NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, yes, Americans are stupid. Extremely stupid. The average American has about the reasoning capacity of a brick. This explains why so many idiots believe it. It really is sad that people actually believe that it is "Fair and Balanced" as it claims. Believing that is like believing that email you receeived with a subject "Free Viagra. PS: not a virus"

You are an idiot and you are wrong. You want to know why you're wrong? It's because I am an American and I am more intelligent than you are. It's easy to see that I am because I do not make rediculous generalizations like you do.

Anyway, the first poster couldn't even come up with reasons why Fox is biased so most of this whole argument has no substance. Commentary different from news reports. I've seen both sides of the issues.

You can say O'Reilly has a certain viewpoint, but at least he lets both sides be viewed. His interview with Michael Moore was unedited and Moore could ask him questions.

Someone said a "reporter" said "_____ more days until President George W. Bush is reelected." and it was shown in the movie "Outfoxed." I have heard Sean Hannity say that, but he is not a reporter, he is a commentator. Also, I've heard Alan Colmes on the same show say the same thing about John Kerry. That just proves that the movie adds spin. They can post a ton of clips of commentators giving their opinion, but they won't include remarks of someone who disagrees with them in the same interview, as is seen on the actual news station.

The issue about the reporters' political affiliations is something that shouldn't be discussed. Like many other Americans, the reporters vote, and they choose the best candidate. They have to take a stance eventually. This is the same on any other news station. That does not mean their reports are going to be biased.

You are an idiot and you are wrong. You want to know why you're wrong? It's because I am an American and I am more intelligent than you are. It's easy to see that I am because I do not make rediculous generalizations like you do.
No, but you apparently make snap judgments based on irrelevant evidence, and that's just about as bad as making generalizations.

Fox is just a little bit leaning to the conservative side but all the other ones are SUPER LIBERAL.
SUPER LIBERAL!
The term, when uttered by a meek and otherwise unimpressive individual, suddenly catapults that individual far beyond reason and levelheadedness IN A SINGLE BOUND! Just like Shazam!
Ohm!

[QUOTE=Frisbeeteria]"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
I doubt Sir Winston would have left the apostrophes out of "you're" in any case.
[QUOTE]

I have seen it both ways. this was just the first one that came up on google. and quit being so anal about grammer, damn. exact quotes are tough to come by unless you have a book of letters or transcripts because a whisper down teh lane effect happens over time.

No, but you apparently make snap judgments based on irrelevant evidence, and that's just about as bad as making generalizations.

It's enough evidence for me. How can anyone who declares all Americans to be unintelligent be a clear thinker? His opinion on Americans means that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's enough evidence for me. How can anyone who declares all Americans to be unintelligent be a clear thinker? His opinion on Americans means that he doesn't know what he's talking about.Go back and read his quote--he didn't say all. He said "the average American," and based on our cultural phenomena and general lack of knowledge about the world around us--in general--he's got a point.

You are an idiot and you are wrong. You want to know why you're wrong? It's because I am an American and I am more intelligent than you are. It's easy to see that I am because I do not make rediculous generalizations like you do.Is that not a ridicolous generalisation?

Anyway, the first poster couldn't even come up with reasons why Fox is biased so most of this whole argument has no substance. Commentary different from news reports. I've seen both sides of the issues.

You can say O'Reilly has a certain viewpoint, but at least he lets both sides be viewed. His interview with Michael Moore was unedited and Moore could ask him questions.http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8145&fcategory_desc=Fox%20News,%2024hr%20Republican%20Network shows conclusively that there are orders for Fox to slant the news from high up.

Someone said a "reporter" said "_____ more days until President George W. Bush is reelected." and it was shown in the movie "Outfoxed." I have heard Sean Hannity say that, but he is not a reporter, he is a commentator. Also, I've heard Alan Colmes on the same show say the same thing about John Kerry. That just proves that the movie adds spin. They can post a ton of clips of commentators giving their opinion, but they won't include remarks of someone who disagrees with them in the same interview, as is seen on the actual news station.

The issue about the reporters' political affiliations is something that shouldn't be discussed. Like many other Americans, the reporters vote, and they choose the best candidate. They have to take a stance eventually. This is the same on any other news station. That does not mean their reports are going to be biased.It's not a question of the reporters political affiliations. It's a question of what agenda Fox are following when they slant the news. And the memos I've linked to show at the very least that the reporters are told to.

You're biased....

No I'm not, YOU ARE...

Am not...

Are too!

AM NOT!

ARE TOO!

Oh yeah? Well, you're an idiot!

YOU'RE an idiot!

Am not!

Are too!..........


You people just make me sad.

You people just make me sad.
No we don't.

Fox is just a little bit leaning to the conservative side but all the other ones are SUPER LIBERAL.

You do realize that that would mean Fox News and CNN have pretty much the same politics, right?

No we don't.

You mean you can actually tell what I feel? That's amazing.....

You mean you can actually tell what I feel? That's amazing.....
You mean you can't recognize satire without a smilie? That's amazing ...

Ok...Ok...you got me.

Fox is a station for those who believe that objectivity means that you have to be a conservative, Bush-lovin' automaton. So they complain about CNN (which still does have higher ratings, btw), because it doesn't shower the right with praise. Meanwhile, they trumpet talking heads (and ones that aren't even good, insightful and interesting--man, the right CAN do better) like Hannity.

Well, lets see.....

CBS news. Dan Rather is an admitted Democrat and his interviews show his bias.

ABC news. Peter Jennings. Canadian and a Democrat/Liberal and his bias shows in his reporting.

NBC news. Tom Brokaw. Has not stated his position but his bias appears to be toward the right.

CNN. Child of Ted Turner. Liberal Democratic demogogue.

Fox news. Child of Rupurt Murdoch. Conservative Republican demogogue.

Choose your news, each of them will give you a spin like Mr. Toads Wild Ride.

I never knew that being a Canadian news anchor was a bad thing.

You do realize that that would mean Fox News and CNN have pretty much the same politics, right?
In a helpful introducing newish posters to members of the board way, in Enodscopia's book anyone who doesen't believe that all Muslims are evil and that the best way to fight terrorism is to level major cities, is dangerously liberal.;)

:headbang:

not with links you idiot. your links would be to bad liberal cites produced by ranting idiots like yourself no doubt. im talking baout support for your weak claims not just weak statements that hold no ground.

I provided links to both CNN and FOX on the same story. I then addressed how the story was presented on both sites and why CNN's slant on the story was to the left, and FOX's was to the right.

You didnt respond to it at all.

My guess is that you have no desire to address it. It is much easier to give rants on a subject with no backing. Your request for support for claims about FOX is particularly baffling, when links wont do, a comparison between the two wont do, polls, statements from people who worked there wont do, what exactly is it you feel in your closed mind will suffice?

I provided links to both CNN and FOX on the same story. I then addressed how the story was presented on both sites and why CNN's slant on the story was to the left, and FOX's was to the right.

You didnt respond to it at all.

My guess is that you have no desire to address it. It is much easier to give rants on a subject with no backing. Your request for support for claims about FOX is particularly baffling, when links wont do, a comparison between the two wont do, polls, statements from people who worked there wont do, what exactly is it you feel in your closed mind will suffice?
yeah. when i compared 2 exact stories people completely ignored it

Alright, this "debate" seems to have been chasing its tail for some time, so I'm going to make some general statements and try to clarify a bunch of stuff. Kindly bear with me.

First, it must be taken as a given that all news has some bias. Since it is physically impossible to give a sufficient in-depth report on every item considered newsworthy, any news agency must decide what to show at all; this constitutes the first part of the bias.

The second part of any news bias would be within the story's "slant"; the direction in which the facts are aimed to draw a viewer/reader/listener's thoughts. A simple example would be the government shutdown during Clinton's administration, where the slant given the story would determine whether the shutdown was blamed on Clinton, Congress, or neither. Generally the slant forms the largest part of any bias, unless a station/paper/site is blatantly ignoring journalism ethics and simply ignoring any piece of news which doesn't fit with the editor's views.

The third part of a news bias would come from the commentary. Commentary is not news and should never be taken as such; commentary serves as an opinion piece, be it the op-ed in any paper, specific questions in a radio interview, or the host interjecting whatever they feel on a TV show. Obviously the commentary can quickly overtake all the other sources of bias because if an article is shown without leaning too heavily one way or the other, and some figure of authority leans back and says, "Of course, this situation can be blamed on so-and-so because of whyever" whoever took in the news will either be drawn quickly to agree if they were already leaning that way (the expert agrees! damn straight!) or begin to question their view (the expert says the opposite...maybe I wasn't right). Of course those are generalizations, but completely in-line with human psychology (remember that when a "figure of importance" told ordinary people to shock a helpless victim in Milgram's experiment, 65% administered a shock of 450 volts, despite simulated screams of agony, demanding of the cessation of the experiment, and the huge red sticker which noted that such a voltage was fatal; no shocks were actually administrated, but almost 7 out of 10 people were willing to kill someone because a "scientist" told them to).

Now there are other sources of bias as well, which are more subtle. Hell, I chose to say "almost 7 out of 10 people" to represent 65%. I did so because I felt it maximized the impact. If a piece of news came out that, say, revealed that 51% of all Americans were being killed by toxic waste dumps near their homes, you could say it many different ways:

"More than half"
"About half"
"One out of every two"
"Five out of every 10"
"150 million Americans total"
"Nearly half" -- taking into account error of study
"A substantial number"
"Most"
"XXX million in this state alone"

and so on. Obviously some make the problem seem larger, others smaller. The last one I think especially makes it look worse because it implies that the problem is even worse in other states; likewise "one out of every two" means that spouses look at each other and realize one is getting waste fumes while "five out of every ten" means that some families look around and figure they may well just be the lucky ones.

We also have the tone in which the news is delivered, the manner in which it is portrayed (an article about how a war is going well would not play well with pictures of American corspes in the backgrond), and even the order (a piece about government debt consequenses hot on the hells of an article on pork barrel would cause much more outrage than if the two were on separate days or many hours apart). So the sources of bias are many, varied, and sometimes very difficult to tally up, mainly because there are so many.

So why do many "liberals" dislike Fox News? It is not very much because of the bias incorporated as their story selection; all the large networks cover mostly the same national news, and all the locals carry pretty much the same local coverage.

The slant of Fox has been established to be definately conservative, and undeniably pro-Bush, just as many other news outlets have been shown to be definately liberal and anti-Bush (home rag the AJC certainly leans that way). While some liberals find this frustrating, it is still not the main source of anger, at least by my understanding.

That damn commentary is. Fox News incorporates commentary into the news, presents it as news, makes it part of the damn news. A reporter or interviewee or broadcaster makes damn sure that you hear whatever their opinion is, and don't bother making it clear which is news and which is what they think. No other news vessel does this sort of thing; no newspaper columnist in any respectable paper writes a news article about the Iraqi war and then throws in "and of course the war is wrong and all the fault of the incompetant Bush Administration." But Fox does, even if that particular example really doesn't apply to them.

It has been proven time and time again, that having a figure of respect or authority express their views on any subject heavily affects not just "stupid" people, not just uneducated people, not just ANYONE, but every-damn-body. One experiement was done in which a group was shown two lines, like so:

---------------- A
-------------------- B

Which is longer, A or B? Obviously B, you say, but when subjects were put in a room with several (varying) assistants pretending to be subjects, who all pick the shorter line, up to 40% of the real subjects, even though they could just look at the damn line and see, knowingly picked the shorter one, because everyone else did. And these are just strangers in a strange environment, and that is a freaking line, which can clearly by viewed by anyone regardless of anything.

With something as complex as international and nation affairs, with many broadcasters being seen as sort of acquaintances (I know when I heard Bob Edward's voice on NPR it made me pay attention, and if he said something it mattered more than some guy on the street), the dangers of a "news" station putting commentary designed to shift viewers' thinking a certain direction, according to MULTIPLE Fox internal memos, should be obvious. They are literally affecting what people think, in the most direct and blatant way possible of all the many possible methods.

That is what, I think, most of "us" hate Fox for. They take the most obvious, effective method of changing how people think, and apply it to the news in order to convince millions of people that, more than anything else, most of what this Administration and Republicans in general do, is good, while liberals are "bad" all-around.

The State of the Union addresses should not be immediately followed by two "experts" telling us what to think about it.

People's inherant psychological patterns should not be exploited -- many countries have banned advertising aimed at young children who cannot tell the difference between advertising and the program, as an example.

As an aside, Fox reached its popularity mostly be completely changing the manner in which local news is presented and delivered. In locals news, the "rule" "if it bleeds, it leads" has been around for at least 100 years, but Fox took this to new heights. Surprisingly, people really liked hearing about all the disasters befalling them; maybe they feel better they it isn't happening to them. Eventually the other large networks copied this practice, but the damage was done. Why does Fox beat CNN? Because CNN doesn't tell you that Debbie Smith was kidnapped by two black thugs in the town down the road, or how (I wish this one was made up) how the "really wet" roads might cause problems with ice if the temperature dropped 18 degrees in the next 5 hours, in Georgia, when the temperature was in fact increasing, and had been for 2 days. Of course, Michael Moore in no small part blames those changes on the "culture of fear" which has such a hold on our populace, at least in the past decade (IMHO the most interesting and correct part of Bowling for Columbine).

Every news station has bias in their story selection and slant; that is now news works. The information and writer's/editor's/agency's view is presented with it, for judging. At Fox, the opinions are layered right in, and made to be factual and "right." This practice places them out of the pale, in my opinion, and makes them dangerous to any democratic society. When the news just flat out tries to make you think one way or the other, how can anyone judge what is actually real?

The experiments I mentioned:
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
http://designweb.otago.ac.nz/grant/psyc/COMPLIANCE.HTML

EDIT: To sum up, it is not the conservative and pro-Bush slant that reasonable liberals dislike, but rather the manner in which such views are imparted to anyone watching the show, a manner which psychologically takes advantage of them.

Plus Fox hosts the Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity shows, which raises pretty much any liberal's ire.

Beautiful, Skepticism .

Alright, this "debate" seems to have been chasing its tail for some time, so I'm going to make some general statements and try to clarify a bunch of stuff. Kindly bear with me.

First, it must be taken as a given that all news has some bias. Since it is physically impossible to give a sufficient in-depth report on every item considered newsworthy, any news agency must decide what to show at all; this constitutes the first part of the bias.

The second part of any news bias would be within the story's "slant"; the direction in which the facts are aimed to draw a viewer/reader/listener's thoughts. A simple example would be the government shutdown during Clinton's administration, where the slant given the story would determine whether the shutdown was blamed on Clinton, Congress, or neither. Generally the slant forms the largest part of any bias, unless a station/paper/site is blatantly ignoring journalism ethics and simply ignoring any piece of news which doesn't fit with the editor's views.

The third part of a news bias would come from the commentary. Commentary is not news and should never be taken as such; commentary serves as an opinion piece, be it the op-ed in any paper, specific questions in a radio interview, or the host interjecting whatever they feel on a TV show. Obviously the commentary can quickly overtake all the other sources of bias because if an article is shown without leaning too heavily one way or the other, and some figure of authority leans back and says, "Of course, this situation can be blamed on so-and-so because of whyever" whoever took in the news will either be drawn quickly to agree if they were already leaning that way (the expert agrees! damn straight!) or begin to question their view (the expert says the opposite...maybe I wasn't right). Of course those are generalizations, but completely in-line with human psychology (remember that when a "figure of importance" told ordinary people to shock a helpless victim in Milgram's experiment, 65% administered a shock of 450 volts, despite simulated screams of agony, demanding of the cessation of the experiment, and the huge red sticker which noted that such a voltage was fatal; no shocks were actually administrated, but almost 7 out of 10 people were willing to kill someone because a "scientist" told them to).

Now there are other sources of bias as well, which are more subtle. Hell, I chose to say "almost 7 out of 10 people" to represent 65%. I did so because I felt it maximized the impact. If a piece of news came out that, say, revealed that 51% of all Americans were being killed by toxic waste dumps near their homes, you could say it many different ways:

"More than half"
"About half"
"One out of every two"
"Five out of every 10"
"150 million Americans total"
"Nearly half" -- taking into account error of study
"A substantial number"
"Most"
"XXX million in this state alone"

and so on. Obviously some make the problem seem larger, others smaller. The last one I think especially makes it look worse because it implies that the problem is even worse in other states; likewise "one out of every two" means that spouses look at each other and realize one is getting waste fumes while "five out of every ten" means that some families look around and figure they may well just be the lucky ones.

We also have the tone in which the news is delivered, the manner in which it is portrayed (an article about how a war is going well would not play well with pictures of American corspes in the backgrond), and even the order (a piece about government debt consequenses hot on the hells of an article on pork barrel would cause much more outrage than if the two were on separate days or many hours apart). So the sources of bias are many, varied, and sometimes very difficult to tally up, mainly because there are so many.

So why do many "liberals" dislike Fox News? It is not very much because of the bias incorporated as their story selection; all the large networks cover mostly the same national news, and all the locals carry pretty much the same local coverage.

The slant of Fox has been established to be definately conservative, and undeniably pro-Bush, just as many other news outlets have been shown to be definately liberal and anti-Bush (home rag the AJC certainly leans that way). While some liberals find this frustrating, it is still not the main source of anger, at least by my understanding.

That damn commentary is. Fox News incorporates commentary into the news, presents it as news, makes it part of the damn news. A reporter or interviewee or broadcaster makes damn sure that you hear whatever their opinion is, and don't bother making it clear which is news and which is what they think. No other news vessel does this sort of thing; no newspaper columnist in any respectable paper writes a news article about the Iraqi war and then throws in "and of course the war is wrong and all the fault of the incompetant Bush Administration." But Fox does, even if that particular example really doesn't apply to them.

It has been proven time and time again, that having a figure of respect or authority express their views on any subject heavily affects not just "stupid" people, not just uneducated people, not just ANYONE, but every-damn-body. One experiement was done in which a group was shown two lines, like so:

---------------- A
-------------------- B

Which is longer, A or B? Obviously B, you say, but when subjects were put in a room with several (varying) assistants pretending to be subjects, who all pick the shorter line, up to 40% of the real subjects, even though they could just look at the damn line and see, knowingly picked the shorter one, because everyone else did. And these are just strangers in a strange environment, and that is a freaking line, which can clearly by viewed by anyone regardless of anything.

With something as complex as international and nation affairs, with many broadcasters being seen as sort of acquaintances (I know when I heard Bob Edward's voice on NPR it made me pay attention, and if he said something it mattered more than some guy on the street), the dangers of a "news" station putting commentary designed to shift viewers' thinking a certain direction, according to MULTIPLE Fox internal memos, should be obvious. They are literally affecting what people think, in the most direct and blatant way possible of all the many possible methods.

That is what, I think, most of "us" hate Fox for. They take the most obvious, effective method of changing how people think, and apply it to the news in order to convince millions of people that, more than anything else, most of what this Administration and Republicans in general do, is good, while liberals are "bad" all-around.

The State of the Union addresses should not be immediately followed by two "experts" telling us what to think about it.

People's inherant psychological patterns should not be exploited -- many countries have banned advertising aimed at young children who cannot tell the difference between advertising and the program, as an example.

As an aside, Fox reached its popularity mostly be completely changing the manner in which local news is presented and delivered. In locals news, the "rule" "if it bleeds, it leads" has been around for at least 100 years, but Fox took this to new heights. Surprisingly, people really liked hearing about all the disasters befalling them; maybe they feel better they it isn't happening to them. Eventually the other large networks copied this practice, but the damage was done. Why does Fox beat CNN? Because CNN doesn't tell you that Debbie Smith was kidnapped by two black thugs in the town down the road, or how (I wish this one was made up) how the "really wet" roads might cause problems with ice if the temperature dropped 18 degrees in the next 5 hours, in Georgia, when the temperature was in fact increasing, and had been for 2 days. Of course, Michael Moore in no small part blames those changes on the "culture of fear" which has such a hold on our populace, at least in the past decade (IMHO the most interesting and correct part of Bowling for Columbine).

Every news station has bias in their story selection and slant; that is now news works. The information and writer's/editor's/agency's view is presented with it, for judging. At Fox, the opinions are layered right in, and made to be factual and "right." This practice places them out of the pale, in my opinion, and makes them dangerous to any democratic society. When the news just flat out tries to make you think one way or the other, how can anyone judge what is actually real?

The experiments I mentioned:
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
http://designweb.otago.ac.nz/grant/psyc/COMPLIANCE.HTML

EDIT: To sum up, it is not the conservative and pro-Bush slant that reasonable liberals dislike, but rather the manner in which such views are imparted to anyone watching the show, a manner which psychologically takes advantage of them.

Plus Fox hosts the Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity shows, which raises pretty much any liberal's ire.

Yet another massive over-reaction and delightful rationalization of a leftist mindset to effective use of the verbo-musico-visual-realtime media that is TV.

Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.

I am constantly told that if I don't like the way the UN works (in this game) I'm free to leave.

It would not THINK of prohibiting you from voicing your opinion about FOX news. In my opinion it strengthens my opinion (and many like me) that your mindset is anti-free-speech, dictatorial, over-wrought, hyper-sensitive, childishness masquerading as intellectualism, and down right good theatre..! :)

Long may your banner wave, lefty propagandist..!

We need more hypertensive leftists..!


Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.

So how do you explain the fact (cited several times on this thread) that viewers whose primary source of news is Fox are much more likely to believe things like "Saddam was involved in 9/11"?

You did read the studies, polls, leaked memos, and analyses before posting, right?

Thank you Iakeokeo.

Your response just made the point of this topic.

FOX news is biased to the right.

Why else would you be doing your taunt the left-wing dance after the well thought out post above yours?
If FOX news werent right wing, you wouldnt be so quick to deride someones opinion that FOX is just as slanted a news organization as any other.
The left at least has no problems with being objective and agreeing that certain stations have a definite leaning towards the left.
But oh my, the right is totally up in arms if you dare suggest that their station is anything other than a totally objective, morally righteous, open-minded, even handed entity, despite any evidence presented to the contrary.

Every "response" to either a documented, linked, comparative, or reasoned line of logic supporting the assertion that FOX is a right leaning news organization has been met with name calling in the literal sense, or under pseudo-intellectual deriding of a political position such as yours.

Can you not address the issue at hand? Or maybe you would like to dismiss my opinion by talking about my war record now? :rolleyes:

Yet another massive over-reaction and delightful rationalization of a leftist mindset to effective use of the verbo-musico-visual-realtime media that is TV.

Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.

I am constantly told that if I don't like the way the UN works (in this game) I'm free to leave.

It would not THINK of prohibiting you from voicing your opinion about FOX news. In my opinion it strengthens my opinion (and many like me) that your mindset is anti-free-speech, dictatorial, over-wrought, hyper-sensitive, childishness masquerading as intellectualism, and down right good theatre..! :)

Long may your banner wave, lefty propagandist..!

We need more hypertensive leftists..!


Kindly explain how it is that my description of the nature of objectivity was a rationalization for disliking Fox? I took specific care to attempt to explain how it was that all news must be biased, then show why I think that Fox is worse than some others, taking into account that all must be biased. Please also tell me what you found childish; I always want to make sure I'm writing to the correct audience.

I also find it ironic that you call my post "anti-free-speech" when I made no blind accusations, threw out no insults, and made very clear over and over that I was describing my (and other's) opinions, unlike about half the people who have posted so far.

My "leftist" mindset at least has had some demonstratable facts backing it presented before the people of this forum. If you would post the facts supporting your mindset, I think everyone would be happy to discuss said facts instead of yelling at each other, but no one on the "Fox is (more) objective (than other news)" side has really done so.

I will always support your right to argue, but an argument does not become a useful discussion until there is something to discuss, eh?

*Looks round to see if any of the right have provided sources to substantiate their claims that CNN is biased to the left yet* Nope, still nothing.

Thank-you, Upright Monkeys, for the note on the terminology. My search on Google revealed pretty much the same.

My point about the war, however, seems to have been taken in the wrong way, also by Slack Baby; at least, I really do not understand his post in relation to mine.

My point was not to follow the President, whosoever he may be, heedlessly, blindly, with no sense of intelligence. That would not be patriotic, or of any value to anyone. Besides, like you said, patriotism is paid to the country, not to any person.

What I said was that if was had already been declared, then the time for dissent should be over. Notice, war is declared by Congress, not the President.

Also, about the right-wing, yes, compared to Europe, America is very right-wing, but on an overview of all political forms of government, Fascism and certain forms of Monarchism would occupy the ultra-right, just as Communism and Leninism occupies the place of the ultra-left. And this is in consideration of the world politics with a bit of historical perpective, considering 20th century politics.

What I said was that if was had already been declared, then the time for dissent should be over.
Just as any well-designed engine needs feedback devices to keep it from revving out of control, a well-designed political system needs feedback from its constituency to keep it in check. There is never a time that dissent should be disallowed.

Should dissenters exercise personal restraint in how they present such materials? Of course. There is every reason for common sense to be employed. Letters and calls to lawmakers can show respect and deference without dimming the message.

Should non-dissenters be allowed to speak out against the dissenters? Of course. That too is a part of the freedom to dissent: the freedom to resist dissent.

To bring this back to the topic, I believe that Fox News has every right to act as a cheerleader to the Administration, and present nothing but a single side if they so choose. I do wish they wouldn't use the phrase 'fair and balanced' in their advertising. I also wish the toilet tissue companies would stop using bears shitting in the woods to advertise their product, but so be it. I can exercise my freedom of choice in each case by changing the channel.

Why Wont This Topic Die
Ahhhh:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper:

There's nothing inherently "left-wing" about allowing people to voice dissent. It's inherently DEMOCRATIC. Cheerleading ain't news. Fox News does a great disservice to the history of journalism whenever they spew their usual slurry of partisan sputum and have the audacity to call it 'news'.

I agree with Frisbeeteria, especially his comments on dissent. However, I see an innate problem with the free press. The foundation of a media source - be it radio, television, newspaper or other - requires money and resources. Those that posess these resources tend to be those who have benefited from the system. Consequently, in the UK at least, we see a general rightwards skew in news coverage. It's not particularly an issue here for radio or television, but the printed press is wildly right wing.

None of this should be read as a call for an end to or restrictions on the freedom of the press. It's just my somewhat jaundiced view on the issue. I recognise also that it has little to do with the central thread debate. Kudos to Skepticism, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.



So how do you explain the fact (cited several times on this thread) that viewers whose primary source of news is Fox are much more likely to believe things like "Saddam was involved in 9/11"?

You did read the studies, polls, leaked memos, and analyses before posting, right?

I don't disagree with your conclusions at all. All news outlets are inherently biased.

All I'm saying is that your "collection of evidence" is just as biased toward your leftist perspective as any other opinion, and that it's actually nothing more than a legalistic way of saying "I don't like them because I don't like what they say or how they say it."

You will "convince" those who believe as you do, and will not convince those who don't.

I appreciate your supporting your case with what you believe to be facts. That lends many words and points of discussion to the matter, but as they are also second hand interpretations of information (in my opinion, like everything else), they too are subject to the same biasing.

So, we are at an impasse. :) You have your opinion, and I have mine, and the rest of the crowd has theirs, and as "the rest of the crowd" here is much more inclined to believe as you do, you "win"..!! :)

Hoorah for your side..! Heh he he he he he...

(( Of course the previous line will be derided as "childish and anti-intellectual" by those who are simply interested in "winning" in so-called intellectual combat. I like to see it as attempting to interject some humor and good will into the discussion, as an obvious ploy toward making both of us more human by being able to see the non-earth-shaking side of this matter. ))

I, for one, CERTAINLY don't pretend to think that FOX is unbiased,.. it's just as biased as the rest, and in a direction that I have many sympathies with, which makes it enjoyable for me to watch, and enjoyable to see what the left "does" in response to it, to watch.

Fris is dead on, as usual, in proclaiming that dissent of dissent is still a legitimate form of dissent and should be respected.

The outrage of the left (whatever that REALLY is) is really just a matter of annoyance that they think that the "opposition" is "cheating" by having an outlet that "disobeys" the left's rules.

The rules are fluid because humanity is fluid. The so-called rules that they taught you in school will always be tested in the real world by those who have the radical thought of actually daring to do so.

Then,.. he who gets voted off the island, gets voted off the island. (Yet another "pop culture" reference that PROVES that I'm an anti-intellectual right-wing gun totin' whack-job..!). :)

Happiness, love and wisdom to you, great thinkers..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Yet another massive over-reaction and delightful rationalization of a leftist mindset to effective use of the verbo-musico-visual-realtime media that is TV.

Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.

I am constantly told that if I don't like the way the UN works (in this game) I'm free to leave.

It would not THINK of prohibiting you from voicing your opinion about FOX news. In my opinion it strengthens my opinion (and many like me) that your mindset is anti-free-speech, dictatorial, over-wrought, hyper-sensitive, childishness masquerading as intellectualism, and down right good theatre..!

Long may your banner wave, lefty propagandist..!

We need more hypertensive leftists..!




Kindly explain how it is that my description of the nature of objectivity was a rationalization for disliking Fox? I took specific care to attempt to explain how it was that all news must be biased, then show why I think that Fox is worse than some others, taking into account that all must be biased. Please also tell me what you found childish; I always want to make sure I'm writing to the correct audience.

I also find it ironic that you call my post "anti-free-speech" when I made no blind accusations, threw out no insults, and made very clear over and over that I was describing my (and other's) opinions, unlike about half the people who have posted so far.

My "leftist" mindset at least has had some demonstratable facts backing it presented before the people of this forum. If you would post the facts supporting your mindset, I think everyone would be happy to discuss said facts instead of yelling at each other, but no one on the "Fox is (more) objective (than other news)" side has really done so.

I will always support your right to argue, but an argument does not become a useful discussion until there is something to discuss, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Yet another massive over-reaction and delightful rationalization of a leftist mindset to effective use of the verbo-musico-visual-realtime media that is TV.

Your opinion of the nature of objectivity and it's consequences on those who view programming are your rationalizations for being pissed off at not liking what you see on FOX.

I am constantly told that if I don't like the way the UN works (in this game) I'm free to leave.

It would not THINK of prohibiting you from voicing your opinion about FOX news. In my opinion it strengthens my opinion (and many like me) that your mindset is anti-free-speech, dictatorial, over-wrought, hyper-sensitive, childishness masquerading as intellectualism, and down right good theatre..!

Long may your banner wave, lefty propagandist..!

We need more hypertensive leftists..!




Kindly explain how it is that my description of the nature of objectivity was a rationalization for disliking Fox? I took specific care to attempt to explain how it was that all news must be biased, then show why I think that Fox is worse than some others, taking into account that all must be biased. Please also tell me what you found childish; I always want to make sure I'm writing to the correct audience.

I also find it ironic that you call my post "anti-free-speech" when I made no blind accusations, threw out no insults, and made very clear over and over that I was describing my (and other's) opinions, unlike about half the people who have posted so far.

My "leftist" mindset at least has had some demonstratable facts backing it presented before the people of this forum. If you would post the facts supporting your mindset, I think everyone would be happy to discuss said facts instead of yelling at each other, but no one on the "Fox is (more) objective (than other news)" side has really done so.

I will always support your right to argue, but an argument does not become a useful discussion until there is something to discuss, eh?

My people believe that free-speech means "One can say whatever one wishes, and one will pay the consequences of doing so according to the rules of the vicinity",.. which means: say what you like but expect bananna cream pie if you're being "silly".

The "silly" part is decided by the folks in the vicinity, by the way.

I get LOTS of cream pie... :)

Your entire comment is a rationalization, and a not-unreasoned one. Rationalizations are what humans do, which has "survival value", making them therefore not inherently bad, as no tool is inherently bad.

It would be nice if people would truly realize that tools (like rationalizations, sharp implements like knives, guns, nerve gas, nuclear [or NEWCYULAR in BUSH parlance] and tweezers) are not inherently bad things.

Anyway, the reason I called it a rationalization is because it is (smells like a duck test applied) and since it was used to support your contention, which is that you dislike FOX (specifically for their commentary, which you see as "against the rules" and therefore "bad"), then ipso factoid (sic?):

"It is a rationalization for your disliking FOX."

The facts (fact actually) supporting my mindset are these:

My opinion (a fact) is that the stated questions of this thread (JOKE or OUTRAGE? PICK ONE..!) is bent.

The raison d'etre of this thread is to say that "FOX is bad because it disobeys the rules (set forth by some mysterious arbiter) and should be ostracized".

You are anti-free-speech in that you would muzzle other's opinions.

You are dictatorial in presuming to tell others what to do.

You are over-wrought in the presentation of your "case". (Meaning, torturous in it's reasoning).

You are hyper-sensitive in your reaction to opposition.

You exhibit (and read this clearly please) "childishness masquerading as intellectualism" by pulling the "I'm gonna tell Mommy on you, you cheater!" card.

And, you're good theatre because you're a very cogent person and a pleasure to interact with.

And, of course, these are opinions (presented as news) which makes them utterly nonsensical and invalid for the hyper-legal mind to deal with effectively.


Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I appreciate your supporting your case with what you believe to be facts. That lends many words and points of discussion to the matter, but as they are also second hand interpretations of information (in my opinion, like everything else), they too are subject to the same biasing.

But in the real world, almost a thousand american soldiers have died (along with many more who are seriously injured and have lost limbs), the US has spent over 200 billion on a war purportedly to find non-existent WMD.

Or are those just opinions, too? It's funny how I don't see any of this fluidity regarding "facts" on any of the threads bashing Kerry...

But in the real world, almost a thousand american soldiers have died (along with many more who are seriously injured and have lost limbs), the US has spent over 200 billion on a war purportedly to find non-existent WMD.

Or are those just opinions, too? It's funny how I don't see any of this fluidity regarding "facts" on any of the threads bashing Kerry...


Soldiers die in war. That's what war means. That's their job. If you don't wish to take the chance of dying in a war, do NOT become a soldier.

The US spends lots of money for lots of things.

Why did the US go to war in Iraq? What is your opinion? It is as good as anyone elses opinion?

Do I like Kerry? No. To me he is an obnoxious self promoting politician of the highest order.

Do I like Bush? Not overly, but he is preferrable to the alternative in my opinion.

If you don't like a politician, vote him/her out.

If you don't like a TV channel, turn it off.

If you like to talk and discuss matters, go for it.

I personally am more interested in pointing at the "energetically over-enthused" amongst the left (as they react in more amusing ways than the right) [AND because this forum is so much more heavily populated by the self-important left than the nut-bucket right] and interjecting my commentary.

:)

The contention of this thread is that FOX is not only "disobeying the established rules" of "journalism", but that it is actually a danger to democracy and therefore should be muzzled.

(( To state that something is dangerous to the foundation of a society and NOT to argue that it should be "altered so as to stop it's dangerousness" is a definition of treason toward society, in my opinion. ))

I find that contention silly, and point and laugh at those making it.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I have to say that Iakeokeo seems to be completely right. While those on the right are content to insult and cuss, us fools on the liberal side waste time trying to get some recognition of anything from them, even going so far as to write carefully researched pursuasive essays.

What fools we are.

Yes, Fox is biased. Yes, all news is biased to some extent. As far as "fair and balanced" goes, if you're politically conservative you'll agree with it, but Fox DOES editorialize instead of report. I can't watch ANY reporter on Fox without hearing how wonderful Bush is and how everything would be awful under Kerry---even Neal Cavuto, who's supposedly doing financial news. I'm sick of it, but I'm stuck because my brain-dead husband LOVES all that crap. He's so brainwashed he even switches to Fox anytime another news channel says anything positive about Kerry! But muzzle Fox? NO! That would not only be undemocratic but dangerous, and would create a precedent whereby Congress could abolish free speech for the rest of us. There's a rumor that they already have---something about banning a book that was critical of this administration---but I don't know if it's true. I hope it's not. As to our news media being owned by "big money", it's true and very depressing. We basically know only what we're allowed to know---even if news editors AREN'T deliberately slanting the news we get. I loathe Fox, but at least I KNOW it's biased. It's probably the worst thing on TV news, and dangerous, but until it starts agitating for Nazi-type laws against liberals I feel it should stay.

What fools we are.
Damn straight! Reason and research have NO PLACE in an argument!

Emotional bullshit RULES!

The contention of this thread is that FOX is not only "disobeying the established rules" of "journalism", but that it is actually a danger to democracy and therefore should be muzzled.

Now you're putting your own spin on this thread, or just plain fabricating statements.
No one on this thread has said the FOX should be "muzzled".

The point of this thread, because I guess you missed it, is that FOX is a right leaning station, not the unbiased source of news it claims to be. The point is that right wingers love to claim that it is the only "true" source of news because it panders to their opinions. The contention here is that people need to recognize that fact and take the news from FOX with that in mind, just as they do with the left leaning news stations.

Since you just admitted that FOX is indeed right wing
I, for one, CERTAINLY don't pretend to think that FOX is unbiased,.. it's just as biased as the rest, and in a direction that I have many sympathies with, which makes it enjoyable for me to watch
then you're in fact in support of the contention of this thread.
Which makes me wonder why you bothered to respond at all except to espouse your great left wing conspiracy theory that leftists are out to muzzle the right. Since you had to make that up, I point it out that once again, the right has to make things up or resort to name calling rather than back up their statements with fact or reasoned logical statements.

Other than that, it appears we are in agreement :fluffle:

Fox News Channel, man it just seems like they went to one of those freak shows to get the people that do their news shows. Bill O'Reilly with all his splotches looks like he has some rare form of skin cancer.

Then we have Hannity & Colmes. Hannity is clearly a huge ape-man who thrusts his jaw forward in simian aggression when speaking. Colmes is like the product of scientists attempts to combine a human and a rat.

It's funny really. Ok the Bill O'Reilly part wasn't so funny, but you have to admit the Hannity & Colmes part was right on.

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

Yup, I for one, am. Also, most of Ireland are pretty p*ssed that Americans rely so heavily on such a tool of George W. Bush style brainwashing as a source of information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skepticism
What fools we are.


Damn straight! Reason and research have NO PLACE in an argument!

Emotional bullshit RULES!


Heh he he he he he....!! :)

Very good..! You folks are great..! (I mean it, nice to see some humor. )

Gather your research and reasons. Convince me..!

If I judge, and I alone am judge for myself, that your arguments are not convincing,.. your research and reasons have not convinced me.

"Well,... DUH..!" you say, at my ludicrously obvious statement.

"Well,... DUH..!" I say, in response,.. and we either do something else or NOT..!

In any case,.. thanks for the opportunity to get into other heads than my own. :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Quote:
The contention of this thread is that FOX is not only "disobeying the established rules" of "journalism", but that it is actually a danger to democracy and therefore should be muzzled.



Now you're putting your own spin on this thread, or just plain fabricating statements.
No one on this thread has said the FOX should be "muzzled".

The point of this thread, because I guess you missed it, is that FOX is a right leaning station, not the unbiased source of news it claims to be. The point is that right wingers love to claim that it is the only "true" source of news because it panders to their opinions. The contention here is that people need to recognize that fact and take the news from FOX with that in mind, just as they do with the left leaning news stations.

Since you just admitted that FOX is indeed right wing

Quote:
I, for one, CERTAINLY don't pretend to think that FOX is unbiased,.. it's just as biased as the rest, and in a direction that I have many sympathies with, which makes it enjoyable for me to watch


then you're in fact in support of the contention of this thread.
Which makes me wonder why you bothered to respond at all except to espouse your great left wing conspiracy theory that leftists are out to muzzle the right. Since you had to make that up, I point it out that once again, the right has to make things up or resort to name calling rather than back up their statements with fact or reasoned logical statements.

Other than that, it appears we are in agreement

Hmmm,... so you're seriously proposing that a "danger to democracy" should be simply allowed to run free and do it's worst to the great institution of DEMOCRACY ITSELF..!?

My my.... that's rather "unpatriotic", wouldn't you say..? Allowing such a threat to exist?

In fact, does that actually show those who proposed that it's a "danger to democracy" as actually WANTING to see the demise of democracy by allowing such a thing to exist..?

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

This is not spurious flame-bating. This is "a" logical conclusion of this proposition that FOX is an actual "threat to democracy itself"...!

BTW,... the contention of this thread was whether FOX was a Joke or an Outrage.

I agree that is is a joke to the left,.. as well as an outrage to the left. It is neither to this particular viewer.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slack Baby
...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

Yup, I for one, am. Also, most of Ireland are pretty p*ssed that Americans rely so heavily on such a tool of George W. Bush style brainwashing as a source of information.

Then there's the BBC....

But then,.. that's not really what the europeans (and everyone else) are p*ssed at.

Why is the world p*ssed at America?

The world hates America. Period. There is plenty of reasoning behind their hatred, some legitimate and some not.

But it doesn't matter why. The simple fact is that it is the fashion to "hate America".

Many so-called Americans (we prefer USians, I'll thank you to know), such as myself, know that the populations of the world DON'T hate "the people" of America,... they hate the government.

(( They also don't hate our $$$'s, but that's another story. ))

This makes us feel much better. As we are really a very nice bunch of folks. In general. There are always idiots.

But,.. we are used to our "Nation" being hated, and factor it into everything that we do.

The other nations of the world can do as they please. They will get what we decide to give them, and we will get what they decide to give us.

Pretty well sums it up.

Have fun with being who you are. It's why we have nations in the first place.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

But then,.. that's not really what the europeans (and everyone else) are p*ssed at...
Why is the world p*ssed at America?...
The world hates America. Period....
Could that 'hatred' and 'the world being pissed at you' be something that somebody wants you to believe? I for one don't hate America. In my immediate surroundings I don't hear about hatred towards America. Granted, some may chuckle at the things you sometimes do, but if we were in the same position, would we do better...? If you come to Europe (well, northern part anywhos), I bet you would be welcomed, not booed at. Quite the contrary, people are capable of seeing that we have so much in common (in the end), that we can't be 'hating' eachother. Disagreeing sometimes is another matter.

Could it be that somehow your media/or whoever, want's to tell you there is immense hatred towards the USA in the world? That can't be so, but wouldn't that be a nice way to keep the country united and in support of whatever task at hand? Good for the government, good for the network willing to do that.
(of course I'm not talking about FOX, only seen glimpses)

Could that 'hatred' and 'the world being pissed at you' be something that somebody wants you to believe? I for one don't hate America. In my immediate surroundings I don't hear about hatred towards America. Granted, some may chuckle at the things you sometimes do, but if we were in the same position, would we do better...? If you come to Europe (well, northern part anywhos), I bet you would be welcomed, not booed at. Quite the contrary, people are capable of seeing that we have so much in common (in the end), that we can't be 'hating' eachother. Disagreeing sometimes is another matter.

Could it be that somehow your media/or whoever, want's to tell you there is immense hatred towards the USA in the world? That can't be so, but wouldn't that be a nice way to keep the country united and in support of whatever task at hand? Good for the government, good for the network willing to do that.
(of course I'm not talking about FOX, only seen glimpses)

Indeed,.. I'm sure you're right..! :)

It does serve the interests of "those who would like to keep everyone on the same page" to promulgate the idea of "America Under Siege"..!

Those who DO hate America, here and outside the US, are just very loud people.

EVERYTHING (repeat that 12 times) should be taken with a huge grain of salt, as everyone has their own clever little agenda.

As long as we treat each other as adults, and realize that sometimes even adults get into bloody nasty "kill the other guy" battles, which are to be avoided whenever avoidable, we'll all do just fine.

Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

And to You :)

Then there's the BBC....

What about the BBC?

I don't think the BBC are biased. In fact I don't think any of the terrestrial news is based, but I don't watch ITV and I'm not includin 5 because I don't get it. The BBC and Channel 4 just seem to say what's happening, I don't see how they're biased.

Speaking of not being biased... Euronews and their "No comment"... just tapes of American presidential candidates (each) giving their speeches. The tapes filmed in both sides, from, say Israel. Plane down in Russia? - just film. No anchors. No comments. Is that enough? I bet somebody would argue that the selection of the tapes shown is biased.

What about the BBC?

I don't think the BBC are biased. In fact I don't think any of the terrestrial news is based, but I don't watch ITV and I'm not includin 5 because I don't get it. The BBC and Channel 4 just seem to say what's happening, I don't see how they're biased.

I'm sure you're right.

I can't really comment as I don't watch the Beeb, although I would really like to.

The basic assumption is that ALL news is, of necessity, biased because people pick what goes into the available airtime.

Maybe the BBC is immune from that particular problem. :)

An any rate,.. I do wish I could pop around the world and visit everyone's locale for a couple of weeks each for a living.

Now that would be my idea of the perfect news service..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I love Fox because it it is the only non-anti-semitic station. CNN and even (especially) NPR, PBS and BBC are are news outlets that vent their anti-semitism in pretentious pseudo-intellectual programmes that are selectively objective, meaning they present only facts, but they leave out any that may be inconvenient. A few years ago, there was a picture of a palestinian woman with her children and an Israeli soldier nearby. The picture was taken at such an angle so that it looked like the soldier was going to shoot the woman and her children. It was all over CNN, shown a few times on PBS and I do not know about BBC, but it may have been on there also. Fox aired the picture once in its objective news shows and the late night commentary shows dismissed it as anti-israel, anti-semitic propaganda. (If you would like to view the picture for yourself, you can find it at this anti-semitic rag: http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/index.html . Other stories in the rag contain things that one would think only existed on the X-files, and one of the "demands for the government" sections includes the demand "stop UFO extra-terrestrial exploitation".)
On CNN, BBC and PBS, whenever Jewish villagers are massacred, those networks give the story about five seconds at most. When Jews kill a terrorist, it is "murder". FOX does not give us any of that crap.

I love Fox because it it is the only non-anti-semitic station. CNN and even (especially) NPR, PBS and BBC are are news outlets that vent their anti-semitism in pretentious pseudo-intellectual programmes that are selectively objective, meaning they present only facts, but they leave out any that may be inconvenient. A few years ago, there was a picture of a palestinian woman with her children and an Israeli soldier nearby. The picture was taken at such an angle so that it looked like the soldier was going to shoot the woman and her children. It was all over CNN, shown a few times on PBS and I do not know about BBC, but it may have been on there also. Fox aired the picture once in its objective news shows and the late night commentary shows dismissed it as anti-israel, anti-semitic propaganda. (If you would like to view the picture for yourself, you can find it at this anti-semitic rag: http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/index.html . Other stories in the rag contain things that one would think only existed on the X-files, and one of the "demands for the government" sections includes the demand "stop UFO extra-terrestrial exploitation".)
On CNN, BBC and PBS, whenever Jewish villagers are massacred, those networks give the story about five seconds at most. When Jews kill a terrorist, it is "murder". FOX does not give us any of that crap.
there is an OBVIOUS difference between aiming a gun at some one and standing somewhere holding a gun, you can NOT take a picture and make it casually look like a gun is being pointed at some one, if you believe that you have never used a fire arm in your life and that is painfully obvious

I love Fox because it it is the only non-anti-semitic station. CNN and even (especially) NPR, PBS and BBC are are news outlets that vent their anti-semitism in pretentious pseudo-intellectual programmes that are selectively objective, meaning they present only facts, but they leave out any that may be inconvenient. A few years ago, there was a picture of a palestinian woman with her children and an Israeli soldier nearby. The picture was taken at such an angle so that it looked like the soldier was going to shoot the woman and her children. It was all over CNN, shown a few times on PBS and I do not know about BBC, but it may have been on there also. Fox aired the picture once in its objective news shows and the late night commentary shows dismissed it as anti-israel, anti-semitic propaganda. (If you would like to view the picture for yourself, you can find it at this anti-semitic rag: http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/index.html . Other stories in the rag contain things that one would think only existed on the X-files, and one of the "demands for the government" sections includes the demand "stop UFO extra-terrestrial exploitation".)
On CNN, BBC and PBS, whenever Jewish villagers are massacred, those networks give the story about five seconds at most. When Jews kill a terrorist, it is "murder". FOX does not give us any of that crap.

I can't really speak for CNN, as I don't watch it that much, and I don't have access to PBS. But I watch a lot of BBC World, and I can only say it covers the conflict in Israel and the occupied territories very thoroughly. I've seen detailed reports on terror attacks by both sides, included when Israeli buses have been blown up and also coverage of protests by Israeli's who are against the pull out of settlements from Gaza etc. Whilst its hard for anything or anyone to be competely bias-free, I would say the BBC performs very well in its coverage of the middle east from both viewpoints.

Whilst its hard for anything or anyone to be competely bias-free, I would say the BBC performs very well in its coverage of the middle east from both viewpoints.

It sure looks like the beeb is bias-free. ;) well, it does!

Im sure the look of pure fear on the faces of that woman and her children was a result of camera tricks as well :rolleyes: