Wow, FoxNews let all their true colors (actually red is their only color) show when it covered the Hunters Brooke arson fire in MD.
When the story broke a few weeks ago, the Fox gang took every opportunity to play up a possible connection with ecoterrorists (You know those damn liberal hippies?). After a week or so the investigators dismissed any connections to environmental groups. Now it looks like it may have been a group of racist white guys. Gosh, that's your crowd isn't it, Faux News?
Funny, what's that Bible verse about the specks and the eyes and the planks and the don't be a stupid Fox reporter?
Originally posted by telerionYou sure saw it differently than I did.
Wow, FoxNews let all their true colors (actually red is their only color) show when it covered the Hunters Brooke arson fire in MD.
When the story broke a few weeks ago, the Fox gang took every opportunity to play up a possible connec ...[text shortened]... d the eyes and the planks and the don't be a stupid Fox reporter?
Acutally, fox was the ONLY one who said that there was "nothing proven" . They did quote the maryland state police as thinking that Eco terror might be a cause.
But lets guess. You don't really watch Fox? right?
CNN and CNBC even named ELF by name. Fox never did.
Originally posted by telerionHave you even thought that maybe that was the information given to FOX? So, FOX made a mistake...CNN has never made a mistake, right? 🙄 Is Dan Rather the symbol of journalism integrity?
Wow, FoxNews let all their true colors (actually red is their only color) show when it covered the Hunters Brooke arson fire in MD.
When the story broke a few weeks ago, the Fox gang took every opportunity to play up a possible connection with ecoterrorists (You know those damn liberal hippies?). After a week or so the investigators dismissed any conn ...[text shortened]... ible verse about the specks and the eyes and the planks and the don't be a stupid Fox reporter?
What's with this "red" crap your describing? I think FOX delivers what most viewers want: Fair and balanced reporting or else it wouldn't be blowing CNN away in the ratings war...for the past several years now?
Larry King is a pussy cat when he interviews guests..thats why Barbara Striesand, George Clooney, Bill "The ejaculator"Clinton all love to do his show...they ain't got the hair on their @$$ to enter "the No Spin Zone"
C'mon, telerion, you got to come up with more than just "getting a news story wrong"...it even happens to CNN, AKA the Al-Jazeera of American journalism....
😉
Originally posted by chancremechanicSorry. Mike.
Have you even thought that maybe that was the information given to FOX? So, FOX made a mistake...CNN has never made a mistake, right? 🙄 Is Dan Rather the symbol of journalism integrity?
What's with this "red" crap your describing? I think FOX delivers what most viewers want: Fair and balanced reporting or else it wouldn't be blowing CNN aw ...[text shortened]... news story wrong"...it even happens to CNN, AKA the Al-Jazeera of American journalism....
😉
I'm trying to be the only poster on page one. But you are wrong. Fox got it right. They are the only ones who did.
Who said anything about CNN?
Sounds like both you guys have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Kinda jumping the gun with the liberal media crap.
I did read the ecoterrorist story on the Fox site. I also saw a report on Fox about the issue with the same ridiculous allegations. It would not surprise me if some other channels (especially CNN) mucked up the story too.
Now that you bring it up, I do remember the Fox people saying that nothing had been proven. It sounded something like this.
Anchor to guest:
"Now nothing's been PROVEN . . . yet. What does it say that crazy, liberal tree huggers could be burning down houses, and how can decent, God-fearing Americans who support our Commander-in-Chief protect themselves against the liberal scourge?"
What's with this "red" crap your describing? I think FOX delivers what most viewers want: Fair and balanced reporting or else it wouldn't be blowing CNN away in the ratings war...for the past several years now?
This argument relies on a connection between "balanced" reporting and ratings, but there is no evidence to indicate any such connection.
Yes. CNN and CBS do make mistakes; however there is no doubt that Fox News has far less professionalism than any other major news channel. They have won ratings by making a smart business move: they replaced news integrity with strategic affinity. They were quick to realize that most people in America today want to watch news that weaves reporting with unambiguously biased opinion that promotes their worldview. Naturally, they picked the right-wing as they are more responsive to such programming, than the more educated, deliberative left.
Am I being elitist? Yeah.
I just finished finals and am in no mood to play down to anyone.
Originally posted by telerionI don't listen to Cnn..
Who said anything about CNN?
Sounds like both you guys have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Kinda jumping the gun with the liberal media crap.
I did read the ecoterrorist story on the Fox site. I also saw a report on Fox about the issue with the same ridiculous allegations. It would not surprise me if some other channels (especially CNN) ...[text shortened]... I being elitist? Yeah.
I just finished finals and am in no mood to play down to anyone.
for the same reason I don't watch CBS.
Exact Example.
I got up this morning.
Turned on "Sunday Morning"
The first article off the list was "aluminum christmas trees".
the person who owned two hundred of them pointed out that it was "a retreat after ww II from the terrible thing that our nation did."
Unquote. As to why we love aluminum trees.
Then Our next communist broadcast system person ... errrr....sorry. CBS person tells us to by a "five pound copy of the New Yorker" magazine. Guess what they show? Three viet nam cartoons telling us what a terrible nation we are.
The next commie is Introducing Movies we should/should not see. They are all said to be "mean". And pointless. The guy then ends the five minute piece with these words of wisdom. "Even the supposedly humorous of these seem a bit stupid. I wonder why?" and he strikes a Bush like pose.
I really do wonder why. Every time good triumphs over evil, Hollywood gets depressed.
Good.
Let them rot in hell.
And may the Commie Broadcast System continue to die from lack of viewers.
I am for Fox. Go big bad pseudo-dog. Get em' boy. Sick em'! Yee haw!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhich just goes to show. Nearly all morning talk shows are stupid. In fact, right now, I cannot think of a single one worth watching.
I don't listen to Cnn..
for the same reason I don't watch CBS.
Exact Example.
I got up this morning.
Turned on "Sunday Morning"
The first article off the list was "aluminum christmas trees".
the person who owned two hundred of them pointed out that it was "a retreat after ww II from the terrible thing that our nation did."
U ...[text shortened]... from lack of viewers.
I am for Fox. Go big bad pseudo-dog. Get em' boy. Sick em'! Yee haw!
Originally posted by telerionMe neither.
Which just goes to show. Nearly all morning talk shows are stupid. In fact, right now, I cannot think of a single one worth watching.
The thing that we need to know is the campaign to "condition" us.
CBS never gives up. The silly woman with the aluminum trees says "move on" four times. And hates the US. Five times.
Like we are not supposed to notice? Garpppp!
Followed by the anti-us vietnam cartoons followed by the movies that are all bad because of bush. ARRRRGH!
Give me a break. Please. I am stupid, but not pliable.
Originally posted by telerion"Am I being elitist? Yeah.
Who said anything about CNN?
Sounds like both you guys have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Kinda jumping the gun with the liberal media crap.
I did read the ecoterrorist story on the Fox site. I also saw a report on Fox about the issue with the same ridiculous allegations. It would not surprise me if some other channels (especially CNN) ...[text shortened]... I being elitist? Yeah.
I just finished finals and am in no mood to play down to anyone.
I just finished finals and am in no mood to play down to anyone."
quote by you.
What does that mean? That you are intellectiually "superior" than the rest of us, and that whatever YOU state is the truth?
I don't listen to Limbaugh..he's a bag of hot air...
but neither do I listen to Howard Stern..he's a bag os $hit....
When you quote the "supposed" dialogue betwen the two FOX commentators, you sound like your world has come apart because Bush got re-elected again....get over it!
I disagree with your statement that people want "biased" news...I sure as hell don't! I want the truth...not sugar-coated "beating around the bush" crap like your liberal media put out...case in point: do you think that if the arsonists were black, and said something about wanting to torch "cracker-honkey" houses because they hated white people, that CNN would report that? HELL NO!! That fact would be buried at the botom of the heap. CBS, NBC, and ABC are just as biased...
I have a final tomorrow, by the way, but I don't claim to be an elitist...😉
I just pointed out the lack of professionalism in Fox news. You started spouting the typical "liberal media" myth, going on and on about CNN and CBS, and ABC.
The whole thing reminds me of the fundy creationists.
The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution, but there are a lot of these fundies who think that scientists must have some sort of agenda. Obviously, the creationists are the ones with an agenda: they must preserve the infallibility of their religious text despite evidence to the contrary.
When you think all the news agencies have an agenda with the exception of your personal source, you should just stop and ask yourself, "Why is it that I think my source is the only one without an agenda? Given its uniqueness, how do I know my source isn't the one with the agenda?"
Congrats on finals.
What does that mean? That you are intellectiually "superior" than the rest of us, and that whatever YOU state is the truth?
Uh . . . you are really touchy about that. We've had this encounter before. Whatever I state is not necessarily the Truth (emphasis capital "t"😉. I just don't feel like being especially diplomatic. Not really trying to be rude, just no energy for pleasantries.
Originally posted by chancremechanicMany conservatives, especially the right-wing ones believe that Fox offers fair and balanced reporting. The success of Fox in the ratings, and the success of Bush in the recent election reveals two failures of liberalism:
I think FOX delivers what most viewers want: Fair and balanced reporting or else it wouldn't be blowing CNN away in the ratings war...
1. the failure of the Democrats to articulate a coherent message, and consequently
2. the failure of fair and balanced ideas in mainstream American politics.
The Reagan administration made one thing clear to reporters: fair and balanced reporting of the truth, rather than official spin, means lack of further access to administration sources. Clinton learned from Reagan's methods, but most Democrats still do not get it.
So long as most Americans remain out of touch with the liberal values that were our cultural strength for more than 200 years, pseudo-news of the sort at which Fox excells will dominate mass media.
Originally posted by WulebgrSo long as most Americans remain out of touch with the liberal values that were our cultural strength for more than 200 years, pseudo-news of the sort at which Fox excells will dominate mass media.
[b]Many conservatives, especially the right-wing ones believe that Fox offers fair and balanced reporting. The success of Fox in the ratings, and the success of Bush in the recent election reveals two failures of liberalism:
1. the failure ...[text shortened]... earned from Reagan's methods, but most Democrats still do not get it.
[/b]You know I believe you are coloring the picture very one sided if you
think 'liberal values' were our cultural strength for more than 200
years. Since what is called liberal and conservative are matters of
personal opinion. I can just as easily say that conservative values
played just a much or greater part in our history than liberal ones.
What I think built our country up was personal responsibility; however,
that has been sliding away with the mentality where blame is always
cast upon someone else for nearly everything, and we need to be so
careful that exposing someone to something they disagree with is now
a matter of offending them.
Fox News is nothing compared to wishy washy PC mindset is being
pushed upon everyone. Where disagreement means the other side is
some how evil or filled with evil intent like you are pushing off on Fox
News as it is some how bad for presenting another point of view that
isn't as liberal as CNN or CBS. I bet had Fox pushed documents that
were fake to soil Kerry you would be screaming about them still, but
we don't get to many people screaming at CBS for it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe term Liberal has a long history not subject to the whims of the opinions of those ignorant of history. Although there have always been those opposed to Liberalism as it developed through American history, the term does refer to values that were primary in American political life from the Enlightenment (prior to the American revolution--indeed the Puritan Cotton Mather was in certain ways America's first Liberal) through the 1960s.
You know I believe you are coloring the picture very one sided if you
think 'liberal values' were our cultural strength for more than 200
years. Since what is called liberal and conservative are matters of
personal opinion.
...[text shortened]... ting another point of view that
isn't as liberal as CNN or CBS. [/b]
Sometime between the eruption of war protests and the reelection of Ronald Reagan, Liberalism lost its cultural authority.
The mistake many people make is confusing classic Liberalism with the allegedly liberal party--the Democrats. Both main parties were Liberal, although both had dissenters, through most of the twentieth century. Republicans have drifted toward the libertarian philosophy in the past few decades, abandoning their historic principles, and the Social Contract (a key element of classic Liberalism). Democrats continue to employ the rhetoric of Liberalism, but fail to articulate a coherent message rooted in these core values. IMHO, they have abandoned the debate concerning values to cultural conservatives who would have found themselves terribly out of place in the last American Theocracy--Puritan New England. It was more prone toward Liberalism than they are.
That Fox is less liberal than CNN or CBS is beyond doubt; that CNN and CBS are Liberal in the classic sense is absurd.
Originally posted by telerionSo, do you equate "fundies" with creationists?...that's sort of being stereotypical isn't it? I happen to be conservative, not neccesarily a religious fundamentalist, but I also happen to believe in evolution-it's happening as we type. I don't believe that Man crawled out of the sea, but I do believe in ongoing evolution.
I just pointed out the lack of professionalism in Fox news. You started spouting the typical "liberal media" myth, going on and on about CNN and CBS, and ABC.
The whole thing reminds me of the fundy creationists.
The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution, but there are a lot of these fundies who think that scientists must have some ...[text shortened]... being especially diplomatic. Not really trying to be rude, just no energy for pleasantries.
I have asked myself if FOX has an agenda, and it does....telling the news from an unbiased point of view. I happen to watch CNN, CNBC, even ABC, CBS, and NBC and even like some of their format, but FOX delivers unbiased news in my opinion
I'm not touchy....just feely...😉 Merry Christmas
Originally posted by chancremechanicNot all Biblical Fundamentalists are Creationists, and a small number of Creationists are not Fundamentalists. But, in general Creationism proceeds from Fundamentalism. It certainly does not proceed from inductive science.
So, do you equate "fundies" with creationists?...that's sort of being stereotypical isn't it?
The frequent assertions of such people--Fundamentalist and Creationist--that scientists hold to evolution because of some hidden agenda is absurd in the same way that it is absurd to claim that the mass media has some liberal bias simply because polls have indicated a majority have the tendency to vote for Democrats.
I'll have to side with telerion on this point. It is not stereotyping to observe how the rhetoric of a powerful interest group reveals a similar conspiratorial premise on two potentially unrelated issues.
Of course, if Fox, or any network truly presented fair and balanced reporting of a broad spectrum of issues, we would be forced to call them liberal, for that is the true meaning of the term.
Liberalism: "political ideology with its beginnings in Western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property."
It should be clear, therefore, that President Bush's efforts at nation building in Iraq proceed from classic liberalism, but his domestic security measures under the "Patriot Act" are quite another matter. Bush's violations of the public trust, his stifling of the processes of diplomacy and legislative consent, and the offense to any standard of ethics in his rush to war were illiberal to be sure, but not his professed goal to establish democracy where a totalitarian government once ruled.