Is Fox News a Shill ?

Rainjack,

Maybe you should actually watch what FOX news does to a story before you put YOUR reputation on the line on their behalf.

Identifying Foley as a democrat was hilarious though… I wonder if anybody fell for that? Strange that there was no retraction.

Those arguing about the bias of other channels should note they do run retractions or fire people, when necessary.

Also, you should realize that reporters are supposed to ask questions. Most channels other than FOX will get a left and right representative and let them both have their say.

In any case, the fact that you don’t like a story, or that the real news is a scandal or inaccuracy of the administration, is not a reflection of bias.

I also laughed my ass off at the homocide bomber versus suicide bomber. Coming up with new terminology is nice and all, but you can’t blame others for not adopting it just because FOX does it.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Would somebody please link to the outrage posted by the lefties (including canadians) when cnn had an X over the face of Cheney and we were treated to the bathroom mike during one of Bush’s speeches.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR[/quote]

Jerffy, those same companies absolutely murdered Clinton when he was involved in his own scandal. News media follow the news…

What a fucking shock!

[quote]hedo wrote:
Fox news refers to people who blow themselves up in crowded markets and bus stops as “homocide bombers”. The maninstream media calls them “suicide bombers”. Which term is more accurate?

Is the intent of the bomber to kill others or to simply kill himself? When you answer that question, which is more accurate.
[/quote]

This is a fine example of useful information being stripped in order to make something sound more emotionally satisfying. “Homicide bomber” is nearly redundant as the definition of “bomber” is one who attacks with bombs. It isn’t anyone who detonates explosives or else we would call miners and pyrotechnic engineers “bombers” as well.

By calling an individual a “bomber” we are labeling them as on who attacks with deadly force. People generally assume when they hear the word “bomber” that people are amongst the targets since they usually are.

There are many types of bombers though. If we don’t know whether or not it was a “suicide bomber” then we don’t know if an APB should be out on crazy looking white militiamen and guys named Mahmoud or if we only need to be on the lookout for the that fragment of Mahmoud’s skull. Moreover, the “suicide” bit of information gives us some indication of who may or may not be responsible right off the bat.

In the context of Iraq this can mean whether the attack was most likely Al Qaeda or if the suspected perpetrators were more likely to include non-fundamentalist insurgents.

So if I have to choose two words to carry the maximum amount of information, I’m choosing “suicide bomber”. If you want the maximum emotional appeal though I would suggest adding to “homicide bomber” the words “angry, atrocious, bad, baneful, base, beastly, bitchy, calamitous, corrupt, damnable, depraved, destructive, disastrous, execrable, flagitious, foul, harmful, hateful, heinous, hideous, iniquitous, injurious, loathsome, low, maleficent, malevolent, malicious, malignant, nefarious, no good, obscene, offensive, pernicious, poison, rancorous, reprobate, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, sinful, spiteful, stinking, ugly, unpleasant, unpropitious, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrathful, wrong”.

There’s no redundancy there and we gleen so much more information that we couldn’t have otherwise figured out from that stupid “suicide bomber” term.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Fox news refers to people who blow themselves up in crowded markets and bus stops as “homocide bombers”. The maninstream media calls them “suicide bombers”. Which term is more accurate?

[/quote]

the real question is “which term is more useful ?”

i’ll admit that “homocide” is a clever foxian twist but when can you apply it ? as far as i know, nobody’s ever bombed a market in san francisco, south beach, or p-town.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

Maybe you should actually watch what FOX news does to a story before you put YOUR reputation on the line on their behalf.[/quote]

Maybe everyone that has a hard-on for telling everyone how deceitful Fox is should take you advice as well?

Can you get it in Canada? If so - I trust that you watched and can verify firsthand all of the “lies” you are saying that Fox told?

I didn’t think so.

[quote]Identifying Foley as a democrat was hilarious though… I wonder if anybody fell for that? Strange that there was no retraction.

Those arguing about the bias of other channels should note they do run retractions or fire people, when necessary.

In any case, the fact that you don’t like a story, or that the real news is a scandal or inaccuracy of the administration, is not a reflection of bias.[/quote]

I don’t even know what the fuck you are trying to say here. Maybe if you actually watched Fox News - you could speak of it with a hint of a clue.

Especially when it is diametrically opposed to their pro-terrorist bias.

i find it absolutely absurd how some people have stepped up and vigorously defended a frickn NEWS CHANNEL like it’s their childhood dog.

i mean , goddamn, it’s a channel .

you folks need help. how can you ever hope to process even the most basic facts if you’re forever bound by this emotionally addictive codependency ?

[quote]swivel wrote:
i find it absolutely absurd how some people have stepped up and vigorously defended a frickn NEWS CHANNEL like it’s their childhood dog.

i mean , goddamn, it’s a channel .

you folks need help. how can you ever hope to process even the most basic facts if you’re forever bound by this emotionally addictive codependency ?
[/quote]

It is equally absurd to me how some folks will start a fuicking thread to tell everyone how much of a liar a cable news channel is with no proof.

Why would someone have that much hate for one network with no proof of wrong doing other than the words of the dailykos, or George Soros?

Believing the lies of the left/ABB/Anti-Fox shows just as much mental midgetry as that which you accuse.

[quote]swivel wrote:
i find it absolutely absurd how some people have stepped up and vigorously defended a frickn NEWS CHANNEL like it’s their childhood dog.

i mean , goddamn, it’s a channel .

you folks need help. how can you ever hope to process even the most basic facts if you’re forever bound by this emotionally addictive codependency ?[/quote]

Why do people hate FOX News so much? It is like a mad obsession with the left-of-center. So yes, to quote you: it’s a goddamn channel.

Don’t start a thread contributing to the rabid anti-FOX pathology and then complain that it is “only a channel”. Can’t have it both ways.

I myself am not much of a FOX fan. But the histrionics of its critics are always good for some entertainment.

Interesting take on the state of the media, courtesy of Bill Clinton:

[i]But he said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies – and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.

“We’re all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate,” Clinton said. “Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations.”[/i]

Indeed.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
swivel wrote:
i find it absolutely absurd how some people have stepped up and vigorously defended a frickn NEWS CHANNEL like it’s their childhood dog.

i mean , goddamn, it’s a channel .

you folks need help. how can you ever hope to process even the most basic facts if you’re forever bound by this emotionally addictive codependency ?

Why do people hate FOX News so much? It is like a mad obsession with the left-of-center. So yes, to quote you: it’s a goddamn channel.

Don’t start a thread contributing to the rabid anti-FOX pathology and then complain that it is “only a channel”. Can’t have it both ways.

I myself am not much of a FOX fan. But the histrionics of its critics are always good for some entertainment.[/quote]

We hate it because it’s hosts and guests are notorious liars, hiding under the guise of fair and balanced. The fact that it “educates” so many of the voting public only makes it so much the worse.

[quote]100meters wrote:

We hate it because it’s hosts and guests are notorious liars, hiding under the guise of fair and balanced. [/quote]

Show me. And, flipping through the channels the other night, I saw the President of the Young Democrats on whatever show happened to be on.

She included?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is silliness. Even the CBS fact checkers were suspicious that it could be phony. Dan Rather lost his job over this. Try to pay attention.

Pardon me?

You’re overreaching. I know Rather lost his job.

The document was never proven to be fake. And it wasn’t planted by “the Left”.

But if you think you have some proof, then lets see it. Otherwise, STFU.

You do know the difference between proof and speculation, don’t you? I’m not sure that you do.

It wasn’t “proven” to be faked because there is no measure of proof that you would find acceptable.

If “the left” did not generate the fake document who did? Karl Rove?

You are blind to reality. Not worth discussing this topic with you.

[/quote]

Yes, Karl Rove did fake those documents. You know why?

Because he’s a very, very smart man.

What happened was a textbook case of misinformation.

Watch:

Bush’s service record is a problem.

Documents are produced and given to the “other side.” They are bad forgeries, obviously proven to be hackwork.

Docuements are then “revealed” to be forgeries.

Now–and this is the neat part–whenever anyone brings up Bush’s AWOL, everyone instantly thinks, “That must be bullshit: those documents were fake!”

Cui Bono? Who benefitted from the entire “Rathergate” affair? Bush did.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Can you get it in Canada? If so - I trust that you watched and can verify firsthand all of the “lies” you are saying that Fox told?

I didn’t think so.
[/quote]

Didn’t you get the memo? Canada has either satellite or cable television widely available…

And I’ll have you know I’m only talking about the issue because I have seen clips of FOX news where I had to smack myself in the head to avoid having reality sucked out of my head and replaced with some fantasy bullshit.

Typical, I was talking about OTHER media, and the fact they do things which give hints of the nature of their seriousness as a source of NEWS instead of INFOTAINMENT.

Wow, you actually have pro-terrorist news stations in the US? I’d have thought everyone working for them would have been rounded up and sent to Gitmo by now.

Learn something new every day!

[quote]rainjack wrote:
swivel wrote:
i find it absolutely absurd how some people have stepped up and vigorously defended a frickn NEWS CHANNEL like it’s their childhood dog.

i mean , goddamn, it’s a channel .

you folks need help. how can you ever hope to process even the most basic facts if you’re forever bound by this emotionally addictive codependency ?

It is equally absurd to me how some folks will start a fuicking thread to tell everyone how much of a liar a cable news channel is with no proof.

Why would someone have that much hate for one network with no proof of wrong doing other than the words of the dailykos, or George Soros?

Believing the lies of the left/ABB/Anti-Fox shows just as much mental midgetry as that which you accuse.

[/quote]

i started the thread because fox news labeling foley a democrat and trying to paint them dems with the foley thing was an example of blatant inaccuracy. and “innacuracy” is giving them a mighty generous benefit of the doubt. but whatever, it’s exactly the sort of thing that leads to misperception if not misinformation.

i’m not “believing the lies” of anyone as i know what i saw. what are you believing ? that foley actually is a democrat or that those fox news clips were fabricated by george soros ?

[quote]swivel wrote:
i started the thread because fox news labeling foley a democrat and trying to paint them dems with the foley thing was an example of blatant inaccuracy. and “innacuracy” is giving them a mighty generous benefit of the doubt. but whatever, it’s exactly the sort of thing that leads to misperception if not misinformation.[/quote]

I switched over to Fox just a few minutes ago. They have him labeled as a Republican now. I didn’t see the incident you refer to because - as I said - I don’t really watch cable news. Did they say Foley was a Dem? Or was it the scroll across the bottom of the screen that said it? But nonetheless, it seems that Fox has corrected their “inaccuracy”.

You have yet to address the blatant inacuracies of the other networks - namely CBS. Do they get a pass because the lie was a defamation of Bush?

[/quote]
i’m not “believing the lies” of anyone as i know what i saw. what are you believing ? that foley actually is a democrat or that those fox news clips were fabricated by george soros ? [/quote]

You saw the news clips. You didn’t watch FOx to see if they had corrected anything. I have a newsflash for you sparky - trusting YouTube for your proof is less than reliable.

But yes - you are just another one of the ABB drones. Mindless. You see the clip on YouTube - and you are immediately an expert on the lies and deceit of Fox News.

If you hate Fox - that is fine. I can’t stand NPR. Just stop with the fake indignation if you haven’t taken the time to know the subject matter you are now waxing expert on.

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Can you get it in Canada? If so - I trust that you watched and can verify firsthand all of the “lies” you are saying that Fox told?

I didn’t think so.

Didn’t you get the memo? Canada has either satellite or cable television widely available…

And I’ll have you know I’m only talking about the issue because I have seen clips of FOX news where I had to smack myself in the head to avoid having reality sucked out of my head and replaced with some fantasy bullshit.[/quote]

So you freely admit that you only watch clips strung together for you. That’s objectivity defined right there.

[quote]
Typical, I was talking about OTHER media, and the fact they do things which give hints of the nature of their seriousness as a source of NEWS instead of INFOTAINMENT.[/quote]

It is typical. You say nothing, and then when asked to clarify - you come back with more of the same nothingness. You admit not watchin Fox - yet you can say with certainty that they mislead their audience.

Another glaring example of your impeccable objectivity.

[quote]
Wow, you actually have pro-terrorist news stations in the US? I’d have thought everyone working for them would have been rounded up and sent to Gitmo by now.

Learn something new every day![/quote]

Well you certainly would know what we have unless you saw it in a clip. God knows we should defer to vrooms newest branch of the Thinking Tree: The YouTube Clip Branch. I hope it gives you the shade from reality you desire.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
swivel wrote:
i started the thread because fox news labeling foley a democrat and trying to paint them dems with the foley thing was an example of blatant inaccuracy. and “innacuracy” is giving them a mighty generous benefit of the doubt. but whatever, it’s exactly the sort of thing that leads to misperception if not misinformation.

I switched over to Fox just a few minutes ago. They have him labeled as a Republican now. I didn’t see the incident you refer to because - as I said - I don’t really watch cable news. Did they say Foley was a Dem? Or was it the scroll across the bottom of the screen that said it? But nonetheless, it seems that Fox has corrected their “inaccuracy”.

[/quote]

c’mon dude. i posted the clips in the first post. they’re the whole reason for this thread. how can you chime in if you didn’t even look ? [quote]

You have yet to address the blatant inacuracies of the other networks - namely CBS. Do they get a pass because the lie was a defamation of Bush?
[/quote]

i don’t understand what cbs or bush has to do with this, but the answer is no. shoddy workmanship does not get a pass.[quote]

You saw the news clips. You didn’t watch FOx to see if they had corrected anything. I have a newsflash for you sparky - trusting YouTube for your proof is less than reliable. [/quote]

rather i was sitting in the living room at my best friend’s house watching o’reilly. (i give him full credit for picking out the dem thing as he’s way into this shit more than i am) and it reminded me of the thread about fox that i’d just read on T-Mag.

what’s wrong with youtube for a reference ? should i have just posted something like " hey guys guess what i saw on fox …"? that would’ve gone over reeal good.[quote]

But yes - you are just another one of the ABB drones. Mindless. You see the clip on YouTube - and you are immediately an expert on the lies and deceit of Fox News.

If you hate Fox - that is fine. I can’t stand NPR. Just stop with the fake indignation if you haven’t taken the time to know the subject matter you are now waxing expert on.
[/quote]

man why are you calling me mindless ? what’s abb ? i’ve noticed npr sometimes causes me to lapse into uncontrollable fits of blandness.

[quote]swivel wrote:

i started the thread because fox news labeling foley a democrat and trying to paint them dems with the foley thing was an example of blatant inaccuracy. and “innacuracy” is giving them a mighty generous benefit of the doubt. but whatever, it’s exactly the sort of thing that leads to misperception if not misinformation.

i’m not “believing the lies” of anyone as i know what i saw. what are you believing ? that foley actually is a democrat or that those fox news clips were fabricated by george soros ? [/quote]

Fox news said he was a democrat because obviously, by reading this site, some republicans are smart enough to believe anything they say. Ha. Fair balanced and unafraid. ha

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
aahhh…Fox News…a beacon of truth…[/quote]

It’s funny you posted that pic
Its also funny how most people I see label anything associated with being a conservative as bigotory or racism…while the worst culprits that i have seen in my life time are Liberals having lived (and still living) in california for over 6 years.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Fox news refers to people who blow themselves up in crowded markets and bus stops as “homocide bombers”. The maninstream media calls them “suicide bombers”. Which term is more accurate?

Is the intent of the bomber to kill others or to simply kill himself? When you answer that question, which is more accurate.

Fox is also Pro-American. That infuriates many abroad and large section of the population at home. They go after foriegn officials with zeal during interviews. That is percieved as a conservative bias. Why that is the case is a broader question to answer.

If you actually watch Fox, you’ll notice they usually represent speakers from both sides of an argument, together, and let them go at it. The reporter will usally start it off with some directed questions. The MSM normally doesn’t do that. If you are a government official or politician your not used to being confronted like that. I find it refreshing.

Amazingly, a lot of people think the mainstream media isn’t biased, yet over 80% of mainstream media reporters consider themself Democrats. One only needs to look at students at some of the elite journalism schools to realize it is hardly a fair and balanced student body as far as political idealogy goes.

The public clealry has voted. Fox ratings dwarf the other cable news stations. The opinion shows are a different animal then the news division.[/quote]

well said…it still baffles me how the general public is ignorant in regards to how biased the MSM is.