day if I had nothing else to do.

Despite its bad reputation with Eurotrash and loony liberals, it is no suprise that FOX has just blown away any competition.

I can't stand Hannity. Why waste time watching a guy who is going to do nothing but criticize 100% of the time no matter what Obama does? Beck raises some interesting points. Two or three Obama officials have already resigned after being "outted" so there is some truth to what he is saying even if he comes across insane while he says it. O'Reilly tries too hard to be in the middle. I don't believe he's genuine at all. But hey, it got him invited to the White House Christmas party. All three wave the flag too much for me. Special Report is one of the best news show on any channel. And you're right about the women. That's where the channel gets its name.

And you're right about the women. That's where the channel gets its name.

Well that answers a lot of questions!

Off topic, but, we just got FOX News again onthe local cable TV outlet and boy is it enjoyable to watch. CNN and the BBC and Sky News and Al Jazera are such a bore in comparison.

I ignore the real right wing nuts like Hannity and Glen Back, but O'Reilly is really middle of the road and usually sensible. However, it is the news babes and all the other stuff that makes it entertaining as he11. I could watch it all day if I had nothing else to do.

Despite its bad reputation with Eurotrash and loony liberals, it is no suprise that FOX has just blown away any competition.

I can't stand Hannity. Why waste time watching a guy who is going to do nothing but criticize 100% of the time no matter what Obama does? Beck raises some interesting points. Two or three Obama officials have already resigned after being "outted" so there is some truth to what he is saying even if he comes across insane while he says it. O'Reilly tries too hard to be in the middle. I don't believe he's genuine at all. But hey, it got him invited to the White House Christmas party. All three wave the flag too much for me. Special Report is one of the best news show on any channel. And you're right about the women. That's where the channel gets its name.

Speaking as a man from a place where ugly women are "dogs"....there is something disturbing about men that refer to "babes" as foxes. Normal metaphores carry imagery.....

That study is highly suspect. Fox News is more right wing than Atilla The Hun......besides...it used the journalists leanings as a yardstick, yet it is the editors and owners of the outlets that decide what is printed/broadcast.

...there is something disturbing about men that refer to "babes" as foxes.

OK, so what have you called them in the past?

"Fox" is a slang word refering to attractive women that has not been in common use for several decades, but it is still easily understood in that context.

We're dealing with seriously clever people here, they have a huge vested interest in keeping the money in the hands of the chosen few.

The fact they have sucked men as intelligent as koheesti and UlyssesG into their evil web is a sure sign of it.

...there is something disturbing about men that refer to "babes" as foxes.

OK, so what have you called them in the past?

As I said...normal metaphores convey an appropriate imagery. If you get the right imagery from foxes..... well, each to his own. Do dingoes and wolves turn you on too? What about jackals?

...there is something disturbing about men that refer to "babes" as foxes.

OK, so what have you called them in the past?

As I said...normal metaphores convey an appropriate imagery. If you get the right imagery from foxes..... well, each to his own. Do dingoes and wolves turn you on too? What about jackals?

I remember that you love to avoid answering questions but I didn't think that one would stump you. What are you afraid of?

edit - and do you believe that men who call beautiful women "babes" are turned on by images of babies? Seek help.

We're dealing with seriously clever people here, they have a huge vested interest in keeping the money in the hands of the chosen few.

The fact they have sucked men as intelligent as koheesti and UlyssesG into their evil web is a sure sign of it.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Obama.

None of us peons have enough money or enough power to be of any factor in the scheme of things anyway. It's just better to get laid occasionally and sleep in the sun. It's like the two gays who argued all night about who had the right to do what, with which and to whom.

Foxes are known as attractive animals. Harcourt's examples are not.

Ever smelled one?

We're dealing with seriously clever people here, they have a huge vested interest in keeping the money in the hands of the chosen few.

The fact they have sucked men as intelligent as koheesti and UlyssesG into their evil web is a sure sign of it.

The imagery behind the word "suck" is an integral part of FOX’s evil plot.

...there is something disturbing about men that refer to "babes" as foxes.

OK, so what have you called them in the past?

As I said...normal metaphores convey an appropriate imagery. If you get the right imagery from foxes..... well, each to his own. Do dingoes and wolves turn you on too? What about jackals?

I remember that you love to avoid answering questions but I didn't think that one would stump you. What are you afraid of?

edit - and do you believe that men who call beautiful women "babes" are turned on by images of babies? Seek help.

Simple man. I saw through your pathetic trap..."Babes" was in quotation marks in MY post because that is the word UG used and that you responded to.

Sorry (well, not really) that I did not answer your obvious question.

It seems YOU are the one in dire need of help....you respomded to UG's "babes" in agreement.

We're dealing with seriously clever people here, they have a huge vested interest in keeping the money in the hands of the chosen few.

The fact they have sucked men as intelligent as koheesti and UlyssesG into their evil web is a sure sign of it.

The imagery behind the word "suck" is an integral part of FOX's evil plot.

As I said...normal metaphores convey an appropriate imagery. If you get the right imagery from foxes..... well, each to his own. Do dingoes and wolves turn you on too? What about jackals?

I remember that you love to avoid answering questions but I didn't think that one would stump you. What are you afraid of?

edit - and do you believe that men who call beautiful women "babes" are turned on by images of babies? Seek help.

Simple man. I saw through your pathetic trap..."Babes" was in quotation marks in MY post because that is the word UG used and that you responded to.

Sorry (well, not really) that I did not answer your obvious question.

It seems YOU are the one in dire need of help....you respomded to UG's "babes" in agreement.

What "pathetic trap"? You are being paranoid. [well-deserved [[derogatory term]] removed]. YOU say you don't like calling beautiful women "foxes" or "babes". OK, fine. I simply asked what you DO call them. Where's the trap in that?

We're dealing with seriously clever people here, they have a huge vested interest in keeping the money in the hands of the chosen few.

The fact they have sucked men as intelligent as koheesti and UlyssesG into their evil web is a sure sign of it.

The imagery behind the word "suck" is an integral part of FOX's evil plot.

I could say that I agree that Fox sucks......but there is a double entendre there for koheeti's canine fetish that I would rather avoid.

You have a disturbed mind. For most men, its all about the babes.

As I said...normal metaphores convey an appropriate imagery. If you get the right imagery from foxes..... well, each to his own. Do dingoes and wolves turn you on too? What about jackals?

I remember that you love to avoid answering questions but I didn't think that one would stump you. What are you afraid of?

edit - and do you believe that men who call beautiful women "babes" are turned on by images of babies? Seek help.

Simple man. I saw through your pathetic trap..."Babes" was in quotation marks in MY post because that is the word UG used and that you responded to.

Sorry (well, not really) that I did not answer your obvious question.

It seems YOU are the one in dire need of help....you respomded to UG's "babes" in agreement.

What "pathetic trap"? You are being paranoid. [well-deserved [[derogatory term]] removed]. YOU say you don't like calling beautiful women "foxes" or "babes". OK, fine. I simply asked what you DO call them. Where's the trap in that?

What do you hope to convey with "...[well-deserved [[derogatory term]] removed]...". That can only be described as the same as small children that know they can't swear in front of dad, so they use pathetic code words instead....

It is plain that you wanted to trap me into saying something about "babes", and when I didn't bite you came out with your "babies imagery....seek help" would-be riposte......just like your "I Like NZ" thread where nobody bit at the bait and you had to explain your punchline to everyone.

What do you hope to convey with "...[well-deserved [[derogatory term]] removed]...". That can only be described as the same as small children that know they can't swear in front of dad, so they use pathetic code words instead....

It is plain that you wanted to trap me into saying something about "babes", and when I didn't bite you came out with your "babies imagery....seek help" would-be riposte......just like your "I Like NZ" thread where nobody bit at the bait and you had to explain your punchline to everyone.

While you were serving out your ban I forgot you are a troll. You start things here, then go round and round avoiding, starting little battles, just wasting everyone's time whether they are posting or reading. Whether the subject beautiful women/babes/foxes or screening for terrorists at airports, you are a master at wasting bandwidth. A look at your many posts over the past few hours is clear evidence.

Left with nothing to respond with, as usual, you change tack and attack from another front. A pathetic front at that.

You say I am a troll......who got a slap on the wrist yesterday? Not me. Was it you by any chance?

I'm reminded of the children and their code words again.....this time, the children are crying, "Mummy, he's confusing me with reason again....I don't like it, wah wah wah

Left with nothing to respond with, as usual, you change tack and attack from another front. A pathetic front at that.

You say I am a troll......who got a slap on the wrist yesterday? Not me. Was it you by any chance?

I'm reminded of the children and their code words again.....this time, the children are crying, "Mummy, he's confusing me with reason again....I don't like it, wah wah wah

I didn't get slapped on the wrist for anything. You might have though for your attacks. I remember you whining to the mod about something.

Anyway, I'm done getting sucked in by your trolling tactics. If you want to debate something related to the topic, fine. But you won't because that would be some kind of trick!

You remember me whining to the mods? How so?

Did I make attacks????? Please point them out.

If you want to call my reason and rebuttals as trolling....all you're doing is emphasising your own skullduggery.

Next you will resort to spelling corrections.

If YOU want to debate a subject, all well and good.....unfortunately, you only ever resort to spin, avoidance, obfuscation and irrelevancies. More importantly, you do not have the intellect to absorb what is actually being said on any subject, and so your "arguments" are often irrational and meaningless to the topic.

That you can't help that makes me not accuse you of being a troll.

Each time you offer a barb, I am more than happy to respond in kind. Unfortunately, you can not take your own medicine and begin to sulk....or go overboard.

Gosh...I've made too many points here.....which single point will you pick up on (in an irrational way) while avoiding the pertinant ones?

I should learn to anticipate your feeble would-be ripostes....and pre-empt them.

Or did I just do that?

.........I didn't get slapped on the wrist for anything. ............

Ahh....of course....you would resort to the "I took it literally" approach. A typical weak response.

.........I didn't get slapped on the wrist for anything. ............

Ahh....of course....you would resort to the "I took it literally" approach. A typical weak response.

troll.

Ever smelled one?

What part of one?

I was reminded last night of the movie... "The scent of a Woman" with Al Pacheno playing the part of blind colonel who was still a ladies man.

Three lovely young farang women paraded past our table last night at the Brasserie, and their lingering perfume was definitely a turn on. While riding my bicycle one day I could smell the lovely scent of a woman on a bicycle at least a half mile ahead of me. I just had to turn on the peddle power to catch up and see her for myself.

I one shot a fox, they're feral in Australia, and cut it up for crayfish bait. (The Southern Rock Lobster, the worlds finest seafood).

I reckon every crayfish in the bay swam over to my pots. I was warned that the fox smell would taint the flesh but never noticed it.