NationStates Jolt Archive

(Apologies if this gets posted several times, we all know the evil server.)

Here be the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3805691.stm
Don't trust the BBC? Try:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1238901,00.html

Take a read at it, I won't reproduce it here. Some may remember the small furore on this forum when this clip was aired, after the Hutton Report, so I've posted it because I'm thinking a few folk might be interested in reading it. No doubt I'll get some rabid-redneck-Bush-zealots in this thread though :lol: .

I read in the FT Magazine a while ago that the ITC (Ofcom's predecessor) had said that Fox's clearly biased reporting was going to be allowed because viewers in the UK already had a wide choice of non-biased tv news outlets, there were fears that this was going to lead to the British TV news becoming Americanised, with rival liberal and conservative networks.. which would be a very, very bad thing. Read the Guardian article for more info on this.

For those who don't know, Fox News is aired in the UK on Cable or Satellite television, along with Sky News (Murdoch), BBC News 24, Bloomberg (Financial News & Reports), CNBC (which sometimes has MSNBC on it), ITN News, EuroNews (I think its from France) and a Chinese news channel (I forget the name).

Ofcom is Britain's 'media watchdog' - it regulates Television, Radio etc.

The gist of the article is thus:

Fox News condemned for "misleading" report, said to have "misrepresented the truth".
John Gibson's report "unfounded".
The basis for Gibson's claim was that the BBC had appointed a consultant on its Middle Eastern coverage. (I don't see the link between that and being frothing at the mouth with Anti Americanism either).
Ofcom says that appointing the consultant does not signal "obsessive, irrational and dishonest" anti-Americanism.
In the interest of 'fair and balanced reporting', Fox should have given BBC the opportunity to respond.
(Guardian) Gibson article "does not stand up to scrutiny", Fox shows no respect for truth and editorial had "no basisi in fact".
BBC's response: "We have noted Ofcom's findings."
FOX's response: See link to article below.


As I said at the time, Its so ironic that Fox News condemns the Beeb's reporting! If the positions of Fox News and the BBC were reversed, Fox News would be sure to make it headline news and trumpet the fact that their rival has been condemned, whereas this won't get onto the BBC's news at six.

The link above is actually an example of the BBC's great reporting. The BBC covers a news story about itself impartially, tactful and showing all sides of the argument, unlike Fox News (see below link).

Here's John Gibson's reply:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122935,00.html

"I've got a bunch of Brits mad at me because I dared to defend myself for saying that a BBC reporter lied"
LIE #1: His report was about the BBC's Anti Americanism, not Andrew Gilligan, as far as I could tell
LIE #2: He has been censured for lying himself, not for defending himself. I could see no defence in his editorial, only unfounded attacks against Fox's rival.
"A bunch of Brits"... hardly an accurate term for Ofcom, is it?

Because I dared to say it, I have been "censured by an agency of the British government."
LIE #3: Thats not a quote, he's put his own words inside quotation marks.

Look... censure if you must, oh mighty Great Britain. But you will not change the truth. The Beeb reporter I was speaking of lied. He didn't distort or exaggerate — he lied.
Bit rich coming from this fella is it not?

It's a lie that was concocted to support the BBC's political bias, which was and is anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American.
LIE #4: There is no proof of this "political bias". Ofcom has said it doesn't exist and they are even "an agency of the British government"!

...now I've got Brits writing me to tell me that they're horrified and wondering how I could say such a thing?
I suppose we aren't used to our news being packed with lies like this article is. The Gilligan incident was a one off.

Wasn't Gilligan fired as well? John Gibson still has a job. Hell, he's probably a hero in the newsroom right now, and his offense was at least as egregious as Gilligan's was.

FoxNews!

*cheers*

Wasn't Gilligan fired as well? John Gibson still has a job. Hell, he's probably a hero in the newsroom right now, and his offense was at least as egregious as Gilligan's was.Not only was Gilligan fired, the Director General of the BBC also lost his job over the incident. I think we can guess the head of Fox won't be resigning. For all their posturing the right have no honour whatsoever. *Irrelevant Fact Alert* The playwright, Dennis Potter, nicknamed his cancerous tumour Rupert. :lol: (After Murdoch obviously).

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...

Wasn't Gilligan fired as well? John Gibson still has a job. Hell, he's probably a hero in the newsroom right now, and his offense was at least as egregious as Gilligan's was.Not only was Gilligan fired, the Director General of the BBC also lost his job over the incident. I think we can guess the head of Fox won't be resigning. For all their posturing the right have no honour whatsoever. *Irrelevant Fact Alert* The playwright, Dennis Potter, nicknamed his cancerous tumour Rupert. :lol: (After Murdoch obviously).

Not important corrections, but nonetheless,
Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan all resigned of their own free will once they were shown (dubiously, but n/m) to have lied.

Read Greg Dyke's comments on Fox News, and his fears that British TV news will go the American way:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000180.html

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...

*cough*

Al Jazeera?

*shakes head*

Don't answer that. Probably have it brought in by satellite.

You missed this

If the Brits don't like that observation... oh well. Read my book — "Hating America: The New World Sport."

The free advirtising.

I don't think Fox News is aired in the UK...
If it is, it's only on Sky Digital.

And yes, Fox News probably is one of the most corrupt and biased news agencies in the world. It could probably give North Korea's a run for its money.

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...

*cough*

Al Jazeera?

*shakes head*

Don't answer that. Probably have it brought in by satellite.Yeah, but Al Jazeera doesn't use the tagline "fair and balanced".

Its kinda like, Al Jazeera is like Blofeld. You don't expect to be able to trust Blofeld not to put poison in your food. Fox is more like a Dark Ages priest. They put on a facade of holiness, and you have an expectation that they shouldn't be trying to kill you. But they are.

there should be a class action lawsuit against foxnews for journalistic malpractice too

I don't think Fox News is aired in the UK...


It is, on Sky channel 531 iirc.

hehehe, good ol "Fair And Balanced" Faux News. why, this is the sort of thing that could make somebody lose faith in the Fox News Truth Squad!

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8126.html

hehehe, good ol "Fair And Balanced" Faux News. why, this is the sort of thing that could make somebody lose faith in the Fox News Truth Squad!

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8126.html

I wish we had that show over here. So I could watch it properly rather than having to watch clips off the internet.

Not important corrections, but nonetheless,
Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan all resigned of their own free will once they were shown (dubiously, but n/m) to have lied.

Read Greg Dyke's comments on Fox News, and his fears that British TV news will go the American way:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000180.htmlI stand corrected. :wink: From what I remember though, I'm not sure that free will is the right term to use. Didn't they jump before the BBC Board of Directors pushed them?

hehehe, good ol "Fair And Balanced" Faux News. why, this is the sort of thing that could make somebody lose faith in the Fox News Truth Squad!

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8126.html

I wish we had that show over here. So I could watch it properly rather than having to watch clips off the internet.

hey, i've got it even worse; i'm in America, but haven't got cable. so close, and yet so very far! it's all the more tantalizing to know that if only i could afford the charges i could be visited in my home by John Stewart each day...*sigh* a graduate student's suffering is never done.

Wow!!! There is a God!!! There is justice!!! As the saying goes, "What goes goes around, comes around."
Fox News claims that its "fair and balanced", but only for the right-wingers.
Now, they cry because they claim that are being treated unfairly by Ofcom.
Fox News is just like that former Iraqi Information Minister who claimed that the American and British troops were being soundly defeated right when there tanks rolling around Baghdad just as he kept talking.
Kudos to Ofcom and congratulations on them for doing their job. :D

For those interested, there is a blog dedicated to watching for BBC bias.

Biased BBC (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/)

Not important corrections, but nonetheless,
Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan all resigned of their own free will once they were shown (dubiously, but n/m) to have lied.

Read Greg Dyke's comments on Fox News, and his fears that British TV news will go the American way:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000180.htmlI stand corrected. :wink: From what I remember though, I'm not sure that free will is the right term to use. Didn't they jump before the BBC Board of Directors pushed them?Thats not quite true. See, Dyke was expecting the board to reject his resignation at the last minute. But, they didn't. Oops.

For those interested, there is a blog dedicated to watching for BBC bias.

Biased BBC (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/)better yet go to Fair.org and read up on all the latest lies of foxnews

For those interested, there is a blog dedicated to watching for BBC bias.

Biased BBC (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/)Wow, thats a rather angry guy with a bit too much time on his hands.

Yeah, the daily show rules... Can I say something about Fox News though? Why are we wasting time on Gibson when we could be bashing Hannity and O'Reilly? Independent party my ass!

Yeah, the daily show rules... Can I say something about Fox News though? Why are we wasting time on Gibson when we could be bashing Hannity and O'Reilly? Independent party my ass!O'Lielly is a registered republican (as if that should surprise anyone)--I like the way Michael Moore caught him fleeing from a screening of his movie Fahrenheit 911 :lol:

Yeah, the daily show rules... Can I say something about Fox News though? Why are we wasting time on Gibson when we could be bashing Hannity and O'Reilly? Independent party my ass!O'Lielly is a registered republican (as if that should surprise anyone)--I like the way Michael Moore caught him fleeing from a screening of his movie Fahrenheit 911 :lol:

Wow, thats a rather angry guy with a bit too much time on his hands.
Says the guy with over 10,000 posts! :shock:

Wow, thats a rather angry guy with a bit too much time on his hands.
Says the guy with over 10,000 posts! :shock:But I'm not angry. I'm calmer than Sven Goran Erikson eating natural greek yoghurt in a hammock.

All bloggers have too much time on their hands...

And Fox is horrible, just horrible. I haven't watched it in forever, though, so I can't claim to know first-hand. :lol:

Comparing it to North Korea is a bit too over-the-top, though. *smacks Myrth*

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...


Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line.

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...


Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line.Liberals hate it cause liberals hate lies and feel the need to speak truth to power

Newscorp owns both FoxNews and the satelitle provider that carries them in the UK, Sky satelite. The article mentioned the difficulty in regulating programing that is not primarily intended for viewing in the UK, such as FOX news.

So this is what happens, watchdog Ofcom censurs FOX--if by this time you don't think of FOX as the Wargasm/Conservative news channel you are already an indoctrined viewer, lost in the hype. So those already shaking thier heads at FOX's version of 'fair and balanced' shake harder, and those who rally around the channel are fed with thier daily dose of bravado against the 'anti-americans'--both sides to the thier nuetral corners. There is no danger of Sky censuring its own product, or demanding anymore of it in the realm of integrity-Ofcom has done all it can, and the rift grows more solid.

It's important to remember that Bush is a uniter, not a divider.....

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...


Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line.Liberals hate it cause liberals hate lies and feel the need to speak truth to power


:roll:

Everybody lies TRA, Even Liberals. If you think Liberals never lie, then I feel sorry for you.

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...


Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line.Liberals hate it cause liberals hate lies and feel the need to speak truth to power


:roll:

Everybody lies TRA, Even Liberals. If you think Liberals never lie, then I feel sorry for you.yeah but liberals lies set people free and conservatives lies KILL

Newscorp owns both FoxNews and the satelitle provider that carries them in the UK, Sky satelite. The article mentioned the difficulty in regulating programing that is not primarily intended for viewing in the UK, such as FOX news.

So this is what happens, watchdog Ofcom censurs FOX--if by this time you don't think of FOX as the Wargasm/Conservative news channel you are already an indoctrined viewer, lost in the hype. So those already shaking thier heads at FOX's version of 'fair and balanced' shake harder, and those who rally around the channel are fed with thier daily dose of bravado against the 'anti-americans'--both sides to the thier nuetral corners. There is no danger of Sky censuring its own product, or demanding anymore of it in the realm of integrity-Ofcom has done all it can, and the rift grows more solid.

It's important to remember that Bush is a uniter, not a divider.....I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparison

fox news is the most corrupted TV channel of all the world...


Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line.Liberals hate it cause liberals hate lies and feel the need to speak truth to power


:roll:

Everybody lies TRA, Even Liberals. If you think Liberals never lie, then I feel sorry for you.yeah but liberals lies set people free and conservatives lies KILL

Now if that isn't a contradictory in terms. Liberal Lies holds back progress hence why the liberals are struggling to gain respectibility.

I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparison

Another lie to go with all the liberal lies. He is fighting terror. He has done more against terror than Clinton did in HIS 8 YEARS IN OFFICE.

I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparison

Another lie to go with all the liberal lies. He is fighting terror. He has done more against terror than Clinton did in HIS 8 YEARS IN OFFICE.yeah Bush has worked overtime to make sure more terrorists have access to suitcase nukes when he killed that Clinton program that was designed to buy them all out--Bush wants 4 more wars in the mideast so it naturally follows that Bush will sponcer more terrorism against America in order get the public behind him

I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparison

Another lie to go with all the liberal lies. He is fighting terror. He has done more against terror than Clinton did in HIS 8 YEARS IN OFFICE.yeah Bush has worked overtime to make sure more terrorists have access to suitcase nukes when he killed that Clinton program that was designed to buy them all out--Bush wants 4 more wars in the mideast so it naturally follows that Bush will sponcer more terrorism against America in order get the public behind him

WHo the hell are you listening too sweetie. Whoever or whatever it is, you need to swtich because if you believe any of it then you are in one bad shape.

Hooray for the Fascist News Network. I'm an NPR guy myself. As for print - New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. TV- only the daily show.

See, that's how it goes- Conservatives accuse the Liberals of lying while the Liberals vehemantly call the Conservatives liars.

It also aplpies to news and politicians, so I don't see why anyone's so suprised about this happening, or anything that a president did or didn't do.

(Though, the fact that we actually see the terror happening might be a plus for Clinton, since he was able to keep all the terror he supposedly prevented quiet. Or it could be a minus, since maybe there was none.)

Hooray for the Fascist News Network. I'm an NPR guy myself. As for print - New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. TV- only the daily show.then perhaps youll like this NY Times story:

Rumsfeld Ordered Detainees Held In Secret in Iraq
The New York Times is reporting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered military officials in Iraq last November to secretly hold an Iraqi man in jail but not list him on the prison's rolls in order to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring his treatment. Rumsfeld's order allegedly came at the request of CIA Director George Tenet. In his recent report on prison conditions at Abu Ghraib, Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba said the practice of holding so-called ghost detainees was "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

So, the media censors the media, eh? Is that really what life has come to now... it's horrible that nobody can speak their mind anymore, especially if backed up with facts.

So, the media censors the media, eh? Is that really what life has come to now... it's horrible that nobody can speak their mind anymore, especially if backed up with facts.the corporate media is an enemy of democracy the world over

So, the media censors the media, eh? Is that really what life has come to now... it's horrible that nobody can speak their mind anymore, especially if backed up with facts.the corporate media is an enemy of democracy the world over

No wonder Fox News is killing ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and other news outlets. Corporate media is LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!

Newscorp owns both FoxNews and the satelitle provider that carries them in the UK, Sky satelite. The article mentioned the difficulty in regulating programing that is not primarily intended for viewing in the UK, such as FOX news.

So this is what happens, watchdog Ofcom censurs FOX--if by this time you don't think of FOX as the Wargasm/Conservative news channel you are already an indoctrined viewer, lost in the hype. So those already shaking thier heads at FOX's version of 'fair and balanced' shake harder, and those who rally around the channel are fed with thier daily dose of bravado against the 'anti-americans'--both sides to the thier nuetral corners. There is no danger of Sky censuring its own product, or demanding anymore of it in the realm of integrity-Ofcom has done all it can, and the rift grows more solid.

It's important to remember that Bush is a uniter, not a divider.....I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparisonYou've got to forgive MKULTRA--he has no concept of sarcasm.

Giggles,

he also has no since of facts either.

But I'm not angry. I'm calmer than Sven Goran Erikson eating natural greek yoghurt in a hammock.
LOL...
Who is he?

I think the best evidence that the BBC is not biased is the fact that both main parties in britian have called for reformation of the BBC because they dont like what is says.

I think the best evidence that the BBC is not biased is the fact that both main parties in britian have called for reformation of the BBC because they dont like what is says.

Not to mention the Flagship of the Royal Navy PULLED THE PLUG on BBC and switched to SkyNews.

I think the best evidence that the BBC is not biased is the fact that both main parties in britian have called for reformation of the BBC because they dont like what is says.

Not to mention the Flagship of the Royal Navy PULLED THE PLUG on BBC and switched to SkyNews.

...despite the fact that Sky news (prop. Rupert Murdoch) broadcast a report supposedly showing live firing of cruise missiles from a UK submarine (HMS Splendid), but insead mocked the whole thing up using library footage. In the scramble for ratings, the first casualty is truth.

As a footnote, it should be remarked that the Sky journalist in question also resigned, and then later killed himself.

And yes, Fox News probably is one of the most corrupt and biased news agencies in the world. It could probably give North Korea's a run for its money.

Maybe, but name me one of the big 5 news networks that couldn't give North Korea a run for its money?

So, the media censors the media, eh? Is that really what life has come to now... it's horrible that nobody can speak their mind anymore, especially if backed up with facts.the corporate media is an enemy of democracy the world over

No wonder Fox News is killing ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and other news outlets. Corporate media is LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!

But from the view of any foriegner, politically speaking, the majority of media outlets in the US are conservative or lean slightly to the right of centre.

Fox News is the only honest TV channel left. Liberals hate it because it does not toe a Liberal line

As those articles I have cited in the first post show, Fox News is far from honest. Visit also www.fair.org , the website of the pressure group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. Fox News comes up quite a few times there :?

The fact that Fox News claims to be telling the truth sickens me to be honest. When I do watch Fox, I can usually only manage 5 minutes at a time before the shocking mistruths and bias drives me back to ITN News, EuroNews or the BBC.

Can't comment on Al Jazeera as I don't speak Arabic and anyway, its a pay-channel on Sky Digital.


I think the best evidence that the BBC is not biased is the fact that both main parties in britian have called for reformation of the BBC because they dont like what is says.
I understand that the way the BBC checks for bias is by adding up at the end of the year all the complaints that they are left-wing against all the complaints that they are right-wing. If the numbers are equal they are doing their job right. Seems like a fair enough way to me. I honestly have never picked up on any BBC bias, and have yet to see any evidence of it. The best attempt at 'evidence' has been spurious claims by right-wing Bush & Fox zealots who claim the BBC is anti-US, anti-War because they dare to show what is happening in Iraq.

The best thing about Fox News is that the names of it and its reporters can so easily be changed into something amusing! :lol: e.g. Faux News, Bill O' Lielly, Bill O' Really etc etc.

and as I've said before, Fair.org isn't fair at all.

and as I've said before, Fair.org isn't fair at all.

and as I've said before, Fair.org isn't fair at all.And have you anything to back up that claim? A deconstruction of their methodology? A critique of their studies?

Or are you just pulling stuff out of thin air?

Who owns it. What are their criteria. They don't like the fact that Fox News is Crushing the competition.

Give me evidence that they aren't biased against Conservative news media then maybe, I'll take back the claim.

Who owns it. What are their criteria. They don't like the fact that Fox News is Crushing the competition.

Give me evidence that they aren't biased against Conservative news media then maybe, I'll take back the claim.Sorry, but that's not the way debate works, at least not outside Limbaugh land. You make a claim, you are forced to back it up with evidence. You claim that Fair.org isn't fair--you have to provide the evidence to substantiate that claim. Otherwise you have made no argument.

As to your last point, about Fox crushing the competition, you're half right, In the cable news arena--Fox, CNN and MSNBC--Fox is indeed winning. But in terms of overall news ratings, no one in the cable biz comes close to the big three networks. ABC, CBS and NBC all get approximately 10 times the viewers of any cable news network on any given night.

Fox's affect on the news is greater than its rating share, though, because if they run a story--regardless of how full of holes it is--the other networks, cable and otherwise--feel they have to at least mention it or be labeled as "liberal."

And so stories get fed into the mainstream media that should be relegated to the tabloids--stories like the lie that Clinton was implicated in drugrunning while Governor of Arkansas for instance. That story never should have passed the laugh test, and yet it got major media play. Why? Because mainstream media outlets were scared that they'd be considered "liberal" if they didn't cover even the bogus crap.

That's not to say that the media is conservative either. Lately, the major media outlets have seemed center-right, but that's more because they're corporate and the conservative movement in the US favors corporate interests. They're simply licking the hand that feeds them. But it's a mistake to accuse major media of having a political agenda--they have an economic one, and were the liberal groups to try to curry favor with the corporate side of the media, they'd switch in a heartbeat.

Who owns it. What are their criteria. They don't like the fact that Fox News is Crushing the competition.

Give me evidence that they aren't biased against Conservative news media then maybe, I'll take back the claim.what competition? there is NO liberal media--if there was Id have no problem if fox was winning but I dont like the monopoly that rightwing liars have on our airwaves

Newscorp owns both FoxNews and the satelitle provider that carries them in the UK, Sky satelite. The article mentioned the difficulty in regulating programing that is not primarily intended for viewing in the UK, such as FOX news.

So this is what happens, watchdog Ofcom censurs FOX--if by this time you don't think of FOX as the Wargasm/Conservative news channel you are already an indoctrined viewer, lost in the hype. So those already shaking thier heads at FOX's version of 'fair and balanced' shake harder, and those who rally around the channel are fed with thier daily dose of bravado against the 'anti-americans'--both sides to the thier nuetral corners. There is no danger of Sky censuring its own product, or demanding anymore of it in the realm of integrity-Ofcom has done all it can, and the rift grows more solid.

It's important to remember that Bush is a uniter, not a divider.....I have no idea what your smoking but Bush is the biggest divider since SATAN--he even almost makes TERRORISTS look good in comparisonYou've got to forgive MKULTRA--he has no concept of sarcasm.
Ah, MKULTRA....he's like having an ill-mannered dog. Sure ya kinda like him, but you really wish he'd stop biting the mailman and 'marking' the azleas....

Who owns it. What are their criteria. They don't like the fact that Fox News is Crushing the competition.

Give me evidence that they aren't biased against Conservative news media then maybe, I'll take back the claim.what competition? there is NO liberal media--if there was Id have no problem if fox was winning but I dont like the monopoly that rightwing liars have on our airwaves

MKULTRA, how old are you? I'm 15yo and I know there is a liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, LA Times, I could go on but the list is too big. Yes, there is Liberal News Media and they are getting hammered. You are their poster boy, doll. YOu eat what they say up. You never look beyond what you are told.

Me? I was taught to read between the lines! To disect what is being said and to put it back together again.

Only thing we have on the airwaves sweetie, is on the radio and Fox News. Around here, a city paper (not going to say which one because it'll reveal my location) is conservative while the other is liberal and you can sure tell the difference in their reporting too.

No LIberal Competition? My friend, you really need to stop listening to Air America. It's not going anywhere and it isn't going to help John Kerry get the White House.

Nothing personal, Formal Dances, but if you're only 15, then you have no real concept of what liberal and conservative is, much less whether or not the media has any particular point of view.

And whoever taught you to "read between the lines," to use your own phrase, didn't do a very good job of it, if you think there's a liberal media. Here's some reading for you, if you're really interested in the subject. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast, Big Lies by Joe Conason, and The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman.

Compare the rhetoric to what you find in screeds written by Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and the like.

Nothing personal, Formal Dances, but if you're only 15, then you have no real concept of what liberal and conservative is, much less whether or not the media has any particular point of view.

And whoever taught you to "read between the lines," to use your own phrase, didn't do a very good job of it, if you think there's a liberal media. Here's some reading for you, if you're really interested in the subject. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast, Big Lies by Joe Conason, and The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman.

Compare the rhetoric to what you find in screeds written by Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and the like.

I have to applaude you. You really do know how to treat a lady. However, one minor problem. If you look at those titles, you can see what they stand for. I have read Hannity and O'reily and Limbaugh. My dad has all those books and he lets me read them. So excuse me for saying this, but I think I'll stick with my parents over them.

It was my parents that taught me to read between the lines. They have done a better job of preparing me for the real world. I will follow my beliefs just as you will follow yours.

Nothing personal, Formal Dances, but if you're only 15, then you have no real concept of what liberal and conservative is, much less whether or not the media has any particular point of view.

And whoever taught you to "read between the lines," to use your own phrase, didn't do a very good job of it, if you think there's a liberal media. Here's some reading for you, if you're really interested in the subject. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast, Big Lies by Joe Conason, and The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman.

Compare the rhetoric to what you find in screeds written by Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and the like.

I have to applaude you. You really do know how to treat a lady. However, one minor problem. If you look at those titles, you can see what they stand for. I have read Hannity and O'reily and Limbaugh. My dad has all those books and he lets me read them. So excuse me for saying this, but I think I'll stick with my parents over them.

It was my parents that taught me to read between the lines. They have done a better job of preparing me for the real world. I will follow my beliefs just as you will follow yours.sounds more like your following your parents beliefs not your own

Fine, Formal Dances--explain how this is an example of the liberal media.

Clicky (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406180007?=newsbox)

Media Matters for America Calls CBS on History of Inconsistent Enforcement of Advertising Policy

(June 18, Washington, DC) - Media Matters for America is calling on CBS to explain its policy on running advocacy advertising in light of a new ad the network is apparently set to run Sunday night, June 20. The ad, produced by Citizens United, appears to violate the network's policy not to run "advocacy" ads - a policy that has been used to reject ads from liberal organizations but that has not prevented the network from running other advocacy ads produced by conservatives.

According to Citizens United, its new "anti-Clinton" ad will air on CBS during 60 Minutes on Sunday. The Citizens United ad claims that Clinton is "responsible" for "leaving us vulnerable to terrorists." Citizens United is run by longtime conservative David N. Bossie, who is perhaps best known for getting fired by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee for his role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of Webster Hubbell's prison conversations.

In refusing to run ads by MoveOn.org and PETA earlier this year, CBS explained that it does not run "advocacy advertising of any kind" or ads that deal with "controversial issues of public importance."

"It has long been apparent that CBS has two sets of policies: one for those aligned with the Bush administration and another for everyone else," David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters for America, said today. "We ask that CBS explain the inconsistent application of its advocacy ad policies to its audience."

If the Citizens United ad airs this Sunday, it will not be the first time CBS has run ads from conservative entities that appear to violate the policy CBS has used to reject ads from progressives. Earlier this year, CBS ran highly controversial taxpayer-funded ads produced by the Bush administration to promote the new Medicare prescription drug law. CBS pulled that ad only after the commencement of a government investigation into the ad's appropriateness. CBS has also recently run controversial ads from the White House Drug Control Policy Agency.Couple of points to make here. First off, MMFA went real easy on David Bossie. Bossie made an industry out of dreaming up lies about Bill Clinton. The stories about drugrunning out of Mena, AR, the theories about the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster, the story about Clinton's fathering of an illegitimate child by an underage black girl--all came out of Bossie's shop and were all equally untrue.

Second off, if CBS is so goddamn liberal, then why are they running this ad and why did they refuse to run ads by Moveon.org and by PETA? Explain it, please. Is CBS trying to pretend it isn't liberal when it really is? Come on.

And the above example is, unfortunately, not an unusual one. It happens all the time.

But here's your chance to prove me wrong--show me how this example means that CBS is liberal and is out to get the Bush administration. Good luck.

Have you seen those ads from Moveon.org and PETA? I did on Fox News during their programing because it appaled them. They weren't runned on any station. I wouldn't run those ads either.

There have been times when CBS actually told both sides of a story. This was one of those times. Just because they do something like this, doesn't mean that they are or aren't liberal. They have done more for the liberals than Conservatives and running conservative ads evens it out.

I will admit that I don't know who this Bossie character is. Never heard of him.

I also think you missed this part too:

correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters for America is the first organization to systematically monitor the media for conservative misinformation - every day, in real time - in 2004 and beyond.. For more information, log on to http://www.mediamatters.org.

]Have you seen those ads from Moveon.org and PETA? I did on Fox News during their programing because it appaled them. They weren't runned on any station. I wouldn't run those ads either.

There have been times when CBS actually told both sides of a story. This was one of those times. Just because they do something like this, doesn't mean that they are or aren't liberal. They have done more for the liberals than Conservatives and running conservative ads evens it out.

I will admit that I don't know who this Bossie character is. Never heard of him.

I also think you missed this part too:

correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters for America is the first organization to systematically monitor the media for conservative misinformation - every day, in real time - in 2004 and beyond.. For more information, log on to http://www.mediamatters.org.The PETA ad--no, didn't see it. But the Moveon ad I not only saw, but voted for despite the fact that the ad my girlfriend wrote the script for was a finalist. The ad was entitled "Child's Pay" and there was absolutely nothing controversial about it. It was film of children doing adult jobs and the final point to be made was that the deficits we're running now will be paid by our children. It was completely accurate and quite tame.

And I didn't miss the end. Something you fail to realize is that just because a source has an agenda doesn't mean that they're necessarily inaccurate. It just means they have an agenda. Fox News gets the actual news right more often than not, and they certainly have a bias. (Their opinion people are generally the ones who are factually challenged.)

But more importantly--you didn't answer the question. How is CBS so liberal if they're doing this? How are they not being hypocritical by making this decision?

PS--do some research on Bossie. You'll learn a lot about the various ways he manipulated the media during the Clinton years and continues to do so.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth


I watch Fox News to get the truth.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

For people who want the truth.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

For people who want the truth.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

For people who want the truth.the corporate truth you mean--I prefere my truths unfiltered

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

For people who want the truth.the corporate truth you mean--I prefere my truths unfiltered

From a Liberal Radio Station that is bankrupt and has no audience? Sorry, Fox News is clobering the competition of all news outlets and with HALF THE MARKETS i might add of other stations.

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth

For people who want the truth.the corporate truth you mean--I prefere my truths unfiltered

From a Liberal Radio Station that is bankrupt and has no audience? Sorry, Fox News is clobering the competition of all news outlets and with HALF THE MARKETS i might add of other stations.well this "bankrupt" station is still on the air speaking truth to power against all the lies of the corporate shills at foxnews who hate true democracy

As stated before, you can be bankrupt and on air at same time. Fox News is a beacon of Democracy. Air America is not.

And so the one-liner battle continues, and nothing of any substance is discussed. Sigh.

As stated before, you can be bankrupt and on air at same time. Fox News is a beacon of Democracy. Air America is not.foxnews kneels before the corporate beast--air america exposes the true evil agenda of rightwing nazis and its playing on my radio right now--Im not having hallucinations

I watch Fox News here in Britain. I only watch it however because I find in comical that Americans can believe half of the bile that is sicked up and called news.

Fox News does well in the ratings perhaps for that simple reason alone.

I watch Fox News here in Britain. I only watch it however because I find in comical that Americans can believe half of the bile that is sicked up and called news.

Fox News does well in the ratings perhaps for that simple reason alone.foxnews prospers because evil corporations subsidize it as their mouthpiece

As stated before, you can be bankrupt and on air at same time. Fox News is a beacon of Democracy. Air America is not.foxnews kneels before the corporate beast--air america exposes the true evil agenda of rightwing nazis and its playing on my radio right now--Im not having hallucinations

foxnews prospers because evil corporations subsidize it as their mouthpiece

MKULTRA not only are you an Idiot but a communist as well. Until you can come up with substancial facts to back up what you say, then maybe you'll gain some credibility.

Who owns it. What are their criteria. They don't like the fact that Fox News is Crushing the competition.

Give me evidence that they aren't biased against Conservative news media then maybe, I'll take back the claim.
Give me evidence that they are biased against conservative news media, and could you also account for the fact that liberal media is also condemned on their website (did you read the article about NPR?)

lol! Watch their news compared to Fox News. Watch their news and listen to Conservative Talk radio. I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference.

As for your question, you just got my answer in this post. I've watched it and compared it. Fox News is better than any news network.for people scared of the truth


I watch Fox News to get the truth.
Well, you're watching the wrong station mate. Did you no read the links I gave in the first post? Fox News does not tell the truth, it has been proven on more than one occasion by different sources!


I watch Fox News here in Britain. I only watch it however because I find in comical that Americans can believe half of the bile that is sicked up and called news.

Fox News does well in the ratings perhaps for that simple reason alone.
Like I say, I watch it in the UK as well. The overt bias is mildly amusing for about 2 mins, then you realise that many Americans actually believe these lies and tolerate this excuse for a news service, and you have to change the channel.

I did post figures in another thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141370&highlight=) that showed that 60% of Americans believed either (or a combination of) (a) links between Iraq and Al Qaeda had been found; (b) WMDs have been found or (c) world opinion supported the Iraq invasion.

Explain those figures. They would seem to support the view of 'nutters' like MKULTRA, who say that Fox News and the corporate media are corrupting America and American's minds.


MKULTRA not only are you an Idiot but a communist as well. Until you can come up with substancial facts to back up what you say, then maybe you'll gain some credibility.

Perhaps so, but you have yet to give "substantial facts" to support your own assertions.

The Daily Mail is the Fox News of the UK :evil: The Times (Murdoch) at least has some credibility since it is broadsheet, but it is fiercely biased, anti-EU.

Ofcom the people who critisised Fox News are independent organisation set up by the British government. One of there jobs is to ensure fair and balanced reporting of the news. Does it not strike you as odd that in America there is nothing to stop the news being heavily biased and opioniated?

Ofcom the people who critisised Fox News are independent organisation set up by the British government. One of there jobs is to ensure fair and balanced reporting of the news. Does it not strike you as odd that in America there is nothing to stop the news being heavily biased and opioniated?

is also comforting to know that this company oFcom never admonished the BBC for their Bias in the War in Iraq? So much for not being bias.

I am pro the war in Iraq and have BBC News 24 and listen to radio 4 and i cannot think of an example of bias in their reporting.

Ofcom the people who critisised Fox News are independent organisation set up by the British government. One of there jobs is to ensure fair and balanced reporting of the news. Does it not strike you as odd that in America there is nothing to stop the news being heavily biased and opioniated?

is also comforting to know that this company oFcom never admonished the BBC for their Bias in the War in Iraq? So much for not being bias.

Ofcom did nothing because Lord Hutton was investigating quite extensively. Now that Hutton has released his results, the BBC were quite heavily punished with Gilligan and the Director-General's resignation.

Any other percieved bias is illusion and paranoia...

Ofcom the people who critisised Fox News are independent organisation set up by the British government. One of there jobs is to ensure fair and balanced reporting of the news. Does it not strike you as odd that in America there is nothing to stop the news being heavily biased and opioniated?

is also comforting to know that this company oFcom never admonished the BBC for their Bias in the War in Iraq? So much for not being bias.

Ofcom did nothing because Lord Hutton was investigating quite extensively. Now that Hutton has released his results, the BBC were quite heavily punished with Gilligan and the Director-General's resignation.

Any other percieved bias is illusion and paranoia...

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

And if they have critized FNC then wheres the Criticizism of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS?

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

I am sure other posters here can quote specifics but one thing we British note in FOX NEWS war reporting is the fact that instead of saying "British troops" or "American troops" as the BBC does, Fox actively says "Our brave troops". Kinda one sided don't you think?

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

I am sure other posters here can quote specifics but one thing we British note in FOX NEWS war reporting is the fact that instead of saying "British troops" or "American troops" as the BBC does, Fox actively says "Our brave troops". Kinda one sided don't you think?

Fox News is AN AMERICAN NEWS STATION!!!!! Of course they're going to say our brave soldiers when talking about AMERICAN TROOPS. They did say BRITISH TROOPS when talking about the you BRITS.

And what is wrong with saying Our Brave Soldiers? To bad the BBC didn't say that about your forces.

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

And if they have critized FNC then wheres the Criticizism of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS?

How about Fox News' first take on the photos of abuse in Abu Ghraib? Rather than commenting on the behaviour of US troops, Fox News chose to present the story as an attempt by "the liberal media" to undermine the morale of US troops.

Or their choice of pundits for the duration of the (official) war: Geraldo and Oliver North. A talk-show flake and an ex-con. What I want to know is, which one was "fair" and which one was "balanced"?

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

I am sure other posters here can quote specifics but one thing we British note in FOX NEWS war reporting is the fact that instead of saying "British troops" or "American troops" as the BBC does, Fox actively says "Our brave troops". Kinda one sided don't you think?

Fox News is AN AMERICAN NEWS STATION!!!!! Of course they're going to say our brave soldiers when talking about AMERICAN TROOPS. They did say BRITISH TROOPS when talking about the you BRITS.

And what is wrong with saying Our Brave Soldiers? To bad the BBC didn't say that about your forces.

The BBC is a BRITISH NEWS STATION.

Supporting the troops is still media bias. Whether it is positive bias or negative bias. And I do not want my media to say that my countries troops are brave, I know that and I would much rather have a fair media that does not paint 'us' as good and 'them' as evil.

Technically, wouldn't the Iraqis be braver? They're fighting a much bigger force that's better armed.

*Just saying, don't flame me*

Technically, wouldn't the Iraqis be braver? They're fighting a much bigger force that's better armed.

*Just saying, don't flame me*

By that logic, perhaps they are....

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

And if they have critized FNC then wheres the Criticizism of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS?

How about Fox News' first take on the photos of abuse in Abu Ghraib? Rather than commenting on the behaviour of US troops, Fox News chose to present the story as an attempt by "the liberal media" to undermine the morale of US troops.

Or their choice of pundits for the duration of the (official) war: Geraldo and Oliver North. A talk-show flake and an ex-con. What I want to know is, which one was "fair" and which one was "balanced"?

And then they broadcasted the abuse scandel fair and balanced. Gave both sides, though that actually supported what happened, and those that wanted their scalps with EQUAL TIME!!!!!

Colonel Oliver North did a great job in Iraq as did Brian Kelmead(sp?) and other Fox News Correspondents. I watched as much of the war as I could. I watched the coverage on all the other networks but Fox News out did them. Even the Ratings was one sided with Fox News on top.

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

I am sure other posters here can quote specifics but one thing we British note in FOX NEWS war reporting is the fact that instead of saying "British troops" or "American troops" as the BBC does, Fox actively says "Our brave troops". Kinda one sided don't you think?

Fox News is AN AMERICAN NEWS STATION!!!!! Of course they're going to say our brave soldiers when talking about AMERICAN TROOPS. They did say BRITISH TROOPS when talking about the you BRITS.

And what is wrong with saying Our Brave Soldiers? To bad the BBC didn't say that about your forces.

The BBC is a BRITISH NEWS STATION.

Supporting the troops is still media bias. Whether it is positive bias or negative bias. And I do not want my media to say that my countries troops are brave, I know that and I would much rather have a fair media that does not paint 'us' as good and 'them' as evil.

It is not Media Bias. Fox News Supports the Troops. By calling them brave, how are they being biased. Oh wait, they didn't call your soldiers Brave is that it? Funny, I thought they did on a few occassions, The Brave British Soldiers... or did I hear them wrong?

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

That is hardly evidence of bias. That could merely be indicative of the need of the government to 'protect' the troops from the depressing but now increasingly clear truth.

And who are you to know what the opinion of British troops are. Have you personally asked them?

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

I am sure other posters here can quote specifics but one thing we British note in FOX NEWS war reporting is the fact that instead of saying "British troops" or "American troops" as the BBC does, Fox actively says "Our brave troops". Kinda one sided don't you think?

Fox News is AN AMERICAN NEWS STATION!!!!! Of course they're going to say our brave soldiers when talking about AMERICAN TROOPS. They did say BRITISH TROOPS when talking about the you BRITS.

And what is wrong with saying Our Brave Soldiers? To bad the BBC didn't say that about your forces.

The BBC is a BRITISH NEWS STATION.

Supporting the troops is still media bias. Whether it is positive bias or negative bias. And I do not want my media to say that my countries troops are brave, I know that and I would much rather have a fair media that does not paint 'us' as good and 'them' as evil.

It is not Media Bias. Fox News Supports the Troops. By calling them brave, how are they being biased. Oh wait, they didn't call your soldiers Brave is that it? Funny, I thought they did on a few occassions, The Brave British Soldiers... or did I hear them wrong?

Supporting the troops equates to standing on their side and to side with a particular group is quite simply bias.

Perhaps their is bias in the BBC, but at least I can safely say that it is miniscule and negligible in comparison to Murdoch's brand of 'news'.

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

That is hardly evidence of bias. That could merely be indicative of the need of the government to 'protect' the troops from the depressing but now increasingly clear truth.

And who are you to know what the opinion of British troops are. Have you personally asked them?

lol! no! How do I know, simple my friend. THEY WERE ASKED BY FOX NEWS. They want to finish the job. They are glad that they got rid of Saddam.

Also, they interviewed the Spanish troops, and they weren't happy about leaving Iraq, but orders are orders, Polish troops, glad to be there and they won't leave accord to their leader, the government leader not the CO!

Did BBC ever asked the Troops about it? Have they interviewed troops from other nations?

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

That is hardly evidence of bias. That could merely be indicative of the need of the government to 'protect' the troops from the depressing but now increasingly clear truth.

And who are you to know what the opinion of British troops are. Have you personally asked them?

lol! no! How do I know, simple my friend. THEY WERE ASKED BY FOX NEWS. They want to finish the job. They are glad that they got rid of Saddam.

Also, they interviewed the Spanish troops, and they weren't happy about leaving Iraq, but orders are orders, Polish troops, glad to be there and they won't leave accord to their leader, the government leader not the CO!

Did BBC ever asked the Troops about it? Have they interviewed troops from other nations?

Being military, they could always have been ordered to say so.

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

That is hardly evidence of bias. That could merely be indicative of the need of the government to 'protect' the troops from the depressing but now increasingly clear truth.

And who are you to know what the opinion of British troops are. Have you personally asked them?

lol! no! How do I know, simple my friend. THEY WERE ASKED BY FOX NEWS. They want to finish the job. They are glad that they got rid of Saddam.

Also, they interviewed the Spanish troops, and they weren't happy about leaving Iraq, but orders are orders, Polish troops, glad to be there and they won't leave accord to their leader, the government leader not the CO!

Did BBC ever asked the Troops about it? Have they interviewed troops from other nations?

Being military, they could always have been ordered to say so.

Then that would limit free speech. Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq? All the good that we have done? Opened schools. Getting power up. Organizing their security and Defense Forces! Re building Hospitals. Ever see that on BBC?

Then that would limit free speech. Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq? All the good that we have done? Opened schools. Getting power up. Organizing their security and Defense Forces! Re building Hospitals. Ever see that on BBC?

Of course. I have seen such.

I have yet to see such though on Fox. Lots of talk of terrorists and how your going to kill them though.

Then show me the Bias on Fox News. I'm watching it now! well their business shows anyway. But show me the bias in Fox News reporting.

And if they have critized FNC then wheres the Criticizism of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS?

How about Fox News' first take on the photos of abuse in Abu Ghraib? Rather than commenting on the behaviour of US troops, Fox News chose to present the story as an attempt by "the liberal media" to undermine the morale of US troops.

Or their choice of pundits for the duration of the (official) war: Geraldo and Oliver North. A talk-show flake and an ex-con. What I want to know is, which one was "fair" and which one was "balanced"?

And then they broadcasted the abuse scandel fair and balanced. Gave both sides, though that actually supported what happened, and those that wanted their scalps with EQUAL TIME!!!!!

...after their original stance had been rendered worthless by the tidal wave of corroborating information. But it's hardly indicative of a "fair and balanced" approach that their initial response was to attempt blanket denial and blame-shifting, is it?

Colonel Oliver North did a great job in Iraq as did Brian Kelmead(sp?) and other Fox News Correspondents. I watched as much of the war as I could. I watched the coverage on all the other networks but Fox News out did them. Even the Ratings was one sided with Fox News on top.

That would be Colonel Oliver North, the convicted smuggler of arms to terrorists. Well, maybe prison changed him. And, of course, we all know that TV ratings are a sure and certain guide to the truth. It's often been said that the truth is always more popular than sugared lies. :roll:

If you want to talk about the coverage, lets talk about the BBC reports. The British Navy got so disgusted with the BIAS reporting of BBC that they YANKED it off the air ON THEIR SHIPS!!!!

The British soldiers where glad that they were over their assisting us in our fight to liberate Iraq. They are glad that they did and removed the Tyrant.

Again, the fact that the BBC remained neutral on the war -- that it didn't present "us" as white-hatted heroes and "them" as slavering baddies, that it mentioned our errors, that it investigated US/UK claims and didn't just spew out military press releases as the unvarnished truth, in short that it actually WAS "fair and balanced" -- is a source of great pride, thank you. I can appreciate that some of the men and women in our armed services might have heard some uncomfortable facts which they may have not liked, but the BBC is NOT the armed forces' own special broadcasting network, and nor should it be.

And, finally, the British servicemen I've spoken to, back from Iraq, are not all convinced that they did the right thing. Some of them are increasingly angry that their lives were put at risk on the basis of a lie.

It's almost silly that someone is daring to claim Fox News is unbiased. When they first started, wasn't their slogan, "The conservative answer to the liberal media?" As for specific examples of bias, why not check out the Daily Show Headlines linked earlier in the thread. Where the fellow says "Let's form a truth squad here." How does this fellow find the truth? Does he ask a fair and balanced question, like "Which candidate has the better energy policy?" Of course not. He asks, "So Senator, name three things wrong with Kerry's energy policy."

Fair and balanced...yeah right. CNN's not perfect, but at least they don't have the fanatic O'Reilly and Hannity raving on the air, so I'll stick with them for all my news needs.

Oh, and lastly, as for the claims of other media organizations being "liberal," if they were so liberal, why did they all endorse the war, in their own way. There was bias present in the coverage leading up to the war, but it was all slanted conservatively. Only NBC dared show an anti war advocate for any length of time, and then only once. No other station really gave air time to anti war advocates. So please, it's been proven, there is no "liberal" bias in the media, if so, the war would have had a much tougher time passing, without the help of the New York Times "confirming" WMD stories.

Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq?

Oh, you're talking about our airplanes destroying two houses today with "precision" weapons. Which is a tragedy, since the coalition keeps referring to striking a safe "house," singular instead of "houses," plural, which is what got struck. So another few innocents dead. And one poll showed that some Iraqis were actually getting to the point where they longed for life under Saddam. And these aren't fanatics either, these are simple people trying to live. Like it or not, the violence of the last year or so eclipses anything Saddam's done in the past few years. So we're still a long way from being in a point where we can pat ourselves on the back.

And then of course let's invade Saudi Arabia since they had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did, since they continue to have terrorist attacks happen in their country, and since they too are ruled by a cruel and ruthless dictator that robs his citizens of their rights.

Then that would limit free speech. Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq? All the good that we have done? Opened schools. Getting power up. Organizing their security and Defense Forces! Re building Hospitals. Ever see that on BBC?

Of course. I have seen such.

I have yet to see such though on Fox. Lots of talk of terrorists and how your going to kill them though.

I have seen it on Fox News. I watch it all the time because all the other shows on TV are either stupid, ignorant, obscene or all three.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it so. I have seen it as I've originally stated. Its on at certain times.

And now, I'll will say this. We all have our opinions on how news is reported. My family and I watch Fox News. You watch BBC. I say that we recognize that fact and move on. Everyone here has an opinion on this,I recognize it. I have my own opinions and I wish you respect my opinions but I guess thats hard because I'm a girl. I respect you for your opinions and I hope you respect me for my opinions.

Then that would limit free speech. Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq? All the good that we have done? Opened schools. Getting power up. Organizing their security and Defense Forces! Re building Hospitals. Ever see that on BBC?

Of course. I have seen such.

I have yet to see such though on Fox. Lots of talk of terrorists and how your going to kill them though.

I have seen it on Fox News. I watch it all the time because all the other shows on TV are either stupid, ignorant, obscene or all three.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it so. I have seen it as I've originally stated. Its on at certain times.

And now, I'll will say this. We all have our opinions on how news is reported. My family and I watch Fox News. You watch BBC. I say that we recognize that fact and move on. Everyone here has an opinion on this,I recognize it. I have my own opinions and I wish you respect my opinions but I guess thats hard because I'm a girl. I respect you for your opinions and I hope you respect me for my opinions.

I respect your right to have an opinion. I also respect my right to disagree with your opinion. But now that we have argued and have made virtually no progress I say we quit before we start slagging each other off.

A pleasure.

Then that would limit free speech. Ever seen what we have been doing in Iraq? All the good that we have done? Opened schools. Getting power up. Organizing their security and Defense Forces! Re building Hospitals. Ever see that on BBC?

Of course. I have seen such.

I have yet to see such though on Fox. Lots of talk of terrorists and how your going to kill them though.

I have seen it on Fox News. I watch it all the time because all the other shows on TV are either stupid, ignorant, obscene or all three.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it so. I have seen it as I've originally stated. Its on at certain times.

And now, I'll will say this. We all have our opinions on how news is reported. My family and I watch Fox News. You watch BBC. I say that we recognize that fact and move on. Everyone here has an opinion on this,I recognize it. I have my own opinions and I wish you respect my opinions but I guess thats hard because I'm a girl. I respect you for your opinions and I hope you respect me for my opinions.

Yes, that must be it. One thing you can say about liberals: they've never taken women seriously. Oh, sure, male and female liberals fought to get women the vote, and fought to get them equal pay and equal treatment at work, in the teeth of bitter conservative opposition, but we don't take your opinions seriously because you're a girl.

I'll respect anyone's opinions if they are based on reason and common sense, even ones I disagree with, regardless of gender. Remorseless spouting of dogma, and wild-eyed baseless accusations of bias, though, is something else. You disagree with some of the things the BBC broadcasts: therefore, in your mind, they must be biased. Now you run up against some other people on this forum who disagree with you. What's your response? You accuse THEM of bias. Get a grip.