NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats have asked Fox news to curb what they see as an obvious bias in their stories.

Are they going to ask ABC, CBS and NBC to do the same?

Peter Jennings and Dan Rather have admitted that they are Democrats and their reporting shows this to be true. As for FOX, they usually have two people from opposing sides to debate an issue. The other networks do not.

The Democrats have asked Fox news to curb what they see as an obvious bias in their stories.

Are they going to ask ABC, CBS and NBC to do the same?

Peter Jennings and Dan Rather have admitted that they are Democrats and their reporting shows this to be true. As for FOX, they usually have two people from opposing sides to debate an issue. The other networks do not.
Good god, I hope they ask the other networks. Oh, you forgot CNN and MSNBC too.

The Democrats have asked Fox news to curb what they see as an obvious bias in their stories.

Are they going to ask ABC, CBS and NBC to do the same?

Peter Jennings and Dan Rather have admitted that they are Democrats and their reporting shows this to be true. As for FOX, they usually have two people from opposing sides to debate an issue. The other networks do not.
I've seen one Fox show that have two hosts on opposite sides--Hannity and Colmes...and Hannity hardly lets Colmes talk. Aside from that, you left out CNN, which has Crossfire...which is much better than Hannity and Colmes. And it should be the Republicans that ask ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN to curb their bias--not the Democrats.

Um, having Bill O'Reilly or Hannity shout down an opposing viewpoint doesn't count as having opposite sides of an issue. On Hannity and Colmes, where Hannity is a extreme conservative and Colmes is a self-described "moderate" (but the most liberal person at FOX), Hannity speaks literally twice as much as Colmes. FOX is by far the most biased mainstream news source. And the Democrats can ask whatever they want. It's up to FOX whether they want to comply.

Although, the asshole-ishness of Hannity is reason enough not to be a conservative.

Good god, I hope they ask the other networks. Oh, you forgot CNN and MSNBC too.

And NPR. Financed with taxpayer funds, no less!

Well if they were going to be fair, which I assume all Democrats are for then they would ask all the other networks, as well as several newspapers, and NPR to curb their bias as well.

Um, having Bill O'Reilly or Hannity shout down an opposing viewpoint doesn't count as having opposite sides of an issue. On Hannity and Colmes, where Hannity is a extreme conservative and Colmes is a self-described "moderate" (but the most liberal person at FOX), Hannity speaks literally twice as much as Colmes. FOX is by far the most biased mainstream news source. And the Democrats can ask whatever they want. It's up to FOX whether they want to comply.

Um, Colmes is a self described "Liberal." And he's proud of it too. Perhaps you're unaware of Colmes's latest book title, "Red, White, and Liberal."

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter

I did forget CNN and some of the others. I usually watch CBS in the evenings and read MSNBC during the day. There is an obvious bias toward the left on both of those though.

Well if they were going to be fair, which I assume all Democrats are for then they would ask all the other networks, as well as several newspapers, and NPR to curb their bias as well.
NPR isn't biased. People often confuse intelligent with biased.

Um, Colmes is a self described "Liberal." And he's proud of it too. Perhaps you're unaware of Colmes's latest book title, "Red, White, and Liberal."

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter
...but does Hannity let him talk much?

Um, Colmes is a self described "Liberal." And he's proud of it too. Perhaps you're unaware of Colmes's latest book title, "Red, White, and Liberal."

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter
This coming from Ms. "All liberals are traitors" Ann Coulter? She wouldn't know objective news coverage if it smacked her in the head.

Um, Colmes is a self described "Liberal." And he's proud of it too. Perhaps you're unaware of Colmes's latest book title, "Red, White, and Liberal."

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter

That's the first time I've ever seen the phrase "objective news coverage" linked with the name "Ann Coulter". Mind you, I'm not surprised that she had to say it herself.

NPR isn't biased. People often confuse intelligent with biased.

Oh, there is DEFINITLY a left bias on NPR. Afterall, thats where they keep getting their funding for. While I listen to it from time to time, I would not mind saving those tax dollars for something else.

Who cares? The only people who believe the bullshit that comes out of Fox News are robots who are going to be bush-bots any way. I personally don't care what Fox says, some of us actually read many news sources, it's obviously to any one with an IQ over 40 that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.

NPR isn't biased. People often confuse intelligent with biased.

If you hadn't said this, I would have. Apparently biased is an actual accounting of things that have happened when Republicans use the word.

Oh, there is DEFINITLY a left bias on NPR. Afterall, thats where they keep getting their funding for. While I listen to it from time to time, I would not mind saving those tax dollars for something else.
Where? I listen to it a lot, and they are the only network that even tries to have objective coverage.

From: http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

How is NPR Supported?

"NPR (National Public Radio) is a private, self-supporting nonprofit media company with hundreds of independent radio stations as members. NPR receives no direct federal funding for general support. NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from stations, contributions from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage - between 1-2 percent of NPR's annual budget - comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. At present, NPR's annual operating budget is approximately $100 million a year (2002 NPR Annual Report)."

Tax dollars do not support NPR

From: http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

How is NPR Supported?

"NPR (National Public Radio) is a private, self-supporting nonprofit media company with hundreds of independent radio stations as members. NPR receives no direct federal funding for general support. NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from stations, contributions from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage - between 1-2 percent of NPR's annual budget - comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. At present, NPR's annual operating budget is approximately $100 million a year (2002 NPR Annual Report)."

Tax dollars do not support NPR

So 1 to 2 million a year comes from the taxpayers....they can do without that.

...but does Hannity let him talk much?

Hannity doesn't have to let Colmes talk nor does he prevent Colmes from talking. Colmes speaks when he wants. Hell, Colmes starts off the show most of the time, so he's usually first to speak.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the most Fair and Balanced fake news station out there. They will rag on Democrits and Replicons alike

NPR isn't biased. People often confuse intelligent with biased.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=487

http://www.endnprbias.com/

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocmm.html

http://www.netreach.net/~zoa/columns/April97/pbsAppeal.html

http://www.nprbias.com/archives/000037.html

You want fair and balanced reporting of world events.

The BBC!

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=487

CAMERA picks on everyone, regardless of what they do or say.


http://www.endnprbias.com/

Throws around pathetic insults and on the front page, NPR is right in saying that the race is between the right and the far-right. It is. Arafat is a reformer, considering what has happened in Palestine and what could happen if he gets thrown out,

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocmm.html

See above...I don't like CAMERA at all.

http://www.netreach.net/~zoa/columns/April97/pbsAppeal.html

More of the same...

http://www.nprbias.com/archives/000037.html
Nothing solid here either, nor is there anything about the US besides a few things disputing fact.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the most Fair and Balanced fake news station out there. They will rag on Democrits and Replicons alike


It's funny because it's true...

You want fair and balanced reporting of world events.

The BBC!

HA! What a joke!

"The Beeb" has been shown in recent events to skew its stories to match its political bias. Reporters and higher-ups were FIRED because of it. They are unreliable.

HA! What a joke!

"The Beeb" has been shown in recent events to skew its stories to match its political bias. Reporters and higher-ups were FIRED because of it. They are unreliable.

And you missed the point.

They fired people for it. That adds to the credibility.

Is Faux News firing anybody for skewing reports when they claim to be Fair And Balanced?

CAMERA picks on everyone, regardless of what they do or say.

See above...I don't like CAMERA at all.

Oh sorry, you dont like them, so obviously they are lying. How could I have missed that. ::slaps forehead::

has anyone noticed fox is fair and balanced and every other news station is liberal

that should tell the conservatives something, sadly they are too blind to understand it

Oh sorry, you dont like them, so obviously they are lying. How could I have missed that. ::slaps forehead::
Because they think that anyone who dares call the PA anything but a 'terrorist organization' is a biased arab lover. That's why.

Because they think that anyone who dares call the PA anything but a 'terrorist organization' is a biased arab lover. That's why.
Calling someone who blows up a bus, a "terrific community organizer" instead of a terrorist organizer..... yea that's pretty objective.

You want fair and balanced reporting of world events.

The BBC!
Thank you for showing some sense.
NPR isn't biased. People often confuse intelligent with biased.
Same to you. Fox is blatant propaganda. If you want ANY decent news in the United States, either go public or... go to foreign media. BBC and the Guardian. And the New York Times I guess. All news on commercial television in America is trash, rightist propaganda nonsense.

Who cares? The only people who believe the bullshit that comes out of Fox News are robots who are going to be bush-bots any way. I personally don't care what Fox says, some of us actually read many news sources, it's obviously to any one with an IQ over 40 that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.

If Fox would actually put on some balanced, thought provoking news, then maybe those people would stop being drones and contribute something to our democracy other than uninformed votes.

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter

Sorry, Ann Coulter is a right-wing nut job that likes to lay slander on liberals. She has no rational thought and simply bothing beyond the vomit that she's manged to through up in her books.

But aside from that. Yes CNN, MSNBC are liberal. ABC, CBS, and the others are pretty much local news with a smattering of international matters. The individuals may be democrats, but in regards to what the station covers, it really doesn't matter.

FOX on the other hand is the most far right-wing station on the air. Their programs are not 'fair and balanced' they do not let 'you decide'. FOX runs programs tailored for a conservative audience and passes it off as news. They've even admitted their conservative bias on air. I watched it while I was at the gym, it was kinda funny.

NPR is, as I see it, the most balanced news source. Each story I here tends to have interviews from both sides of the argument. Again, individual reporters may be liberal or conservative but it doesn't affect the way the station runs.

Good god, I hope they ask the other networks. Oh, you forgot CNN and MSNBC too.

Oh yes the 'liberal' media. And thier 'liberal' policies such as reporting war as it happens. How 'liberal' of them.

Oh yes the 'liberal' media. And thier 'liberal' policies such as reporting war as it happens. How 'liberal' of them.
Well, the other media 'must' be liberal. Fox news said so! :)

So 1 to 2 million a year comes from the taxpayers....they can do without that.

Actually it's a tad more ... technically all the donations made by supporters are deductable on their income taxes. But if you really want to complain about all the pork barrel legislation that comes from Washington, there is probably about a thousand other groups that get far more than NPR does these days.

(It should also be pointed out that there are two major distributors of news programs on public radio, NPR and PRI. PRI produces shows like "Marketplace.")

In some ways you might say that NPR is somewhat liberal leaning. But as a Republican I find that NPR tends to represent both sides of most issues. That's why I personally support my public radio station.

The Fox slogan "Fair and Balanced" doesn't make a shred of sense.

Objectivity is an impossible aspiration.

Everyone views the world around them from the prism of their own upbringing.

To say that you are unbiased is biased in itself.

Therefore "Fair and Balanced" is a total contradiction.

Yes, Fox does sometimes have liberals on the air, but they usually threaten to cut off their microphone if they try to steer the conversation into uncomfortable territory.

Who cares? The only people who believe the bullshit that comes out of Fox News are robots who are going to be bush-bots any way. I personally don't care what Fox says, some of us actually read many news sources, it's obviously to any one with an IQ over 40 that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.


Amen!

Calling someone who blows up a bus, a "terrific community organizer" instead of a terrorist organizer..... yea that's pretty objective.
Except that the PA doesn't blow up buses. Learn something about the conflict...

Thank you for showing some sense.

Same to you. Fox is blatant propaganda. If you want ANY decent news in the United States, either go public or... go to foreign media. BBC and the Guardian. And the New York Times I guess. All news on commercial television in America is trash, rightist propaganda nonsense.

If Fox would actually put on some balanced, thought provoking news, then maybe those people would stop being drones and contribute something to our democracy other than uninformed votes.

Even as a self-described right-wing nut job, I will testify to Fox's conservative slant. It is still a far cry from blatant propaganda though. I recently switched to Fox, (CNN was raising my blood pressure), but as to their being fair and balanced, I am rather skeptical. They are about as balanced as the New York Times, in the opposite direction. The nonsense news on commercial television in America is anything but rightist propaganda, if it was coming from the right it would not make my blood boil. Anyway, my point is that not all Fox viewers are mindless, uninformed drones (with IQs below forty). Some are mildly intelligent conservatives who would prefer their current events sources not to attack their values.

Even as a self-described right-wing nut job, I will testify to Fox's conservative slant. It is still a far cry from blatant propaganda though. I recently switched to Fox, (CNN was raising my blood pressure), but as to their being fair and balanced, I am rather skeptical. They are about as balanced as the New York Times, in the opposite direction. The nonsense news on commercial television in America is anything but rightist propaganda, if it was coming from the right it would not make my blood boil. Anyway, my point is that not all Fox viewers are mindless, uninformed drones (with IQs below forty). Some are mildly intelligent conservatives who would prefer their current events sources not to attack their values.
No, it is the people who think that Fox is fair and balanced that have the IQ's below 40

Rupert Murdoch, eek.

Oh well he's not the top media mogul. The top guy around is Sumner Redstone. But by the looks of him he's about to kick the bucket.

"The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." - Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter herself is something that is impossible for any liberal to "grasp"

She's a sad, sorry excuse for a sex toy.

HA! What a joke!

"The Beeb" has been shown in recent events to skew its stories to match its political bias. Reporters and higher-ups were FIRED because of it. They are unreliable.
Erm, yeah, reporters in the BBC who were judged unable to correctly represent facts without becoming biast have been fired.

I'm sorry, how does this prove your point? They're rooting out shoddy reporting and bias, and you think this proves that their coverage is slanted?

Sorry, Ann Coulter is a right-wing nut job that likes to lay slander on liberals. She has no rational thought and simply bothing beyond the vomit that she's manged to through up in her books.
I see the words "Ann Coulter's book Slander" and I invariably think "Slander? Does she mean her or us?"

Sorry, Ann Coulter is a right-wing nut job that likes to lay slander on liberals...FOX on the other hand is the most far right-wing station on the air. Their programs are not 'fair and balanced' they do not let 'you decide'. FOX runs programs tailored for a conservative audience and passes it off as news. They've even admitted their conservative bias on air. I watched it while I was at the gym, it was kinda funny.

Its almost as if you missed the whole point. Ann obvioulsy isn't objective nor does she claim to be. Same goes for Hannity and O'Reilly, the two main people liberals complain about when they whine about the "conservative media." If you want objective watch some other show. If you want perspective, there are several FOX news shows (yes, there are other shows on FOX) to choose from.

FOX is fair and balanced because they allow both sides of the arguement to be heard. They make no claims to objectivity. Like you said, they have no problem even admitting they they are a conservative network. And yes, FOX does let "you decide."

As for FOX, they usually have two people from opposing sides to debate an issue. The other networks do not.

:-X

Hannity v Colmes? Colmes cannot say anything directly to Hannity, giving Hannity the opportunity to say whatever bullshit he wants. Plus, just look at the two of them. Hannity is decent looking whlie Colmes looks...weird. Ok, I am tired. *goes away*

FOX is fair and balanced because they allow both sides of the arguement to be heard. They make no claims to objectivity. Like you said, they have no problem even admitting they they are a conservative network. And yes, FOX does let "you decide."

They do not give you much of a choice. Colmes is not a liberal at all, he is a moderate. He might be slightly liberal leanings, but not a liberal. So where is the liberal viewpoints coming from? I think Hannity gives them pretty well, as he is bashing these so called liberal views.

And yes, I have actually watched the show before and I have listened to Hannity on the radio. Personally, I hate his show on the radio. The only thing I do like is his sense of humor.

FOX is fair and balanced because they allow both sides of the arguement to be heard. They make no claims to objectivity. Like you said, they have no problem even admitting they they are a conservative network. And yes, FOX does let "you decide."
It's almost as if YOU missed the whole point. FOX ISN'T fair and balanced becuase they DON'T allow both sides of the argument to be heard! Any 'news' they show, if they allow a non-conservative on at all, will allow only conservative and (at the most) a centrist opinion to be heard.

Ann Coulter herself is something that is impossible for any liberal to "grasp"

She's a sad, sorry excuse for a sex toy.

What the Hell are talking about? Ann is far hotter than any liberal political pundit. The fact that you refered to her as a "sex toy" tells me that even YOU probably thinks she's hot! We've got Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, and Michelle Malkin and you've got Arianna Huffington and Janeane Garofalo. Sheesh!

What the Hell are talking about? Ann is far hotter than any liberal political pundit. The fact that you refered to her as a "sex toy" tells me that even YOU probably thinks she's hot! We've got Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, and Michelle Malkin and you've got Arianna Huffington and Janeane Garofalo. Sheesh!
So the truth comes out...the right only likes her because she is good looking.

What the Hell are talking about? Ann is far hotter than any liberal political pundit. The fact that you refered to her as a "sex toy" tells me that even YOU probably thinks she's hot! We've got Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, and Michelle Malkin and you've got Arianna Huffington and Janeane Garofalo. Sheesh!

We (liberals) also have my girlfriend. I think she is pretty hot.

Anyways. Honestly, I do not think Ann is very hot at all. She is repulsive, at that, in my opinion. So she, in my opinion, would not make a very good sex toy.

Oh. And my question is. Why in the fuck does it matter what they look like?!

It's almost as if YOU missed the whole point. FOX ISN'T fair and balanced becuase they DON'T allow both sides of the argument to be heard! Any 'news' they show, if they allow a non-conservative on at all, will allow only conservative and (at the most) a centrist opinion to be heard.

You must not have seen Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, and RFK jr. on Hannity and Colmes and people like Al Sharpton, Ben Affleck, and Michael Moore on The O'Reilly Factor recently.

So the truth comes out...the right only likes her because she is good looking.

We like her because she's conservative, smart, drives liberals insane, and speaks her mind, even when it isn't popular. I was only talking about her good looks because someone else mentioned it first.

Oh. And my question is. Why in the fuck does it matter what they look like?!

I believe it was Spoffin who first refered to Ann as a "sex toy," so I might ask you the same thing.

What the Hell are talking about? Ann is far hotter than any liberal political pundit. The fact that you refered to her as a "sex toy" tells me that even YOU probably thinks she's hot! We've got Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, and Michelle Malkin and you've got Arianna Huffington and Janeane Garofalo. Sheesh!


Hot is not a term I would apply to her. She opens her mouth and any attraction factor dumps to negative numbers.

She is a hypocrite as well. For all her crazed anti-lib stuff, she won't say anything nasty about her buddy Bill Mahier.

As to IQ, anybody that says Senator Joe was a great american is not running on all 4 cylinders.....

We like her because she's conservative, smart, drives liberals insane, and speaks her mind, even when it isn't popular. I was only talking about her good looks because someone else mentioned it first.

Sorry Intelligent woment speak their minds. Bitches talk over you or try to shout you out.

Driving Liberals insane? Why not? With all the stupidity she spouts.....

Good looks. Skelator is betting looking.

Hot is not a term I would apply to her. She opens her mouth and any attraction factor dumps to negative numbers.

She is a hypocrite as well. For all her crazed anti-lib stuff, she won't say anything nasty about her buddy Bill Mahier.

As to IQ, anybody that says Senator Joe was a great american is not running on all 4 cylinders.....
i would respect ann coulter more if she WAS a sex toy

i would respect ann coulter more if she WAS a sex toy
She dresses like one...

I believe it was Spoffin who first refered to Ann as a "sex toy," so I might ask you the same thing.

He is not commenting on her looks by saying that. You can be a sex toy who is ugly. So he is not saying she is hot, nor is he saying she is ugly. In fact, he is not commenting on her looks, period.

She is a total skag.

She is a hypocrite as well. For all her crazed anti-lib stuff, she won't say anything nasty about her buddy Bill Mahier

She doesn't even like to admitt that they are friends...can you blame her?

Ann is as ugly as a not fat chick can get.
Face it.
Shes also mentally retarded.

You must not have seen Janeane Garofalo, Howard Dean, and RFK jr. on Hannity and Colmes and people like Al Sharpton, Ben Affleck, and Michael Moore on The O'Reilly Factor recently.
Ah yes, and I'll bet FOX had it's propagandists speak VERY highly of them.

Um, Colmes is a self described "Liberal."

According to what I've read, he's a self-described "moderate" liberal. The question, of course, remains as to what exactly he means by that.

And he's proud of it too. Perhaps you're unaware of Colmes's latest book title, "Red, White, and Liberal."

Does he actually give any insight in the book as to what kind of liberal he is? Have you read it?

RFK Jr. wasn't treated very fairly...

According to what I've read, he's a self-described "moderate" liberal. The question, of course, remains as to what exactly he means by that.



Does he actually give any insight in the book as to what kind of liberal he is? Have you read it?
of course he thinks he is liberal, he works with SEAN HANNITY

of course he thinks he is liberal, he works with SEAN HANNITY
Roffle.

actually there is NO democrat bias on any corporate media outlet with the sole exception of the very new air america--theres foxnews hysterical spin in favor of the worst excesses of republicans and then the rest of the center-right media none of which in any way favors dems

of course he thinks he is liberal, he works with SEAN HANNITY

I don't know if that would necessarily make me think I was liberal. Mentally ill, maybe.

What many people fail to grasp about the media is that while the reporters themselves may be liberal (and that is up for debate. I'd wager that very few, successful, rich journalists that are the faces we see on the news are economically liberal,) but their employers, the producers, the editors and the CEOs themselves are about as right-wing as it gets. It is these people who assign the stories, edit the content, determine the "tone," and arrange for guests. The journalists themselves, if they want to keep their job, have to do as they are told.

What many people fail to grasp about the media is that while the reporters themselves may be liberal (and that is up for debate. I'd wager that very few, successful, rich journalists that are the faces we see on the news are economically liberal,) but their employers, the producers, the editors and the CEOs themselves are about as right-wing as it gets. It is these people who assign the stories, edit the content, determine the "tone," and arrange for guests. The journalists themselves, if they want to keep their job, have to do as they are told.
I know that but rightys use the fact that many are liberals in a way to try to spin it into some kinda liberal media bias which is totally non-existent--the media is transparently conservative

The fact that no one has once bothered to cite a specific example of Fox, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly outright lying is rather telling. What's wrong with being a little mean to poor ickle Ronnnie? Where's the sin in running someone down based on the facts? Why is it slander to point out the fact that someone lied? When is it a debate to simply say that people with opposing view points are "skags," "sex toys," "ugly," or possess IQs below 40.

On a side note, I was so completely blown away by your ad hominen attacks. So witty, so original. Surely no one before has ever said there enemies are "ugly." No one outside of every four year old throwing sand around the playground, that is.

Everyone is biased, FOX, NYT, NEWSWEEK, CNN, MSNBC, MKULTRA, NPR(whee! look at that Capslock key go), all of them. What matters is that they don't let their bias to the left, right, west, east, north, south, paper, or plastic interfere with them (even if you really, really like plastic baggies). Yet, NEWSWEEK (oh, Capslock key, is there nothing you can't do?) sat on an interview with a certain intern because it might embarrass a certain sleazeball president. And, the NYT (and lo, the Capslock key cometh and the letters didst become of a larger size) printed a frontpage story about rumors dat Dicky teh Chain would be dropped from the Refugglican (wow! I can make fun of the word Repbulican too!) ticket. Rumors, on the frontpage. Rumors about things that wouldn't come to be for many, many moons. Rumors that had no basis in fact. Rumors that, well you got the idea and I am starting to rant.

But, before I leave. CAPSLOCK KEY I WORSHIP THY GREATNESS!

Oh for Christ's sake, Hajekistan, just visit mediamatters.org and do a search on Fox--you'll get more examples of misinformation and outright lying than you know what to do with.

The Democrats have asked Fox news to curb what they see as an obvious bias in their stories.


This just in:

Republicans return fire by asking water to not be so wet.

Film at 11:00.

Who cares? The only people who believe the bullshit that comes out of Fox News are robots who are going to be bush-bots any way. I personally don't care what Fox says, some of us actually read many news sources, it's obviously to any one with an IQ over 40 that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.
i will agree to a point but than again i have never seen a fair and balanced news station. so why does a single right leaning station when all the rest are left leaning bother you so much?

i will agree to a point but than again i have never seen a fair and balanced news station. so why does a single right leaning station when all the rest are left leaning bother you so much?
because the rest arent left leaning

The fact that no one has once bothered to cite a specific example of Fox, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly

Incertonia pointed a link but the fact is many "truths" have been pointed out before. For example, O'Reilly reshooting a shot because the comments came off wrong. The Blond knuckle head and McCarthy, the fact she goes rabid about liberals in general and yet won't comment on any of Mahiers comments(being nice is a cop out as people can think friends beliefs are insane and yet still like them).



outright lying is rather telling. What's wrong with being a little mean to poor ickle Ronnnie? Where's the sin in running someone down based on the facts?

Usually its bad form to speak ill of the dead. Yet the Repubs and or Conservatives get mighty upset when you speak ill of the great God Reagan.


Why is it slander to point out the fact that someone lied? When is it a debate to simply say that people with opposing view points are "skags," "sex toys," "ugly," or possess IQs below 40.

The question is the facts. Again McCarthy being the great american that never did anything wrong. All the comments about him are a campaign of Liberal lies. Not an exact statement but it's the gist of Annies comments about McCarthy.

The rest is rather childish so I won't bother commented on.

Oh for Christ's sake, Hajekistan, just visit mediamatters.org and do a search on Fox--you'll get more examples of misinformation and outright lying than you know what to do with.


Why would he/she? It is nothing more then Liberal lies. :rolleyes:

3 out of the 4 biggest reporters arent republican

O'Reilly- independent
Hannity- Rep
Colmes- Dem
Greta- Dem

because the rest arent left leaning
do you really belive that lol. I was a democrat untill reagans 2nd term. only fox does not slant it to a way that i belived before than.
even fox does not show a balanced veiw of what is going on in iraq.3 kids of people i know are there in the army or marines as is the brother of a lady i dated recently is in the NG( she is in the reserves). Sure there is fighting going on there and some of the people dont want us there but no where near the LvL of what we see on the news. watch the news and you get the feeling that most of the country is a war zone. but what THEY TELL ME is that most of the country is peacefull most of the time with some HOT spots. really want to know what is going on there ask a few that was there.

3 out of the 4 biggest reporters arent republican

O'Reilly- independent
Hannity- Rep
Colmes- Dem
Greta- Dem

Republicans don't have a monopoly on conservatism.

Ann is as ugly as a not fat chick can get.
Face it.
Shes also mentally retarded.

I don't know about her being mentally retarded, but it is funny that she confuses Democrats with liberals.

:headbang:
Think.
Remember that the only way of getting anything worthwhile in the way of knowledge is to find out yourself. Get every single source that you can, then average them. Also, do not turn on the boob tube for news, except that of a local sort. It's not worth risking your brain. Watch your favorite shows, or movies, but for the love of crimeny, don't watch anything on there short of the weather channel, one of the discovery family of channels, or PBS for real facts.

Although, coming from the Jerz, I don't mind Uncle Floyd...

In short: liberal or conservative, remember the not-famous-enough theory of Heisenberg:
"You never know that you're correct about anything, except that you might be wrong."

You want fair and balanced reporting of world events.

The BBC!

I agree - sucks to the people who want to get rid of it - its news reporting is some of the greatest in modern times. Who can forget legends like John Simpson. Fuck 'fair and balanced' Fox - this is news, simple as that.

No, it is the people who think that Fox is fair and balanced that have the IQ's below 40

Yup, the people who watch Fox have such a low IQ, but yet they can purchase a computer and actually type words (sometimes spelled correctly). Hey "charter" school boy, IQ is not a reliable way to judge intelligence. Could you fix a jet engine without being told what is wrong? Could you bring a jet safely out of a stall at 600 mph? Can you look at an animal track in the mud and tell how old the track is and what kind of animal it is from? Survive in the wild for a month with only a knife? Kind of tough huh? Well go ahead and tell me quiz kid.

BTW I do watch fox and yes my IQ is above the 40 range.

i will agree to a point but than again i have never seen a fair and balanced news station. so why does a single right leaning station when all the rest are left leaning bother you so much?

Because the left leaning stations aren't as popular.

__________________________________

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Yup, the people who watch Fox have such a low IQ, but yet they can purchase a computer and actually type words (sometimes spelled correctly). Hey "charter" school boy, IQ is not a reliable way to judge intelligence. Could you fix a jet engine without being told what is wrong? Could you bring a jet safely out of a stall at 600 mph? Can you look at an animal track in the mud and tell how old the track is and what kind of animal it is from? Survive in the wild for a month with only a knife? Kind of tough huh? Well go ahead and tell me quiz kid.

BTW I do watch fox and yes my IQ is above the 40 range.
Ad hominem attack. I was clearing up an earlier post by someone else, not making a statement myself. Have fun with that.

Back on the ignore list you go.

Yup, the people who watch Fox have such a low IQ, but yet they can purchase a computer and actually type words (sometimes spelled correctly). Hey "charter" school boy, IQ is not a reliable way to judge intelligence. Could you fix a jet engine without being told what is wrong? Could you bring a jet safely out of a stall at 600 mph? Can you look at an animal track in the mud and tell how old the track is and what kind of animal it is from? Survive in the wild for a month with only a knife? Kind of tough huh? Well go ahead and tell me quiz kid.

BTW I do watch fox and yes my IQ is above the 40 range.
Yes but do you think that Fox News is fair, balanced or doesn't have a conservative bias?

Yes but do you think that Fox News is fair, balanced or doesn't have a conservative bias?

I believe he said he had an IQ above 40...

Why would he/she? It is nothing more then Liberal lies. :rolleyes:



That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. Also the saddest. What a dumbass! :D

Oh for Christ's sake, Hajekistan, just visit mediamatters.org and do a search on Fox--you'll get more examples of misinformation and outright lying than you know what to do with.
I will use the not quite so patented CSW thought process and announce that Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/) is invalid because I don't like them. They also have an article whining about conservatives using nicknames (like Lurch) to refer to the John "OMFG The Greatest Man In America" Kerry.

Obviously the only people here are simply feel an unending desire to compensate their lack brain matter with "funny" comments about other peoples IQs and dirty words. I am sorry that I ever dared intrude with my unreasonable demands of "proving claims" and using "logic." It was obviously too much to expect of people who missed primary school english. So long you ass faced lovers of sheep, I leave you too your incestuous dreams with these kind words of warning "If you keep sticking your head in there, its going to get stuck."

No, it is the people who think that Fox is fair and balanced that have the IQ's below 40

Ok this really shows your intellect!

Neil Boorts, whom I just finished listening too, CHALLENGED his listeners to bring one shred of proof that Fox News REPORTING isn't fair and balanced. So Far, NONE HAVE.

You guys are mistaking News Reporting (reporting of the news), which Fox Does Constently, and Commentary (opinions given by a person) which they, too, have. They report the news then they have commentary about the news.

GET THE TWO STRAIGHT!

It's almost as if YOU missed the whole point. FOX ISN'T fair and balanced becuase they DON'T allow both sides of the argument to be heard! Any 'news' they show, if they allow a non-conservative on at all, will allow only conservative and (at the most) a centrist opinion to be heard.

Yes they do Fenring! I watch Fox News all the time! It beats everyone else in almost every time slot that is on Cable News from CNN and MSNBC! They also had the most viewers during the convention. Why? Because of the Commentary.

Again you missed the fact that there is a difference between Reporting and Commentary.

FNC is fair and balanced in their reporting but Commentary is fair game.

"but yet they can purchase a computer and actually type words (sometimes spelled correctly). "

Well that is not all inclusive. My parent-in-laws did that and they still look at their computers as magical boxes. ;)

"Could you fix a jet engine without being told what is wrong?"
no

"Could you bring a jet safely out of a stall at 600 mph?"
No

"Can you look at an animal track in the mud and tell how old the track is and what kind of animal it is from?"
Yes.

"Survive in the wild for a month with only a knife?"
Yes.

Hannibal. What rank did you finish?

With your age and your experiences; why are you getting into pissing matches with guys 1/2 to 1/3 of your age?

If what you say of your past is true, people here would respect you. But you loose that with these pissing matches.

If you are indeed a Nam vetern, you have perspectives people would listen. Quoting the RNC and Savage does not do you service.

Saying "I was there between year and year. I was stationed at place and flew for the wild weasles and I never heard of an attrocity incident in my area." has much more weight then "Kerry and anybody who supports him is a dirtly liberal commie homosexual ... traitor!"

I sense some unresolved issues and I am not saying that to attack. I know what it is like as my buddy is still dealing with issues 40 years after his time there.

do you really belive that lol. I was a democrat untill reagans 2nd term. only fox does not slant it to a way that i belived before than.
even fox does not show a balanced veiw of what is going on in iraq.3 kids of people i know are there in the army or marines as is the brother of a lady i dated recently is in the NG( she is in the reserves). Sure there is fighting going on there and some of the people dont want us there but no where near the LvL of what we see on the news. watch the news and you get the feeling that most of the country is a war zone. but what THEY TELL ME is that most of the country is peacefull most of the time with some HOT spots. really want to know what is going on there ask a few that was there.

Fox actually has reported that the Violence is mostly centered in the Sunni Triangle!

That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. Also the saddest. What a dumbass! :D

Writes Lutton's name in the fan column! ;)

Ok this really shows your intellect!

Neil Boorts, whom I just finished listening too, CHALLENGED his listeners to bring one shred of proof that Fox News REPORTING isn't fair and balanced. So Far, NONE HAVE.

You guys are mistaking News Reporting (reporting of the news), which Fox Does Constently, and Commentary (opinions given by a person) which they, too, have. They report the news then they have commentary about the news.

GET THE TWO STRAIGHT!
Yeah, because Boortz listeners really have any motive to challenge Fox News--Boortz's audience is largely a subset of the Fox News audience and like any right-wing talk show host, Boortz doesn't let anyone who can show him up through to talk on the air. I listened to Boortz years ago when he was on late-night--I can't imagine much has changed judging from recent transcripts of his that I've read.

And while you may think you have a point about the division between news reporting and commentary, the truth is that Fox blurs that line all the time, with anchors giving commentary in the supposedly "hard news" segments of the broadcast. Outfoxed is really effective in showing how FNC does that by using clips of Fox's own anchors making little smartass asides while they're supposed to be giving the news.

Yeah, because Boortz listeners really have any motive to challenge Fox News--Boortz's audience is largely a subset of the Fox News audience and like any right-wing talk show host, Boortz doesn't let anyone who can show him up through to talk on the air. I listened to Boortz years ago when he was on late-night--I can't imagine much has changed judging from recent transcripts of his that I've read.

And while you may think you have a point about the division between news reporting and commentary, the truth is that Fox blurs that line all the time, with anchors giving commentary in the supposedly "hard news" segments of the broadcast. Outfoxed is really effective in showing how FNC does that by using clips of Fox's own anchors making little smartass asides while they're supposed to be giving the news.

Was wondering when someone is going to pull out outfoxed! personally I call Outfoxed Propaganda considering NO ONE is taking Fox News Challenge of Releasing their internal Memos for the public Viewing. Fox News is willing to do this but no one is taking them up and to let the viewers decide. WHY?

So far, Outfoxed hasn't even dented Fox New's dominence on Cable News! WHy? Because people do believe that Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

Yeah, because Boortz listeners really have any motive to challenge Fox News--Boortz's audience is largely a subset of the Fox News audience and like any right-wing talk show host, Boortz doesn't let anyone who can show him up through to talk on the air. I listened to Boortz years ago when he was on late-night--I can't imagine much has changed judging from recent transcripts of his that I've read.

And while you may think you have a point about the division between news reporting and commentary, the truth is that Fox blurs that line all the time, with anchors giving commentary in the supposedly "hard news" segments of the broadcast. Outfoxed is really effective in showing how FNC does that by using clips of Fox's own anchors making little smartass asides while they're supposed to be giving the news.

The line is only blurry to those with bad vision.

CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN anchors have ALL made "little smartass asides" too. Dan Rather is probably the biggest culprit. But maybe you didn't notice because they lean your way.

Boortz?

Isn't he the guy who said that he couldn't tell who was the greater danger to the US, Bin Laden or the supporters of Kerry?

The line is only blurry to those with bad vision.

CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN anchors have ALL made "little smartass asides" too. Dan Rather is probably the biggest culprit. But maybe you didn't notice because they lean your way.
My vision is fine. I've argued in a number of places that all television news is guilty of bias and craptacular performance as far as real journalism is concerned. The only tv news I watch anymore is the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. I don't even have cable.

But if you're suggesting that the level of open disdain for the left by Fox News is matched by an open level of disdain for the right by anyone else in broadcast tv, then I challenge you to prove it. I think if you do an honest assessment of broadcast tv news, you'll find very little ideological bias and a whole lot of corporatization. As in any enterprise where money is the overwhelming concern, the mass media is concerned first with profits and with everything else far behind that. And since Fox has been financially and ratings successful, most news organizations are copycatting them. Everyone is trying to out-Fox Fox News, just like you have a lot of looney right-wingers (Savage, Hannity, Liddy, Ollie North, etc) who try to out-Rush Rush.

Boortz?

Isn't he the guy who said that he couldn't tell who was the greater danger to the US, Bin Laden or the supporters of Kerry?That's him--he also referred to former (and possibly future) congressperson Cynthia McKinney as "our favorite little fascist" or something like that.

My vision is fine. I've argued in a number of places that all television news is guilty of bias and craptacular performance as far as real journalism is concerned. The only tv news I watch anymore is the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. I don't even have cable.

But if you're suggesting that the level of open disdain for the left by Fox News is matched by an open level of disdain for the right by anyone else in broadcast tv, then I challenge you to prove it. I think if you do an honest assessment of broadcast tv news, you'll find very little ideological bias and a whole lot of corporatization. As in any enterprise where money is the overwhelming concern, the mass media is concerned first with profits and with everything else far behind that. And since Fox has been financially and ratings successful, most news organizations are copycatting them. Everyone is trying to out-Fox Fox News, just like you have a lot of looney right-wingers (Savage, Hannity, Liddy, Ollie North, etc) who try to out-Rush Rush.

Why thank you for showing your liberalness. Savage and Hannity are popular on the radio. Fox News is defeating CNN, MSNBC, and the News Programs on the other networks. People are turning away from them and turning to Fox News. Why? Because it is more fair and balanced than anyother network.

I challenge you to prove ONE STORY that Fox REPORTED (not commentary but REPORTING) that isn't fair and balanced.

Why thank you for showing your liberalness. Savage and Hannity are popular on the radio. Fox News is defeating CNN, MSNBC, and the News Programs on the other networks. People are turning away from them and turning to Fox News. Why? Because it is more fair and balanced than anyother network.

I challenge you to prove ONE STORY that Fox REPORTED (not commentary but REPORTING) that isn't fair and balanced.How about every freaking story they've done on Iraq's non-existent WMD? People aren't turning to Fox because they're fair and balanced--they're turning to them because they're outrageous, and by the way, you've overstating FNC's importance. They lead the cable race--yes--but they still only get about 10% of the ratings of the average nightly newscast.

You need to understand one thing even if nothing else gets through--popularity does not equal accuracy. In fact, popularity and accuracy often wind up being at odds with each other.

How about every freaking story they've done on Iraq's non-existent WMD? People aren't turning to Fox because they're fair and balanced--they're turning to them because they're outrageous, and by the way, you've overstating FNC's importance. They lead the cable race--yes--but they still only get about 10% of the ratings of the average nightly newscast.

You need to understand one thing even if nothing else gets through--popularity does not equal accuracy. In fact, popularity and accuracy often wind up being at odds with each other.

HAHA is that all you can get? Now your just rediculing yourself. They reported it just as much as CNN and MSNBC has but yet now you just singled out Fox News. LOL!!!!

Here's a Quick News Flash! Even Fox is questioning that but I guess you don't believe it! O'Reilly has asked where are they and wants it answered. It basically has dropped of the news wires anyway on all stations.

Ok so now again. Name one FNC REPORT that wasn't fair and balanced!

As for their importance, they are smacking the competition in prime-time, smashed the competition in the war on iraq, Smash the ratings during the convention..... Do I have to draw you a picture of this? People are turning to them because of what they offer. They offer News ALONG WITH Commentary and that is what the people want.

Most of what people consider "Bias" is based on the things they're taught by the individuals who influence an individual early on. Wether you think CNN or Fox News is the most biased depends partly on how you were raised. I have my own opinion but sharing it on this forum will not make anyone feel differently about a certian network. That feeling is made long before you start watching the news.

has anyone noticed fox is fair and balanced and every other news station is liberal

that should tell the conservatives something, sadly they are too blind to understand it
I suppose that finding 83% of journalists describe themselves as liberal is just a statistical anomoly to you. In that case the fact that 90% of Washington correspondants are white males also does not show any lack of diversity.

Except that the PA doesn't blow up buses. Learn something about the conflict...
Right. They just provide moral and financial support to people who blow themselves up while they just happen to be on a bus...

And you missed the point.

They fired people for it. That adds to the credibility.

Is Faux News firing anybody for skewing reports when they claim to be Fair And Balanced?
They werent fired for their slant, they resigned as a result of the fallout from lieing, and then covering it up. The true insult is the insistence from the survivors at the BBC that they should not have been scruitinized so much for lieing.

I suppose that finding 83% of journalists describe themselves as liberal is just a statistical anomoly to you. In that case the fact that 90% of Washington correspondants are white males also does not show any lack of diversity.
i also suppose the idea never came to you that a very very low percentage of conservatives who sit around saying fox isnt conservative and every single newspaper and news station that isnt fox is liberal know that statistic

do you really belive that lol. I was a democrat untill reagans 2nd term. only fox does not slant it to a way that i belived before than.
even fox does not show a balanced veiw of what is going on in iraq.3 kids of people i know are there in the army or marines as is the brother of a lady i dated recently is in the NG( she is in the reserves). Sure there is fighting going on there and some of the people dont want us there but no where near the LvL of what we see on the news. watch the news and you get the feeling that most of the country is a war zone. but what THEY TELL ME is that most of the country is peacefull most of the time with some HOT spots. really want to know what is going on there ask a few that was there.
thats not a case of left/right--thats just typical media sensationalism

Because the left leaning stations aren't as popular.

__________________________________

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
in the one case where there is a liberal media outlet (air america) its wildly popular

Was wondering when someone is going to pull out outfoxed! personally I call Outfoxed Propaganda considering NO ONE is taking Fox News Challenge of Releasing their internal Memos for the public Viewing. Fox News is willing to do this but no one is taking them up and to let the viewers decide. WHY?

So far, Outfoxed hasn't even dented Fox New's dominence on Cable News! WHy? Because people do believe that Fox News is Fair and Balanced.
the fact that the blatent bias is invisible to you either means your a rightwing extremist yourself or your engaging in a foxnews lying pattern

i also suppose the idea never came to you that a very very low percentage of conservatives who sit around saying fox isnt conservative and every single newspaper and news station that isnt fox is liberal know that statistic
what is your point?

the fact that the blatent bias is invisible to you either means your a rightwing extremist yourself or your engaging in a foxnews lying pattern
I call you on it.

www.foxnews.com

Link one biased news report.

Put up or shut up.

thats not a case of left/right--thats just typical media sensationalism
and it just happens to slant to the left is just by chance lol right right

I call you on it.

www.foxnews.com

Link one biased news report.

Put up or shut up.

He can't Bozzy because there aren't any biased reports. I challenged Incertonia on this and he still hasn't come up with an answer.

I call you on it.

www.foxnews.com

Link one biased news report.

Put up or shut up.
ok lets play ball
you find a biased cnn news link, everyone whines about them being liberal

ok lets play ball
you find a biased cnn news link, everyone whines about them being liberal

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/misreporting.html

the fact that the blatent bias is invisible to you either means your a rightwing extremist yourself or your engaging in a foxnews lying pattern

the fact that the blatent bias is invisible to you either means your a leftwing extremist yourself or your engaging in a CNN/NPR lying pattern

I call you on it.

www.foxnews.com

Link one biased news report.

Put up or shut up.Ignoring for the moment that Foxnews.com and the Fox News channel are not the same thing, and that it's harder to slip bias into written reports than it is to slip it into televised ones, I present this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128329,00.html) on the recent horse race for the Presidency.

According to Foxnews.com Despite the gains for the Democratic challenger, Bush and Kerry remained essentially tied in the presidential race -- a position they have been in for months. when in fact, the only poll in recent days that has shown Kerry and Bush virtually tied has been the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, which has been an outlier. Most polls have shown Kerry with a lead of anywhere from 4 to 9 points, all outside the margin of error. But let's look at the makeup of the article as well.

The article quotes two Democrats and two Republicans--but is it really even-handed? Let's look at their quotes and see.
Edison Montgomery, a 59-year-old Democrat from Lancaster, Ohio, said that after watching the convention he has grown more comfortable with Kerry -- especially on whether he is capable of protecting the nation.

"He seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders," Montgomery said.

"We have a long way to go on jobs," said Cara Easterly, a 37-year-old Democrat from the Seattle area. "I don't think Bush is focused on the problem. He's more focused on what's going on outside the country."

And now the Republicans: "I don't think Kerry's ready to be president," said Laura Weber, a 37-year-old Republican from Pierre, S.D. "Bush would be more decisive."

"I think President Bush has done an excellent job," said Linda Roberts, a conservative Republican from Liberal, Kan. "He's a Christian. I don't believe there's any reason to kill babies by abortion. I don't believe in gay marriage. I believe he is for equal rights, but also for God's rights."

The first Kerry supporter is vague and the second seems to like Kerry because he's not Bush, while Bush's first supporter reinforces an RNC talking point (Kerry is indecisive, a flip-flopper) and the second--who, by the way, gets the last word in the article--deals with social issues and invokes God, Christianity, and pretty much compares Bush to the second coming of the Messiah (as a defender of God's rights). If that's not favoritism, then what is? That's a damn sight more blatant than anything you'll ever see favoring a Democratic candidate.

Inconcertonia,

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Your argument is weak to begin with, however even the points you make are easily dismissed.

First, in the quote where they claim both are tied, FOX clearly shows their source and the statistics provided. You may have different results from a different source, but that does not invalidate the results of the source quoted.

"In a three-way matchup, Kerry and running mate John Edwards have the backing of 48 percent, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader and running mate Peter Camejo 3 percent among registered voters."

As far as the quotes go, they are pretty even handed. Same number and each touting their party line. Frankly, the conservative quote sounds like a lunatic to me - I think they could have done better.

As far as the sequence of the quotes, well, they can't both be last.

That is a pretty weak argument for bias. Try again. Here is an example of liberal bias from a news anchor on CBS:

During live coverage of a speech by Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Dan Rather referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "a hitman for their side."

"In a three-way matchup, Kerry and running mate John Edwards have the backing of 48 percent, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader and running mate Peter Camejo 3 percent among registered voters."
That's not a tie, but if it is, then it's no wonder Gore lost when he and Bush got 48%.

read the article, the survey has a SD of 3.5%. If you know anything about statistics they you know what that means, otherwise you should not participate in this discussion from that basis.

To Whom It May Concern:
As a liberal, it is not the blatant bias of the Fox News department itself that I find most offensive. We have a free media with a free press in this Nation (at least until the Patriot Act), and I tend to respect that. What I find so disconcerting is their claim to fair and balanced reporting. This is patently untrue, and the claim is not shared by other news networks. Most news networks proudly proclaim their leanings so that morons will not be taken in by their lack of fair journalism. This is why I believe Fox news comes under special fire, and I agree that they are what is wrong with American journalism.
The Founder of Loving Balance

Bozzy--if you honestly think that the quotes from the Democrats were as partisan as the ones from the Republicans, and if you think they were even as far as tone and contentiousness are concerned, and if you think that their placement in the article have no bearing on what emphasis or importance they're given, then you have no idea of what rhetorical analysis means or how to make an effective argument. Sorry Bozzy--there's a definite lean to that story, and if you can't see it, then you're blind--whether that's willful or not isn't my call, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still there.

Bozzy--if you honestly think that the quotes from the Democrats were as partisan as the ones from the Republicans, and if you think they were even as far as tone and contentiousness are concerned, and if you think that their placement in the article have no bearing on what emphasis or importance they're given, then you have no idea of what rhetorical analysis means or how to make an effective argument. Sorry Bozzy--there's a definite lean to that story, and if you can't see it, then you're blind--whether that's willful or not isn't my call, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still there.
Sorry, but you still haven't impressed me with your point - and insults don't impress me either.

A news anchor referring to a political candidate as a 'hitman' is blatantly biased. Your reference would be difficult to describe as bias and certainly never comparable to a 'hitman' quote. Can you dig up anythinng as blatant as that? I could find plenty as blatant as that from the unbalanced liberal media... Are you up to the task or was that the most 'biased' thing you could find?

Sorry, but you still haven't impressed me with your point - and insults don't impress me either.

A news anchor referring to a political candidate as a 'hitman' is blatantly biased. Your reference would be difficult to describe as bias and certainly never comparable to a 'hitman' quote. Can you dig up anythinng as blatant as that? I could find plenty as blatant as that from the unbalanced liberal media... Are you up to the task or was that the most 'biased' thing you could find?

Wait, are you just asking for biased attack quotes from Conservatives targetting liberals? Or specifically going after liberal politicians? Do they have to be news ANCHORS, or can they be "commentators" or pundits, too? (Which would mean I could dig into my stash of O'Reilly, Hannity, Farah, Savage, Horowitz, and Coulter quotes.)

Sorry, but you still haven't impressed me with your point - and insults don't impress me either.

A news anchor referring to a political candidate as a 'hitman' is blatantly biased. Your reference would be difficult to describe as bias and certainly never comparable to a 'hitman' quote. Can you dig up anythinng as blatant as that? I could find plenty as blatant as that from the unbalanced liberal media... Are you up to the task or was that the most 'biased' thing you could find?
No--that was just the first thing I found, and it was a perfect example of what constitutes bias. Don't agree? Not my problem.

Question--when you say "unbalanced liberal media," who are you talking about? CNN? The Nation? Mother Jones? If you're talking about the latter two, then you'll certainly be able to find bias. If you're talking about CNN, then go to it. I'll be waiting to see what you come up with. Remember--a hard news story. I didn't go after Hannity or O'Reilly--you don't get to go after Carville or Begala.

Wait, are you just asking for biased attack quotes from Conservatives targetting liberals? Or specifically going after liberal politicians? Do they have to be news ANCHORS, or can they be "commentators" or pundits, too? (Which would mean I could dig into my stash of O'Reilly, Hannity, Farah, Savage, Horowitz, and Coulter quotes.)

Feel free to post anything from FOX news, about politician or otherwise, that is biased against liberals and/or their POV (or conservatives if you wish) and/or post quotes from other national media that is biased.

It must be a news piece, not a commentary. Commentators are expected to inject opinion - not news reporters. If anyone reading along does not know the difference then they should not participate until they do.

You would do well to make sure it is a blatant case - for there are many in the liberal media I can pull up.

Who cares? The only people who believe the bullshit that comes out of Fox News are robots who are going to be bush-bots any way. I personally don't care what Fox says, some of us actually read many news sources, it's obviously to any one with an IQ over 40 that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.This coming from a biased person living in a country in which Fox News is not even alloed to broadcast, yet Al-Jazeera is. Whatver, your opinin is a joke.

Feel free to post anything from FOX news, about politician or otherwise, that is biased against liberals and/or their POV (or conservatives if you wish) and/or post quotes from other national media that is biased.

It must be a news piece, not a commentary. Commentators are expected to inject opinion - not news reporters. If anyone reading along does not know the difference then they should not participate until they do.

You would do well to make sure it is a blatant case - for there are many in the liberal media I can pull up.
oh man i can start busting out o reilly and hannity stuff all over your ass

oh man i can start busting out o reilly and hannity stuff all over your ass
Are you thick, illiterate or mentally handicaped? Did you even read my post? Do you even know Hannity and O'Reilly's job description?

If you feel the need to 'bust an ass' then go 'bust' yourself. Let the grownups talk here.

I've seen one Fox show that have two hosts on opposite sides--Hannity and Colmes...and Hannity hardly lets Colmes talk. Aside from that, you left out CNN, which has Crossfire...which is much better than Hannity and Colmes. And it should be the Republicans that ask ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN to curb their bias--not the Democrats.

Crossfire is "very fair." They put this one conservative guy with a foolish looking bowtie, portraying their belief that all Republicans are square uptight dorks or business men, and then have their team of good, and they are good, liberals quadruple team him and make republicans look like idiots and that they do things the "old way". Everythings about liberalism and "change". Well, I'm young, not rich and black and a GOP.

Are you thick, illiterate or mentally handicaped? Did you even read my post? Do you even know Hannity and O'Reilly's job description?

If you feel the need to 'bust an ass' then go 'bust' yourself. Let the grownups talk here.
alright then, you said you had liberal stuff everywhere lets see it then, i'm sure it wont be too difficult to drag up something on fox

What is the point in bickering about what networks are more slanted. They either go far left or far right. There is no middle ground. Except it and watch what you enjoy and fits your POV. The arguing here is just as badas the sly cracks that the networks themselves shoot at each other during the course of the day.

im just going to address this before i forget

i looked over the same articles, well 2 different articles on teh exact same subject, one on fox news, one one the evil liberal commie pinko station cnn :rolleyes:

the cnn headline is kind of spun with the question mark but you get into it, it states the same facts as fox does at the beginning of theirs, but they are more precise instead of generalizations: fox says much much lower than predictions while cnn gives predicted number and actual, fox says some thing is 20 times something, cnn gives exact numbers.

the cnn article goes through everything has several statements by kerry but also shows bush's rebuttle and his point that 10k manufacturing jobs have been created, the page itself is apolitical: the only thing really refencing kerry or bush is a streaming live wire to something kerry is doing

now fox after the introduction to whats going on (this is fox news sunday) has a person come on to discuss this with. the rest of the time is spent having the expert tout how well bush is doing and how the household survey should be viewed more (the more positive one shows jobs that exist) in a political light instead of the payroll (shows jobs created) then sits around touting bush's tax and spending as helping the economy and talks about low inflation and how everything is low and good

the page looks apolitical until you get to the ad, and the only one i see that actually works is the one from the bush-cheney campaign blaring anti-kerry propaganda

im just going to address this before i forget

i looked over the same articles, well 2 different articles on teh exact same subject, one on fox news, one one the evil liberal commie pinko station cnn :rolleyes:

the cnn headline is kind of spun with the question mark but you get into it, it states the same facts as fox does at the beginning of theirs, but they are more precise instead of generalizations: fox says much much lower than predictions while cnn gives predicted number and actual, fox says some thing is 20 times something, cnn gives exact numbers.

the cnn article goes through everything has several statements by kerry but also shows bush's rebuttle and his point that 10k manufacturing jobs have been created, the page itself is apolitical: the only thing really refencing kerry or bush is a streaming live wire to something kerry is doing

now fox after the introduction to whats going on (this is fox news sunday) has a person come on to discuss this with. the rest of the time is spent having the expert tout how well bush is doing and how the household survey should be viewed more (the more positive one shows jobs that exist) in a political light instead of the payroll (shows jobs created) then sits around touting bush's tax and spending as helping the economy and talks about low inflation and how everything is low and good

the page looks apolitical until you get to the ad, and the only one i see that actually works is the one from the bush-cheney campaign blaring anti-kerry propaganda

What a suprise... someone gets offended and resuls to flames at the end. Come one ...

What a suprise... someone gets offended and resuls to flames at the end. Come one ...
what flames?

you want me to flame, keep up the dumbass comments
are you saying those facts are flames? you want links to the damned pages? and yes the only fucknig ad that works on the fox news page is the bush-cheney campaign ad that's only image is "keep kerry out"

alright then, you said you had liberal stuff everywhere lets see it then, i'm sure it wont be too difficult to drag up something on fox
Here's an entire website documenting the biases of one single Anchorman.

http://www.ratherbiased.com/

He is just the tip of the Iceberg.

Here is another.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Peter_Jennings_The_ABCs_of_Bias.asp

To round out the big three.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030903.asp

Um, having Bill O'Reilly or Hannity shout down an opposing viewpoint doesn't count as having opposite sides of an issue. On Hannity and Colmes, where Hannity is a extreme conservative and Colmes is a self-described "moderate" (but the most liberal person at FOX), Hannity speaks literally twice as much as Colmes. FOX is by far the most biased mainstream news source. And the Democrats can ask whatever they want. It's up to FOX whether they want to comply.
With the exception of The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, I actually see Fox as more liberal than CNN.

Here is the background why I think this.

I used to watch Fox, almost exclusively, but I when I moved to my old appartment Fox was not available, so I started watching CNN. The few times I was able to watch O'Reilly and I did not enjoy it. I saw how biased O'Reilly is, and saw how emotional he can get all while making himself look stupid.

Now I have Dish Network, so I get Fox again. I am so burned out on CNN to get my news, I have started watching MSNBC and Fox. Since I "stopped" watching Fox, I have listened to all of the liberals on here cry about being FOX being biased, and I ahve read Al Franken's Book where he bitches and moans about Fox News (mostly the people on Fox). I can honestly say, with the exception of the two shows I mentioned above, I do not see any more of a bias in their reporting than I do any other network.

To round out the big three.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030903.asp




You know Bill....this is why I think you are the most ignorant fool on this board....

You actually believe that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, the two most respected Journalists since Mike Wallace and Walter Conkright, are biased, and you dont even consider the fact the the ENTIRE Fox News is ten times worse.

Do you even know who Rupert Murdoch is?

Do you know WHY FOX is so biased?

With the exception of The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, I actually see Fox as more liberal than CNN.

Here is the background why I think this.

.


Read about Rupert Murdoch, and you'll see why everyone says that Fox is biased.

Typically FOX News is the only good news source out there. Who cares if they seem biased and right-wing? Even if they are, they're like the only right-wing channel out there, which is a good break from all those democratic liberal left-wing morons who try to run this country without listening to what the people have to say.

Besides, it's not like the DEMOCRATS are going to tell the truth, so why should you people complain about Fox's right-wingness?

what flames?

you want me to flame, keep up the dumbass comments
are you saying those facts are flames? you want links to the damned pages? and yes the only fucknig ad that works on the fox news page is the bush-cheney campaign ad that's only image is "keep kerry out"

My point exactly. Thank you for making an example of yourself.

Typically FOX News is the only good news source out there. Who cares if they seem biased and right-wing? Even if they are, they're like the only right-wing channel out there, which is a good break from all those democratic liberal left-wing morons who try to run this country without listening to what the people have to say.

Besides, it's not like the DEMOCRATS are going to tell the truth, so why should you people complain about Fox's right-wingness?


Wich Democratic Liberal Left Wing Morons, might you be referring to?

The ones who ARENT in office at the moment?

:-X

Hannity v Colmes? Colmes cannot say anything directly to Hannity, giving Hannity the opportunity to say whatever bullshit he wants. Plus, just look at the two of them. Hannity is decent looking whlie Colmes looks...weird. Ok, I am tired. *goes away*


wow so now because one of them looks weird, fox has to have a slanted bias..i always knew those right wingers wanted ugly left wingers on their shows.

Not to mention it was the democrats who profesed to look better then their republican opposition

Read about Rupert Murdoch, and you'll see why everyone says that Fox is biased.

Just because he owns Fox doesn't mean its biased. I do not think CNN gives a communist viewpoint just because of its owner/founder.

Iraqi PM Allawi just shut down Al Jazeera for inciting violence. According to his standards, all of our news channels would be banned too. Maybe we do need to start over.

Look, the problem is that all of the stations are biased on the war. They only report the negative stuff because that fetches a lot more viewers. The 5:00 local news however actually showed a marine's home videos of his comrades and him in suburban Baghdad partying at some Iraqi's wedding. It also showed his daily routine, everyone waved hello to him as he patrolled Baghdad and on his lunch break, he showed Iraqi kids some games.

Dan Blather will never show you that. Peter Jennings won't either. Jennings is also a socialist Canadian. A lot of the people on Fox News are squawkers except for those below. MSNBC is only good for the Ultimate National Geographic shows on the weekends. CNN is blah except for Christine Amanpour who does those "CNN Presents" shows. All in all, Geraldo and Neil Cavuto ownz. Note Geraldo did have a special on MSNBC once where he took a trip down the Amazon.

If you want bias.... Look at Rush Limbaugh and his rival, Air America.

If you want the meat and potatoes of whole news world.
www.drudgereport.com
www.theweekmagazine.com

Hmm... Maybe I should put the Onion here. No, as it is fiction.

Just because he owns Fox doesn't mean its biased. I do not think CNN gives a communist viewpoint just because of its owner/founder.


Sigh...

Did you even bother to do any reading about him before you posted that response?

He could own a lemonade stand and it would still amount to the same thing.

He owns a japanese network too. Look up that one.
They dont even pretend not to be biased.

He pays O Reilly and Hannity a lot of money to BE biased.
As for the news itself......its all there, but only what they want you to hear.

Just..please.....actually do some damn research before you answer.

Dan Blather will never show you that. Peter Jennings won't either. Jennings is also a socialist Canadian.

Um...

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-07-08-jennings_x.htm

I saw outfoxed tonite and foxnews is pure propaganda and mind control

Some times all you need to figure some thing out is some simple logic. If the media is so biased and there is some sort of left-wing agenda that controls every thing.. riddle me this, why do the Republicans control every thing? Both houses and the White House. If the media was truly as liberal as people claim it would not be the case, why? Because the majority of people who happen to not be political junkies like some of us get their info and base their opinions on the news they get. Surely 50% + are not all only watching Fox news..

Some times you need to get back to basics to do the math. So all this talk of liberal bias in the media is just bullshit.

Most, although not all, of the American media appears to be right-wing. Certainly, almost all the television channels do.

Fox News is so right-wing, that to most European viewers it's actually funny that it could be considered a source of news. It's viewed more as a curiosity.

alright then, you said you had liberal stuff everywhere lets see it then, i'm sure it wont be too difficult to drag up something on fox
I already have given one example, do you want more?

im just going to address this before i forget

i looked over the same articles, well 2 different articles on teh exact same subject, one on fox news, one one the evil liberal commie pinko station cnn :rolleyes:

the cnn headline is kind of spun with the question mark but you get into it, it states the same facts as fox does at the beginning of theirs, but they are more precise instead of generalizations: fox says much much lower than predictions while cnn gives predicted number and actual, fox says some thing is 20 times something, cnn gives exact numbers.

the cnn article goes through everything has several statements by kerry but also shows bush's rebuttle and his point that 10k manufacturing jobs have been created, the page itself is apolitical: the only thing really refencing kerry or bush is a streaming live wire to something kerry is doing

now fox after the introduction to whats going on (this is fox news sunday) has a person come on to discuss this with. the rest of the time is spent having the expert tout how well bush is doing and how the household survey should be viewed more (the more positive one shows jobs that exist) in a political light instead of the payroll (shows jobs created) then sits around touting bush's tax and spending as helping the economy and talks about low inflation and how everything is low and good

the page looks apolitical until you get to the ad, and the only one i see that actually works is the one from the bush-cheney campaign blaring anti-kerry propaganda

You need to post them otherwise your argument is pointless.

I saw outfoxed tonite and foxnews is pure propaganda and mind control
and 'Outfoxed" isn't. LOL.

You know Bill....this is why I think you are the most ignorant fool on this board....

You actually believe that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, the two most respected Journalists since Mike Wallace and Walter Conkright, are biased, and you dont even consider the fact the the ENTIRE Fox News is ten times worse.

Do you even know who Rupert Murdoch is?

Do you know WHY FOX is so biased?

Gee, I always thought it was people who threw insults and argued without facts were the 'ignorant fools'. I guess just blindly believeing that 'the most respected journalists' would not be biased without considering any evidence to the contrary makes you a pillar of wisdom.

Most, although not all, of the American media appears to be right-wing. Certainly, almost all the television channels do.

Fox News is so right-wing, that to most European viewers it's actually funny that it could be considered a source of news. It's viewed more as a curiosity.
Most europeans have never ben exposed to any viewpoint other than a liberal one. It must seem very curious indeed to be exposed to both sides of an argument for a change.

Most europeans have never ben exposed to any viewpoint other than a liberal one. It must seem very curious indeed to be exposed to both sides of an argument for a change.

:D

Hell, no, we have lots of Murdoch-owned right-wing bilge over here too.

Most europeans have never ben exposed to any viewpoint other than a liberal one. It must seem very curious indeed to be exposed to both sides of an argument for a change.

In fact, we have some very right-wing press. But, generally speaking, our television news tends to be neutral in editorial stance. IE, you wouldn't find a giant national flag flying in the corner of the screen of a serious news programme.

:D

Hell, no, we have lots of Murdoch-owned right-wing bilge over here too.

He's right, Daily Wail anyone?

Why's everyone moaning about Fox News? I've never seen a better satire on the american media. Brilliantly acted, well written, and always hilarious.

Wait, what's that you say?
It's a real news service?
Sweet Jesus, what kind of country do you live in? :-0

You need to post them otherwise your argument is pointless.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/jobs.report/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128377,00.html

In fact, we have some very right-wing press. But, generally speaking, our television news tends to be neutral in editorial stance. IE, you wouldn't find a giant national flag flying in the corner of the screen of a serious news programme.
neutral editorial stance means commie pinko liberal to the right wingers

I love how I'm completely ignored..lol Yes, the liberal conspiracy put the Republicans in power of both houses and the White House.. and don't even get me started on the Supreme Court.. it's obviously liberal bias.. lmao.. give me a break! :headbang:

I love how I'm completely ignored..lol Yes, the liberal conspiracy put the Republicans in power of both houses and the White House.. and don't even get me started on the Supreme Court.. it's obviously liberal bias.. lmao.. give me a break! :headbang:
if bush gets who he wants into the supreme court living in this country isnt going to be worthwhile to anyone but neocon nazis. the guy he wants to put in has clarence thomas as a role model: the most conservative right winger on the court, a disgrace to the memory of thurgood marshall, and a danger to all civil liberties: ie, he believes the establishment clause still lets the government make an official religion, as long as it is the states (even the most ignorant conservatives believe the establishment clause keeps the government from establishing a religion, the only thing worse than ignorance is purposeful ignorance)

Here's an entire website documenting the biases of one single Anchorman.

http://www.ratherbiased.com/

He is just the tip of the Iceberg.
Okay, this has taken a while. largely because every time I've sat down to post this, something has come up, but here goes.

I've only glanced at the site, but one of the top examples the site gives as proof of Rather's bias has to do with his unwillingness to give the Swiftboat Veterans group equal time on the air on the night of Kerry's acceptance speech. Here's their complaint: (http://ratherbiased.com/news/content/view/165/2/)
Despite such a comprehensive introduction, Rather did not quote from a single person who served in Vietnam who opposes Kerry's candidacy, despite the fact that most of the men who served in his swift boat unit there do not support him and have even formed their own group to do so, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Click the "Continue reading" link to see the full transcript.)

As unfair as Rather's decision to ignore the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is, it is not that surprising considering that the one time he has mentioned the group, he called it a "Republican operation" with no hard proof at all (something that seems to be a pattern of its own) and contrary to the group's denials and its refusal to criticize Kerry on policy issues.

Problem is, there's one complete fabrication and one misleading statement in the complaint. The first--that most of the men who served in Kerry's swift boat unit do not support him--is misleading. The fact is that the surviving men who served on Kerry's boat with him are all supporting him, and only when you expand the statement to include other boats not under Kerry's command can you get to anything resembling "most."

The second is an outright lie--that SBVFT isn't a Republican operation. That's something that's been documented all over the place, including here at NS. O'Neill was a Nixon dirty tricks player when he attacked Kerry in 1971. Merrie Spaeth is a long time Texas Republican hand. Corsi is a hard core Freeper. The links go on and on.

Now if ratherbiased can't be trusted to get even these basic facts right, why should I believe their judgments about Dan Rather as a whole?

Oh--and Bozzy? I'm still waiting for you to find an article on cnn.com and analyze it the way I did the one on foxnews.com.

Oh--and Bozzy? I'm still waiting for you to find an article on cnn.com and analyze it the way I did the one on foxnews.com.
hell i went through 2 articles on the same subject, 1 from fox and 1 from cnn,but everybody seems to have ignored that

In fact, we have some very right-wing press. But, generally speaking, our television news tends to be neutral in editorial stance. IE, you wouldn't find a giant national flag flying in the corner of the screen of a serious news programme.
My bad, I didn't realize you considered flying the flag right wing.

Oh--and Bozzy? I'm still waiting for you to find an article on cnn.com and analyze it the way I did the one on foxnews.com.
Sorry, I was distracted on another thread, and now I have some family shit I gotta do. I'll be back, probably tomorrow.

Okay, this has taken a while. largely because every time I've sat down to post this, something has come up, but here goes.

I've only glanced at the site, but one of the top examples the site gives as proof of Rather's bias has to do with his unwillingness to give the Swiftboat Veterans group equal time on the air on the night of Kerry's acceptance speech. Here's their complaint: (http://ratherbiased.com/news/content/view/165/2/)


Problem is, there's one complete fabrication and one misleading statement in the complaint. The first--that most of the men who served in Kerry's swift boat unit do not support him--is misleading. The fact is that the surviving men who served on Kerry's boat with him are all supporting him, and only when you expand the statement to include other boats not under Kerry's command can you get to anything resembling "most."

The second is an outright lie--that SBVFT isn't a Republican operation. That's something that's been documented all over the place, including here at NS. O'Neill was a Nixon dirty tricks player when he attacked Kerry in 1971. Merrie Spaeth is a long time Texas Republican hand. Corsi is a hard core Freeper. The links go on and on.

Now if ratherbiased can't be trusted to get even these basic facts right, why should I believe their judgments about Dan Rather as a whole?
Okay, since you and the vast majority of the people on this site have never served in the military, and have absolutely no knowledge on how a military unit is formed, let me explain something to you. I used to be in the Infantry. We drove vehicles called M-113s. I drove one of those vehicles. I was in a platoon of 8 Vehicles, in a mortar platoon. Everyone in platoon was very familiar to me. My friends were spread all across those 8 vehicles. I drank with them, fought with them, trained with them, deployed to other nations with them. I however did not serve on the same vehicle as each of them. Are you going to tell me I couldn't make a judgment on their leadership abilities because I did not "serve" on the same vehicle? That is the trite argument being made by the left, by people such as you who don't anything about the military. Kindly keep your mediocre opinions at least slightly informed. You don't know the interaction those men had, all you know is they didn't "serve" on the same boat. Don't presume to lecture a soldier about the military, and I won't presume to lecture you about being a 40 year old undergraduate.

The Democrats have asked Fox news to curb what they see as an obvious bias in their stories.

Are they going to ask ABC, CBS and NBC to do the same?

Peter Jennings and Dan Rather have admitted that they are Democrats and their reporting shows this to be true. As for FOX, they usually have two people from opposing sides to debate an issue. The other networks do not.

Fox News is cable news and so is watched by far fewer people than the networks. There are maybe 4-5 million people in the US who regularly watch Fox News. What's incredible is that the liberal left - which has had a stranglehold on mainstream news outlets for years - gets so worked up about one little cable news station daring to disagree with the turgid, politically-correct liberal brainwashing that ABC, NBC, etc provide every day. So much for "diversity".

It's a bit like the situation in academia right now. College liberals whine about the need for affirmative action to promote "diversity" on campus and yet tenured liberal academics hire only liberals to teach (read: indoctrinate) students year after year. A right-wing perspective is more and more rare in American colleges. What is it that scares liberals so much about opposing viewpoints? The fear that they really are wrong after all?

It has something to do with that fact that liberals tend to give the impression that they've considered the options all the options and used some critical thinking. Basing decisions off what some old book says isn't quite critical thinking. Don't get me wrong (and there's no need to flame me), I know that some Conservatives use their critical thinking skills as well, it's just that a lot of them tend to just go by the book (that being the bible). College is supposed to teach you to think for yourself.

Okay, since you and the vast majority of the people on this site have never served in the military, and have absolutely no knowledge on how a military unit is formed, let me explain something to you. I used to be in the Infantry. We drove vehicles called M-113s. I drove one of those vehicles. I was in a platoon of 8 Vehicles, in a mortar platoon. Everyone in platoon was very familiar to me. My friends were spread all across those 8 vehicles. I drank with them, fought with them, trained with them, deployed to other nations with them. I however did not serve on the same vehicle as each of them. Are you going to tell me I couldn't make a judgment on their leadership abilities because I did not "serve" on the same vehicle? That is the trite argument being made by the left, by people such as you who don't anything about the military. Kindly keep your mediocre opinions at least slightly informed. You don't know the interaction those men had, all you know is they didn't "serve" on the same boat. Don't presume to lecture a soldier about the military, and I won't presume to lecture you about being a 40 year old undergraduate.
Funny--my argument is the same one made by many on the left who have served in the military, and more importantly, on swiftboats in Vietnam. Your experience in the infantry may not be analgous to that of the Navy swiftboat. I'm certainly in no position to say one way or the other, but I feel pretty certain you aren't either.

As to your last crack--I'm 35, and have both a Bachelors and a Masters degree and currently hold a fellowship at Stanford. I'm not a 40 year old undergrad.

Okay, since you and the vast majority of the people on this site have never served in the military, and have absolutely no knowledge on how a military unit is formed, let me explain something to you. I used to be in the Infantry. We drove vehicles called M-113s. I drove one of those vehicles. I was in a platoon of 8 Vehicles, in a mortar platoon. Everyone in platoon was very familiar to me. My friends were spread all across those 8 vehicles. I drank with them, fought with them, trained with them, deployed to other nations with them. I however did not serve on the same vehicle as each of them. Are you going to tell me I couldn't make a judgment on their leadership abilities because I did not "serve" on the same vehicle? That is the trite argument being made by the left, by people such as you who don't anything about the military. Kindly keep your mediocre opinions at least slightly informed. You don't know the interaction those men had, all you know is they didn't "serve" on the same boat. Don't presume to lecture a soldier about the military, and I won't presume to lecture you about being a 40 year old undergraduate.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of how a military unit works. However, I don't think military experience is necessary to judge how the ad's message is PRESENTED. In my opinion, the ad is flawed because it gives people an erroneous impression, and doesn't bother to try to correct it.

As you said, most non-military people don't know much about military units. So aren't most viewers of this ad likely to hear "I served with John Kerry", and think that they mean they were ON his boat, under his command?

I quote from tonight's Hannity & Colmes:

Alan Colmes: Barry, if you're given the impression that they served with John Kerry... I mean, they may have served in the war with John Kerry, they may have been half a football field away, but if they were not on that boat, they have no right to give that impression, do they?

Barry Richard (Bush lawyer in 2000): Well, certainly from a moral standpoint, from the standpoint of what's appropriate, you don't have the right to mislead people, whether you do it directly or indirectly. If the statement is made that we served with John Kerry and it gives the impression that they served on a boat with him, I think everybody in this business would think that it's inappropriate.

Aside from the "served with" fiasco, this is also very troubling:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

I'm not going to say if all the testimony from the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is false or not; I don't have enough information to come to that conclusion. However, I DO feel that I have PLENTY of information indicating that this ad is, if nothing else, dishonest and misleading.

Edit: Incidentally, I would think John McCain, who called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable", might just have enough military experience to "hold his own" on this issue.

Okay, since you and the vast majority of the people on this site have never served in the military, and have absolutely no knowledge on how a military unit is formed, let me explain something to you. Don't presume to lecture a soldier about the military, and I won't presume to lecture you about being a 40 year old undergraduate.
While your service wasn't in question, you should take issue with your own lack of sense.
It is a disappointing and arrogant perspective on your part to even assume you know who here has and hasn't served, not many people have to crow about service to provide validity for something that basically is an arena of opinion. Maybe you should work on it.
And while you're at it, maybe you should think about your name here, it sounds dubious. It even sounds like a need to ensheath yourself in an obviously deceitful name like quite a few others here do, "friends of bill", kind of like democratic nationality.

It has something to do with that fact that liberals tend to give the impression that they've considered the options all the options and used some critical thinking. Basing decisions off what some old book says isn't quite critical thinking. Don't get me wrong (and there's no need to flame me), I know that some Conservatives use their critical thinking skills as well, it's just that a lot of them tend to just go by the book (that being the bible). College is supposed to teach you to think for yourself.

Well, that and because more and more of the right wing these days, heavily influenced by the Neocons, see everything in a black-and-white sense. There's non-biased and Liberal. If you are reporting news which "makes [Person X's] blood boil," you're obviously Liberal, because the only other kind is non-biased. That's one of the tenets of the Neocon influence, simply everything is dichotomous. Saddam was a danger or he wasn't (thought crimes are now punishable by invasion), people are either guilty or innocent (hence those prisoners at Abu Ghraib must have had it coming to them), and the US is right or wrong (call it wrong, you obviously hate America), good and evil. Of course, some people on the left think this way also - it's also a tenet of extremism. Go figure.

My bad, I didn't realize you considered flying the flag right wing.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. I don't consider flying the flag as right-wing per say. However, it does show a lack of a neutral stance in reporting.

Funny--my argument is the same one made by many on the left who have served in the military, and more importantly, on swiftboats in Vietnam. Your experience in the infantry may not be analgous to that of the Navy swiftboat. I'm certainly in no position to say one way or the other, but I feel pretty certain you aren't either.

As to your last crack--I'm 35, and have both a Bachelors and a Masters degree and currently hold a fellowship at Stanford. I'm not a 40 year old undergrad.
Once again, don't presume to lecture me in an area you are completly ignorant of.

Once again, don't presume to lecture me in an area you are completly ignorant of.
Fine--I will defer to you on matters involving the Army infantry--and on that only. On everything else, you can kiss my ass--I'll challenge you on everything you say. And let me say this in language you'll be sure to understand--you better make sure you know what you're talking about, because I will rip you apart just like I have up till this point.

Fine--I will defer to you on matters involving the Army infantry--and on that only. On everything else, you can kiss my ass--I'll challenge you on everything you say. And let me say this in language you'll be sure to understand--you better make sure you know what you're talking about, because I will rip you apart just like I have up till this point.
You are a sad little man.

Actually, I'm quite happy. I just take certain topics very seriously.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. I don't consider flying the flag as right-wing per say. However, it does show a lack of a neutral stance in reporting.
Justify that statement.

Because it comprimises any impartiality, how can a channel claim to be independent with a big 'country x' national flag flying on screen.

It shows that the channel is probably going to report events favourably towards 'country x' rather than in an impartial factual way. News is not supposed to be blinded by patriotism, if it becomes such it isn't fair and balanced news reporting.

Because it comprimises any impartiality, how can a channel claim to be independent with a big 'country x' national flag flying on screen.

It shows that the channel is probably going to report events favourably towards 'country x' rather than in an impartial factual way. News is not supposed to be blinded by patriotism, if it becomes such it isn't fair and balanced news reporting.
I suppose you would have to consider support for a war patriotic and opposition to the same war unpatriotic to consider your justification sound. I suspect there are many here and elsewhere who would disagree. Other topics are of similar nature.

In order to accept that displaying a flag predisposes a broadcaster to bias then so would displaying their call signs (assigned by the same government) broadcasting in a specific language or covering stories only germain to the people living primarily within the geographic area of one government.

Oh--and Bozzy? I'm still waiting for you to find an article on cnn.com and analyze it the way I did the one on foxnews.com.
Sorry so long - it is friggin impossible to find posts sometimes here.

Why am I limited to the Clinton News Network and at what point did you show blatant bias at Fox?

If you think I just got lucky with that 'hitman' quote, here are more:

On January 27, 1993, the Associated Press reported that nine of Bill Clinton's cabinet appointees were millionaires. On January 23, 2001, the AP reported that George W. Bush's nominees were "mostly millionaires." Dan Rather decided to follow the AP's lead in the Bush story, but not with the Clinton story. Rather never mentioned--throughout all eight years--that there were millionaires in Clinton's cabinets:

January 25, 1988: In his infamous January 25, 1988 CBS Evening News interview an aggressive Dan Rather grilled VP George Bush about Iran-Contra, repeatedly cutting him off and arguing with him. Rather declared "You've made us hypocrites in the face of the world."

March 31, 1999: But on March 31 of this year when Rather interviewed President Clinton for 60 Minutes II he avoided Chinese espionage and donations and gave Clinton plenty of time to portray himself as defender of the Constitution against partisan conservatives who tried to impeach him. Rather asked about Clinton's "feelings" on Kosovo and lightheartedly wondered what he'd do as the husband of a Senator.

Someone different:
"Governor, you and I have been around for a long time,
and you keep talking about putting the accent on the positive
here. Will you not talk about Vice President Cheney? I
mean, he seems to be, and weve been hearing all these
things about the Vice President, how hes now a drag on
the Republican ticket. Will we hear anything about him at
this convention? " -Bob Schieffer to Democratic Convention Chairman Bill
Richardson on CBSs Face the Nation, July 25.

"Death penalty on trial. In Texas, his murder conviction disputed to the end, this is Gary Graham's execution night [...]
Good evening. An execution in Texas scheduled less than thirty minutes from now puts Governor George Bush in the spotlight and on the spot in the Campaign 2000 death penalty debate. Convicted of murder, Gary Graham is to die by injection amid questions about whether he or others on death rows nationwide may be dying for crimes they didn't commit. CBS's Bob McNamara is outside the Huntsville, Texas prison where the execution draws near. Bob?"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 22, 2000.
Note: There was no debate over the death penalty (except in the media) since both Bush and Gore supported it

Sorry so long - it is friggin impossible to find posts sometimes here.

Why am I limited to the Clinton News Network and at what point did you show blatant bias at Fox?

If you think I just got lucky with that 'hitman' quote, here are more:

On January 27, 1993, the Associated Press reported that nine of Bill Clinton's cabinet appointees were millionaires. On January 23, 2001, the AP reported that George W. Bush's nominees were "mostly millionaires." Dan Rather decided to follow the AP's lead in the Bush story, but not with the Clinton story. Rather never mentioned--throughout all eight years--that there were millionaires in Clinton's cabinets:

January 25, 1988: In his infamous January 25, 1988 CBS Evening News interview an aggressive Dan Rather grilled VP George Bush about Iran-Contra, repeatedly cutting him off and arguing with him. Rather declared "You've made us hypocrites in the face of the world."

March 31, 1999: But on March 31 of this year when Rather interviewed President Clinton for 60 Minutes II he avoided Chinese espionage and donations and gave Clinton plenty of time to portray himself as defender of the Constitution against partisan conservatives who tried to impeach him. Rather asked about Clinton's "feelings" on Kosovo and lightheartedly wondered what he'd do as the husband of a Senator.

Someone different:
"Governor, you and I have been around for a long time,
and you keep talking about putting the accent on the positive
here. Will you not talk about Vice President Cheney? I
mean, he seems to be, and weve been hearing all these
things about the Vice President, how hes now a drag on
the Republican ticket. Will we hear anything about him at
this convention? " -Bob Schieffer to Democratic Convention Chairman Bill
Richardson on CBSs Face the Nation, July 25.

"Death penalty on trial. In Texas, his murder conviction disputed to the end, this is Gary Graham's execution night [...]
Good evening. An execution in Texas scheduled less than thirty minutes from now puts Governor George Bush in the spotlight and on the spot in the Campaign 2000 death penalty debate. Convicted of murder, Gary Graham is to die by injection amid questions about whether he or others on death rows nationwide may be dying for crimes they didn't commit. CBS's Bob McNamara is outside the Huntsville, Texas prison where the execution draws near. Bob?"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 22, 2000.
Note: There was no debate over the death penalty (except in the media) since both Bush and Gore supported it
didnt i do a comparison of two articles, 1 from fox and 1 from cnn, on the same subject? cnn has a SLIGHT left wing bias, if any, where fox had a more than obvious right wing bias

In the recent articles about the gay governer resigning, most pages I visited to read didn't really mention his politics.

However, in the FOX article was this:

"It was interesting the way he was able to divide the state and get the have nots to go against the haves," said Charles Payne, a resident of New Jersey and CEO of Wall Street Strategies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128836,00.html

I thought that was pretty glaring bias.

I suppose you would have to consider support for a war patriotic and opposition to the same war unpatriotic to consider your justification sound. I suspect there are many here and elsewhere who would disagree. Other topics are of similar nature.

In order to accept that displaying a flag predisposes a broadcaster to bias then so would displaying their call signs (assigned by the same government) broadcasting in a specific language or covering stories only germain to the people living primarily within the geographic area of one government.

That's ludicrous. I'm not making any statement as to whether I think supporting or not supporting the war is either patriotic or not.
Television news shouldn't be presenting it as either, they should be reporting it from a neutral and balanced perspective.
One would obviously expect tv channels in totalitarian and non-democratic coutries to blur true reporting by presenting events solely from a point of view convenient to their country.

It has something to do with that fact that liberals tend to give the impression that they've considered the options all the options and used some critical thinking. Basing decisions off what some old book says isn't quite critical thinking. Don't get me wrong (and there's no need to flame me), I know that some Conservatives use their critical thinking skills as well, it's just that a lot of them tend to just go by the book (that being the bible). College is supposed to teach you to think for yourself.

That is a stereotype - and an incorrect one. I would think you above that.

In the recent articles about the gay governer resigning, most pages I visited to read didn't really mention his politics.

However, in the FOX article was this:

"It was interesting the way he was able to divide the state and get the have nots to go against the haves," said Charles Payne, a resident of New Jersey and CEO of Wall Street Strategies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128836,00.html

I thought that was pretty glaring bias.

You forgot one thing IT and that is it came from a resident. Just because he said that and it was posted does NOT indicate bias!

Sorry so long - it is friggin impossible to find posts sometimes here.

Why am I limited to the Clinton News Network and at what point did you show blatant bias at Fox? My rhetorical analysis of that article--especially the use of the quotes and their placement in the article showed bias on the part of the writer of that piece for FoxNews.com. I also noted that the original discussion was dealing with television news instead of web-pieces, and that bias is much easier to slip in and detect in broadcasts than in written pieces. I was challenged to find a single instance of bias at Foxnews.com and did so--I fulfilled my part of the deal, and cross-challenged you.

I suggested CNN.com because that's Fox's biggest competitor in cable news and it's the one most often accused of being left leaning--Communist News Network, Clinton News Network, etc.If you want to choose another news source--not anchor or individual--and prove that they're left-leaning, then go ahead.

Is Rather a Democrat? Certainly seems so, considering he's admitted it openly in the past. What effect does that have on CBS's news gathering as a whole? Not much--editors and executives have far more control over than than an anchor does. Even if Rather is guilty of showing long-term blatant bias, and I'm not conceding that, he's still no different from what happens all day, everyday, at Fox News, and he only has half an hour a day, albeit to a larger audience.

As to your last crack--I'm 35, and have both a Bachelors and a Masters degree and currently hold a fellowship at Stanford. I'm not a 40 year old undergrad.

That, and 85 cents, will get you a cup of coffee. Oh, you have a fellowship at STANFORD. here, let me loan you the 85 cents.

:)

Just playin with you.

In the recent articles about the gay governer resigning, most pages I visited to read didn't really mention his politics.

However, in the FOX article was this:

"It was interesting the way he was able to divide the state and get the have nots to go against the haves," said Charles Payne, a resident of New Jersey and CEO of Wall Street Strategies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128836,00.html

I thought that was pretty glaring bias.It certainly would have been more honest for them to note that Charles Payne is also a Fox news contributor from time to time, having appeared on Neil Cavuto's show back in February and on other occasions, instead of making him sound like just another resident of New Jersey.

My rhetorical analysis of that article--especially the use of the quotes and their placement in the article showed bias on the part of the writer of that piece for FoxNews.com. I also noted that the original discussion was dealing with television news instead of web-pieces, and that bias is much easier to slip in and detect in broadcasts than in written pieces. I was challenged to find a single instance of bias at Foxnews.com and did so--I fulfilled my part of the deal, and cross-challenged you.

I suggested CNN.com because that's Fox's biggest competitor in cable news and it's the one most often accused of being left leaning--Communist News Network, Clinton News Network, etc.If you want to choose another news source--not anchor or individual--and prove that they're left-leaning, then go ahead.

Is Rather a Democrat? Certainly seems so, considering he's admitted it openly in the past. What effect does that have on CBS's news gathering as a whole? Not much--editors and executives have far more control over than than an anchor does. Even if Rather is guilty of showing long-term blatant bias, and I'm not conceding that, he's still no different from what happens all day, everyday, at Fox News, and he only has half an hour a day, albeit to a larger audience.

Your exposition of Bias at Fox was unconvincing. It would be generous inded to even say the bias was subtle.

Rather is not a commentator, he is an anchor. There is a substantial difference between the two. Rather is supposed to deliver the news, a commentator delivers opinion. It is the difference between the front page of a newspaper and the editorial pages.

When Rather shows bias it affects the news content - which is not very fair and balanced. The Rather quotes I shared demonstrate this. I also included an example from Bob Schieffer just to break it up a bit.

All of these were not done to illustrate liberal bias in the mainstream media. That has been don ad nauseam. It is simply there to illustrate for you the difference between blatan bias and fair and balanced.

So i challenge you again, find any fox news content, broadcast or online, which is not fair and balanced.

I suspect you cannot becuase you are so used to reading liberal bias (which you will agree with) that when an opinion other than what you agree with is not disparaged you consider it bias. An easy mistake to make considering about half of liberals feel the media is not biased, when only 30% of conservatives consider it to be that way. (according to Gallup)
http://magic-city-news.com/article_333.shtml
(Sorry, this was the only place I could find it on short notice)

As you can see liberals are very blind to bias when they agree with the bias themselves.

It certainly would have been more honest for them to note that Charles Payne is also a Fox news contributor from time to time, having appeared on Neil Cavuto's show back in February and on other occasions, instead of making him sound like just another resident of New Jersey.
They clearly identified him as CEO of Wall Street Strategies, just about two lines after nearly praising him for not raising taxes on anyone but millionaires. It would not take a PhD to determine that a CEO may not be fond of the former governor. It also was the only quote in the entire article that was critical of the former governor, with most quotes supporting a liberal agenda.

Neil Cavuto's show is a business jornal, not a political forum. It would not be irresponsible for him to have someone from a firm like 'Wall Street Strategies' as his guest. That fact would not be germaine to the context of this story.

Your liberal outlook is blurring your objectvity. Anything critical of a libral instantly seems biased because you've never seen it before. Sorry, try again.

sorry, I gotta go now. Hurricane to get ready for.

Your exposition of Bias at Fox was unconvincing. It would be generous inded to even say the bias was subtle.

Rather is not a commentator, he is an anchor. There is a substantial difference between the two. Rather is supposed to deliver the news, a commentator delivers opinion. It is the difference between the front page of a newspaper and the editorial pages.

When Rather shows bias it affects the news content - which is not very fair and balanced. The Rather quotes I shared demonstrate this. I also included an example from Bob Schieffer just to break it up a bit.

All of these were not done to illustrate liberal bias in the mainstream media. That has been don ad nauseam. It is simply there to illustrate for you the difference between blatan bias and fair and balanced.

So i challenge you again, find any fox news content, broadcast or online, which is not fair and balanced.

I suspect you cannot becuase you are so used to reading liberal bias (which you will agree with) that when an opinion other than what you agree with is not disparaged you consider it bias. An easy mistake to make considering about half of liberals feel the media is not biased, when only 30% of conservatives consider it to be that way. (according to Gallup)
http://magic-city-news.com/article_333.shtml
(Sorry, this was the only place I could find it on short notice)

As you can see liberals are very blind to bias when they agree with the bias themselves.
Just admit it Bozzy--I could find a thousand examples of bias at Fox and you'd finda way to discount all of them. You'd claim they were unconvincing or find some other excuse and I would remain frustrated at your lack of willingness to see what is so clear to me.

By the way--as to media bias, which certainly does exist--I've argued here and elsewhere that for the most part, and Fox is an exception--the bias in the media is not ideological, but corporate. News is big business, and they 1) run with what sells and 2) are reluctant to criticize anything that might affect the parent company poorly. Fox follows this paradigm as well, but they also have an ideological bent because of their owner, Rupert Murdoch, and their CEO, Roger Ailes (former Republican operative). That's why I argue that you won't find a liberal bias at CNN--you'll find a corporate agenda, andit may in places link up with either liberal or conservative views, but it doesn't constantly link up to an ideology.

They clearly identified him as CEO of Wall Street Strategies, just about two lines after nearly praising him for not raising taxes on anyone but millionaires. It would not take a PhD to determine that a CEO may not be fond of the former governor. It also was the only quote in the entire article that was critical of the former governor, with most quotes supporting a liberal agenda.

Neil Cavuto's show is a business jornal, not a political forum. It would not be irresponsible for him to have someone from a firm like 'Wall Street Strategies' as his guest. That fact would not be germaine to the context of this story.

Your liberal outlook is blurring your objectvity. Anything critical of a libral instantly seems biased because you've never seen it before. Sorry, try again.I wasn't saying that using him was evidence of bias--just that it would have been journalistically sound to mention that he's got a connection with Fox News. It's called full disclosure and it's a cornerstone of responsible journalism. You mention all links with someone who has a part in a story.

sorry, I gotta go now. Hurricane to get ready for.Have fun. If there's one thing I really miss about living in Louisiana, it's the active weather. San Francisco weather is pretty boring.

Some people have obviosly not seen Out FOXed

Have fun. If there's one thing I really miss about living in Louisiana, it's the active weather. San Francisco weather is pretty boring.

See, I would think I'd be saying the same thing about LA, but I never tire of walking to lunch on a warm, sunny day and leaving my office to a somewhat cooler, but still warm sunny afternoon. I've only been here for a month, but I'm not sure I'll get sick of that...