Is Fox News a Shill ?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]swivel wrote:
i’d say you’re the one limiting yourself by allowing mere brands such as “youtube” and “dailykos” to freeze your intellect like a deuce from kenny rogers.
[/quote]

I’m just playing the game the same way that the ABBer’s here are playing it. Somone had the gall to use an excerpt form a Rush Limbaugh program to make a point - and he had his nuts all but cut off and handed to him.

Yes - they have corrected the Foley mistake. I guess that didn’t make it to the kos, or you tube.

Look - my entire point is that you are not a watcher of Fox News. Neither is any of the people calling them liars. To take one incident and paint the entire network the same color without even haveing a basic working knowledge of Fox news strikes me as being intellectually dishonest.

There are those that have never listened to Stern that wanted him dead. I think they are judgemental pricks. Same goes for the prejudice against Fox - folks that never watch the network are passing judgement on something they know nothing about.

82

[quote]swivel wrote:
given the recent pissing match over the alleged bias / misinformation/ inaccurate reporting by Fox News,

( http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1270724 )

and more importantly the resulting proven state of misinformed-ness FOX viewers wallow in,
i find these:

rather timely :wink:

[/quote]
You are a Fucking Idiot MSNBC does not like fox news they are competitors Msnbc will do anything to shut them down. And furthermore i cant believe yo listed to a rouge sportscaster about this.

So if the guys at FOX News are monkeys Olbermen must be a satan worshiping Liberal bastard who doesnt know real news when he sees it so he spreads slander.

And you credit the DALY KOS you stupid ass S.O.B the pond scum whom work at the daily kos are Liberal Nazis who don’t like fox news because they try to be fair unlike CNN Cnbc Or Msnbc or Current news network .

So get a brain and don’t listen to Olbermen and his Nazi freinds.

83

[quote]100meters wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
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.

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

This has been thoroughly debunked.[/quote]

Debunked by the MSM?

It only takes 5 minutes watching CNN or 2 seconds reading the NYT to see the liberal bias. It cannot be debunked. Anyone that “debunks” the liberal bias is a fucking liar.

At least most people admit to Fox News’ right wing bias.

People that deny the MSM liberal leanings are crackpots or liars.

84

[quote]100meters wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
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.

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

This has been thoroughly debunked.[/quote]

By whom? Post a link to document your claim…otherwise it’s just more of your BS.

85

Why stop at Fox News Swivel? EVERY major media outlet is a shill, unless you believe that they’re not primarily profit-driven entities.

86

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Why stop at Fox News Swivel? EVERY major media outlet is a shill, unless you believe that they’re not primarily profit-driven entities.[/quote]

you’re right. i think bullshit should be called everytime. i only started this thread because like i said i was watching fox and i had just read the thread about it so i was like “oh !oh ! oh! !” when i experienced some fox bullshit liver in living color …excuse me for minute…

TIGERS IN FOUR !!!

and rainjack i understand now where you’re coming from and can live with that just fine.

87

Fox news is fun to watch but sometimes I just want to tell them that : “I wave my private parts at your antics, you cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom biters.”

About O’reilly in particular :
A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into a clamorous whining, if thou deny’st the least syllable of thy addition.

88

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It only takes 5 minutes watching CNN or 2 seconds reading the NYT to see the liberal bias. It cannot be debunked. Anyone that “debunks” the liberal bias is a fucking liar.

At least most people admit to Fox News’ right wing bias.

People that deny the MSM liberal leanings are crackpots or liars.[/quote]

Like I said, if the MSM has a liberal bias, show me these liberals that are PRAISING the media.

If the media was so LIBERAL, the Daily Show wouldn’t have so much material showing showing the “liberal media” myth to be a complete CROCK.

In fact, the Daily Show has more to do about the media’s REPORTING on the Bush administration most of the time than the administration itself.

When you have Rumsfeld or Rice or Bush saying something in 2003, and then saying the exact opposite in 2004, as an example – it takes the Daily Show to point out the very thing the MSM never did – over and over again.

When you say “liberal bias”, you really mean closer to the truth. If you ever watched the Daily Show on a regular basis, most especially during the run-up to the 2004 election – you would know how moronic a statement like “liberal media” really was.

A news outlet might be “bias” or weighted slightly left or right, but “bias” does not apply to FOX news.

FOX LIES. It’s a 100%, non-refutable fact – and I do try to watch FOX on a fairly regular basis, BTW. Occasionally I’ll watch an extra half-hour on leg day – sometimes O’Reilly gives me that edge that I can’t get from Pantera.

89

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
FOX LIES. It’s a 100%, non-refutable fact – and I do try to watch FOX on a fairly regular basis, BTW. Occasionally I’ll watch an extra half-hour on leg day – sometimes O’Reilly gives me that edge that I can’t get from Pantera.
[/quote]

100% non-refutable? How about proving it first?

JTF and leg day is a combination I just don’t see. No offense - but unless you are posting here under a nome de plume in the other forums, this is the first reference I have seen you make to anything wrt lifting.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
FOX LIES. It’s a 100%, non-refutable fact – and I do try to watch FOX on a fairly regular basis, BTW. Occasionally I’ll watch an extra half-hour on leg day – sometimes O’Reilly gives me that edge that I can’t get from Pantera.

100% non-refutable? How about proving it first?[/quote]

  1. Cheney Praises Fox News Channel
    Vice President Calls Network ‘More Accurate’ Than Others
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53974-2004Apr29?language=printer
    (that alone should be plenty of proof)

  2. “We Report, You Decide” - What the hell does that even mean? What? We report and YOU DECIDE whether it’s true or not? News is about information, I expect it to be true. That’s mostly why we disagree down here – when FOX says, “things in Iraq are going great”, you agree – I decide it’s bullshit. While FOX was touting the al Qaeda/Saddam links over and over again, people who watched FOX assumed it was true – they forgot they had a DECISION to make. Which leads me to #3…

  3. The Hazards of Watching Fox News - Report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week…

…For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between…

…As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did…
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/16892

See, people ASSUME that FOX is telling the truth, albeit with a “slight” conservative bias they acknowledge – yet FOX tells you right up front “We Report, YOU Decide”. It’s like a disclaimer in big bold letters. Bias alone doesn’t account for 45% of viewers being COMPLETELY wrong about Iraq – LIES.

(BTW, “misperceptions” does not mean “less liberal”)

That is true, I rarely post anywhere but the political forum – but being a bodybuilder I’ve been reading Testosterone online since the second issue and Muscle Media 2000 WAY before that.

I’m content to take in the knowledge and apply it to my own routine or an occasional trainee. I just feel I have more important things to say down here in the basement.

I like it here because it is first and foremost a bodybuilding forum and not just a political forum, which makes for much more varied conversation (confrontation). I don’t frequent REAL political forums ever.

BTW, no way would Dan Duchaine have ever believed the official 9/11 story.

91

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100% non-refutable? How about proving it first? [/quote]

O’Reilly LIED by citing false information from a NON-EXISTENT source (i.e. “The Paris Business Review”) Here is your PROOF:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

If you want to see the actual footage of this then watch the film I posted on page 1 of this thread. Fast forward to the 19 minute mark.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

This is just one example of a flat out 100% intentional lie.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time proving this to you. I could show you thousands of examples of Fox News lying and deliberately misrepresenting information and you would still be blind to reality. It is hard to convince someone when their mind is already made up.

92

What “news” network doesn’t exhibit bias? Why specifically fox?

93

Vroom,

You can’t stand Fox News because your political views are firmly in the left of the spectrum. I’m sure you’re content with the half truths of other, less conservative news outlets. Just recognize them as the shills they are too.

94

[quote]tpa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100% non-refutable? How about proving it first?

O’Reilly LIED by citing false information from a NON-EXISTENT source (i.e. “The Paris Business Review”) Here is your PROOF:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

If you want to see the actual footage of this then watch the film I posted on page 1 of this thread. Fast forward to the 19 minute mark.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

This is just one example of a flat out 100% intentional lie.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time proving this to you. I could show you thousands of examples of Fox News lying and deliberately misrepresenting information and you would still be blind to reality. It is hard to convince someone when their mind is already made up.
[/quote]

Dude - O’Reilley is not news. He is editorial entertainment. How hard is that for you Fox haters to understand? OreilleyHannity et al are not news. They are entertainment.

And I am sure you saw this first hand? No… wait…you heard from a friend that heard from a friend that there was an article from, a leftwing group that said O’Reilley was a liar.

You don’t even watch Fox - who gives a fuck what you think? You hate out of ignorance - and that is pathetic.

95

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Vroom,

You can’t stand Fox News because your political views are firmly in the left of the spectrum. I’m sure you’re content with the half truths of other, less conservative news outlets. Just recognize them as the shills they are too.[/quote]

That’s all I am asking for. People here are acting as if Fox is the only one capable.

The funny thing is that none of the people that hate Fox - or are calling them liars - have ever watched Fox.

96

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

His post gains more sense when you take into account the several cheerleaders in the political forum who claim that Fox isn’t biased and that no one can ever find any proof of their bias.

Nobody has said that no one has shown it - they have said you haven’t.
[/quote]

You claim you know it was shown, but now you wanted him to show it again?
So it was meant to be a personal test then?

You’re a tool thunderbolt.

97

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

You claim you know it was shown, but now you wanted him to show it again?
So it was meant to be a personal test then?[/quote]

You need to learn properly. Professor X kept making claims that he couldn’t back up. That is all we were talking about. Nowhere did I say that someone else had showed it to me.

Honestly, coming from you, how could that not be the highest compliment I could receive?

I am not sure which is worse for you - that you are a troll or that you are irrelevant? I ask you - which frustrates you more?

98

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Vroom,

You can’t stand Fox News because your political views are firmly in the left of the spectrum. I’m sure you’re content with the half truths of other, less conservative news outlets. Just recognize them as the shills they are too.[/quote]

Panther,

I appreciate what you are saying, but my views are not that firmly in a camp. For example, I do cross the boundaries from time to time, such as my viewpoint on building a wall or otherwise securing the border, which needs to be a priority.

What I want from a news organization is the original statements made by the original people, without them being restated in a slanted or spun manner. This means, an announcer says, “When asked about X, so and so said” … cut to source material for the actual words … instead of, “so and so said … make shit up here”.

Strangely, news organizations exist to serve news, or new information, and you get that by asking people questions, finding out secrets that people are trying to hide from the public, and putting together a bigger picture from it.

They are also supposed to put a lot of effort into verifying that information, at least if they wish to be credible. When a news organization goes to great lengths to issue retractions, apologies and fire people, it lets you know that they at least understand the principles involved in providing news, and not simply opinion and propaganda.

Anyway, to step back a bit, any decent news organization will generally appear to be slanted against a sitting administration or source of news, because there is somewhat of an adversarial reliationship. One side naturally wants to get out their own message, while the news organization should be trying to get at the actual truth of the matter so the viewer can form an opinion based on facts.

In any case, if you are watching real news, and you see the original source materials, you can see who said what, where the spin started to originate and then you can make up your own mind.

Seriously, it isn’t always about simply picking something that sounds like your own view. A lot of people certainly do that, but even as a child growing up, I’d be correcting people who were trying to relate what they’d seen on the news the day before, because they’d twist the story into something inaccurate.

Believe it or not, I do make up my own mind, and when people are playing tricks with the truth, continously, it tends to make me distrust them. However, even so, if the right wing comes up with a good idea, I won’t reject it because of the source.

Ah well, I’m wasting my time aren’t I?

99

[quote]rainjack wrote:
tpa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100% non-refutable? How about proving it first?

O’Reilly LIED by citing false information from a NON-EXISTENT source (i.e. “The Paris Business Review”) Here is your PROOF:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

If you want to see the actual footage of this then watch the film I posted on page 1 of this thread. Fast forward to the 19 minute mark.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

This is just one example of a flat out 100% intentional lie.

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time proving this to you. I could show you thousands of examples of Fox News lying and deliberately misrepresenting information and you would still be blind to reality. It is hard to convince someone when their mind is already made up.

rainjack wrote:
Dude - O’Reilley is not news. He is editorial entertainment. How hard is that for you Fox haters to understand? OreilleyHannity et al are not news. [/quote]
How does this justify him making up false information and citing non-existant sources? He is entitled to his opinion but he is in the wrong when he makes up studies, facts and sources to support his opinion.

[quote]
And I am sure you saw this first hand? No… wait…you heard from a friend that heard from a friend that there was an article from, a leftwing group that said O’Reilley was a liar.[/quote]
Actually I did see it first hand. I also provided a link to video so that you can see it first hand as well. Do I need to invent a time machine so that we can go back in time and travel to Fox studios and see it live?

[quote]
You don’t even watch Fox - who gives a fuck what you think? You hate out of ignorance - and that is pathetic. [/quote]
Well on page 2 of this thread you said:[quote]Kinda hard to include me in the Fox News camp when I don’t watch cable news - except for election nights.[/quote]
So I guess nobody including yourself gives a fuck what you think. That is pathetic!

100

[quote]tpa wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Dude - O’Reilley is not news. He is editorial entertainment. How hard is that for you Fox haters to understand?
OreilleyHannity et al are not news.

tpa wrote:
How does this justify him making up false information and citing non-existant sources? He is entitled to his opinion but he is in the wrong when he makes up studies, facts and sources to support his opinion.[/quote]

That’s on O’Reilley. It’s his show. Not the responsibility of the news department. If you want to hate O’Reilley - go ahead. I don’t like him either - but using his inaccuracies to indict Fox News of being a liar is pure bullshit.

Why are you watching O’Reilley? I could give a shit what you invent. But - if youare in the inventing mood - maybe you could invent a fucking machine that will allow you to tell the difference between news and entertainment.

[quote]So I guess nobody including yourself gives a fuck what you think. That is pathetic!
[/quote]

Read the context of what you quoted me as saying. Maybe I should call you a liar for misrepresenting facts?

That would require too much effort - effort that would be better spent cleaning my toe nails.

And you could takethat time to go to the clue store and perhaps find one in your size.