[quote]pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.
It’s more “biased” if you have bias that conflicts with the Fox “bias”.[/quote]
Thank you for the contribution, that really moved this thread foreword.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
How is fox news cheering on the protests any different that all the other outlets cheering against them?
Did you see the clip? It’s not that simple.
nope, the link isn’t working.
is it worse than this?
http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/04/cnn-fail/
Note that the CNN clip is from a NEWS SHOW by a JOURNALIST.
Yeah, but not by much. Holy crap that was messed up. But which is worse shouldn’t matter anyway.
I’m having trouble finding another link, but read my description of the video. In any event, what CNN does should not justify what another news station does. Unless you’d like to take the next step and provide a justification.
I don’t think flawed and unethical journalism should be supported whether it supports views closer to mine/yours or not.
I think you missed my argument.
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.[/quote]
The issue I have is that Fox puts itself out there as being a different type of news channel which is prepared to ask the difficult questions and be fair and even in its reporting. Which is clearly bullshit.
I have become increasingly frustrated with all television news since the advent of 24 hr news. Newspapers are also turning into comics. And I apparently am turning into a grumbling old man.
I don’t know, I’ll have to see the other clip. It’s hard to imagine it being worse than rosen. To CNN’s credit, I did hear they fired her not long after that. I mean, she was picking fights with protesters, it wasn’t even an interview. She was attempting to make them all look like stupid radicals. But this also wasnâ??t limited to rosen. I mean you had the cnn anchors referring to protestors as â??tea-baggersâ??.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
How is fox news cheering on the protests any different that all the other outlets cheering against them?
Did you see the clip? It’s not that simple.
nope, the link isn’t working.
is it worse than this?
http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/04/cnn-fail/
Note that the CNN clip is from a NEWS SHOW by a JOURNALIST.
Yeah, but not by much. Holy crap that was messed up. But which is worse shouldn’t matter anyway.
I’m having trouble finding another link, but read my description of the video. In any event, what CNN does should not justify what another news station does. Unless you’d like to take the next step and provide a justification.
I don’t think flawed and unethical journalism should be supported whether it supports views closer to mine/yours or not.
I think you missed my argument.
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.
The issue I have is that Fox puts itself out there as being a different type of news channel which is prepared to ask the difficult questions and be fair and even in its reporting. Which is clearly bullshit.
I have become increasingly frustrated with all television news since the advent of 24 hr news. Newspapers are also turning into comics. And I apparently am turning into a grumbling old man.[/quote]
All news channels claim fairness and balance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.
It’s more “biased” if you have bias that conflicts with the Fox “bias”.
Thank you for the contribution, that really moved this thread foreword.
Think about it, O Great Thread Advancer. The biggest whiners about Fox are the ones at the left end of the spectrum. That’s to be expected of course but it’s hardly objective.[/quote]
Another really witty comment there.
You responded to DD’s response to my post. Please point to where my posts signal a political leaning to the left, AND THEN find another post where I havn’t been objective.
If you do I let you get away with the comedic disaster that is, “O Great Thread Advancer”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.
It’s more “biased” if you have bias that conflicts with the Fox “bias”.
Thank you for the contribution, that really moved this thread foreword.
Think about it, O Great Thread Advancer. The biggest whiners about Fox are the ones at the left end of the spectrum. That’s to be expected of course but it’s hardly objective.
Another really witty comment there.
You responded to DD’s response to my post. Please point to where my posts signal a political leaning to the left, AND THEN find another post where I havn’t been objective.
If you do I let you get away with the comedic disaster that is, “O Great Thread Advancer”.
I see why you chose the screen name you did. You’re replicating Larry perfectly here. Spot on perfectly. Is this a practice script for “Curb”?[/quote]
Great comment, feel free to actually respond to what I said.
See, I don’t think you can, since I was perfectly fair with DD, and we came to an agreement of sorts. Prove me wrong if you can, though.
And then Cheryl takes her shirt off. Happy?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
And then Cheryl takes her shirt off. Happy?
Very happy with that, yes. Very.[/quote]
Great :).
Now about me not being objective and being a loud whiner about Fox…
[I know this is annoying, but you may as well explain that. Someone who admittedly doesn’t know enough about this asks questions and your response is to make some rudely worded, stupid accusation? That’s my issue.]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
How is fox news cheering on the protests any different that all the other outlets cheering against them?
Did you see the clip? It’s not that simple.
nope, the link isn’t working.
is it worse than this?
http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/04/cnn-fail/
Note that the CNN clip is from a NEWS SHOW by a JOURNALIST.
Yeah, but not by much. Holy crap that was messed up. But which is worse shouldn’t matter anyway.
I’m having trouble finding another link, but read my description of the video. In any event, what CNN does should not justify what another news station does. Unless you’d like to take the next step and provide a justification.
I don’t think flawed and unethical journalism should be supported whether it supports views closer to mine/yours or not.
I think you missed my argument.
I’m saying all news is biased crap. I don’t understand how people think fox is “more” biased.
The issue I have is that Fox puts itself out there as being a different type of news channel…
It clearly is. That is indisputable. Now you may not like them for whatever reason but stand alone from the pack.
…which is prepared to ask the difficult questions…
Yeah, tell me all about how CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. were all over, for example, the Van Jones story.
and be fair and even in its reporting. Which is clearly bullshit.
Based on YOUR subjective judgment. Which goes back to my previous post where Mr. David was incensed that I wasn’t moving the discussion forward.
I have become increasingly frustrated with all television news since the advent of 24 hr news. Newspapers are also turning into comics. And I apparently am turning into a grumbling old man.
You’ve always been a cranky bastard.[/quote]
LOL! I don’t watch a huge amount of Fox News (most of the news I see is on Televisa) but to me they seem to be just as bad from a journalistic standpoint as any other news channel. I agree it is refreshing to have a right leaning news channel given that most of the news channels are painfully obvious in their left wing bias but that doesn’t make their standards any higher.
Your quip about them only seeming more biased to someone who has an opposing bias works equally well in reverse!
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
While I’m not an American and don’t get Fox News, I should mention for those who were arguing whether it’s direction is partisan or ideological, that’s it’s owned by News Corp., which has a reputation for supporting parties based on who is/will be in power, depending on what they receive in return.
I can’t say I’ve dealt with this directly because I’m a Canadian, but I know in the U.K. the Labour Party has gotten support from conservative outlets owned by News Corp. Sifu has posted about this before and if he reads this maybe he can elaborate.
And there was news of Rupert Murdoch (News Corp bawse) meeting with Obama at around the time he was elected, supposedly about having a nicer portrayal of him in return for more accessibility to Obama and his administration for Fox News. I guess that’s over now, but the point still stands.
Just putting this out there for discussion, I know a lot of people here are better read politically then me, and obviously know more about the US news media too.[/quote]
It took me a little while to get past staring at your avatar. That is a good one.
Rupert Murdoch owns FOX news here, also owns major outlets in the UK, ie Sky news, The Sun which is the #1 newspaper, the Times and several other papers and other media outlets in several other countries. After Tony Blair’s Nu Labour won the 1997 general election The Sun ran a headline story procaliming how they helped Blair win.
Prime Minister Blair rewarded Murdoch for his help by changing the rules governing the ownership of media outlets so that Murdoch could own multiple media outlets.
Nulabour has been very leftist. Many of it’s top leaders were politically active marxist communists when they were younger. ie Jack Straw.
Now that NuLabour is fully discredited and has no chance of winning the next general election The Sun has now shifted it’s support to the Tory’s who are now a leftist party.
It is interesting that over in the UK Murdoch used his power to install a leftist government which he is going to replace with yet another leftist government. While in the US he owns the number 1 media outlet for “Conservative” views.
In the US Sir Rupert (he didn’t get that tile for being a Yank, he’s an Australian) is the man who calls the shots for Republicans. Not only can he have a significant impact on the Republican views, he can also have a massive impact on the way that independents and Democrats view Republicans. Sir Rupert can make the Republicans soar with Eagles or fly like Turkeys.
If you watched FOX coverage of the presidential campaign they were not enthusiastic suporters of John McCain. On the other hand if you watched Bill O’Rielly’s two part interview with candidate Obama, Bill was a wuss. At the end of the interview O’Rielly was singing Obama’s praises saying things like this guy’s tough, he’s going to be a strong leader. There was no suggestion of the apology tour Obama to come. Even though it was obvious Obama was going to be another Jimmy Carter.
Even though I watch FOX I have a distrust of it. Because of Murdoch. Two of the countries Murdoch rules UK and Australia have strict gun control laws and limits on freedom of speech and now I feel like he has installed Obama to do the same thing here.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
While I’m not an American and don’t get Fox News, I should mention for those who were arguing whether it’s direction is partisan or ideological, that’s it’s owned by News Corp., which has a reputation for supporting parties based on who is/will be in power, depending on what they receive in return.
I can’t say I’ve dealt with this directly because I’m a Canadian, but I know in the U.K. the Labour Party has gotten support from conservative outlets owned by News Corp. Sifu has posted about this before and if he reads this maybe he can elaborate.
And there was news of Rupert Murdoch (News Corp bawse) meeting with Obama at around the time he was elected, supposedly about having a nicer portrayal of him in return for more accessibility to Obama and his administration for Fox News. I guess that’s over now, but the point still stands.
Just putting this out there for discussion, I know a lot of people here are better read politically then me, and obviously know more about the US news media too.
It took me a little while to get past staring at your avatar. That is a good one.
Rupert Murdoch owns FOX news here, also owns major outlets in the UK, ie Sky news, The Sun which is the #1 newspaper, the Times and several other papers and other media outlets in several other countries. After Tony Blair’s Nu Labour won the 1997 general election The Sun ran a headline story procaliming how they helped Blair win.
Prime Minister Blair rewarded Murdoch for his help by changing the rules governing the ownership of media outlets so that Murdoch could own multiple media outlets.
Nulabour has been very leftist. Many of it’s top leaders were politically active marxist communists when they were younger. ie Jack Straw.
Now that NuLabour is fully discredited and has no chance of winning the next general election The Sun has now shifted it’s support to the Tory’s who are now a leftist party.
It is interesting that over in the UK Murdoch used his power to install a leftist government which he is going to replace with yet another leftist government. While in the US he owns the number 1 media outlet for “Conservative” views.
In the US Sir Rupert (he didn’t get that tile for being a Yank, he’s an Australian) is the man who calls the shots for Republicans. Not only can he have a significant impact on the Republican views, he can also have a massive impact on the way that independents and Democrats view Republicans. Sir Rupert can make the Republicans soar with Eagles or fly like Turkeys.
If you watched FOX coverage of the presidential campaign they were not enthusiastic suporters of John McCain. On the other hand if you watched Bill O’Rielly’s two part interview with candidate Obama, Bill was a wuss. At the end of the interview O’Rielly was singing Obama’s praises saying things like this guy’s tough, he’s going to be a strong leader. There was no suggestion of the apology tour Obama to come. Even though it was obvious Obama was going to be another Jimmy Carter.
Even though I watch FOX I have a distrust of it. Because of Murdoch. Two of the countries Murdoch rules UK and Australia have strict gun control laws and limits on freedom of speech and now I feel like he has installed Obama to do the same thing here. [/quote]
Great stuff. Thanks for posting in detail.
The Obama interview on O’Reilly didn’t even come to mind when I mentioned that meeting he had with Murdoch. It happened at around the same time.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
I think this might be what Cockney Blue was referring to:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/fox-manages-tea-party-protest/
I dunno if that qualifies as staging a protest, but it is disturbing to see a guy who works on a show for Fox taking part in a demonstration in such a manner while he reports on it.
Then again I don’t watch Beck, so if there’s an explanation for it, I’d appreciate it if someone cleared that up.
Edit: I just realized Cock’s post didn’t say “staged” but rather “stage managed”, which is what I gathered from the clips I linked to. But yeah, point stands blah blah.
Edit2: I just realized I shortened his name to ‘cock’. OMG BIG NO HOMO FOR THAT.[/quote]
Don’t worry about calling him cock. We intend it in the most derogatory manner possible. Trust me. If it was possible to derive “shyte stain on the bottom of me bollocks” from his name we would use that instead.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
Great stuff. Thanks for posting in detail.
The Obama interview on O’Reilly didn’t even come to mind when I mentioned that meeting he had with Murdoch. It happened at around the same time. [/quote]
Oh, and do you think Fox will start to back down what with the recent conflict with Obama? I imagine if this keeps up the White House will start to keep Fox as far away from them as possible, and possibly some of the newspapers owned by News Corp (WSJ comes to mind). The decreased accessibility may not affect Fox News as much, but for the newspapers it’s a bigger deal. Plus if a station/paper seems to far away from the fray [the actual political scene], it starts to lose it’s legitimacy and respect to regular consumers.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
Great stuff. Thanks for posting in detail.
The Obama interview on O’Reilly didn’t even come to mind when I mentioned that meeting he had with Murdoch. It happened at around the same time.
Oh, and do you think Fox will start to back down what with the recent conflict with Obama? I imagine if this keeps up the White House will start to keep Fox as far away from them as possible, and possibly some of the newspapers owned by News Corp (WSJ comes to mind). The decreased accessibility may not affect Fox News as much, but for the newspapers it’s a bigger deal. Plus if a station/paper seems to far away from the fray [the actual political scene], it starts to lose it’s legitimacy and respect to regular consumers. [/quote]
It would not surprise me to find out that both sides are playing it for all it’s worth. FOX ratings are as much as the other news organisations combined. The conflict isn’t hurting FOX. I wouldn’t be surprised if FOX in 2012 pushes someone who can’t beat Obama like Palin just so they can keep things going.