NationStates Jolt Archive

I quote parts of the Tim Gardam article 'Airing Differences - In the multi-channel age, should broadcasters aim for impartiality or a choice of partisan views' from today's FT Magazine.

...the recent storming success of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's forthright, partisan network, that is most interesting... it has proved how differently information markets can develop in a multi-channel world devoid of regulation.

It was Fox News, broadcasting under the slogan "Fair and Balanced", that led the patriotic charge in the Iraq War, exhorting the troops to "splatter" the Iraqis.
- No comment necessary :roll:

After the Hutton Report, Fox exhulted in the embarrassment of the BBC... Fox's website commentated on Lord Hutton's verdict: "The BBC was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq War"
- What has this to do with the Hutton Report, which was about what organisations or which people pushed Dr. David Kelly to suicide? I would like to know what Fox's other coverage of the Hutton Report, if any, was like.
A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest
- Didn't notice any of that myself? Did anyone? And if so can they give examples?
So the next time you hear the BBC braggins about how much superior the Brits are [at] delivering the news rather than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying
- Seriously, what has this to do with the Hutton Report? It shows the quality of news on Fox. I saw the video of this commentary, and it only mentioned David Kelly about two times.

The University of Maryland has recently published research tracking American attitudes to the Iraq War. It found that "48% incorrectly believe that evidence o flinks between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found and 25% that world public opinion favoured the US going to war"
- And some Americans wonder why there is a stereotype of them as stupid overweight cretins... that quote is surely a damning indictment of America's news service.

60% of the total population held at least one of these misconceptions
:shock: Bush has succeeded in getting everyone to believe his lies!

However, for Fox viewers, that figure jumped to 80%, whereas for those who relied on the lone public service voice, National Public Radio, the figure was only 23%. Free markets, it seems, are not a guarantee of fairness and accuracy of information.
- Those figures amuse me slightly, but make me worry moreso. :)

At least the BBC's audience aren't total morons! The BBC's coverage of politics is usually excellent (apart from Andrew Marr's chessboard the other day), and investigative journalism is good, as is coverage of foreign affairs. The BBC is world respected, unlike Fox. The Hutton Report is generally seen in Britain as a whitewash, I have found that the BBC is always impartial and striving for the truth.

Long live impartial public service broadcasting!

It's true. BBC has the best broadcast, and the best informed viewers.

I didn't need any proof..lol.. I already knew Fox was trash.. but thanks. ;)

lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased! :)

I watch FOX News to get a feel for US public opinion on a particular story. It can be quite informative in that respect. But I do not really watch it for factual content. BBC News 24 is the way to go.

But that's only on in the midnight hours, for those of us who only get terrestrial T.V. I do watch it, I like seeing the ABC news. It's not very international either, but I've never seen it that bad. In general though. BBC= the correct choice.
The rest= the wrong choice.

I watch FOX News to get a feel for US public opinion on a particular story. It can be quite informative in that respect. But I do not really watch it for factual content. BBC News 24 is the way to go.

Tac, actually by watching Fox to get a "feel" for how the majority of Americans feel is misleading.. Fox only covers the conservative side of things. There are many Americans who aren't as fanatical as Fox would have you believe, in fact over half. Don't forget Bush didn't win the popular vote in the US. More then 50% of the people who voted, voted for the "other" guy. You'd be better to watch CNN, or even MSNBC to get a better idea of what Americans think. All American news is quite nationalistic, but some more then others.

True, Stephi. FOX news is pure trash and does not represent the actual opinion of most US citizens. It does shamefully show, however, that there is a section of the country that enjoys having world issues broken down into easily digestable tabloid sensationalizim and bare-disguised right-wing propaganda. Still, takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Hmmm.
BBC is great, sure, but Fark is still my preferred news source.

Fox news is the best news channel in the world and no one can change my mind about that. If you want to see a trashy news channel look at CNN. Now that is complete trash. It's even more Biased than Fox news but more to the left than Fox news is to the right.
_____________________
"Anyone but Kerry as long as it is Bush!!!"

So, yeah, if Fox News is the crappiest source of news, why is it where most americans get their information?

I'll tell you one thing, i'd much rather get my info right-spun than left.

So, yeah, if Fox News is the crappiest source of news, why is it where most americans get their information?

I'll tell you one thing, i'd much rather get my info right-spun than left.

Because Americans like their stuff brought to them in a sensationalist package?

So, yeah, if Fox News is the crappiest source of news, why is it where most americans get their information?

I'll tell you one thing, i'd much rather get my info right-spun than left.

Because Americans like their stuff brought to them in a sensationalist package?you mean... like every other news channel?

So, yeah, if Fox News is the crappiest source of news, why is it where most americans get their information?

I'll tell you one thing, i'd much rather get my info right-spun than left.

Because Americans like their stuff brought to them in a sensationalist package?you mean... like every other news channel?

You've never watched BBC, have you?

Same reason most people buy the tabloid newspapers. Entertainment. Serious news programs and papers don't provide it, and the tabloid ones do. It entertains them, whilst convincing them that the news is accurate, and the people watching/reading it are intelligent, by repeating the same viewpoint as those who view it.

I watch FOX News to get a feel for US public opinion on a particular story. It can be quite informative in that respect. But I do not really watch it for factual content. BBC News 24 is the way to go.

I'm exactly the same as you Tactical Grace. The CNN we get on Sky in the UK isn't the US version, its the international version, so doesn't really cover US Domestic opinion. On CNBC (Chnl 510 on Sky), MSNBC news is sometimes on.. its ok, but to be quite frank I just prefer the style of British news. But then again, an American probably finds the style of our news a bit alien.

Capsule Corporation, I have no idea whatsoever why Americans get their " information " (used loosely) from Fox News.. do you?

I'd rather get my news true, not left spun or right spun.

The BBC has been accused of being unpatriotic and biased against Britain (Falklands, Iraq War etc) but I think its a good thing that they doing go for the blatant flag-waving trash on Fox News, as this would dilute the actual news and truth content.

So, yeah, if Fox News is the crappiest source of news, why is it where most americans get their information?

I'll tell you one thing, i'd much rather get my info right-spun than left.

Actually this is wrong.. CNN was voted most watched news on cable. Also most credible.. I still find CNN quite nationalistic, but then again, all American news is. Fox as far as I know didn't win any awards last time. CNN won most of them as they always do.

As far as non-cable.. CBS usually wins most of those awards for news because of 60 Minutes, although I have seen ABC win for 20/20 Again, no Fox.

Better unpatriotic and true, than false and flag-waving.
As I said, I watch the ABC news when I watch American. That any good?

Jordaxia, I understand that the reading age of the Daily Mirror is 10.. no joking, an English teacher told me. For those who don't know, its a British tabloid.

A nursery class could probably understand The Sun "news" paper, which is another Murdoch minion.

BBC is a good source of info, yes, but it is often left-spun

Really? I didn't know that it was that low. You mean it would be a broadsheet if the average age was 30?

I watch a bit of CNN too, the international version I think, and although it is not anywhere near as biased as FOX News, it is news-lite compared to the BBC, and hence unsatisfying.

Anyone here watched EuroNews? I like their No Comment slot, where they do news reports without any commentary at all, just the video footage and recorded sound. Kinda difficult to accuse a news show of bias when it doesn't provide commentary.

BBC is a good source of info, yes, but it is often left-spun

Examples?

Does not airing interviews with dead soldiers grandmothers make it "left spun" ?

CNN was voted most watched news on cable.
Fox beats CNN in Neilson ratings, though.

Not quite. More difficult though. The no comment slot might only show you the worst side. For example, in Iraq, it might only show you dead troops and babies, and not show you the people who get along perfectly well with the soldiers. Then you would think that nobody got along with allied soldiers. (I know that more of them are disliking (to despising) allied soldiers, but it was the only example I could think of.)

OK guys you do know that no matter where you get your news it will be spun one way or the other. There really is no true way to tell if one is more accurate than others are. You see I can just as easily say this...
"I would rather listen to Flag waving truth than un-American lies."
There really is no way to tell.

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

Aren't american networks banned from showing coffins and american casualties because it might "hurt morale" ?

Jordaxia, I'm not sure about the broadsheets, the reading age of the Mirror just amused me so I remembered it.

TG, EuroNews is overlooked, I think its a great news channel, I would encourage people to watch it for 5 minutes if you have Sky. No Comment is excellent. But EuroNews's coverage of some obscure debate over fishing rights in the Seine or something in the European Parliament always sends me to sleep :) . CNN doesn't go into much depth, but they seem fairly well respected internationally.

Capsule Corp's assertion that the BBC is "left-spun" is a bit dubious to me.

Lots of British tabloids are owned by Murdoch. Can anyone confirm that the Sun and Fox news have very similar viewpoints on everything?
I don't have sky, so I can't usually see world news, excepts for the BBC news 24 broadcasts of international news.

Jordaxia, I'm not sure about the broadsheets, the reading age of the Mirror just amused me so I remembered it.

TG, EuroNews is overlooked, I think its a great news channel, I would encourage people to watch it for 5 minutes if you have Sky. No Comment is excellent. But EuroNews's coverage of some obscure debate over fishing rights in the Seine or something in the European Parliament always sends me to sleep :) . CNN doesn't go into much depth, but they seem fairly well respected internationally.

Capsule Corp's assertion that the BBC is "left-spun" is a bit dubious to me.

:lol:
Anything/anyone that doesn't refer to homosexuals as "disgusting fornicating faggots" is "left-spun" in his eyes...

Capsule Corp's assertion that the BBC is "left-spun" is a bit dubious to me.

You appear to be new here, unless you're a puppet, I haven't checked. But Capsule Corp's is a neo-con.. he believes that religion should be part of government and other stuff that might make you wince..lol Just FYI. :)

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

Well I watch it for the news.
What you just said is like me saying that Michael Moore would just as well be paid by the liberal left and that you should only watch his movies for the entertainment value, rather than for the truths that he represents (His movie bowling for columbine was chocked full of lies and deceptions).

Lets keep Capsules viewpoints out of this until he decides to mention them. They make no difference, except to bias people against what he says straight away, and nobody gets a good debate when that happens.

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

What you just said is like me saying that Michael Moore would just as well be paid by the liberal left and that you should only watch his movies for the entertainment value, rather than for the truths that he represents (His movie bowling for columbine was chocked full of lies and deceptions).

Michael Moore doesn't own a media giant. Michael Moore is not a signatory member of an ominous group like PNAC either.

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

Well I watch it for the news.
What you just said is like me saying that Michael Moore would just as well be paid by the liberal left and that you should only watch his movies for the entertainment value, rather than for the truths that he represents (His movie bowling for columbine was chocked full of lies and deceptions).

Michael Moore doesn't run a network, does he?

Can we trust ABC on matters regarding Israel?

Woo! Another EuroNews viewer! :o

I agree, some of the little issues they cover in depth make for really dull watching. But I guess they are relevant to someone somewhere.

The BBC's supposed liberal bias does not withstand scrutiny. The ultimate test of bias is whether a news show makes value judgements. The BBC provides factual content only. That is, it says that a given event occurred. In comparison, FOX News regularly labels people murderers in its news reports. Thus you see one network making value judgements, and the other not. Which translates into one showing bias, and the other not. It really is that simple.

But he does represent most of the liberal left's views and he skews most of the truth to make people... I mean America look worse than it actually is... Much like some news channels I know of... CNN, or CBS/Dan Rathernot... For example...

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

Well I watch it for the news.
What you just said is like me saying that Michael Moore would just as well be paid by the liberal left and that you should only watch his movies for the entertainment value, rather than for the truths that he represents (His movie bowling for columbine was chocked full of lies and deceptions).

Michael Moore doesn't run a network, does he?

Nope and Michael Moore doesn't claim to be reporting the "news" he makes a movie and puts it out and lets you decide. He stars in all his own stuff and doesn't try to pass it off as news, more of his opinion then news.

Can we trust ABC on matters regarding Israel?

I don't believe you can trust any American news as far as Israel goes. To get an unbiased view of Israel you must look to international news outlets. It's simply very politically incorrect in America to say any thing truly bad about Israel, therefore I believe it can't be trusted to tell you the whole story.

I watch fox news almost every day and occasionally ill watch other news channles fox news gets boths sides of a story when they cover it they point out the good news while every other newsbroadcast are making it look like the end of the world. Other news reporters just stare at the screen...it feel like im watching robots when i watch cnn. As for the BBC I dont know what channle it is so i cant comment on it. Just becuase people dont like it all the time doesnt make it trash. :?

I don't watch FOX News. I wish there were a news agency which would or could report just the facts that happen without inserting commentary into the story. ~ Michael.

But he does try to represent his opinion as truth and that really isn't a good thing especially if his opinion is mostly wrong...
OK I think this is enough about Michel Mooreon... I think I will start a new thread on this topic...

Aren't american networks banned from showing coffins and american casualties because it might "hurt morale" ?

Sadly its true. The media isn't allowed to show coffins because its "disrespectful" to soldiers and their families. As if waging a war for oil wasn't disrespectful enough.

Any sort of American news is blurred. For example, no news station will blatantly insult the President. They all want a seat in the White House press room.

However, I do think that international broadcasts on domestic American affairs are the most reliable. We can count on BBC to not baby the issues. And at least BBC can show footage of the war in Iraq. American broadcasts have strict regulations; only images of American soldiers standing on two feet and successfully detaining innocent people are allowed.

I wish there were a news agency which would or could report just the facts that happen without inserting commentary into the story. ~ Michael.
Watch EuroNews No Comment. Some of their news stories don't even have sound. :)

The worst thing I have ever seen on a news broadcast was on ABC.
There was an on location reporter, and she was giving this lowdown on a political situation. She finishes it off with a personal political view, and the anchor responds. "That is certainly right" So there was instant bias in favour of one opinion.
(It was late, I was tired, I remember almost nothing of it except that I was quite surprised at it.)

Michael Moore never claimed to be telling news (hopefully he never claimed to be telling the truth either!), Fox News does.

Stephistan - I'm not new, just inactive.

Sadly its true. The media isn't allowed to show coffins because its "disrespectful" to soldiers and their families. As if waging a war for oil wasn't disrespectful enough.
That is pretty disrespectful. Good thing the US didn't do it.

But he does try to represent his opinion as truth and that really isn't a good thing especially if his opinion is mostly wrong...
OK I think this is enough about Michel Mooreon... I think I will start a new thread on this topic...

Well, you don't have to go see his movies, nor do you have to watch any thing he says. I personally agree with a lot while not all of what Michael Moore has to say, to me it makes sense. That's the beauty of him, you either agree or you don't. No one is calling it "news"

Can we trust ABC on matters regarding Israel?

I don't believe you can trust any American news as far as Israel goes. To get an unbiased view of Israel you must look to international news outlets. It's simply very politically incorrect in America to say any thing truly bad about Israel, therefore I believe it can't be trusted to tell you the whole story.

I completely agree. I watch the news pretty regularly, and there is never any news about the conflict with Israel and Palestine. If there happens to be a big new treaty or something, then they make the air. Otherwise, we just hear about more car bombs, if that even. Its sad too. They mention the car bombs in one sentence and then move on. I'm all for peace without interference, but I think we should at least be hearing whats going on. Furthermore, I think any American media talking about it would be biased in some way. Perhaps even international stations would be biased. Its a tough issue, and I still don't know which position I take on it.

But he does represent most of the liberal left's views and he skews most of the truth to make people... I mean America look worse than it actually is... Much like some news channels I know of... CNN, or CBS/Dan Rathernot... For example...

But I don't really see what Michael Moore has to do with the media... Really.
I'm not an American, so I don't really know what the take of his movies are in the USA... Or if Americans really view movies as sources of information.
People where I live didn't see that movie as a source of "news", but rather as a comedy at the expense of Americans (alzheimers patients waving rifles and shouting slogans are quite an alien concept to us)... Basically, Americans saying stupid/crazy things are an excellent source of comedy, but information? I doubt it...

Strictly speaking, a movie is rather a "medium" than "media"... You can always expect movies to be biased...

You just pointed out the U.S bias there. If they only talk about the palestinian car bombs, and not the tanks, and the gunship attacks, and the assasinations Israel carries out, then you certainly aren't getting the full story.

Sadly its true. The media isn't allowed to show coffins because its "disrespectful" to soldiers and their families. As if waging a war for oil wasn't disrespectful enough. That is pretty disrespectful. Good thing the US didn't do it.I have an idea. Let's let the Middle East nationalize all their oil fields and refineries...after we require that only their own citizens can work at the sites and all foreign-made equipment (owned by foreign companies) on-site be dismantled and shipped out of their countries. I wonder what their oil-producing capacity would be then? ~ Michael.

Aren't american networks banned from showing coffins and american casualties because it might "hurt morale" ?

Sadly its true. The media isn't allowed to show coffins because its "disrespectful" to soldiers and their families. As if waging a war for oil wasn't disrespectful enough.

Any sort of American news is blurred. For example, no news station will blatantly insult the President. They all want a seat in the White House press room.

However, I do think that international broadcasts on domestic American affairs are the most reliable. We can count on BBC to not baby the issues. And at least BBC can show footage of the war in Iraq. American broadcasts have strict regulations; only images of American soldiers standing on two feet and successfully detaining innocent people are allowed.

So those are the only networks that are subject to biased censorship. I think that tells us who can be trusted and who can't...

Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine won an award for being a documentry so ofcourse he must have been trying to push all of his lie as truth... this award should be taken away from him due to all the lies in his movie...

Daily Show with Jon Stewart all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I also read CNN.com, but I mean seriously, it takes Jon to keep a person sane in these times of Bush-screwing-up-the-world. Yes, he's slanted left (and admits it, unlike Fox and their right-wing mania) but he presents true information in a humorous way.)
P.S.
woohoo!!! nested perens!!!!

Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine won an award for being a documentry so ofcourse he must have been trying to push all of his lie as truth... this award should be taken away from him due to all the lies in his movie...

You're not listening... It's ONE movie, not a news network.

Aren't american networks banned from showing coffins and american casualties because it might "hurt morale" ?

Sadly its true. The media isn't allowed to show coffins because its "disrespectful" to soldiers and their families. As if waging a war for oil wasn't disrespectful enough.

Any sort of American news is blurred. For example, no news station will blatantly insult the President. They all want a seat in the White House press room.

However, I do think that international broadcasts on domestic American affairs are the most reliable. We can count on BBC to not baby the issues. And at least BBC can show footage of the war in Iraq. American broadcasts have strict regulations; only images of American soldiers standing on two feet and successfully detaining innocent people are allowed.

So those are the only networks that are subject to biased censorship. I think that tells us who can be trusted and who can't...

The bottom line for me, I will watch CNN, MSNBC,CBS,ABC to get an idea of what "Americans" think. However, to get what I feel is unbiased as possible news coverage, I watch the BBC and the CBC (Canadian broadcast company) I also read news from France and Germany and Russia on the net. I admit, I am a bit of a news junkie.. ok, a lot of a news junkie..lol I'd like to think I, by the end of the day have a pretty all encompassing view of what really went on in the world on any given day.

From what I have red on this topic is most of you think "if it is slanted slightly right then it is not true news am I correct in my assumption."

From what I have red on this topic is most of you think "if it is slanted slightly right then it is not true news am I correct in my assumption."

Naaaah... more like "If it's American, it's not accurate".

Personally, I'm one of those people that think that neither Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Micheal Eisner, or whomever do not really sit up in their mansions and plot to make the news biased. Rupert Murdoch is a very smart business man if nothing else, he noticed that the US Media Market was dominated by the liberals which is why FOX has been such a success. Every news company, whether its the BBC, ABC, or FOX, is biased in some way or another. It usually just depends on the company that tends to have people who agree with your views the most - they're the least biased in your eyes.

That's a lot of news broadcasts Steph. How do you fit NS, and a family in there?
Yes. If it's American, it's inaccurate. It's quite strange, because the BBC is state owned, and accurate, and American broadcasts are private, and quite sensationalist or biased. Anyone care to suggest why?

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine won an award for being a documentry so ofcourse he must have been trying to push all of his lie as truth... this award should be taken away from him due to all the lies in his movie...

You're not listening... It's ONE movie, not a news network.
Actually it's 7 movies + 1 made for TV movie + 2 straight to video + 2 TV series
But I don't watch Fox News, so I don't really know about any news slants.
I only know that as a documentary maker, Michael Moore should be just as careful to present facts as any news anchor should be.

That's a lot of news broadcasts Steph. How do you fit NS, and a family in there?
Yes. If it's American, it's inaccurate. It's quite strange, because the BBC is state owned, and accurate, and American broadcasts are private, and quite sensationalist or biased. Anyone care to suggest why?

Haha, well I have been on materinty leave from work for 4 months now..lol My husband is at work, my son is at school..and all I have to care for all day is a baby just pushing 3 months old who sleeps all day..lol.. I always have the news on the TV in the background and when I can't post on NS because the server is borked, which is often, I read the news on the net.. I'm sure once back to work I won't have as much time.. but I am a total news junkie..lol :P

That's a lot of news broadcasts Steph. How do you fit NS, and a family in there?
Yes. If it's American, it's inaccurate. It's quite strange, because the BBC is state owned, and accurate, and American broadcasts are private, and quite sensationalist or biased. Anyone care to suggest why?

Haha, well I have been on materinty leave from work for 4 months now..lol My husband is at work, my son is at school..and all I have to care for all day is a baby just pushing 3 months old who sleeps all day..lol.. I always have the news on the TV in the background and when I can't post on NS because the server is borked, which is often, I read the news on the net.. I'm sure once back to work I won't have as much time.. but I am a total news junkie..lol :P

I must admit..since the boys left I have far to much time on my hands..hell...mebbe if I did watch all the separate non-US news stations more I might be able to refute some of their opinions..course..that would take away from my time in my lazyboy or my fishing.

The non-American news reports should be watched, just like the more moderate American should be watched. It gives you more knowledge in general to watch broadcasts from other countries too.

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

:roll:

Yeah...well...I will never be in an army, and *gasp* yet I have an opinion.

Why don't they just broadcast rainbows and ponies and tell everyone it's live from the combat-zone?

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

:roll:

Yeah...well...I will never be in an army, and *gasp* yet I have an opinion.

Why don't they just broadcast rainbows and ponies and te
ll everyone it's live from the combat-zone?

Never said you can't have an opinion there Tuminiaa...But to say that your desire to invade the privacy of our honored dead overrides the wishes of the family or above those who have served honorably just puts a burr in my saddle..

Let's get back on topic here, people. FOX News is trash and Rupert Murdoch may be the embodiment of Satan on Earth.

Let's get back on topic here, people. FOX News is trash and Rupert Murdoch may be the embodiment of Satan on Earth.

Really..I would have called the Communist News Network as trash

Let's get back on topic here, people. FOX News is trash and Rupert Murdoch may be the embodiment of Satan on Earth.

Really..I would have called the Communist News Network as trash

Yes, yes, them too.

Let's get back on topic here, people. FOX News is trash and Rupert Murdoch may be the embodiment of Satan on Earth.

Really..I would have called the Communist News Network as trash

Yes, yes, them too.

Oh my Gods..we agree...hold it there...I'm not a young man anymore... let me find my nitroglycerin pills..lol...Berk...this could be the start of a beautiful friendship....lol...

I think the British equivilent of FOX is the Sun. Well it is complete trash, lacks any seeming desire to sensibly cover world news, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and does have a right wing agenda (although it did support labour, but then again it is New labour), particularly towards Europe.

Hey, why don't we start a Sun boycott?

I mentioned the sun-fox sameness earlier. I already started the boycott. I don't buy the Sun.

CNN is the most left biased tv network ever. I like Fox the best and local news second best.

Watch the BBC or (I've heard it's good, anyway) the CBC, and let your opinion change!

Oh yes. Proof positive written by some idiot with an anti-Fox bias. Shove your 'proof' up your ass. It 'proves' as much as I do by saying "CNN is a leftist neo-hippy organization of faggots dedicated to the destruction and subversion of the United States."

lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased! :)


The only thing you proved is that you and all Liberals are idiots. Nice try, but you fail.

Let's get back on topic here, people. FOX News is trash and Rupert Murdoch may be the embodiment of Satan on Earth.


:roll:


Is it just me, or do Liberals call everybody who disagrees with them Satan or Hitler?

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

:roll:

Yeah...well...I will never be in an army, and *gasp* yet I have an opinion.

Why don't they just broadcast rainbows and ponies and te
ll everyone it's live from the combat-zone?

Never said you can't have an opinion there Tuminiaa...But to say that your desire to invade the privacy of our honored dead overrides the wishes of the family or above those who have served honorably just puts a burr in my saddle..

Man...people die at war... people experiencing horrible things get photographed and videotaped every day. That's a part of what news are... If you don't show one side you're being biased.

I'm not blocked from seeing those things, I see them on the news. But you are.
And I didn't say it was "my desire". But why bother with showing casualties AT ALL if you're forced to keep it biased?
This is not a question of anyone being a "vulture" or wanting to see blood on tv.
It's bigger than that and you know it: It would be illegal in the US to broadcast or publish photographs of any memorial services were there are coffins present. Even if the ceremony was for the public. Why? Because it "hurts morale" :roll:
Your media is absolute crap and I'm sure you know it, even though you don't admit it. Remember that these are the people that photoshopped the pictures of the dead soldier in somalia...Why? Out of respect for the family? Come on now...That can't be it.

I would greatly appreciate it if you were to cut the flames.

Do not mistake this for a request.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I would greatly appreciate it if you were to cut the flames.

Do not mistake this for a request.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Did I flame?

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

:roll:

Yeah...well...I will never be in an army, and *gasp* yet I have an opinion.

Why don't they just broadcast rainbows and ponies and te
ll everyone it's live from the combat-zone?

Never said you can't have an opinion there Tuminiaa...But to say that your desire to invade the privacy of our honored dead overrides the wishes of the family or above those who have served honorably just puts a burr in my saddle..

Man...people die at war... people experiencing horrible things get photographed and videotaped every day. That's a part of what news are... If you don't show one side you're being biased.

I'm not blocked from seeing those things, I see them on the news. But you are.
And I didn't say it was "my desire". But why bother with showing casualties AT ALL if you're forced to keep it biased?
This is not a question of anyone being a "vulture" or wanting to see blood on tv.
It's bigger than that and you know it: It would be illegal in the US to broadcast or publish photographs of any memorial services were there are coffins present. Even if the ceremony was for the public. Why? Because it "hurts morale" :roll:
Your media is absolute crap and I'm sure you know it, even though you don't admit it. Remember that these are the people that photoshopped the pictures of the dead soldier in somalia...Why? Out of respect for the family? Come on now...That can't be it.

No..it's not bigger then that Tuminiaa..it's simple..at least from my perspective...these are my sisters and brothers..who have given their all for their country..whether or not you believe in the war or not is irrevelent, they are due their last moments before they are buried to be private ones with them and their families...if you want the media to take pictures..then fine..ask their families if they want their loved ones to be used....and used they will be...for the anti-war they'll make huge spin points on the violence of the war...and our being there...for the pro-war they'll make also make points in the political ring...that's why our military believes it should not be for either side in this farce of tug and pull.

Let them have their last moments in peace Tum...is that to much to ask of my brethren?..I know you have your opinions on military...and I won't fault you for them..but I think you'd might be more understanding if you had known of the bond that occurs within the military community.

Did I flame?
My comments were prompted by The Republican and Viciousdolphins. However, I also advise caution in responses to their posts. No flame wars, OK?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

It just amazes me how every one on here who never served a day in uniform let alone in combat has the utter gall to tell those of us who have served what is considered "disrespectful" to our honored dead. I've put more then my fair share of friends and comrades into the ground during and after Vietnam...if those blood-suckers want a picture so badly of the deceased then they can by Gods ask the families if it's ok..these men and women are going to their final Post..is it really to much to ask some of you to let them go in peace?

:roll:

Yeah...well...I will never be in an army, and *gasp* yet I have an opinion.

Why don't they just broadcast rainbows and ponies and te
ll everyone it's live from the combat-zone?

Never said you can't have an opinion there Tuminiaa...But to say that your desire to invade the privacy of our honored dead overrides the wishes of the family or above those who have served honorably just puts a burr in my saddle..

Man...people die at war... people experiencing horrible things get photographed and videotaped every day. That's a part of what news are... If you don't show one side you're being biased.

I'm not blocked from seeing those things, I see them on the news. But you are.
And I didn't say it was "my desire". But why bother with showing casualties AT ALL if you're forced to keep it biased?
This is not a question of anyone being a "vulture" or wanting to see blood on tv.
It's bigger than that and you know it: It would be illegal in the US to broadcast or publish photographs of any memorial services were there are coffins present. Even if the ceremony was for the public. Why? Because it "hurts morale" :roll:
Your media is absolute crap and I'm sure you know it, even though you don't admit it. Remember that these are the people that photoshopped the pictures of the dead soldier in somalia...Why? Out of respect for the family? Come on now...That can't be it.

No..it's not bigger then that Tuminiaa..it's simple..at least from my perspective...these are my sisters and brothers..who have given their all for their country..whether or not you believe in the war or not is irrevelent, they are due their last moments before they are buried to be private ones with them and their families...if you want the media to take pictures..then fine..ask their families if they want their loved ones to be used....and used they will be...for the anti-war they'll make huge spin points on the violence of the war...and our being there...for the pro-war they'll make also make points in the political ring...that's why our military believes it should not be for either side in this farce of tug and pull.

Let them have their last moments in peace Tum...is that to much to ask of my brethren?..I know you have your opinions on military...and I won't fault you for them..but I think you'd might be more understanding if you had known of the bond that occurs within the military community.

I think you miss the point: That the US media is biased.

Even if anyone were to secure permission, they couldn't broadcast or publish any images, because it's ILLEGAL.
No US coffins, no US casualties... However it's fine to see anyone else smeared on a wall...
How sensitive.

Again, I point to the tampered image of the soldier in Mogadishu...It doesn't make sense. It's justt censorship of things that by some weird logic are considered "indecent".

I quote parts of the Tim Gardam article 'Airing Differences - In the multi-channel age, should broadcasters aim for impartiality or a choice of partisan views' from today's FT Magazine.

...the recent storming success of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's forthright, partisan network, that is most interesting... it has proved how differently information markets can develop in a multi-channel world devoid of regulation.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

It was Fox News, broadcasting under the slogan "Fair and Balanced", that led the patriotic charge in the Iraq War, exhorting the troops to "splatter" the Iraqis.
- No comment necessary :roll:

So? Fox News was for the war, so was I. You got nothing here.

After the Hutton Report, Fox exhulted in the embarrassment of the BBC... Fox's website commentated on Lord Hutton's verdict: "The BBC was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq War"
- What has this to do with the Hutton Report, which was about what organisations or which people pushed Dr. David Kelly to suicide? I would like to know what Fox's other coverage of the Hutton Report, if any, was like.

Maybe you should watch the whole report instead of taking some Liberals word for it. Fox news should have been happy.

A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest
- Didn't notice any of that myself? Did anyone? And if so can they give examples?

Anti-Americanism is obvious in any Non-American news broadcast.

So the next time you hear the BBC braggins about how much superior the Brits are [at] delivering the news rather than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying
- Seriously, what has this to do with the Hutton Report? It shows the quality of news on Fox. I saw the video of this commentary, and it only mentioned David Kelly about two times.

That comment was the view of ONE reporter, JUST ONE!

The University of Maryland has recently published research tracking American attitudes to the Iraq War. It found that "48% incorrectly believe that evidence o flinks between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found and 25% that world public opinion favoured the US going to war"
- And some Americans wonder why there is a stereotype of them as stupid overweight cretins... that quote is surely a damning indictment of America's news service.

Your stupid comment doesn't even deserve a response! You are the reason why so many Americans hate the world!

60% of the total population held at least one of these misconceptions
:shock: Bush has succeeded in getting everyone to believe his lies!

Bush never lied, Liberals say he lied, but nobody has proven it yet.

However, for Fox viewers, that figure jumped to 80%, whereas for those who relied on the lone public service voice, National Public Radio, the figure was only 23%. Free markets, it seems, are not a guarantee of fairness and accuracy of information.
- Those figures amuse me slightly, but make me worry moreso. :)

NPR was against the war, thats is why the numbers were low. NPR is also the ONLY american news comapny to get those numbers.

At least the BBC's audience aren't total morons! The BBC's coverage of politics is usually excellent (apart from Andrew Marr's chessboard the other day), and investigative journalism is good, as is coverage of foreign affairs. The BBC is world respected, unlike Fox. The Hutton Report is generally seen in Britain as a whitewash, I have found that the BBC is always impartial and striving for the truth.

Long live impartial public service broadcasting!


This quote is proof that you are brainwashed, even after the BBC was caught lying yo people still trust them, Sad.

There you go, I destroyed you "PROOF".

Did I flame?
My comments were prompted by The Republican and Viciousdolphins. However, I also advise caution in responses to their posts. No flame wars, OK?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

ok

The Republican, you make me use my Mod-voice again? Tone it down.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

The Republican, you make me use my Mod-voice again? Tone it down.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator


I didn't do anything.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


He owns it, he doesn't run it. Give me a second to find out the name of the guy who does.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

The BBC has been turning out some of the best journalism for 100 years (well, not quite, but round it up..) it will take quite a bit for me to distrust them. You say that Anti-Americanism is in every non-American broadcast. Blatantly untrue. Opinion that does not conform with U.S foreign policy is in several non U.S broadcasts, but that in no way should be a sign of anti U.S sentiment. Perhaps you should watch international news broadcasts with a more objective mind, and see what you think then.
I'm not really wanting to continue down this exact avenue of debate. It's very close to degenerating into a flame war.

once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.
Um. Ahem. Like I was saying, could you please be less inflammatory in your comments? I mean, you have read what I said earlier, haven't you?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

The BBC has been turning out some of the best journalism for 100 years (well, not quite, but round it up..) it will take quite a bit for me to distrust them. You say that Anti-Americanism is in every non-American broadcast. Blatantly untrue. Opinion that does not conform with U.S foreign policy is in several non U.S broadcasts, but that in no way should be a sign of anti U.S sentiment. Perhaps you should watch international news broadcasts with a more objective mind, and see what you think then.
I'm not really wanting to continue down this exact avenue of debate. It's very close to degenerating into a flame war.

:roll:

Best journalism in 100 years? Good lord.

once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.
Um. Ahem. Like I was saying, could you please be less inflammatory in your comments? I mean, you have read what I said earlier, haven't you?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator


Alright. Atleast this time I know what I did. :)

No..it's not bigger then that Tuminiaa..it's simple..at least from my perspective...these are my sisters and brothers..who have given their all for their country..whether or not you believe in the war or not is irrevelent, they are due their last moments before they are buried to be private ones with them and their families...if you want the media to take pictures..then fine..ask their families if they want their loved ones to be used....and used they will be...for the anti-war they'll make huge spin points on the violence of the war...and our being there...for the pro-war they'll make also make points in the political ring...that's why our military believes it should not be for either side in this farce of tug and pull.

Let them have their last moments in peace Tum...is that to much to ask of my brethren?..I know you have your opinions on military...and I won't fault you for them..but I think you'd might be more understanding if you had known of the bond that occurs within the military community.

Salishe, surely you realize that diferent people have different opinions on this, and that perhaps what we object to is the Pentagon infliciting their view on the families?

Let me say this. If Jake or Holly grows up and decides on a military career and then falls in battle, I WANT their sacrifice honoured. I WANT the news to show the coffin coming off the plane with a ceremonial escort. I WANT the video of their heading to their final resting place on the gun carriage. I WANT the Prime Minister there at the gravesite to acknowledge how his decisions has affected our lives. I WANT people to know that a young person gave up their entire self for a higher ideal and due to a political decision.

I would not want their passing ignored. Hidden. Sanitized. To my mind that is disrespect. My child will have given their life for the national interest, and as such the nation should see that in all it's sadness. Having the government tell me that I would be denied this would anger me.

If my child had died in this war, I would take those very photos that the Pentagon does not want you to see and send them to the editors of every damn newspaper in the land. I would want the nation to mourn with me, because my child signed up to fight for them. I would want the country reminded of the cost of a war that is often debated in abstract terms by those who do so securely knowing in their hearts that they won't be personally affected by it. And I would especially send a large copy to the President, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi, Wolfowitz, and a few choice others. These people treat soldiers with contempt and yet will be using those deaths for political gain this year. For to them these lives are simply commodities to be expended. "Fungible" resources as Rumsfeld called them this week. They wrap themselves in the flag and refer to heroes while at the same time ignoring their passing and cutting benefits to the returnees that survive.

When we lost troops in Afghanistan and the news showed their return, the whole country mourned with the families. Would they have to the same effect without the visuals? Perhaps. But perhaps not.

I don't think that generally you need to attach names to the coffins coming off the planes, but I found those photos that that woman took to be especally respectfull and poignant. A reminder of the costs of failed diplomacy.

-Z-

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.

Hey...kids..if you can't play nice like Tactical Grace has said I'm sending you to your corners and no dessert for either of you....or rather Grace will do it, I'm just going to sit on my lazyboy

Who would you say is better? Your post about who owns and runs Fox news is pedantic in its extreme.
(Well, if that wasn't a flame...)
I would rather not have to continue like this. Please follow the example of the rest of the debate, and use more measured language. It helps me to be civil in return.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.


Pardon me, but I already did. Now would you mind not flamming me to?

Rupert Murdoch didn't even start Fox News, he just paid for it, you are wrong, just admitt it ok?

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.


Pardon me, but I already did. Now would you mind not flamming me to?

Rupert Murdoch didn't even start Fox News, he just paid for it, you are wrong, just admitt it ok?

1)I'm sorry, but you're wrong.. Rupert Murdoch very much owns Fox news.. are you trying to make us believe that he has no say in what type of news station it is? Pluuuease. You may believe that if you wish.. just don't expect any one with an IQ over 40 to.

2)I never flamed you, I warned you!

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Okay. Click on the link. Read for yourself. Better still, if you've got the bandwidth, click on the 'watch BBC news' bar, top right. This is the news that is broadcast nationally and internationally.
Then come back and show me bias.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Okay. Click on the link. Read for yourself. Better still, if you've got the bandwidth, click on the 'watch BBC news' bar, top right. This is the news that is broadcast nationally and internationally.
Then come back and show me bias.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

They're biased...They don't even say "our commander in chief" when they refer to bush...

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.


Pardon me, but I already did. Now would you mind not flamming me to?

Rupert Murdoch didn't even start Fox News, he just paid for it, you are wrong, just admitt it ok?

Ummmm, Murdoch FOUNDED the Fox network in 1986, and launched the 24-hour news network a decade later (http://www.ketupa.com/murdoch2.htm)

But I won't call you a liar.

Just WRONG!

-Z-

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.


Pardon me, but I already did. Now would you mind not flamming me to?

Rupert Murdoch didn't even start Fox News, he just paid for it, you are wrong, just admitt it ok?

1)I'm sorry, but you're wrong.. Rupert Murdoch very much owns Fox news.. are you trying to make us believe that he has no say in what type of news station it is? Pluuuease. You may believe that if you wish.. just don't expect any one with an IQ over 40 to.

2)I never flamed you, I warned you!


Believe what you want, I know I am right. Rupert Murdoch didn't start Fox News and doesn't run it. How much control he even uses is unknown.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't run Fox News.

Yes he does!


Fox News chief Roger Ailes is the guy who runs it, once again a Conservative is right and a Liberal is eating on their lies.

Umm excuse me.. 1) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, I don't care which of his lackeys is actually running it. The buck stops with Rupert Murdoch.

2) You flame me again and you can consider yourself an "ex-nation"

Tac has already warned you to stop the flames.. I suggest you do so.


Pardon me, but I already did. Now would you mind not flamming me to?

Rupert Murdoch didn't even start Fox News, he just paid for it, you are wrong, just admitt it ok?

Ummmm, Murdoch FOUNDED the Fox network in 1986, and launched the 24-hour news network a decade later (http://www.ketupa.com/murdoch2.htm)

But I won't call you a liar.

Just WRONG!

-Z-


Fox TV network is NOT FOX NEWS CHANNEL!!! Murdoch funded Fox News, he wasn't the man behind it! Fox News even said he didn't start it!

Once again, I am right, deal with it!

[
2)I never flamed you, I warned you!


Believe what you want, I know I am right. Rupert Murdoch didn't start Fox News and doesn't run it. How much control he even uses is unknown.[/quote]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

"1985 buys seven US television stations from Metromedia for US$2bn to form Fox Television" (Murdoch}





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Murdoch is famous for being involved in the day-to-day running of his major media....including Fox. If an editor frequently goes against Murdochs wishes, he's out. Ask Andrew Neill.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Fox TV network is NOT FOX NEWS CHANNEL!!! Murdoch funded Fox News, he wasn't the man behind it! Fox News even said he didn't start it!

Once again, I am right, deal with it!

No, Fox news is not the FOX NEWS CHANNEL. The fox news channel is the 24-hour news channel affiliated with the Fox network and owned, bankrolled, and conceved of by Murdoch!

...But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch’s 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996... (http://www.uncg.edu/eng/courses/tlkenned/102/sm2002/the_most_biased_name_in_news.htm)

Now, I have posted links supporting our beleif. All you have is your say-so.

So back it up or give it up.

-Z-

Fox TV network is NOT FOX NEWS CHANNEL!!! Murdoch funded Fox News, he wasn't the man behind it! Fox News even said he didn't start it!

Once again, I am right, deal with it!

No, Fox news is not the FOX NEWS CHANNEL. The fox news channel is the 24-hour news channel affiliated with the Fox network and owned, bankrolled, and conceved of by Murdoch!

...But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch’s 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996... (http://www.uncg.edu/eng/courses/tlkenned/102/sm2002/the_most_biased_name_in_news.htm)

Now, I have posted links supporting our beleif. All you have is your say-so.

So back it up or give it up.

-Z-

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I would be satisfied if he simply looked it up, then reply.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp

What Murdoch owns.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp

What Murdoch owns.

Yes and I'm sure a neo-con such as him with holdings like this makes no impact on the American psyche.. :roll:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Fox News is not trash, it is a news dissemination organisation that has a strong pro-right, pro-American bias, which it doesn't bother to hide. It is not a reliable scource of world news.
The BBC is not state owned, it is run and paid for by the British people and has a mandate to provide wide and totally un-biased news. Rarely does it break this covenent, and if it does, heads roll. The British people and governments of any colour will not tolerate the BBC broadcasting any biased news.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp

What Murdoch owns.

Yes and I'm sure a neo-con such as him with holdings like this makes no impact on the American psyche.. :roll:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

That is an opinion that we both share and have good reason so to do.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

It is very close to state owned. It is autonomous, but it is responsible to the state. In a few years the government will be examining the BBC so they can change vital aspects about it, because they control it. The people fund it, which kind of does come under state owned, just not gov't owned. It's difficult to describe. Nothing like fox, not like what I could imagine North Korean programmes to be like. A medium between the 2.

I share the same opinion too.
When you have so much control over what people see, even the smallest bias is amplified, and Murdoch is very biased.

*bump*

Whether or not Murdoch has day to day influence at Fox News isn't really the issue, though. Roger Ailes is a former Republican operative, and he definitely runs the day to day. Former Fox producers have come forward and told stories of how they received "talking points" from Republican party operatives and openly discussed the slant they were going to put on their stories for the day, even down to using specific words that were loaded for emotional effect. Before that fiasco of a judicial filibuster pissing contest the Republicans put together, Fox News was in contact with the office of Bill Frist so they could stage the entrance of the Republican Senators as they marched into the Capitol building. They don't even pretend anymore. And unfortunately, every other news station is trying to be just like them.

BBC is a great network. I got turned on (hehe) to it by my British friend, Tommy. Fox News makes me sick.

My mom sometimes watches it (O'Reilly...yuck), but I disapprove.

Speak of the devil, I had to buy a copy of his most recent book for my Grandma's birthday last Feb. It was one of the most embarrassing things I've ever had to do.

I asked for a bag to put over my head as I left the store..:-D

lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased! :)

EXCUSE ME! I personally like to watch Fox, they show no political bias andyour blatent air of "superiority" makes me sick. I live in the South and I hear a bunch of stereotypes and can tell when someone is and when someone ain't stereotyping...badly nonetheless...and you is! So if you think Fox is crap, then go and actually watch it with an open mind and not some politically biased mode. A man is entitled to his opinions, not his facts. Come to me when you have actual facts, not some daily commentary.

lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased! :)

EXCUSE ME! I personally like to watch Fox, they show no political bias andyour blatent air of "superiority" makes me sick. I live in the South and I hear a bunch of stereotypes and can tell when someone is and when someone ain't stereotyping...badly nonetheless...and you is! So if you think Fox is crap, then go and actually watch it with an open mind and not some politically biased mode. A man is entitled to his opinions, not his facts. Come to me when you have actual facts, not some daily commentary.

Uhm...I'd say you were a walking stereotype

I have read in a few instances that Fox news had declared Bush the winner before there was any sort of official tally in the 00 election, before the Supreme Court even got done handing him the presidency. Sick.
Also, Fox is owned by whom?

You are correct that a man is entitled his opinion. However, a news broadcast is required to tell you the facts. Having never seen fox news, but standard American broadcasts do show sign of bias, and I've never heard good things from fox.

The pro-Fox zealots seem to be ignoring the facts, as shown by the University of Maryland.. I suppose the next claim is that the University is biased liberally. Whereas in my original post, I have CLEARLY separated the facts and my opinion, but Fox News fails to do this.

Whereas in this and other threads, many supporters of unbiased news services have pointed out Fox News's bias - which is generally accepted by intelligent viewers - we are still awaiting examples of the BBC's supposed bias. I am unable to comment on CNN because in the UK we do not get the American version.

It worries me that British journalism is getting more American - Blair only takes questions from friendly journalists etc. If we ever get to the situation America is in - journalists aren't allowed in unless they are Bush-friendly, then I am off.

To put my opinion in a sentence, I infinately prefer non-biased, impartial news, which admittedly may be accused of unpatriotism sometimes (the British way), rather than oft-biased, -spun or -slanted news (the American way).

To The Republican and Visciousdolphins.. the research speaks for itself, 80% of Fox viewers believe that either links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, WMDs have been found or that the world opinion supported the war.. I won't be drawn into a flame war. If you wish to question the reliability of the University of Maryland's research, contact the article's author.

It is factual that Fox News viewers are much less informed than viewers of other news outlets.

It is irrelevant who runs Fox News, I started the thread to discuss Fox News's misinformation of the American people and its clear bias, which bizarrely has not even been accepted by some.



It was Fox News, broadcasting under the slogan "Fair and Balanced", that led the patriotic charge in the Iraq War, exhorting the troops to "splatter" the Iraqis.


- No comment necessary


So? Fox News was for the war, so was I. You got nothing here.

My point is that a news station shouldn't have been supporting the war, it should have been providing impartial coverage of both sides of the conflict, if possible.



- What has this to do with the Hutton Report, which was about what organisations or which people pushed Dr. David Kelly to suicide? I would like to know what Fox's other coverage of the Hutton Report, if any, was like.


Maybe you should watch the whole report instead of taking some Liberals word for it. Fox news should have been happy.


A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest


- Didn't notice any of that myself? Did anyone? And if so can they give examples?


Anti-Americanism is obvious in any Non-American news broadcast.

You are yet to provide examples of this. Try the bbc's website http://news.bbc.co.uk and see if you can find any. And I did watch the whole report, as I said before, I found it shocking that it only mentioned David Kelly twice. I don't take 'some liberals' word for it, I take a writer in the Financial Times's.. which is probably one of the world's most respected newspapers.



60% of the total population held at least one of these misconceptions


Bush has succeeded in getting everyone to believe his lies!


Bush never lied, Liberals say he lied, but nobody has proven it yet.

Its not a liberal - conservative thing. Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq that we were going in to get rid of.. there seem to be no WMD's.. hence, Bush lied.



At least the BBC's audience aren't total morons! The BBC's coverage of politics is usually excellent (apart from Andrew Marr's chessboard the other day), and investigative journalism is good, as is coverage of foreign affairs. The BBC is world respected, unlike Fox. The Hutton Report is generally seen in Britain as a whitewash, I have found that the BBC is always impartial and striving for the truth.

Long live impartial public service broadcasting!

This quote is proof that you are brainwashed, even after the BBC was caught lying yo people still trust them, Sad.

There you go, I destroyed you "PROOF".

Well actually my first choice for news is often ITN News, but I find their coverage of world affairs not as in-depth as BBC's (watch World News on BBC4, 8pm every night I think). And yes, we do trust the BBC. It has yet to be proved by anyone that the BBC is biased, though it seems they were a bit hasty in claiming that Alistair Campbell sexed-up the so-called Dodgy Dossier, if you accept Hutton's findings that is.

Incidentally, how many of these pro-Fox zealots know what the Hutton Report was about?



lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased!


EXCUSE ME! I personally like to watch Fox, they show no political bias andyour blatent air of "superiority" makes me sick. I live in the South and I hear a bunch of stereotypes and can tell when someone is and when someone ain't stereotyping...badly nonetheless...and you is! So if you think Fox is crap, then go and actually watch it with an open mind and not some politically biased mode. A man is entitled to his opinions, not his facts. Come to me when you have actual facts, not some daily commentary.

Your problem there Crazed Marines is that everyone else accepts that Fox shows political bias. Please give examples of when I sterotyped in this thread. I apologise if my language comes across with "an air of superiority", as a Fox News viewer you might not be used to discussing with informed persons. I have watched Fox with an open mind, its only possible to do so for about 10 minutes before one has to change channels in disgust at the pro-American pro-right bias. The anchors even denegrate rival networks like CNN on screen, which I think is a bit low-down.

The claim is that what Fox reporters say is their commentary and opinion, not the channel's.. well surely the channel is responsible for what their reporters say.. look at what happened the the Beeb over Andrew Gilligan.


Murdoch is famous for being involved in the day-to-day running of his major media....including Fox. If an editor frequently goes against Murdochs wishes, he's out. Ask Andrew Neill.

Its true that Fox is very akin to The Sun. I believe that they have a common target market, style of reporting etc. It worries me that there are accusations that Murdoch visited Blair to tell him to call an EU refurendum. His newspapers, the Times and The Sun, were certainly "frothing at the mouth" in their Euroskepticism and calls for a refurendum.

Thanks for reading, sorry for the long post, everyone seems to have an opinion on Fox News.

It should be noted that CNN/America and CNN/Everywhere else are two completely different types of news organizations. Europeans would be horrified by the US version of CNN because here it's not really a news organization anymore. It spends almost as much time on celebrity scandal and puff pieces and political ass kissing as Fox does--it has really become Fox-lite (which is why it's called "liberal" I suppose).

Well, a lot of it comes down to public attitudes, target markets and the types of organisation that these networks are.

I'm going to compare the British BBC with the American news networks, and firstly there are a few differences in culture that might explain the different outlooks on the news.

Americans, in general, tend to be more visuably patriotic than Brits do, and *seem* to be more trusting of their leadership. American culture is far more "free-market" and right wing than British culture is. I mean, the main British right-wing party, the Conservatives, actually would sit to the left of the Democrats in the US political spectrum (check policies on handguns and the NHS, for instance). Tony Blair, our PM, sits as the head a party based on Socialism (though this has been filtered in the "New Labour" program.)

This difference is noticable in the various public attitudes, and hence why the BBC is seen as "left wing" and liberal to most American viewers, whilst it seems very centrist to UK viewers. In turn, even "left of centre" news broadcasters in the US seem right wing and overtly patriotic and unquestioning of government policy to British viewers.

The BBC has the advantage of being publicly funded (the infamous TV license fee, and a bit of trivia, the BBC does not have any advertising from outside companies on its programs), so it doesnt have to be sensationalist or pander to popular opinion in order to secure funding, allowing it more leeway in terms of politically sensitive coverage, without risking losing money.

American news broadcasters, on the otherhand, have to target audiences in order to secure ratings and garuantee income, meaning they have to lean one or the other politically. IMHO, I think the BBC is one the best things about Britain, and perhaps the best defense for me giving the government £100 a year to ensure I can have a TV.

EDIT: Typos

Well, a lot of it comes down to public attitudes, target markets and the types of organisation that these networks are.

I'm going to compare the British BBC with the American news networks, and firstly there are a few differences in culture that might explain the different outlooks on the news.

Americans, in general, tend to be more visuably patriotic than Brits do, and *seem* to be more trusting of their leadership. American culture is far more "free-market" and right wing than British culture is. I mean, the main British right-wing party, the Conservatives, actually would sit to the left of the Democrats in the US political spectrum (check policies on handguns and the NHS, for instance). Tony Blair, our PM, sits as the head a party based on Socialism (though this has been filtered in the "New Labour" program.)

This difference is noticable in the various public attitudes, and hence why the BBC is seen as "left wing" and liberal to most American viewers, whilst it seems very centrist to UK viewers. In turn, even "left of centre" news broadcasters in the US seem right wing and overtly patriotic and unquestioning of government policy to British viewers.

The BBC has the advantage of being publicly funded (the infamous TV license fee, and a bit of trivia, the BBC does not have any advertising from outside companies on its programs), so it doesnt have to be sensationalist or pander to popular opinion in order to secure funding, allowing it more leeway in terms of politically sensitive coverage, without risking losing money.

American news broadcasters, on the otherhand, have to target audiences in order to secure ratings and garuantee income, meaning they have to lean one or the other politically. IMHO, I think the BBC is one the best things about Britain, and perhaps the best defense for me giving the government £100 a year to ensure I can have a TV.

EDIT: Typos

Yes. It's one of the few 'taxes' I gladly pay.

Well, a lot of it comes down to public attitudes, target markets and the types of organisation that these networks are.

I'm going to compare the British BBC with the American news networks, and firstly there are a few differences in culture that might explain the different outlooks on the news.

Americans, in general, tend to be more visuably patriotic than Brits do, and *seem* to be more trusting of their leadership. American culture is far more "free-market" and right wing than British culture is. I mean, the main British right-wing party, the Conservatives, actually would sit to the left of the Democrats in the US political spectrum (check policies on handguns and the NHS, for instance). Tony Blair, our PM, sits as the head a party based on Socialism (though this has been filtered in the "New Labour" program.)

This difference is noticable in the various public attitudes, and hence why the BBC is seen as "left wing" and liberal to most American viewers, whilst it seems very centrist to UK viewers. In turn, even "left of centre" news broadcasters in the US seem right wing and overtly patriotic and unquestioning of government policy to British viewers.

The BBC has the advantage of being publicly funded (the infamous TV license fee, and a bit of trivia, the BBC does not have any advertising from outside companies on its programs), so it doesnt have to be sensationalist or pander to popular opinion in order to secure funding, allowing it more leeway in terms of politically sensitive coverage, without risking losing money.

American news broadcasters, on the otherhand, have to target audiences in order to secure ratings and garuantee income, meaning they have to lean one or the other politically. IMHO, I think the BBC is one the best things about Britain, and perhaps the best defense for me giving the government £100 a year to ensure I can have a TV.

EDIT: Typos

Yes. It's one of the few 'taxes' I gladly pay.

We have a network here that is run the same way, the RUV. It's pretty good actually.

I don't really watch BBC (unless you count watching "Switching Rooms"), so I don't know what everyone is talking about.

Anyway, I do think that C-SPAN and FOX in the US are extremely biased news channels. Yeah, news that covers the whole story from all sides. That's a laugh and a half.

Also, I think that US news should start putting more graphic images on their news. It makes a lot of people think, and appreciate the work being done by our militiamen.

C-SPAN isn't a news channel, and if there were ever a channel that goes to extremes to try to be even-handed, it's C-SPAN. They set up phone lines for opposing viewpoints and then take callers in order from all viewpoints, and the moderators generally refrain from making nay comment or value judgment on the comment itself. If they interject, it's generally over a point of fact, and that's it.

lol I know Stephistan.. its just I've seen people ask for proof of Fox News's crapness. Fox's viewers for the most part don't seem to be informed at all... I mean they refuse to even accept that it is biased! :)


How is what you pasted in your first post, any type of proof? You made some personal statements. That's it.

Don't forget here people, Ruppert Murdoch who owns Fox and many other media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and many others is in fact a signatory member of PNAC, he's a neo-con, a Hawk.. This explains why Fox news can't be trusted. Although if you want to watch it for pure entertainment , then it's ok.. just don't trust it.. because you know it's the news channel on the White House payroll. Not literally, but might as well be. There is nothing objective about Fox.

Well I watch it for the news.
What you just said is like me saying that Michael Moore would just as well be paid by the liberal left and that you should only watch his movies for the entertainment value, rather than for the truths that he represents (His movie bowling for columbine was chocked full of lies and deceptions).

Michael Moore doesn't run a network, does he?

Nope and Michael Moore doesn't claim to be reporting the "news" he makes a movie and puts it out and lets you decide. He stars in all his own stuff and doesn't try to pass it off as news, more of his opinion then news.

He did try to pass off "Bowling for Columbine" as a documentary, which it is not.

You just pointed out the U.S bias there. If they only talk about the palestinian car bombs, and not the tanks, and the gunship attacks, and the assasinations Israel carries out, then you certainly aren't getting the full story.

The issue here is not what they cover. It's how they cover it. Both the Palestinian groups' terrorism and Israel's response to it always gets covered; the bias comes in when the news organization sympathizes with one side when it shouldn't. And if you want my opinion on the matter, the terrorists deserve no sympathy. Why is this? Simply because if all terrorism in Israel stopped tomorrow, and we could go back in time and erase all the terrorism in Isreal's past, do you think that tomorrow the Israeli army would go into the territories and bulldoze anything, or shoot rockets into anything? Hell no they wouldn't. They would be content to live and let live. Because there would have been no terrorism and acts of murder against their people for them to defend.

It amazes me how many people fail to see this.

He did try to pass off "Bowling for Columbine" as a documentary, which it is not.
Yeah! It's really a Busby Berkeley style musical!!!



since when do you have to agree with everything contained within for something to be qualified as a documentary?

He did try to pass off "Bowling for Columbine" as a documentary, which it is not.
Yeah! It's really a Busby Berkeley style musical!!!



since when do you have to agree with everything contained within for something to be qualified as a documentary?


http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

He did try to pass off "Bowling for Columbine" as a documentary, which it is not.
Yeah! It's really a Busby Berkeley style musical!!!



since when do you have to agree with everything contained within for something to be qualified as a documentary?


[url=http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
]
Yeah, man. Seen it. Not only is it a treatise to the authors inability to read text or understand how film is made, it's got the whiniest crap I've ever seen. The fact that people can't read the text of Comumbine (you do know that he didn't blame violence on access to guns, don't you?)

The fact is your and the sites objections to the films content does not in anyway change the form of the film. Sorry Bob. It's a documentary, trying to say it isn't removes you from consideration in the argument as someone who does not understand enough about film or text.

I'll make your rebuttle shorter for you: A documentary can be RIDDLED with inaccuracies and still be a documentary. You could make subsantive objections to the conclusions drawn from the film, but instead you spend your time illustrating your knack for minutia and mis-understanding of film. And the likely possibility that you've never watched the film in its entirety. Not once in these little whiney rants have I ever seen an objector even ATTEMPT to articulate the conclusions of the film.

I think the point would be that if you lie to make your point, you've invalidated yourself. Moore does a lot of things inthe film that play on your emotions, and tries to paint different people in different lights. That website exposes many of these "artistic license" type edits as frauds. Therefore, it very well should cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions Moore wants the viewer to reach. At the very least, it should make you as a viewer discard the movie as a vehicle to make a decision, and seek independent sources.


And to relate this back to the original topic, it's really the same thing with the news media in general. When they are intellectually dishonest (or just dishonest in general) while making their often emotional point, their views should be discarded as well, and independent sources sought.

[

The issue here is not what they cover. It's how they cover it. Both the Palestinian groups' terrorism and Israel's response to it always gets covered; the bias comes in when the news organization sympathizes with one side when it shouldn't. And if you want my opinion on the matter, the terrorists deserve no sympathy. Why is this? Simply because if all terrorism in Israel stopped tomorrow, and we could go back in time and erase all the terrorism in Isreal's past, do you think that tomorrow the Israeli army would go into the territories and bulldoze anything, or shoot rockets into anything? Hell no they wouldn't. They would be content to live and let live. Because there would have been no terrorism and acts of murder against their people for them to defend.

It amazes me how many people fail to see this.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I'm not sure I should respond to a person so easily amazed, I don't want to upset you. It's just that you equate all the terrorism with the Palestinians and none with the Israelis, and their tanks and warplanes and tactical missiles, and home-destroying bull-dozers....... It's possible you don't understand what the word terror means....... As for Israel wanting no more than to live and let live......easy, get out of everyone elses territory. You are of course absolutely correct, terrorists deserve not one ounce of sympathy. Palestinian terrorists, Israeli terrorists, Quaeda terrorists etc.
Oh, and also those terrorists springing up in Iraq, created by the coalition terrorists. You're bang on the money there, they're all scum.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

I see the republican has been deleted already, lol.