Typical Liberal Media - at least from a right wing perspective

[pgwenthold]

Did you know that ESPN is part of the "liberal media"? Apparently, right wingers do.

On ESPN SportsNation yesterday (Friday), they were talking about the pennant race in the American League Central division (that's baseball), where the Minnesota Twins and Chicago White Sox are locked in a tight battle. It is an important time right now because the Twins just started a 14 game road trip. They have to play on the road to accomodate the Republican National Convention being held in St Paul.

So the announcers say, this is a turning point. If the Twins do well, they will be in a great position for the rest of the season. However, if this road trip causes them to stumble, then they can thank the Republican National Committee.

Some moron comments, "This is so typical of ESPN, blaming the Republicans for the Twins losing."

How much do you have to be looking for "liberal bias" to find it here?

[New Ager]

Did you know that ESPN is part of the "liberal media"? Apparently, right wingers do.

On ESPN SportsNation yesterday (Friday), they were talking about the pennant race in the American League Central division (that's baseball), where the Minnesota Twins and Chicago White Sox are locked in a tight battle. It is an important time right now because the Twins just started a 14 game road trip. They have to play on the road to accomodate the Republican National Convention being held in St Paul.

So the announcers say, this is a turning point. If the Twins do well, they will be in a great position for the rest of the season. However, if this road trip causes them to stumble, then they can thank the Republican National Committee.

Some moron comments, "This is so typical of ESPN, blaming the Republicans for the Twins losing."

How much do you have to be looking for "liberal bias" to find it here?

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.

[XBoxWarrior]

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.

"Ditto" you moron...:D

Keep it civil.

[Allen773]

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.
Editing out McCain's gaffes doesn't seem very liberal to me.

And the constant censorship present in all forms of media isn't progressive...in fact, that's actually pretty conservative.

By the way, you can stop using "liberal" as if it were a dirty word. You have enough hot air blowing out of you as it is.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Give one example. Just one. I bet you can't.

[Regnad Kcin]

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.Liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal. Liberal.

Liberal.






































Liberal.

[ProbeX]

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.

Dear Poster, do you hear how silly this sounds? Ah, never mind - no need to reply.

[Brainster]

So the announcers say, this is a turning point. If the Twins do well, they will be in a great position for the rest of the season. However, if this road trip causes them to stumble, then they can thank the Republican National Committee.

They may not be liberals (I never noticed much political discussion at that network even when Olbermann was there), but they're idiots for making that claim. Every team has 81 games at home, 81 games on the road. The Twinkies may be going on a longer than usual road trip, but it still doesn't change that basic fact.

[mortimer]

Did you know that ESPN is part of the "liberal media"? Apparently, right wingers do.

Some moron comments, "This is so typical of ESPN, blaming the Republicans for the Twins losing."

Are you serious? By "right wingers", did you mean all right wingers? Most right wingers? A lot of right wingers?

Or, by "right wingers", did you mean one moron who probably is a right winger, but may just be a moron?

[ZouPrime]

They may not be liberals (I never noticed much political discussion at that network even when Olbermann was there), but they're idiots for making that claim. Every team has 81 games at home, 81 games on the road. The Twinkies may be going on a longer than usual road trip, but it still doesn't change that basic fact.

Professional teams generally don't like to go on a road trip for too long. The constant plane traveling and living in hotels, away from friends and familly, can be tiresome. That's why franchises try to have multiple, short road trips instead of few long ones.

Well, at least that's how it works in hockey. Maybe it's different in baseball, I don't know.

[gtc]

Did you know that ESPN is part of the "liberal media"? Apparently, right wingers do.

And apparently left wingers make sweeping assertions about half the population based on the beliefs of one person.

[gdnp]

Are you serious? By "right wingers", did you mean all right wingers? Most right wingers? A lot of right wingers?

Or, by "right wingers", did you mean one moron who probably is a right winger, but may just be a moron?

I think that if you look back on ESPN's coverage of the top 10 NHL hockey plays of the week last season, you will discover that goals scored by left wingers were 37% more likely to be featured than goals by right wingers, thus proving their liberal bias. ;)

[Brainster]

Professional teams generally don't like to go on a road trip for too long. The constant plane traveling and living in hotels, away from friends and familly, can be tiresome. That's why franchises try to have multiple, short road trips instead of few long ones.

Well, at least that's how it works in hockey. Maybe it's different in baseball, I don't know.

It's a 14-game road trip as compared to the usual 10-gamers. I understand that it sucks to live out of a suitcase for two weeks, but the idea that this is going to decide the pennant is silly.

[joobie]

aah, espn: worldwide leader in saying dumb crap to fill up airtime because it's better than dead air.

[Pookster]

It's a 14-game road trip as compared to the usual 10-gamers. I understand that it sucks to live out of a suitcase for two weeks, but the idea that this is going to decide the pennant is silly.


Tell that to the Twins fans if they don't do well on this road trip.

My dad told me about the Braves when they won their division back in the early 80's. The Braves management took the mascot's teepee down in the outfield bleachers to make room for more fans. About that time, the Braves went on a horrid losing streak. They lost a roughly 9 game division lead late in the season. They were able to turn it around in the final couple of weeks and won the division, but many fans put the blame on the teepee being taken down. The Braves did put it back up after the prolonged outcry ... and they did win the division.

Of course, the whole thing was just silly. But if the Braves hadn't come back and won the division ...

[pgwenthold]

It's a 14-game road trip as compared to the usual 10-gamers. I understand that it sucks to live out of a suitcase for two weeks, but the idea that this is going to decide the pennant is silly.

It's the longest road trip for the Twins in 40 years. No, this is not typical.

[Alferd_Packer]

So, in other words, the Twins had an extended home stand this year as well. Since teams generally play much better at home, I wonder if that extended home stand is responsible for thier current position in the standings.

[Brainster]

It's the longest road trip for the Twins in 40 years. No, this is not typical.

Just did some quick browsing; they had a 13-game, 14-day road trip (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/1994_sched.shtml) in 1994, and a 14-game, 14-day road trip in 1995 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/1995_sched.shtml), and a 13-game, 13-day road trip in 1996.

So I'd say it's nothing unusual.

[Snide]

So, in other words, the Twins had an extended home stand this year as well.Not really...that is, not an off-setting 14-gamer. Just some longer home stands than road trips, including a 9-gamer. ince teams generally play much better at home, I wonder if that extended home stand is responsible for thier current position in the standings.No doubt part of it, and a concern of this Twins fan. We've been 1/2 game either side of first with Chicago for a while now, but I've always noted the disparity in home games, which always favored the Sox (who have more home games in the remainder of the schedule).

Then we go to Anaheim to start this 14-game tripwo blunders by Go-go, who replaced Torii, who would not have made the same blunders, except that he did in extra innings in game 1, which helped us win.

/end ramble

[Snide]

Just did some quick browsing; they had a 13-game, 14-day road trip (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/1994_sched.shtml) in 1994, and a 14-game, 14-day road trip in 1995 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/1995_sched.shtml), and a 13-game, 13-day road trip in 1996.

So I'd say it's nothing unusual.Depends on how you define "unusual" I guess. I definitely would call 14 road games in 15 days late in the season unusual, but not unfair, and I don't think there should be any fuss about it whatsoever. Sure, it's newsworthy, 'cause it's a pennant race and it's worth noting that the Twins may need to fare well on this road stretch to stay in it. But that's it.

[GreyICE]

Well ESPN reports a form of news. Their news is based on reality. And as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias. So by reporting reality, they are undoubtedly liberal.

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they're all dirty communists. Why the other day they were discussing sports stars and one of them alleged that they might be overpaid.

[Donal]

Its well documented that not a damned thing said by Joe Morgan is based in reality outside of the mechanics of playing. So there goes that "reality having a liberal bias theory".

[Snide]

Its well documented that not a damned thing said by Joe Morgan is based in reality outside of the mechanics of playing. So there goes that "reality having a liberal bias theory".I liked when Joe said one of Hamilton's derby home runs had "a lot of top spin on it" because it died a bit and didn't carry very far.

No, Joe, it had no top spin on it, else it would have landed in the outfield.

So he's not even reality-based about some of the mechanics.

:)

[Redtail]

Not for the issue you commented on, but ESPN "is" liberal.

Their ridiculous criticism for Rush's innocuous comment on the liberal media was silly. And they regularly tout the liberal line.

Why is so hard for you liberals to admit most of the elite media is liberal? We admit that talk radio is conservative.
:jaw-dropp You can't be referring to the McNabb comment because that was idiotic, ignorant and perhaps a few other words beginning with "I" but not innocuous.

[Brainster]

:jaw-dropp You can't be referring to the McNabb comment because that was idiotic, ignorant and perhaps a few other words beginning with "I" but not innocuous.

Rush was right on his major point, which is that the sports media is desperate to anoint the first "great black QB"; note the gushing accolades that greeted Michael Vick his first few years and the similar press that Vince Young has gotten despite mediocre play. Granted, both are astounding athletes (Vick is the fastest man I've ever seen on a football field), but neither has passed the ball with any consistency or effectiveness.

Of course, if the media had been paying attention they'd realize that Warren Moon was the first great black quarterback years and years ago, although he didn't win the titles (in the US anyway) that would have made it obvious to all.

Rush was wrong on his minor point, that McNabb has never been all that good. McNabb (like most good QBs) struggled as a rookie, but quickly developed into a fine player. He's not quite in the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning class as yet, but he's clearly in the next group. There are probably 24 NFL teams which would be happy to have him starting for them. About the only knock on Donovan is that he's not very durable.

[Redtail]

Rush was right on his major point, which is that the sports media is desperate to anoint the first "great black QB"; note the gushing accolades that greeted Michael Vick his first few years and the similar press that Vince Young has gotten despite mediocre play. Granted, both are astounding athletes (Vick is the fastest man I've ever seen on a football field), but neither has passed the ball with any consistency or effectiveness.

I disagree. The media is desperate to shine the spotlight on "game changers" thus their gushing over the glorified running backs who tend to throw once in a while.
Rush was dead wrong since the top QB in the league when he made that statement (And was top QB at the end of the reg season) was Steve Mcnair.

Of course, if the media had been paying attention they'd realize that Warren Moon was the first great black quarterback years and years ago, although he didn't win the titles (in the US anyway) that would have made it obvious to all.Agreed, but then Moon didn't make any waves (scandal wise). From what I see the media only cares about those who dominate, cause trouble, or talk a lot of trash. If they do all 3 you get stuff like the 24hr TO watch.:mad:

Rush was wrong on his minor point, that McNabb has never been all that good. McNabb (like most good QBs) struggled as a rookie, but quickly developed into a fine player. He's not quite in the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning class as yet, but he's clearly in the next group. There are probably 24 NFL teams which would be happy to have him starting for them. About the only knock on Donovan is that he's not very durable.
Agree 100% there.

[Snide]

Rush was right on his major point, which is that the sports media is desperate to anoint the first "great black QB";Did Rush say "sports media" or "liberal media?" I seem to recall the latter, but could be wrong. Anyway, I never noticed any desparation in either.

note the gushing accolades that greeted Michael Vick his first few years and the similar press that Vince Young has gotten despite mediocre play. Gushing over their skills, yes. Granted, both are astounding athletes (Vick is the fastest man I've ever seen on a football field), but neither has passed the ball with any consistency or effectiveness.And that's how I've noticed the media treating them...amazing to watch what they can do well, but worthy of criticism in other areas, like passing.

Of course, if the media had been paying attention they'd realize that Warren Moon was the first great black quarterback years and years ago, although he didn't win the titles (in the US anyway) that would have made it obvious to all.I think they did notice. I think you didn't notice they noticed.

[GreyICE]

Rush was right on his major point, which is that the sports media is desperate to anoint the first "great black QB"; note the gushing accolades that greeted Michael Vick his first few years and the similar press that Vince Young has gotten despite mediocre play. Granted, both are astounding athletes (Vick is the fastest man I've ever seen on a football field), but neither has passed the ball with any consistency or effectiveness.

Of course, if the media had been paying attention they'd realize that Warren Moon was the first great black quarterback years and years ago, although he didn't win the titles (in the US anyway) that would have made it obvious to all.

Rush was wrong on his minor point, that McNabb has never been all that good. McNabb (like most good QBs) struggled as a rookie, but quickly developed into a fine player. He's not quite in the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning class as yet, but he's clearly in the next group. There are probably 24 NFL teams which would be happy to have him starting for them. About the only knock on Donovan is that he's not very durable.
Huh?

I can forgive ignorance of football, but when it's combined with defending Rush's comment it becomes a bit odd. It's not like a Black quarterback won a superbowl and got Super Bowl MVP in the 80s or something :rolleyes:

Steve McNair would also have been a better choice for 'first great Black Quarterback even though there was that guy who won the Superbowl and got MVP for it and all.'

Donovan was just a flashy, fun to watch player, who got overrated because of that and his admittedly strong ability to move about the field. And Rush decided to make that a racial issue, for whatever reason (some might say racism. Like, say, the people who fired him).

[Brainster]

Huh?

I can forgive ignorance of football, but when it's combined with defending Rush's comment it becomes a bit odd. It's not like a Black quarterback won a superbowl and got Super Bowl MVP in the 80s or something :rolleyes:

Steve McNair would also have been a better choice for 'first great Black Quarterback even though there was that guy who won the Superbowl and got MVP for it and all.'

Donovan was just a flashy, fun to watch player, who got overrated because of that and his admittedly strong ability to move about the field. And Rush decided to make that a racial issue, for whatever reason (some might say racism. Like, say, the people who fired him).

Warren Moon is in the Hall of Fame, and Steve McNair is not going to get there. So I'll stick with my pick for the first great black quarterback. Yes, I remember Doug Williams; he was pretty much a miserable player except for the second quarter of Super Bowl 22. Nobody would rank him a better player than Moon, that Super Bowl hardware notwithstanding.

As for McNabb, he's simply a better player than McNair. There's not a whole lot of difference between them in Yards/Attempt (6.9 for McNair, 6.8 for McNabb). They're both about the same in TDs (174 for McNair, 171 for McNabb). The key stat separating them is interceptions. McNair threw 119 in his career, while McNabb has thrown only 79. That's a huge difference, and is why McNabb's career passer rating is 85.8 to McNair's 82.8. Indeed, McNabb's career interception percentage is the second lowest in the history of the NFL.

Confidence in your knowledge of the NFL is a good thing; confidence combined with actual knowledge of the NFL is better. So I'll do the forgiving around here. ;)

[GreyICE]

Warren Moon is in the Hall of Fame, and Steve McNair is not going to get there. So I'll stick with my pick for the first great black quarterback. Yes, I remember Doug Williams; he was pretty much a miserable player except for the second quarter of Super Bowl 22. Nobody would rank him a better player than Moon, that Super Bowl hardware notwithstanding.

As for McNabb, he's simply a better player than McNair. There's not a whole lot of difference between them in Yards/Attempt (6.9 for McNair, 6.8 for McNabb). They're both about the same in TDs (174 for McNair, 171 for McNabb). The key stat separating them is interceptions. McNair threw 119 in his career, while McNabb has thrown only 79. That's a huge difference, and is why McNabb's career passer rating is 85.8 to McNair's 82.8. Indeed, McNabb's career interception percentage is the second lowest in the history of the NFL.

Confidence in your knowledge of the NFL is a good thing; confidence combined with actual knowledge of the NFL is better. So I'll do the forgiving around here. ;)
McNair is a more mobile quarterback than Donovan, and has lead more successful teams. You completely neglect this in your analysis. McNair was up against tougher opponents then the Eagles. In football, your schedule depends on the record you achieved last season, meaning that successful teams face tougher opponents than weak teams, on the whole.

McNair, as Superbowl champion, and generally successful quarterback, was consistently up against tougher teams than McNabb. Of course he got intercepted more! The defenses he was up against were better defenses, able to bring more pressure, force more interceptions, and generally just better at playing than the ones McNabb faced.

The fact that you can Wiki a few numbers doesn't make McNabb the better quarterback.

[Brainster]

McNair is a more mobile quarterback than Donovan, and has lead more successful teams. You completely neglect this in your analysis. McNair was up against tougher opponents then the Eagles. In football, your schedule depends on the record you achieved last season, meaning that successful teams face tougher opponents than weak teams, on the whole.

McNair, as Superbowl champion, and generally successful quarterback, was consistently up against tougher teams than McNabb. Of course he got intercepted more! The defenses he was up against were better defenses, able to bring more pressure, force more interceptions, and generally just better at playing than the ones McNabb faced.

The fact that you can Wiki a few numbers doesn't make McNabb the better quarterback.

Errr, when did Steve McNair win the Super Bowl? That would indeed be a point in his favor if it had actually happened; unfortunately that seems to have occurred in your mind.

McNair's record as a starting quarterback was 91-62, which is very good. McNabb's is 73-39, which is better. McNabb's postseason record is 7-5; McNair's is 5-5. McNabb has made five Pro Bowl teams; McNair made three.

I don't know where you get the idea that McNair faced consistently tougher defenses than McNabb; possibly the same place that you got the idea that McNair was a Super Bowl champ?

[GreyICE]

Errr, when did Steve McNair win the Super Bowl? That would indeed be a point in his favor if it had actually happened; unfortunately that seems to have occurred in your mind.

McNair's record as a starting quarterback was 91-62, which is very good. McNabb's is 73-39, which is better. McNabb's postseason record is 7-5; McNair's is 5-5. McNabb has made five Pro Bowl teams; McNair made three.

I don't know where you get the idea that McNair faced consistently tougher defenses than McNabb; possibly the same place that you got the idea that McNair was a Super Bowl champ? I meant made it to the Superbowl, I was obviously talking about XXXIV. And they were damn close to winning.

McNair was the better quarterback, anyone watching the two of them could tell that.

If you remove 2004 onward, McNair's game record becomes a lot better. He was injured and had to undergo surgery.

I find your contention that we can use numbers to determine quality weird. McNair lead his team to the Superbowl, Donovan never did. McNair consistently performed well when he was running around, scoring touchdowns and gaining yards, Donovan does not measure up.

I find McNair the better player overall. Always have, always will. Donovan is and was overrated, but not because of his race.

[Brainster]

I meant made it to the Superbowl, I was obviously talking about XXXIV. And they were damn close to winning.

McNair was the better quarterback, anyone watching the two of them could tell that.

If you remove 2004 onward, McNair's game record becomes a lot better. He was injured and had to undergo surgery.

I find your contention that we can use numbers to determine quality weird. McNair lead his team to the Superbowl, Donovan never did. McNair consistently performed well when he was running around, scoring touchdowns and gaining yards, Donovan does not measure up.

I find McNair the better player overall. Always have, always will. Donovan is and was overrated, but not because of his race.

Please, quit while you're behind. Donovan McNabb never led his team to the Super Bowl? You don't pay much attention to football, do you?

[GreyICE]

Please, quit while you're behind. Donovan McNabb never led his team to the Super Bowl? You don't pay much attention to football, do you?

Fanboys... I guess I'll quit, the strawman is getting boring, and we're hideously off topic. McNair is better, I do know football, you do love the Eagles, we get it.

Can we all just agree that Rush is a racist idiot and you look stupid for supporting him?

[Brainster]

Fanboys... I guess I'll quit, the strawman is getting boring, and we're hideously off topic. McNair is better, I do know football, you do love the Eagles, we get it.

Can we all just agree that Rush is a racist idiot and you look stupid for supporting him?

Do not pause to wonder why
Your posts to me get no reply

[GreyICE]

Do not pause to wonder why
Your posts to me get no reply

Dittoed