packs217

@ajamafalous: looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

...and that's all we needed. Thanks, duder.

@crow13: It absolutely can be, and I guess I'm not going to disagree with you on that-- but when Patrick is sitting there citing Reuters, quotes, etc. it's safe to assume he's acting as a journalist and not as a duder.

That, and you can reference just about every Bombcast where Patrick is talking for 90% of the news segment and pulling economic theory out of his ass. If it was some ultra-sarcastic piece by Jeff, I wouldn't have a problem with anything in the article. But like I said, with him citing other articles, and quoting people who were a part of the matter, it's a little annoying that I'd have to click over to some other shitty site (Joystiq, whatever it be) to be confident I've found some objectivity on the matter there.

I should also say I have no one to blame but myself. I knew clicking on this that Patrick was the author, what the article was and what I'd be commenting. So I apologize for being the internet incarnate.

@crow13: Then why not state an objective if it's an opinion piece?

Regardless of the comments on the article, why is Patrick, the most politically biased person on-staff, writing the article that covers politics?

I don't have a problem with the story, but Patrick clearly carries a heavy bias and I don't think it's right for him to write this if they want articles to be "objective," or at least try to be.

@Legion_ said:

It's going to be a major problem in the future. Imagine when every person in China and India have the means to buy a car.

That's all it'll be, imagination.

@psylah said:

Epicurean...

Only pertains to food, doesn't it?

@Phatmac said:

@MildMolasses

I think it's weird that people use a their real picture. It's not a dating site.

It's not!?!?!! Why the fuck am I here then!!?!?

+1; if I have no chance with Drew then I'm out.

@Delta_Ass said:

They're just like the people in Cloverfield.

So yes, they deserve to die.

This is great. I had the same feeling watching the beginning of Cloverfield as I did the beginning of this game.

@VisariLoyalist said:

@packs217 said:

@Animasta said:

@EpicSteve said:

You got MSNBC and CNN being super liberal as well. Saying Fox News is Conservative isn't shocking.

CNN is not super liberal, I don't know why you think that

MSNBC is just as left as FOX is right; no one cares to admit it thought because it's always the left calling out FOX News. They'll just say it's biased, but not AS biased. CNN is really superficial from what I've seen, every time I see it on at the airport or if someone has it on at work it's just celebrity news lol

I am generally left leaning I think although I am sort of just fed up with the party system in general. I will fully acknowledge msnbc is biased. More overtly so even than FOX news. I think they both come from the same place, that being consciously trying to promote one party. So I disagree with you I don't think they are just left or right leaning. I think they are inherently partisan which is something much different and more dangerous I think. MSNBC tends not to mask their rhetoric at all however. They simply dive right in to sensationalist editorial prose about republican hypocrisy and rationalizations for democrats.

Actually in my judgment fox news is actually worse because they use outright lies and misrepresentations to push their agenda. Both are inherently partisan as I have said but MSNBC tend to put it in the context of an opinionated rant by the host. At least that's how I interpret it god help us if people take them totally seriously.

I certainly don't take either one seriously. I tend to believe most of the media leans left--not because they're "socialists trying to control our mind with propaganda" or whatever your typical Idahoan would say (no personal offense to Idahoans, it's a beautiful state filled with great people)--but because the type of person who's most likely to go into journalism would most likely have liberal values too, and unless the story is a bullet-point list of facts there's no such thing as "objectivity".

With no offense to him, I'd use Patrick Klepek as a great example of this. He's probably one of the most "journalistic" type of writers in this industry, and he's also the one of the most vocal about his political views (definitely the most vocal on GiantBomb); it's either him or Arthur Gies, who also is very journalistic in his work and both of them hold similar political values (pretty solidly left). Albeit I think Arthur is an ass, I still respect both of them because they produce some cream-of-the-crop writing/reporting in this industry.

I digress. I've seen terrible, terrible reporting from both news stations. I'd say I see more "spin" from FOX and more blatant lies from MSNBC (how can you tell which-is-which anyway?), and anything that comes on after 5p on etiher channel is just opinion; not news. I really enjoyed Oberman when he was on MSNBC, and I don't think O'Reilly is half-bad on FOX (he pulls in insane ratings for a reason, he's substantially better than the rest of the garbage that channel produces)... other than that, Maddow is one of the worst on TV, as was Beck when he was on. I guess I'll just have to stick to Charlie Rose in the meantime.