NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I was watching FOX news today (yes, I know, bad liberal!) anyway they were reporting (still) on the now famous question posed to Donald Rumsfeld. What FOX reported was the question, the answer and a little side fact. The unit of the specialist that asked the question had 280 armored Humvees in their unit. 200 were armored, 20 were being refitted. Now, that was the specialist's unit, in Kuwait. What about every other Unit thats actually in Iraq? What is the state of their Humvees? Do they all have that much armor? Well, apparently not but the fact that some units do is apparently good enough.

After that, FOX went on to the report about Donald Rumsfeld using the stamping machine to sign the condolence letters. FOX decided to report that the families that complained were anti-Bush from the beginning. Like that makes a difference! Instead of trying to remedy the situation, FOX just decides to try and demonize the people that complain about Bush. Why should it matter if the people that criticised Rumsfeld supported Bush or not - thats not the issue.

Way to go FOX. Propoganda and distortion of the truth at its finest.

Well...duh. Did you expect anything better from the "Fair and Balanced" station?

"propaganda" is such a harsh word. I would have used "Asshat Central"

Well...duh. Did you expect anything better from the "Fair and Balanced" station?

That had to change their motto to "We report, you decide"

ROFLMAO

You evil anti-American liberal with vicious plans for world domination.

"propaganda" is such a harsh word. I would have used "Asshat Central"
Ooooohhhhhh....I'm gonna call it that from now on, I really like it. You should copyright it before they do.
That had to change their motto to "We report, you decide"

ROFLMAO
Did they really? That's fantastic! :p :p :p

Did they really? That's fantastic! :p :p :p

Yes, they did. They got sued over "Fair and balanced' and couldn't prove they were.

And yes, I am an evil anti-American liberal with vicious plans for world domination. Exactly.

The only unbiased news paper in the world will be written by androids and other computers/semi-computers. In the future. No "asshats" or anything, you should have seen some of the stuff in the New York Times after the US election. Sure, I agree with it, but it is blatantly biased.

I like NPR

*yawns*

Free press? What's that, a drycleaner's marketing promotion?

*goes back to sleep*

I like to get stoned and watch Fox News. It's so funny to watch those guys bluster around. Bill O'Reilly can it poop and die, I'd make a better news anchor than him, at least I'd tell people I was biased.

American media=propaganda :headbang:

Okay, I was watching FOX news today (yes, I know, bad liberal!) anyway they were reporting (still) on the now famous question posed to Donald Rumsfeld. What FOX reported was the question, the answer and a little side fact. The unit of the specialist that asked the question had 280 armored Humvees in their unit. 200 were armored, 20 were being refitted. Now, that was the specialist's unit, in Kuwait. What about every other Unit thats actually in Iraq? What is the state of their Humvees? Do they all have that much armor? Well, apparently not but the fact that some units do is apparently good enough.

After that, FOX went on to the report about Donald Rumsfeld using the stamping machine to sign the condolence letters. FOX decided to report that the families that complained were anti-Bush from the beginning. Like that makes a difference! Instead of trying to remedy the situation, FOX just decides to try and demonize the people that complain about Bush. Why should it matter if the people that criticised Rumsfeld supported Bush or not - thats not the issue.

Way to go FOX. Propoganda and distortion of the truth at its finest.

No offense, but thank you captain obvious for saving the day.

Go read "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" by Al Franken. That's enough liberal propoganda for you. Pretty entertaining stuff.

Specially about Ann Coulter. They need to fix her.

That had to change their motto to "We report, you decide"

ROFLMAO

oh... I think they meant "We Distort, You Deride"

American media=propaganda :headbang:

Wrong. Non-computermade media=propaganda. Propaganda is just attempting to make the public have a certain opinion.

lmfao you people are so pathetic. Do you think that fox is the only news station that has ever distorted the truth. EVERY fucking news station changes the truth. CNN and NBC are KNOWN to distort the truth far more than fox ever has. Liberals have recently been more guilty of propoganda than anyone else. Have you watched F9/11? And if you say that it is not propoganda, and you think it is actually true, then you need to take your head out of your ass. www.bowlingfortruth.com . They have the truth on both movies (bowling and f9/11). And need i mention memogate?

Yes, all media in all countries is biased. And even Michael Moore has bits of truth spread throughout his work, just like its right wing complement. Left and Right have their propaganda.

Ya know, I should give more people less credit when they deserve. First response when I saw this = Well, DUH!

lmfao you people are so pathetic. Do you think that fox is the only news station that has ever distorted the truth. EVERY fucking news station changes the truth. CNN and NBC are KNOWN to distort the truth far more than fox ever has. Liberals have recently been more guilty of propoganda than anyone else. Have you watched F9/11? And if you say that it is not propoganda, and you think it is actually true, then you need to take your head out of your ass. www.bowlingfortruth.com . They have the truth on both movies (bowling and f9/11). And need i mention memogate?

Thanks for bringing up that movie, of which I have not seen.

Anyway, Fox's method of sharing their "facts" is far more comical and halarious to watch. Bill O'Reilley is my hero. The "No-Spin Zone" is a riot.

They are on the same level as the national inquirer in my personal opinion. Except that the Inquirer doesn't have Rupert Merdoch backing it ror does it have a political agenda (or so I believe)

lmfao you people are so pathetic. Do you think that fox is the only news station that has ever distorted the truth. EVERY fucking news station changes the truth. CNN and NBC are KNOWN to distort the truth far more than fox ever has. Liberals have recently been more guilty of propoganda than anyone else. Have you watched F9/11? And if you say that it is not propoganda, and you think it is actually true, then you need to take your head out of your ass. www.bowlingfortruth.com . They have the truth on both movies (bowling and f9/11). And need i mention memogate?


1. You said every news station, but only gave examples of those from the U.S.

2. Micheal Moore has never denied his movies being propaganda. I don't agree with everything he says but hey, give him that.

3. I have watched a few of the anti-Moore movies and they are just as bad if not worse when it comes to being lopsided.

4. Never NEVER defend FOX News. Bad. Bad puppy! *smacks Jersey Devils with a rolled up newspaper*

Well being an outsider i have to say the american news seems to be super opinion oriented, or at least mor in your face. Kinda like a boot someone threw at you but a litle less subtle, also fox is so :fluffle: with the americain goverment its sick(sorry i just had to use that emocation).

If you want some prety unbiased news, try "the national" the canadian news program" on CBC, its prety unbiaced even though it gets its funding from the goverment, you'd never guesse thoug. They lean a bit more to left though and obviously suported Kerry for the election. Otherwise they are very unbiaced and definatly recomended for a good source of news without junk like sports or entertainment.

The pat

Yes, Fox is propaganda, no question about it. But if they can keep an audience and do so, let 'em. It's free speech after all, even if it is pretty damn low.

Personally, I don't have anything against Fox. I do have something against CNN,though, but that's because of some premature reporting they did a few years back.

Fox "news" rules. It's so funny. They compete with Comedy Central for my attention.

Yes, they did. They got sued over "Fair and balanced' and couldn't prove they were.

And yes, I am an evil anti-American liberal with vicious plans for world domination. Exactly.
C'mon Blarg...you know the rules. Let's see any proof of Fox being sued over the "Fair and balanced" slogan (which they are, especially compared to CBSABCNBCCNNNPRPBS), and especially any proof that they "couldn't prove they were."

By the way, Merry Christmas.

I like NPR
You like NPR...talk about propaganda!

You like NPR...talk about propaganda!
Yes, I do like NPR. Out of the American media that is accesable, it is the least biased. if you give it a try you find that too. There are many, many conservatives how listen to NPR because they also think its balanced.

Note: I did not try and say all other media was unbiased, but FOX is pretty bad. (so is CNN for the conservatives). Instead of reporting, they just demonized people who disagreed with the Bush admin, is that very ethically from a journalism standpoint?

Merry Christmas to you too Pan. haven't seen you in while, and just cause I'm not a Christian doesn't mean I can't say Merry Christmas.

[btw, 2000 posts, w00t]

lmfao you people are so pathetic. Do you think that fox is the only news station that has ever distorted the truth. EVERY fucking news station changes the truth. CNN and NBC are KNOWN to distort the truth far more than fox ever has. Liberals have recently been more guilty of propoganda than anyone else. Have you watched F9/11? And if you say that it is not propoganda, and you think it is actually true, then you need to take your head out of your ass. www.bowlingfortruth.com . They have the truth on both movies (bowling and f9/11). And need i mention memogate?
thats BS--theres not one mainstream station thats anywhere near liberal and Cheneys Carlyle group just bought out the largest movie chain so they can censor future Fahrenheit 911s

lmfao you people are so pathetic. Do you think that fox is the only news station that has ever distorted the truth. EVERY fucking news station changes the truth. CNN and NBC are KNOWN to distort the truth far more than fox ever has. Liberals have recently been more guilty of propoganda than anyone else. Have you watched F9/11? And if you say that it is not propoganda, and you think it is actually true, then you need to take your head out of your ass. www.bowlingfortruth.com . They have the truth on both movies (bowling and f9/11). And need i mention memogate?

I can't recall a time when any (of our) national news programs - on CBC, CTV, or Global - have ever been accused of 'distorting the truth'. On rare occasions, there have been factual errors, but these are routinely addressed on-air, immediately.

No doubt JerseyDevils would likely discount Canadian news sources as being inherently 'Liberal', and though I might concede there is a distinctly (by Canadian standards) conservative bias at the two privately-run networks (CTV and Global), the reporting and analysis at CBC is quite nonpartisan and objective. It would appear to many Americans to be 'Liberal' insofar as it does not clearly or even tacitly give weight to, or even endorse, one political view or another. In short, they don't editorialize their headline news items. Editorials are given their own milieu, after the news of the day.

Much and all as JerseyDevils may not like the work of Mr. Moore, perhaps he should consider that no-one has had to die for 'the lies' of Fahrenheit 9/11 & Bowling For Columbine...though I frankly don't think Mr. Moore was lying in any event, and JerseyDevils has displayed a certain thoughtless laziness in addressing this notion of lying documentarians by posting nonspecific links to the usual suspect websites. On the other hand, tens of thousands, if not more than a hundred thousand, men, women, and children - civilians, servicemen, and combatants - have been killed or sacrificed in order to prop up whole reams of untruths, misinformation, disinformation, exaggerations, but mostly flat-out, old-fashioned LIES. And not little white ones, either.

Memogate? Does it really loom so large on your horizons? It was dealt with, Rather was disgraced, he apologized, he's been axed. I.e. it's dealt with. Do you seriously plan to harbour resentment towards a) Mr. Rather? b) NBC? c) Televised news programs? d) All media - for the rest of your life?

Grow up, move on. Mr. Rather has had to, so why don't you, JerseyDevils? Do yourself a favour.

Specially about Ann Coulter. They need to fix her.

Don't think you have to worry. She is the type of woman that goes to a gynocologist to get a tooth pulled!

;)

C'mon Blarg...you know the rules. Let's see any proof of Fox being sued over the "Fair and balanced" slogan (which they are, especially compared to CBSABCNBCCNNNPRPBS), and especially any proof that they "couldn't prove they were."

By the way, Merry Christmas.
Well, you're half right as usual Panhandlia. Fox did the suing over the Franken book, and lost, but in the course of that decision, the judge noted that Fox would have a hell of a time upholding the copyright they hold on "fair and balanced" precisely because they'd open themselves up to every group with an axe to grind who could cite chapter and verse of when they weren't. I don't believe the copyright has been challenged, but Fox has toned down their use of it.

Non-armored humvees are usually restricted to use *within bases* these days.

Armored humvees have serious drawbacks: they weigh a lot more, have much worse mobility, can carry less cargo, etc. Worse, a lot of the improvised armor is non-removable. So this is not the silver bullet people think it is.

In fact I don't think there *is* a silver bullet - vehicles the size and weight of a humvee simply cannot be made bomb and rpg-proof (not and carry any useful cargo, anyway).

Yes, all media in all countries is biased. And even Michael Moore has bits of truth spread throughout his work, just like its right wing complement. Left and Right have their propaganda.

Please explain to me what the patisan bias of the BBC, ITN and Sky News are.

Non-armored humvees are usually restricted to use *within bases* these days.

Armored humvees have serious drawbacks: they weigh a lot more, have much worse mobility, can carry less cargo, etc. Worse, a lot of the improvised armor is non-removable. So this is not the silver bullet people think it is.

In fact I don't think there *is* a silver bullet - vehicles the size and weight of a humvee simply cannot be made bomb and rpg-proof (not and carry any useful cargo, anyway).

I don't know about that first part, it could or could not be wrong.

The second though I can contest. Perhaps they weigh more and have more horrible mobility, can carry less cargo and such. But they can better defend our troops from attack. No, they can't take care of bombs or RPGs but they -can- take care of gunfire which the average troop is more likely to come in contact with.

And the armour would be removable if it typically wouldn't have to be improvised. The troops have to find someway to survive though and our government sometimes doesn't seem too keen on helping them.

your complaining about unarmored hummers you should see what the canadians are driving around in at afganistan.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/Athena/photos/July12.jpg
That and they used to have green camoflage.

Please explain to me what the patisan bias of the BBC, ITN and Sky News are.

You know, its a shame about the BBC, because I'm an american who love them, and until Bush was in office, they were the most nonpartisan newsource you could find regarding American affairs. But then they all HATED our administration, and even though i agree with them, its interesting to see the journalistic integrity slipping.

I have a better idea: media = propoganda. Anybody who thinks that the media outlets don't have an agenda aren't living on a little place called Earth. Everybody has bias, some people just admit it. So we have CNN, CBS, and NBC on the liberal side, and FOX on the conservative side. Newspapers have been like this for over a century. Now TV has caught up. Big surprise.

You know, its a shame about the BBC, because I'm an american who love them, and until Bush was in office, they were the most nonpartisan newsource you could find regarding American affairs. But then they all HATED our administration, and even though i agree with them, its interesting to see the journalistic integrity slipping.

I'm not so sure it's Bush, it's just the BBC does have a long standing agenda, they are anti-government (whatever the government is). It's the way they assert their independence despite their funding source. Our current government is very close to the Bush administration, which is their most unpopular policy decision for most British people, so...

Yeah, I second that motion. Panhandlia; what in NPR is bias or propaganda? I strongly suspect you simply lumped them in with the rest without thinking about it.

Do you have any proof or even an anecdote to show that they are anything less than obessive in their attempts to be fair and balanced in their presentation?

I eagerly await your reply.

Fox News: the Republicrud Party's answer to Joseph Goebbels.

Okay, I was watching FOX news today (yes, I know, bad liberal!) anyway they were reporting (still) on the now famous question posed to Donald Rumsfeld. What FOX reported was the question, the answer and a little side fact. The unit of the specialist that asked the question had 280 armored Humvees in their unit. 200 were armored, 20 were being refitted. Now, that was the specialist's unit, in Kuwait. What about every other Unit thats actually in Iraq? What is the state of their Humvees? Do they all have that much armor? Well, apparently not but the fact that some units do is apparently good enough.

After that, FOX went on to the report about Donald Rumsfeld using the stamping machine to sign the condolence letters. FOX decided to report that the families that complained were anti-Bush from the beginning. Like that makes a difference! Instead of trying to remedy the situation, FOX just decides to try and demonize the people that complain about Bush. Why should it matter if the people that criticised Rumsfeld supported Bush or not - thats not the issue.

Way to go FOX. Propoganda and distortion of the truth at its finest.

I'm really getting tired of this!

Here's tidbit for ya!

The year was 1944! America and Britain have invaded Fortress Europe. The fighting on the continent has been going on for 6 months. Now the enemy launches a final campaign to break through the allied lines. In the Battle of the Bulge, the US had nothing but troops and and tanks with little gas. In a 24 hour or so period, General Patton disengaged from one major battle and fought another and won. He had nothing on his side. NO hot food, No Water, No nothing. All we had was guts and determination. In the end, because of this, the Germans were beaten back and the Allies went on to win the war a few months later.

This stuff about armor does not concern me when put into context of history. Look at all the famous battles and see what each side had. This is nothing compared to what I just stated.

That had to change their motto to "We report, you decide"

ROFLMAO

Its both BLARGistania

No offense, but thank you captain obvious for saving the day.

LOL

Go read "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" by Al Franken. That's enough liberal propoganda for you. Pretty entertaining stuff.

HAHA!! Funny thing is, I found this book in the Humor Section.

Specially about Ann Coulter. They need to fix her.

I don't like Ann Coulter and I'm a conservative.

1. You said every news station, but only gave examples of those from the U.S.

Probably because he's american? BBC is Biased and we all know it.

2. Micheal Moore has never denied his movies being propaganda. I don't agree with everything he says but hey, give him that.

Your right, he never denied it. The only movie I like of his was Canadian Bacon.

3. I have watched a few of the anti-Moore movies and they are just as bad if not worse when it comes to being lopsided.

Never saw either film on either side.

4. Never NEVER defend FOX News. Bad. Bad puppy! *smacks Jersey Devils with a rolled up newspaper*

I like fox news! Show me a Bias Report and I'm not talking commentary.

Yes, I do like NPR. Out of the American media that is accesable, it is the least biased. if you give it a try you find that too. There are many, many conservatives how listen to NPR because they also think its balanced.

NPR is more biased than CNN! I've tried listening to it but I had to turn it off because of the lies. Frankly, I think Air America is less bias than NPR and that is saying something.

Note: I did not try and say all other media was unbiased, but FOX is pretty bad. (so is CNN for the conservatives). Instead of reporting, they just demonized people who disagreed with the Bush admin, is that very ethically from a journalism standpoint?

CNN is bad, ABC is bad, CBS is bad, NBC is bad, and on and on and on. Frankly, I don't trust any news source for my primary news source but I do watch Fox News to see what is going on in the world.

Merry Christmas to you too Pan. haven't seen you in while, and just cause I'm not a Christian doesn't mean I can't say Merry Christmas.

Christmas is over unless your one of those that celebrate it a week later.

btw, 2000 posts, w00t]

Congratulations.

Non-armored humvees are usually restricted to use *within bases* these days.

Armored humvees have serious drawbacks: they weigh a lot more, have much worse mobility, can carry less cargo, etc. Worse, a lot of the improvised armor is non-removable. So this is not the silver bullet people think it is.

In fact I don't think there *is* a silver bullet - vehicles the size and weight of a humvee simply cannot be made bomb and rpg-proof (not and carry any useful cargo, anyway).

Correct so why are people making a big deal out of it? They have to be specially made to do that and that is coming.

Okay, I was watching FOX news today (yes, I know, bad liberal!).


How does it make you feel that the American conservative press is referring to American Liberals as a "shrinking minority"?

I have a better idea: media = propoganda. Anybody who thinks that the media outlets don't have an agenda aren't living on a little place called Earth. Everybody has bias, some people just admit it. So we have CNN, CBS, and NBC on the liberal side, and FOX on the conservative side. Newspapers have been like this for over a century. Now TV has caught up. Big surprise.

Correctimundo Robbopolis

The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account.
-Walter Lippman

In other words, if you want to find the truth, you better be prepared to wade through A WHOLE BUNCH of bullshit...

... The whole US media is leaning to the right, especially Fox though... it’s sad that America believes that crap they spew out every day.


Look! Oil! Kill all the innocent, WMDless, yet still incredibly dangerous Iraqis! :mp5: :mp5:

:sniper:

I like NPR

What a surprise, propoganda that agrees with you.

Fox doesnt stop at just putting its own spin on the news it actually LIES and creates fake news out of thin air to promote a certain agenda and worldview-its an incidious form of brainwashing and its the only "news" our troops are exposed to

http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/ftc_filing.pdf

Move On.org filed a complaint with the FTC about FOX News' use of the Fair and Balanced trademark. Yes, Move On.org is Liberally biased (heck, they pretty much want possession of the Democratic party), that's what you'd expect, but just pointing out that they're doing something about FOX News.

About NPR being biased, I'd have to say it depends on what your opinions are, and what you consider the truth. Fact of the matter is, there is no "truth" anymore. Any whackjob can go run over to Iraq, take a bunch of photographs, write a nice story about it, and submit it to a news agency that conforms to their beliefs. What makes NPR a better choice for me than other news organizations (note: better choice. I very rarely pay attention to the news) is the fact that NPR is not a sensationalist organization, unlike almost every other news agency out there that I know (so American news agencies).

Best solution: Stop watching the news, and the news will stop reporting. Don't buy into their BS, regardless of who they are (I know I don't).

Well, from a station which accused the BBC of having a communist agenda, what can you expect? :rolleyes:

Well, from a station which accused the BBC of having a communist agenda, what can you expect? :rolleyes:

When was that?

Fox doesnt stop at just putting its own spin on the news it actually LIES and creates fake news out of thin air to promote a certain agenda and worldview-its an incidious form of brainwashing and its the only "news" our troops are exposed to

And Dan Blather does the exact same thing.

you should have seen some of the stuff in the New York Times after the US election. Sure, I agree with it, but it is blatantly biased.
I think that FOX has pro-Republican bias and NY Times has pro-Democrat bias because they know that's what their audiences want to hear. I think media should attempt to be objective, but if they think that having this bias will sell more, then they'll do it.

Go read "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" by Al Franken. That's enough liberal propoganda for you. Pretty entertaining stuff.
I think that's a funny book, but there are flaws:

1. Al Franken has a large ego. He is funny, but not as funny as he thinks he is.

2. He's partisan. He claims to be liberal, but he agrees with everything Clinton ever did.

This stuff about armor does not concern me when put into context of history. Look at all the famous battles and see what each side had. This is nothing compared to what I just stated.
Maybe it doesn't have a great effect on history, but it matters now. I'm sure you would feel differently if one of your loved ones was out there with insufficient protection, and thus a greater risk of dying.

HAHA!! Funny thing is, I found this book in the Humor Section.
I'm sorry to say that it was in the "politics" section of my local bookshop. Sad to see them put a comedy book alongside all the serious ones - you know, the ACTUAL political books?

And Dan Blather does the exact same thing.
not really--Rather acted on his own and didnt have the station managaement coaching him-in fact when he did it he was sticking his neck out. Fox isnt even news at all--its more like a form of rightwing social engineering

Probably because he's american? BBC is Biased and we all know it.
I don't see how it's biased.

I've noticed how US conservatives like to talk about how just about every media outlet besides FOX are liberally biased. Their viewpoints are just skewed. By Ocram's Razor, surely it is FOX that is the more biased and not the others?

I also find it barely believable that corporate media would be in any way left-wing, unless it were to please their audience. Pushing such ideas would be self-destructive for a private corporation.

How does it make you feel that the American conservative press is referring to American Liberals as a "shrinking minority"?
Oh yeah, 49% is SUCH a small minority. :rolleyes:

(OK, I know not all Democrat voters are liberals, so don't point that out.)

NPR is more biased than CNN! I've tried listening to it but I had to turn it off because of the lies. Frankly, I think Air America is less bias than NPR and that is saying something.
What's NPR?

What's NPR?
National Public Radio and it too was subverted by the corporate beast and has the same establishment bais as CNN

Please explain to me what the patisan bias of the BBC, ITN and Sky News are.Whilst legally, if broadcasting from the UK, none of them are allowed to broadcast opinion (Fox News has opinion slots) I do believe the BBC and Sky News are not completely partisan. I can't really comment on ITN as I don't watch it.

I can never forgive Sky News for being owned by Murdoch, nor do I believe it is partisan after the way it reported 9/11 and all furture terrorist news. It played this tune that through out all the terrorist news item that I felt was trying to inspire patriotic feelings. Simple as this may seem - never underestimate the ability of music to affect moods.

Whilst the BBC is my favoured news Channel I do not defend it as being partisan. I realise that its very histiry and the way it works gives it a slight 'socialist' agenda to its general reporting.

However I do believe that these three News providers aren't infinitely more partisan than most News providers in the US, having laughed my way through many US 'news' programs. Though I could just be being feed the worst of US news coverage...

Murdoch has to be in the top ten of the worlds biggest scumbags

That had to change their motto to "We report, you decide"

ROFLMAO



...No. They did not. First off, the word is slogan. They still have the slogan "Fair & Balanced" (which does fit them, as they are just about the only unbiased news source in America, with the possible exception of MSNBC). They also have "We report, you decide" as another slogan.


NPR is extremely biased, and boring enough to be the world's greatest sleep aid.

Yuk, disgusting, I think the Bush Administration PAYS them lots of Benjamins... thats ok THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART does a fine job at portraying the "other side" of Jesusland... What can you expect from a nation full of so many morons, as to re-elect the smartest MORON of them all. MONKEYS BELONG IN THE JUNGLE NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!

Yuk, disgusting, I think the Bush Administration PAYS them lots of Benjamins... thats ok THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART does a fine job at portraying the "other side" of Jesusland... What can you expect from a nation full of so many morons, as to re-elect the smartest MORON of them all. MONKEYS BELONG IN THE JUNGLE NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!
every country has their share of morons--in america most are located in the south

...No. They did not. First off, the word is slogan. They still have the slogan "Fair & Balanced" (which does fit them, as they are just about the only unbiased news source in America, with the possible exception of MSNBC). They also have "We report, you decide" as another slogan.


NPR is extremely biased, and boring enough to be the world's greatest sleep aid.
your right Foxnews isnt just biased--its outright propaganda

Yuk, disgusting, I think the Bush Administration PAYS them lots of Benjamins... thats ok THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART does a fine job at portraying the "other side" of Jesusland... What can you expect from a nation full of so many morons, as to re-elect the smartest MORON of them all. MONKEYS BELONG IN THE JUNGLE NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!

...You do realize that the more and more that you refer to America as "Jesusland" in a derrogatory way, the more and more you're going to lose votes for the Left?

...You do realize that the more and more that you refer to America as "Jesusland" in a derrogatory way, the more and more you're going to lose votes for the Left?
thats a cocky tone for a party that has to steal elections and lower voter turnout to win

I don't see how it's biased.

Me, neither.

your right Foxnews isnt just biased--its outright propaganda

You're not wrong there. But then, CBS, PBS, NBC, etc.- they're all propaganda, too.

...No. They did not. First off, the word is slogan. They still have the slogan "Fair & Balanced" (which does fit them, as they are just about the only unbiased news source in America, with the possible exception of MSNBC). They also have "We report, you decide" as another slogan.


NPR is extremely biased, and boring enough to be the world's greatest sleep aid.
Excuse me? Fox is the only unbiased news source in America? Jesus Christ, what have you been smoking?
Oh, and Skapedroe...just shut up, and walk away; we don't need this to collapse into a flame fest with you in here.

You're not wrong there. But then, CBS, PBS, NBC, etc.- they're all propaganda, too.
true but nowhere near the virulent degree that foxnews does it--foxnews is like a social experiment in how to shape news

thats a cocky tone for a party that has to steal elections and lower voter turnout to win

...and that (whining) is also going to hurt the Left, tremendously. Thanks!

Excuse me? Fox is the only unbiased news source in America? Jesus Christ, what have you been smoking?
Oh, and Skapedroe...just shut up, and walk away; we don't need this to collapse into a flame fest with you in here.
seems like you telling me to just shutup and walk away sounds like your the one starting the flamefest not me

seems like you telling me to just shutup and walk away sounds like your the one starting the flamefest not me

Good grief, how do you post so fast?!? There's another one every 30 seconds from you!

seems like you telling me to just shutup and walk away sounds like your the one starting the flamefest not me
You're right; I should have phrased it better. Frankly, you give us liberals a bad name, because you make outrageous claims, such as Bush caused the tsunami. Were you the one who called that one radio station about how drilling for oil would cause the Earth to collapse in on itself?

No offense, but thank you captain obvious for saving the day.

Go read "Lies and the lying liars who tell them" by Al Franken. That's enough liberal propoganda for you. Pretty entertaining stuff.

Specially about Ann Coulter. They need to fix her.

If you got your idea of "Lies" being liberal propaganda from Frankenlies.com (or for that matter anywhere at all) you aren't that accurate with your facts. Just because there is a conservative peice of propaganda doesn't mean that it's liberal opponent is equally propaganda-inclined.

All of you who bumped this thread; I hate you. I hate you so much.

In other news: Yes. Jon Steward has to be my hero; he rips on both sides and is just damn funny. Too bad I won't watch TV to often.

I also think Rupert Murdoch is a scary man and I would imagine him being my closet boogyman.

...and that (whining) is also going to hurt the Left, tremendously. Thanks!
just like the rights blind arrogance and overreaching and extremist agenda is causing Bush to lose the war in Iraq and is setting up the GOP for historic near future collapse

You're right; I should have phrased it better. Frankly, you give us liberals a bad name, because you make outrageous claims, such as Bush caused the tsunami. Were you the one who called that one radio station about how drilling for oil would cause the Earth to collapse in on itself?

...Saying Bush caused the tsunami? That's stupid and sickening.

Good grief, how do you post so fast?!? There's another one every 30 seconds from you!
im high

...Saying Bush caused the tsunami? That's stupid and sickening.
It is; Skapedroe makes us liberals look like complete morons, and that's why I wish he wouldn't post anymore. Of course, I can't dictate what he does, so...*shrugs* It will be as it will be.

You're right; I should have phrased it better. Frankly, you give us liberals a bad name, because you make outrageous claims, such as Bush caused the tsunami. Were you the one who called that one radio station about how drilling for oil would cause the Earth to collapse in on itself?
LOL no that wasnt me--and sadly too many liberals give themselves a bad name cause they dont know how to fight :)

just like the rights blind arrogance and overreaching and extremist agenda is causing Bush to lose the war in Iraq and is setting up the GOP for historic near future collapse

...

It is; Skapedroe makes us liberals look like complete morons, and that's why I wish he wouldn't post anymore. Of course, I can't dictate what he does, so...*shrugs* It will be as it will be.
No I Never said Bush caused the Tsunami I said hes trying to sink the Island of Tuvalu with his global warming policies

LOL no that wasnt me--and sadly too many liberals give themselves a bad name cause they dont know how to fight :)
It's one thing to fight Republicans and conservative morons like Rusch Limbaugh and the many Bush supporters here; it's another thing to do it blindly like you do without facts. I mean, saying Bush's ancestors aimed a crystal at the Earth's core to cause Earthquakes? What the hell is that?

It is; Skapedroe makes us liberals look like complete morons, and that's why I wish he wouldn't post anymore. Of course, I can't dictate what he does, so...*shrugs* It will be as it will be.

If I was a liberal I would despise him...

...
I like the way it sounds

It's one thing to fight Republicans and conservative morons like Rusch Limbaugh and the many Bush supporters here; it's another thing to do it blindly like you do without facts. I mean, saying Bush's ancestors aimed a crystal at the Earth's core to cause Earthquakes? What the hell is that?
Its Bushs words that are killing the people of the world not mine

im high

I certainly believe you.

duh fox is biased to the right... just like cnn is biased to the left. most television news stations are biased to the left, just like most radio news station are biased to the right. there is NO unbiased news source, there are less biased ones, but NO unbiased ones.

duh fox is biased to the right... just like cnn is biased to the left. most television news stations are biased to the left, just like most radio news station are biased to the right. there is NO unbiased news source, there are less biased ones, but NO unbiased ones.
Fox is biased to rightwing social engineering propaganda...CNN and the rest of the TV media is biased to being conservative.

If you got your idea of "Lies" being liberal propaganda from Frankenlies.com (or for that matter anywhere at all) you aren't that accurate with your facts. Just because there is a conservative peice of propaganda doesn't mean that it's liberal opponent is equally propaganda-inclined.

Hmm. I'm not too sure what exactly you're saying, but doesn't your posting a website refuting Franken and trying to make him look like an idiot make the book propoganda?

Anyway, I wasn't too impressed with the website. They certainly gave the book a touche, but not on the things I thought important. Most of it was how Franken misused articles and "lied" on other things. I didn't defend anything Bush did (or didn't) (operation ignore was funny because while not being an actual operation, its his take on it cause to him, the Bush got information, but did nothing) or try to make legit the things that Rush, Rove or Fox did. Their take on the tax cut thing was hallow as well. A 12 percent cut for the top bracket will EASILY override the 33 (30 something) percent for the lower bracket.

Otherwise it was just defending O'Reilly. Blah blah blah.

Good job though!

All the large news outlets in the US are conservatively biased. Most of them aren't as scarily right-wing as Fox. Anybody who thinks CNN is liberal is soooo far to the right it makes me shudder. Just look at who owns these places. Look at which partythey send money to. Even if you never listened to them it would be obvious by that which side they support.

All the large news outlets in the US are conservatively biased. Most of them aren't as scarily right-wing as Fox. Anybody who thinks CNN is liberal is soooo far to the right it makes me shudder. Just look at who owns these places. Look at which partythey send money to. Even if you never listened to them it would be obvious by that which side they support.
TimeWarner owns CNN. They were the #2 corporate donor in the election. 76% Democrat, 23% Republican. Viacom owns CBS. 78% Democrat, 22% Republican. Disney owns ABC. 71% Democrat, 29% Republican. Here's the fun one : NewsCorp, 62% Democrat 38% Republican. Microsoft : 60% Democrat, 40% Republican. Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B)

That is a combination of the organization's PACs, employees, and their immediate families, subsidiaries, and affiliates. Many companies didn't just give a whole lot of cash to either candidates.

Overall, the whole industry : Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B)

Correctimundo Robbopolis

Sorry but incorrectimundo. Anyone who believes that British broadcasters are as biased as those in the US clearly hasn't spent any real amount of time in the UK.

They got sued over "Fair and balanced' and couldn't prove they were.

*Lauging at the silly, ignorant, wanabe liberal moron spreading his own propaganda*

Good job Mr. Hypocrisy!

Alright SPILL IT PEOPLE. Why on earth do you think NPR is biased? I've read through this whole damn thread and I've found 5 people dismiss it out of hand as biased and I haven't seen one shred of evidence, nor scrap of an anecdote, not even a personal account of any of you listening to it!

I refuse to believe that you people are so confoundedly asinine as to dismiss and entire news network as "biased" simply because it does not conform to your political agenda at every turn! That is the definition of unbiased! Not conforming to the political winds should be celebrated as the very foundation of our journalistic community.

C'mon people prove it! Show it, don't just dismiss it. Its just too sad to watch you people desperately avoid discussing FACTS because they are unkind to your political persuasion. If NPR is biased as you say, it should be easy to freaking SHOW ME. Don't dismiss it, don't try to cover it with bluster.

Well...duh. Did you expect anything better from the "Fair and Balanced" station?

Well, for "idiotic and unconfirmed" we could always read the New York Times.

Or, for "we won't call the election no matter how hopeless the math looks unless we're calling a state against Bush, in which case we'll be more than happy to call it right now", we can watch CBS.

American media=propaganda :headbang:

As opposed to the rest of the world? :rolleyes:

We could always watch Al-Jazeera, the station that believed Baghdad Bob ("there are no Americans in Baghdad, I assure you"), even when there were American tanks parked in downtown Baghdad and people were pulling statues of Saddam down on Fox.

So I guess that Al-Jazeera is more accurate, and more up to date, and more fair and balanced than Fox.

Fox doesnt stop at just putting its own spin on the news it actually LIES and creates fake news out of thin air to promote a certain agenda and worldview-its an incidious form of brainwashing and its the only "news" our troops are exposed to

Proof please?

Maybe it doesn't have a great effect on history, but it matters now. I'm sure you would feel differently if one of your loved ones was out there with insufficient protection, and thus a greater risk of dying.

Silijhouettes! My dad is currently BACK over there! Do I worry about him? Yes of course because he is vulnerable to other things that have even more deadly consequences than an unarmored HumVee.

I'm sorry to say that it was in the "politics" section of my local bookshop. Sad to see them put a comedy book alongside all the serious ones - you know, the ACTUAL political books?

Damn! In most book stores I've been in, most of Al's books were in the humor section! Alwell I guess they'll put them where there is room!

Ah, if i had a penny for every crackpot "FOX NEWS = Evil" craptacular thread posted here...

not really--Rather acted on his own and didnt have the station managaement coaching him-in fact when he did it he was sticking his neck out. Fox isnt even news at all--its more like a form of rightwing social engineering

Yea he did do that then got burned. It was found false and he apologized and then said that he still believed in them even though they were found to be false! Thank God he's gone. We don't need is ilk telling us the news.

Alright SPILL IT PEOPLE. Why on earth do you think NPR is biased? I've read through this whole damn thread and I've found 5 people dismiss it out of hand as biased and I haven't seen one shred of evidence, nor scrap of an anecdote, not even a personal account of any of you listening to it!

I refuse to believe that you people are so confoundedly asinine as to dismiss and entire news network as "biased" simply because it does not conform to your political agenda at every turn! That is the definition of unbiased! Not conforming to the political winds should be celebrated as the very foundation of our journalistic community.

C'mon people prove it! Show it, don't just dismiss it. Its just too sad to watch you people desperately avoid discussing FACTS because they are unkind to your political persuasion. If NPR is biased as you say, it should be easy to freaking SHOW ME. Don't dismiss it, don't try to cover it with bluster.

I've listened to NPR on a daily basis since 1986. I am a monetary contributor since that time. I listen several hours per day. I have yet to hear a single pro-gun news story on NPR. I have heard many, many anti-gun stories. This despite the fact that there are now several anti-gun organizations that have admitted a failure in their attempt to prove a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun violence. They seem to deliberately avoid discussing facts. They have never interviewed Gary Kleck or John Lott some of the foremost (and originally anti-gun) researchers into the topic.

John Lott also has done research into media bias.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453

I don't see how it's biased.

Ask the HMS Ark Royal

I've noticed how US conservatives like to talk about how just about every media outlet besides FOX are liberally biased. Their viewpoints are just skewed. By Ocram's Razor, surely it is FOX that is the more biased and not the others?

I think all News Networks are biased towards one side or the other.

I also find it barely believable that corporate media would be in any way left-wing, unless it were to please their audience. Pushing such ideas would be self-destructive for a private corporation.

No one said the media business was smart! LOL

Oh yeah, 49% is SUCH a small minority. :rolleyes:

LOL

(OK, I know not all Democrat voters are liberals, so don't point that out.)

I won't

Sorry but incorrectimundo. Anyone who believes that British broadcasters are as biased as those in the US clearly hasn't spent any real amount of time in the UK.

Then why did the British Flagship YANK BBC off the air onboard their vessel?

I've listened to NPR on a daily basis since 1986. I am a monetary contributor since that time. I listen several hours per day. I have yet to hear a single pro-gun news story on NPR. I have heard many, many anti-gun stories. This despite the fact that there are now several anti-gun organizations that have admitted a failure in their attempt to prove a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun violence. They seem to deliberately avoid discussing facts. They have never interviewed Gary Kleck or John Lott some of the foremost (and originally anti-gun) researchers into the topic.

John Lott also has done research into media bias.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453

I'm experiencing technical difficulties with my lousy veiwing program; at the moment I don't have the needed program to view the cited source, and the abstract doesn't include anything about NPR that I see (of course, its just the abstract). Tell me, does the article go into NPR at all? And what do they say?

You have a point about lack of positive gun stories, I do not believe I have heard one either, simply rebuttal arguments from anti-gun stories (which I understand is not the same thing as a positive story with anti-gun rebuttal).

Since I do not recall one either; I suspect you may be on to something. However I wonder if we both might just have missed it; one show called "The Conversation" which is local (not sure if its national) show that asks a very neutral question and invites callers and guests to hash it out between themselves; have they done one Conversation about gun control that we both simply missed, and if not, why not?

Anything else? Or is NPR biased and worthless because they don't discuss gun ownership enough? Hell, I'm a supporter of gun ownership, but this is more a question of programming content than actual bias from what I can see.

That's one thing NPR has dropped the ball on; anything else?

I think that if you listen to NPR on a daily basis, you'll find that not only are the stories subtly flavored towards the Democratic Party (which is not the same as the Left, for which you may want to listen to the Pacifica Radio Network), but the hosts of the shows (with one or two exceptions) publicly admit that they dislike Republicans, and some of them serve as opposition shills on Fox (to show that Fox is fair and balanced).

If they can serve as exemplars of the Democratic Party, and admit to being such - with Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts serving on their respective commercial channels as the equivalent of James Carville and Paul Begala, they are hardly unbiased.

I'll dispute that one; subtle flavoring is a matter of perception. Perception is often colored by preconcived notions. Preconception and perception are dangerously close to one another.

What you seemingly are saying is that the "look and feel" of NPR is vaugely similar to the "look and feel" that a supporter of democrats would have. Cultural implications aside, is that any way to judge content? Or is it culture that is the very basis of complaint here? Are we acutally talking about the content of NPR? Or is this simply an attack on the culture that may have spawned it?

I'm suggesting that the arguments against NPR have little to do with content; and much to do with a basic misperception that anything that sounds or feels like it has a "liberal touch" in it is to be hated as biased.

I am in fact a daily listener of NPR myself (more or less daily I should say), but I have noticed just the opposite that you suggest. I find that frequently NPR will take a story that seems obviously slated AGAINST a political party and redefine it in a neutral tone that allows listeners to understand the factual implications beyond the hype.

Their coverage of the 2004 political elections was superb in that regard, it allowed the messages of both parties to come through, discussed them in detail, yet did not make judgements on either party's platform itself. How they managed that in such an inflamed year is almost beyond me.

I would have to say that while NPR attempts to keep things neutral, it is not as successful as they believe. Obviously, a large portion of the country doesn't believe it. Otherwise, their commentators could not be used as the equivalent of James Carville on conservative talk shows. While it's possible to name several NPR veterans who serve in this role, they have no NPR veterans who can serve in the opposite role. These people have established reputations as being biased - and the majority of Americans buy into that.

It's hard to do the neutral thing when you don't believe the other side should have a chance. I would say that someone like Cokie is fair, but you can see the visible pain on Juan Williams face when the Democrats get pummeled.

The most enlightening thing I remember was Diane Rehm interviewing Charlton Heston on her show. She began the show very hostile, and trying to attack the NRA, but due to the fact that Heston was the consummate charismatic old gentleman, she started melting on the air.

NPR is obviously better at trying to stay neutral than CBS (which openly admits it would rather support Democrats), or Fox (which openly supports Republicans).

I don't believe that anyone except CSPAN is completely unbiased. If you just show me unedited video and let me pick which video streams I want to see, then you're unbiased. Otherwise, any commentary you make is likely to be biased in some way to someone's perception.

Proof please?

Corneliu, you do realise you just said that to Skapedroe, don't you? You might as well ask a monkey to do trigonometry.

This despite the fact that there are now several anti-gun organizations that have admitted a failure in their attempt to prove a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun violence.

Now, I'm not going to get into an argument about which POV is right in this matter but this strikes me as dubious. I find it hard to believe that a political pressure group of any colour would ever admit that it was wrong.

As opposed to the rest of the world? :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed, as opposed to the rest of the world. I've seen a lot of people intimate that the broadcast media outside of the US is just as propagandised as that in the US yet haven't seen anything to substantiate it, at least as regards other Western countries. Just out of curiosity how many of you who are aguing this line have actually spent a sizable amount of time outisde the US?

Corneliu, you do realise you just said that to Skapedroe, don't you? You might as well ask a monkey to do trigonometry.[/quote[

Yea I know! I don't expect anything. LOL!!!! I just said it to make myself happy just to say it. LOL

[quote]Now, I'm not going to get into an argument about which POV is right in this matter but this strikes me as dubious. I find it hard to believe that a political pressure group of any colour would ever admit that it was wrong.

they wouldn't and that is the problem!

Yes, indeed, as opposed to the rest of the world. I've seen a lot of people intimate that the broadcast media outside of the US is just as propagandised as that in the US yet haven't seen anything to substantiate it, at least as regards other Western countries. Just out of curiosity how many of you who are aguing this line have actually spent a sizable amount of time outisde the US?

You do bring up a good point! Thank you.

"Now, I'm not going to get into an argument about which POV is right in this matter but this strikes me as dubious. I find it hard to believe that a political pressure group of any colour would ever admit that it was wrong."

Met several people like this over time. I'll post some details later today when I get home from work.

You won't get a public admission - but you'll get one if you talk to them at a conference. They were completely dismayed that they couldn't prove it.

Perhaps thats the case, however my assertion is that this "large portion of the country" wouldn't believe it if it WERE true.

That this portion of the nation has been preconditioned to hate everything with even a hint of "liberal taint" and thus the disscussion that is largely over technicalities of wether or not there IS bias in programming choices is moot. One could prove conclusively that both sides get equal time, equal footing, equal billling, equal representation. It matters not one bit.

Guilt by association is rather meaningless to me, I wholly believe that Rush Limbaugh or any other pundit could take part in a worthwhile journalistic endevor. It is the content of the program, not the names involved. As I'm unfamiliar with the people you name as examples, I can only assume that they are pundits for the other side of the political spectrum or something.

I'm arguing that the polarization of the people currently precludes any discussion on bias; and viturally no one is immue from distorted views to begin with. Thus in a nation so angry and divided that the best any of us can do is remain principled and disciplined in our study of journalistic endevor. Giving praise to those who are succesful in putting a neutral tone on divisive subjects, adding rational thought to political diatribe, and mature discussion to mere punditry.

In that, NPR is simply one of the best there is.

The problem is that Paul Begala and James Carville are known Democratic Party hacks - and that the commerical TV networks also hold up NPR guests as the same thing - as Democratic Party hacks.

The NPR commentators do nothing and say nothing to dispel that notion.

Really, if you want to hear what's wrong with the media today, listen to Jon Stewart. The Daily Show really is the best fake news show out there because it so perfectly reflects how much of a mockery the news in general has become. Read their book America the Book, A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, very good read. The media is biased because we are biased, and most people would rather hear news that reinforces their own world views than news that's unbaised and truthful.

Just look at the posts in this thread to see what I'm talking about, "Fox is biased to the right!" "No it isn't, CNN is biased to the left!" "Nu-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" :rolleyes: By Eris how I hate politics, especially the insanely polarized politics of the US...

Watch it, Read it...Both very good...and sadly, very true.

Well, for "idiotic and unconfirmed" we could always read the New York Times.

Or, for "we won't call the election no matter how hopeless the math looks unless we're calling a state against Bush, in which case we'll be more than happy to call it right now", we can watch CBS.
False, I was watching the election. They didn't do that. In fact they called Bush places before counting over more often than Kerry places. So don't give me poop and call it ice cream. Tell the truth.

False, I was watching the election. They didn't do that. In fact they called Bush places before counting over more often than Kerry places. So don't give me poop and call it ice cream. Tell the truth.

CBS didn't call Bush states right away! ABC didn't either! I watch both spots and they didn't call Bush states right away. However, they did call Kerry states right away but no bias here!

The problem is that Paul Begala and James Carville are known Democratic Party hacks - and that the commerical TV networks also hold up NPR guests as the same thing - as Democratic Party hacks.

The NPR commentators do nothing and say nothing to dispel that notion.

Again, not knowing who you are speaking of puts me at a severe disadvantage. But there is something to be said for staying out of the mockery that is the "bias accusation game", they operate outside such political winds and are better for it.

If they defended themselves on such things, then what? They go on the defensive, and they descend quickly into the muck and mire that is mudslinging politics today. Do they kick out Paul Begala and James Carville simply because they are Democrats? Do you restrict programming because it may offend or simply not promote enough Republican agendas to keep the die-hards happy? What are you suggesting they do to improve their situation?

I fail to understand what you are suggesting. Simply put; there is NO WAY to prevent NPR from being seen as biased in the eyes of the die-hards on either side; the polarization of the nation is too severe for that. Thus remaining carefully neutral and trying to remain above petty complaints is the only thing they CAN do.

I have a question. Why is it that if your express your constitutional right to an opinion about the government, i.e. Bush is a bad president, that your are unpatriotic and unamerican when really I'm more american for doing so?

Again, not knowing who you are speaking of puts me at a severe disadvantage. But there is something to be said for staying out of the mockery that is the "bias accusation game", they operate outside such political winds and are better for it.

If they defended themselves on such things, then what? They go on the defensive, and they descend quickly into the muck and mire that is mudslinging politics today. Do they kick out Paul Begala and James Carville simply because they are Democrats? Do you restrict programming because it may offend or simply not promote enough Republican agendas to keep the die-hards happy? What are you suggesting they do to improve their situation?

I fail to understand what you are suggesting. Simply put; there is NO WAY to prevent NPR from being seen as biased in the eyes of the die-hards on either side; the polarization of the nation is too severe for that. Thus remaining carefully neutral and trying to remain above petty complaints is the only thing they CAN do.
Agreed. Frankly, I can't see how NPR is biased in any way and I've been listening to it for years.

Really, if you want to hear what's wrong with the media today, listen to Jon Stewart. The Daily Show really is the best fake news show out there because it so perfectly reflects how much of a mockery the news in general has become. Read their book America the Book, A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, very good read. The media is biased because we are biased, and most people would rather hear news that reinforces their own world views than news that's unbaised and truthful.

Just look at the posts in this thread to see what I'm talking about, "Fox is biased to the right!" "No it isn't, CNN is biased to the left!" "Nu-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" :rolleyes: By Eris how I hate politics, especially the insanely polarized politics of the US...

"The Daily Show" is the best fake news show AND the best real news show. they should have their own 24 fake/real news network.

Agreed. Frankly, I can't see how NPR is biased in any way and I've been listening to it for years.

I know why! Your immune to it now!

"The Daily Show" is the best fake news show AND the best real news show. they should have their own 24 fake/real news network.
Indeed, the world could learn much by not taking themselves so seriously all the time, and the Daily Show is just outstanding at reporting the news while showing that there's humor to be found even in the most serious of matters.

But the bottom line is this: The media doesn't have a leftwing or rightwing agenda, the media, like all good businesses, has a "how can we make more money?" agenda, and unbiased, unsensationalized, truthful journalism has been proven inferior to the exact opposite when it comes to making money, so journalistic integrity has been thrown right out the window, smashed on the sidewalk, and trampled and spit upon by passerbies.

anyway you look at it, NPR has the least bias of any news source. Personally, I don't think NPR is biased at all. I know many staunch conservatives who swear by NPRs acurracy and I know many a leftist (including myself) who also swears by it.

They do the best reporting on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, they are now doing a profile on the Frosh Senator (rep.) who upset Dashal. They balance out every profile with one from each side, they do science and religious stories, they report the facts without commentary on their morning news spot. In their commentary shows, they go to people for opinions which makes up the commentary and they always balance the comments out.

I would challenge you to tell me how NPR is biased and find a less biased source within the US media.

anyway you look at it, NPR has the least bias of any news source. Personally, I don't think NPR is biased at all. I know many staunch conservatives who swear by NPRs acurracy and I know many a leftist (including myself) who also swears by it.

They do the best reporting on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, they are now doing a profile on the Frosh Senator (rep.) who upset Dashal. They balance out every profile with one from each side, they do science and religious stories, they report the facts without commentary on their morning news spot. In their commentary shows, they go to people for opinions which makes up the commentary and they always balance the comments out.

I would challenge you to tell me how NPR is biased and find a less biased source within the US media.

Show me how fox news is biased!

of course american media is propaganda, it's either you report propoganda, or you risk getting thrown in jail or ostracized for being "un-American".

I've said it before and I will say it again, I can love and support my country without agreeing with the policies of it's leaders.

Show me how fox news is biased!

did you forget to read the opening post when you replied to this topic? and try watching the channel, then opening your mind long enough to not believe everything you see on TV and try having an independant thought in your head, then you will see how fox news is biased.

Its discusting, do you think Bush would have won either of those times without the help of his good buds on channel 51 (for me)? I was watching, instead of them saying insurgents they said terrorists, can you believe it? The nerve! The sentance was, and this was a long time ago. "The city of Fallujah is currently under seize, as many as 1/3 of the terrorists holding the city is dead. But the other 2/3 are still fighting the Allies."

Unfuckingbelieveable huh?

I've listened to NPR on a daily basis since 1986. I am a monetary contributor since that time. I listen several hours per day. I have yet to hear a single pro-gun news story on NPR. I have heard many, many anti-gun stories. This despite the fact that there are now several anti-gun organizations that have admitted a failure in their attempt to prove a connection between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun violence. They seem to deliberately avoid discussing facts. They have never interviewed Gary Kleck or John Lott some of the foremost (and originally anti-gun) researchers into the topic.

John Lott also has done research into media bias.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453
I heard a report a year, maybe 2, back, that they will not interview Bill O'Reilly, and a New York City branch actually did some sort of show making fun of him.

did you forget to read the opening post when you replied to this topic? and try watching the channel, then opening your mind long enough to not believe everything you see on TV and try having an independant thought in your head, then you will see how fox news is biased.

I watch it all the time! Now show me evidence that they have BIAS REPORTING!

"The Daily Show" is the best fake news show AND the best real news show. they should have their own 24 fake/real news network.

bless the daily show.

Its discusting, do you think Bush would have won either of those times without the help of his good buds on channel 51 (for me)? I was watching, instead of them saying insurgents they said terrorists, can you believe it? The nerve! The sentance was, and this was a long time ago. "The city of Fallujah is currently under seize, as many as 1/3 of the terrorists holding the city is dead. But the other 2/3 are still fighting the Allies."

Unfuckingbelieveable huh?

They are terrorists! you kill civilians intentionaly your a terrorist! Its as simple as that. Besides, I watch Fox News all the time and you know what? I've heard them say INSURGENTS ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME!!!!!!

False, I was watching the election. They didn't do that. In fact they called Bush places before counting over more often than Kerry places. So don't give me poop and call it ice cream. Tell the truth.
CBS was the last to call Ohio, which was the election winner. Actually, I don't think they called it until the next day. I was flipping channels until about 3:00 am, all channels had called Ohio except CBS by that time.

Show me how fox news is biased!

For starters they call insurgents terrorists. For soups they are always complimenting Bush, when they were reviewing the debates (and this was them reporting, not the O'Reilly opinionated part) they said something like, "I think Bushs look was professional, it seemed like he was using it to disagree with Kerry, it wasnt making him look like an idiot." For salads, all of the people they have on their shows are Republican, and Im talking about their guests not just their reporters. For the main course, they have constant interviews with Bush and the rest of the crew, I never once saw them interview Kerry. For dessert, during the 2000 election, they were the only news station that said Bush won Florida. And today, they are still proven wrong, to the open mind. And finally, for an after dinner beverage, They wholeheartedly endorced the Patriot act, these were the anchors, again, not the opinionated section (Bill O'Reilly and gang) they said it was a "necesary evil" :rolleyes:

Eat up little piggies!

I watch it all the time! Now show me evidence that they have BIAS REPORTING!

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox.html
http://www.alternet.org/fightfox/all/

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

That site has some insights.

If you want a good news site, try Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
They are one of the organizations that took Fox to court over the "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

They are terrorists! you kill civilians intentionaly your a terrorist! Its as simple as that. Besides, I watch Fox News all the time and you know what? I've heard them say INSURGENTS ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME!!!!!!

NOO! Thats calling people in our country terrorists, so I guess Scott Peterson, Charles Manson, and OJ Simpson are terrorists too?

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox.html
http://www.alternet.org/fightfox/all/

Hardly fair websites!

I told you to show biased reporting not commentary

I watch it all the time! Now show me evidence that they have BIAS REPORTING!

See my full course post, I think its 143.

For starters they call insurgents terrorists. For soups they are always complimenting Bush, when they were reviewing the debates (and this was them reporting, not the O'Reilly opinionated part) they said something like, "I think Bushs look was professional, it seemed like he was using it to disagree with Kerry, it wasnt making him look like an idiot." For salads, all of the people they have on their shows are Republican, and Im talking about their guests not just their reporters. For the main course, they have constant interviews with Bush and the rest of the crew, I never once saw them interview Kerry. For dessert, during the 2000 election, they were the only news station that said Bush won Florida. And today, they are still proven wrong, to the open mind. And finally, for an after dinner beverage, They wholeheartedly endorced the Patriot act, these were the anchors, again, not the opinionated section (Bill O'Reilly and gang) they said it was a "necesary evil" :rolleyes:

Eat up little piggies!
Not for lack of trying. Unless they are outright lying (an admitted possibility), I recall them saying several times after an interview with the Republicans that they tried to get the other side on, including John Kerry, but were refused.

Hardly fair websites!

I told you to show biased reporting not commentary

Why dont you go to Cheyneys favorite www.factcheck.org

He did mention it in the debates remember?

Oh thats right, you didnt watch them, you were at NASCAR

North American Sports Cars And Rednecks.

Not for lack of trying. Unless they are outright lying (an admitted possibility), I recall them saying several times after an interview with the Republicans that they tried to get the other side on, including John Kerry, but were refused.

Oh yeah sure.

Not for lack of trying. Unless they are outright lying (an admitted possibility), I recall them saying several times after an interview with the Republicans that they tried to get the other side on, including John Kerry, but were refused.

You are absolutely correct. They did try but the other side didn't want too.

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox.html
http://www.alternet.org/fightfox/all/
why are you arguing with corneliu on this matter? he is an extremist right winger, ignore him

Why dont you go to Cheyneys favorite www.factcheck.org

He did mention it in the debates remember?

Oh thats right, you didnt watch them, you were at NASCAR

North American Sports Cars And Rednecks.

I did watch the debates actually! I found them informative if you want to listen to the party lines that both were spouting with nothing knew to add. I've posted many times in the debating threads that were on here too. Even gave Kerry credit where credit was due a couple of times.

Why dont you go to Cheyneys favorite www.factcheck.org

He did mention it in the debates remember?

Oh thats right, you didnt watch them, you were at NASCAR

North American Sports Cars And Rednecks.
If I could afford tickets for my family of five, I'd go. By the way, since you are obviously somewhat left of center, you would never think of stereotyping, would you? {sarcasm}

why are you arguing with corneliu on this matter? he is an extremist right winger, ignore him
If all of you leftists followed the same philosophy you advance for us "extremist right wingers", there would be no forum.

If all of you leftists followed the same philosophy you advance for us "extremist right wingers", there would be no forum.

Isn't it odd that they can argue their points but when the other side argues, they are demonized?

Am I the only one on here that has recognized this?

Isn't it odd that they can argue their points but when the other side argues, they are demonized?

Am I the only one on here that has recognized this?
I hear the sound of liberals running for the exits ... hear me roar!!!

If all of you leftists followed the same philosophy you advance for us "extremist right wingers", there would be no forum.
your new here, so your welcome to stfu while i know what im talking about

and you getting closer to my extremist right winger ignore list as well jackass

your new here, so your welcome to stfu while i know what im talking about

and you getting closer to my extremist right winger ignore list as well jackass

You don't know what your talking about half the time. The other half, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt!

You don't know what your talking about half the time. The other half, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt!
care to point to something where you knew what you were talking about?

care to point to something where you knew what you were talking about?

How about the electoral college?

How about the Constitution of the United States

How about World War II

How about the Civil War

All subjects of which I have had debates on here.

your new here, so your welcome to stfu while i know what im talking about

and you getting closer to my extremist right winger ignore list as well jackass
My, my, my. Sensitive, aren't we? Ah, profanity, the surest sign someone is losing an argument and has nothing intelligent left to say. :cool:

My, my, my. Sensitive, aren't we? Ah, profanity, the surest sign someone is losing an argument and has nothing intelligent left to say. :cool:

Careful! That type of line will definitely get you ignored! LOL!!!

your new here, so your welcome to stfu while i know what im talking about

and you getting closer to my extremist right winger ignore list as well jackass
And thank you for your most cordial welcome to these forums. I can feel the love!!! :fluffle:

Careful! That type of line will definitely get you ignored! LOL!!!
Yes, I must have ChessSquares pay attention to me. I NEED ChessSquares. How can my life be complete if I am ignored by ChessSquares?!! :p

And thank you for your most cordial welcome to these forums. I can feel the love!!! :fluffle:

HAHA!! Ok now that was funny! LOL!!!!

My, my, my. Sensitive, aren't we? Ah, profanity, the surest sign someone is losing an argument and has nothing intelligent left to say. :cool:
and another jackass goes to the ignore list for having the wit of a horse


if the best you can do is insult me and claim to be better than me, i rather not listen to the shit you can potentially spew from the opening you casually refer to as your mouth


now you two can gooff and do your right wing circle jerk of appreciation and right wing superiority

and another jackass goes to the ignore list for having the wit of a horse


if the best you can do is insult me and claim to be better than me, i rather not listen to the shit you can potentially spew from the opening you casually refer to as your mouth
I bow before your rhetorical magnificence!!! :D

Yes, I must have ChessSquares pay attention to me. I NEED ChessSquares. How can my life be complete if I am ignored by ChessSquares?!! :p

LOL!! I should add this to my signature! Its funny.

LOL!! I should add this to my signature! Its funny.
Thanks! Some folks need to lighten up! I thought it was conservatives that were supposed to be all uptight and stuffy!

How about the electoral college?

How about the Constitution of the United States

How about World War II

How about the Civil War

All subjects of which I have had debates on here.

That's a light list.

A bit of mine:
abortion
gay marriage
the constitution
declaration of independence
presidential candidates
media bias
religion in general
gravity
time and space
other dimensions
views of leftists
views of rightests
political pundits
radio shows
european history
american history
governmental structure
communism
socialism
capitalism
slavery
causes of the revolution
causes of the civil war
succession
corporate welfare
economics
the drug industry
the oil industry
sepcial interests

just to name a few. . .

Thanks! Some folks need to lighten up! I thought it was conservatives that were supposed to be all uptight and stuffy!

HA! Only in peoples dreams! I'm conservative and I love jokes. Hell, I joke all the time with friends that are democrats.

That's a light list.

Because I didn't feel like listing them all and I don't get involved in to many debates. I pick and choose my debating topics. I don't wonder into them randomly.

That's a light list.

A bit of mine:
abortion
gay marriage
the constitution
declaration of independence
presidential candidates
media bias
religion in general
gravity
time and space
other dimensions
views of leftists
views of rightests
political pundits
radio shows
european history
american history
governmental structure
communism
socialism
capitalism
slavery
causes of the revolution
causes of the civil war
succession
corporate welfare
economics
the drug industry
the oil industry
sepcial interests

just to name a few. . .
and a partridge in a pear tree.

and a partridge in a pear tree.

K! I was going to post this but I was to polite! I'm begining to like you.

Any idiot who thinks FOX is propoganda needs to look at 2 stations that really are propaganda. A: CBS. B: CNN. TO prove my point, remember that thing about fake documents with George W. Bush? Isn't it nice to know that are liberal media is making things up about are president in a time of war? Somone should be going to hell for that, and Dan Rather would be a good place to start.

K! I was going to post this but I was to polite! I'm begining to like you.
And I you! But I'm already in a committed relationship ... :D

I don't even trust Fox News to tell me that I'm on the Fox News channel.

And I you! But I'm already in a committed relationship ... :D

So am I! LOL!!! :D

I don't even trust Fox News to tell me that I'm on the Fox News channel.
You're not. You are in a realm somewhere between darkness and light, ...
(doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo) - said Rod Serling.

You're not. You are in a realm somewhere between darkness and light, ...
(doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo) - said Rod Serling.

LMFAO!!!

Is Fox conservative? Yes.
Are all the other networks super duper liberal? Yes.

Honestly, I don't disagree that Fox is wholly conservative, but it bothers me when liberals complain that they don't control the entire media.

Is Fox conservative? Yes.
Are all the other networks super duper liberal? Yes.

Honestly, I don't disagree that Fox is wholly conservative, but it bothers me when liberals complain that they don't control the entire media.
I would definitely be defined as conservative, but even I believe Fox has a conservative tilt. Definitely on the editorial programs, but that's to be expected. More "content" bias on the news programs, but no worse, and I believe to a lesser degree, than the others tilt toward the liberal side, in particular network news (ABC, CBS, NBC).

I hope everyone realizes that just by the very nature of language itself - English, French, German, every language - everything you say is going to have a bias to it, whether it be imperceptibly small or blatantly obvious.

I would definitely be defined as conservative, but even I believe Fox has a conservative tilt. Definitely on the editorial programs, but that's to be expected. More "content" bias on the news programs, but no worse, and I believe to a lesser degree, than the others tilt toward the liberal side, in particular network news (ABC, CBS, NBC).That's basically what scientific studies of media bias of concluded. That is, the ones that analyze Fox's news programs (Brit Hume), not commentators and editorials.

Anyone trying to claim bias based on other programs run on that channel is just kidding himself/herself. Of course the editorials (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=editorial) have bias. Anyone who claims those editorials are fair is also, in addition, kidding himself/herself. (Just trying to be fair and balanced. ;))

I hope everyone realizes that just by the very nature of language itself - English, French, German, every language - everything you say is going to have a bias to it, whether it be imperceptibly small or blatantly obvious.

That's basically what scientific studies of media bias of concluded. That is, the ones that analyze Fox's news programs (Brit Hume), not commentators and editorials.

Anyone trying to claim bias based on other programs run on that channel is just kidding himself/herself.
Yeah, I heard something on NPR about language differences that actually affect our thinking patterns. Comparing Korean to English, it said that Korean has more of a concept of "inside vs outside", whereas in English we are more "over vs under, to the side, etc. I hate to admit it, but NPR does definitely have some good stuff.

Yeah, I heard something on NPR about language differences that actually affect our thinking patterns. Comparing Korean to English, it said that Korean has more of a concept of "inside vs outside", whereas in English we are more "over vs under, to the side, etc. I hate to admit it, but NPR does definitely have some good stuff.Indeed, psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan believed that people reach an entirely new order of being once they learned a language, and this language finally allows them to express themselves.

Anyone who's read 1984 knows about how language is the frame of your thoughts, and you generally cannot go outside of it.

Anyway, this is where the inherent bias in everything comes into play. Not even a computer could write nonbiased news, if it was written in any current language around today.

So here we go: *deep breath* Fox News is biased. CNN is biased. CBS is biased. ABC is biased. Reuters is biased. The BBC is biased. The AP is biased. Google News is biased. I'm biased. You're biased.

I would definitely be defined as conservative, but even I believe Fox has a conservative tilt. Definitely on the editorial programs, but that's to be expected. More "content" bias on the news programs, but no worse, and I believe to a lesser degree, than the others tilt toward the liberal side, in particular network news (ABC, CBS, NBC).

I am GLAD that FOX is conservative, finally a channel and news source that is reliable for the rest of us, I drove me nuts when "channel one news" (aka day old liberal crap news) and abc?(I dont really care, all the liberal channels are the same) accused FOX of being biased towards conservitives, well, DA, why not!
atleast FOX isnt full of a bunch of hipacrites

Faithfully Representing Shards
warinthepocket

BUSH ROCKS!

I am GLAD that FOX is conservative, finally a channel and news source that is reliable for the rest of us, I drove me nuts when "channel one news" (aka day old liberal crap news) and abc?(I dont really care, all the liberal channels are the same) accused FOX of being biased towards conservitives, well, DA, why not!
atleast FOX isnt full of a bunch of hipacrites

Faithfully Representing Shards
warinthepocket

BUSH ROCKS!
Actually the left can't be hypocrits if they are the left since you are complaining about them being themselves. Not very hypocritical really.
Now those like that Fox news caster who got sued over sexual harrasment like Bill O'rielly. He masturbated over phone sex and he says he did'nt do it, but settled anyway. You only settle when you think you are going to lose , did it, or a millionaire like Micheal who needs to sing so can't spend it in court. (but its iffy if Micheal Jackson did)

Actually the left can't be hypocrits if they are the left since you are complaining about them being themselves. Not very hypocritical really.
Now those like that Fox news caster who got sued over sexual harrasment like Bill O'rielly. He masturbated over phone sex and he says he did'nt do it, but settled anyway. You only settle when you think you are going to lose , did it, or a millionaire like Micheal who needs to sing so can't spend it in court. (but its iffy if Micheal Jackson did)Yeah, well it eventually came out that that woman was deeply in debt and needed money. Seems pretty fishy to me, does it not to you? :S

how would they not be hipacrites?
they accused FOX of something they also
do, but to an extreme

Faithfully Representing Shards
warinthepocket

BUSH ROCKS!

Hardly fair websites!

I told you to show biased reporting not commentary

obviously nothing i can say to you can change your narrow minded veiw of anything, what do you want from me? to hunt you down and force you to watch while i explain to you what is wrong with their reporting? your arguement holds nothing because you just keep repeating yourself over, and over again while still holding the same useless creed. You can believe you are right all you want, you will just die uninformed and no more intelligent than when you graced this earth and without a single independant thought in your head like every other lemming that follows blindly.

why are you arguing with corneliu on this matter? he is an extremist right winger, ignore him
thanks, i just discovered that. lol

So here we go: *deep breath* Fox News is biased. CNN is biased. CBS is biased. ABC is biased. Reuters is biased. The BBC is biased. The AP is biased. Google News is biased. I'm biased. You're biased.


Finally something I can agree with, there are biased attitudes, and I am willing to admit to it, it comes from all directions and all walks of life, and to say something isn't biased, just because it agrees with your veiws, is, in and of itself, biased!

So here we go: *deep breath* Fox News is biased. CNN is biased. CBS is biased. ABC is biased. Reuters is biased. The BBC is biased. The AP is biased. Google News is biased. I'm biased. You're biased.

Indeed. Which is why I feel the words "partisan" or even "propagandised" to be of more use. American broadcasters are, by and large, more partisan than those of other western countries (with the obvious exception of Italy).

Yea he did do that then got burned. It was found false and he apologized and then said that he still believed in them even though they were found to be false! Thank God he's gone. We don't need is ilk telling us the news.
I know--you strongly prefer hearing comfortable lies over the aweful truth in almost everything you choose to believe

Perhaps thats the case, however my assertion is that this "large portion of the country" wouldn't believe it if it WERE true.

That this portion of the nation has been preconditioned to hate everything with even a hint of "liberal taint" and thus the disscussion that is largely over technicalities of wether or not there IS bias in programming choices is moot. One could prove conclusively that both sides get equal time, equal footing, equal billling, equal representation. It matters not one bit.

Guilt by association is rather meaningless to me, I wholly believe that Rush Limbaugh or any other pundit could take part in a worthwhile journalistic endevor. It is the content of the program, not the names involved. As I'm unfamiliar with the people you name as examples, I can only assume that they are pundits for the other side of the political spectrum or something.

I'm arguing that the polarization of the people currently precludes any discussion on bias; and viturally no one is immue from distorted views to begin with. Thus in a nation so angry and divided that the best any of us can do is remain principled and disciplined in our study of journalistic endevor. Giving praise to those who are succesful in putting a neutral tone on divisive subjects, adding rational thought to political diatribe, and mature discussion to mere punditry.

In that, NPR is simply one of the best there is.dont forget C-Span

Show me how fox news is biased!
get the Movie OutFoxed

Not for lack of trying. Unless they are outright lying (an admitted possibility), I recall them saying several times after an interview with the Republicans that they tried to get the other side on, including John Kerry, but were refused.
thats good to hear--I dont think anyone who values the truth in journalism should speak to Foxnews at all or anyother rightwing hate media outlet

If you're going to single out Fox, that would be absurd. This is media, people. That's what it's about.

I'll never forget the first day of my political science class in college, when the prof told us that in addition to our texts it would be required to read the NY Times daily. However, he strongly cautioned that we would be have to read between the lines to figure out the real story, as they never really tell it and in fact can't in the vast majority of cases.

That's how it works, my friends. So don't single out Fox. You may not like their platform, but "them's the breaks". My suggestion: Get over it. It's the media.

Any idiot who thinks FOX is propoganda needs to look at 2 stations that really are propaganda. A: CBS. B: CNN. TO prove my point, remember that thing about fake documents with George W. Bush? Isn't it nice to know that are liberal media is making things up about are president in a time of war? Somone should be going to hell for that, and Dan Rather would be a good place to start.
you make things up when you use words like "liberal media" --also the only reason we're losing the war in Iraq is cause its based on Bushs lies

Is Fox conservative? Yes.
Are all the other networks super duper liberal? Yes.

Honestly, I don't disagree that Fox is wholly conservative, but it bothers me when liberals complain that they don't control the entire media.
proof that the media is rightwing is the fact that you believe the rightwing Myth of the "Liberal Media"

I hope everyone realizes that just by the very nature of language itself - English, French, German, every language - everything you say is going to have a bias to it, whether it be imperceptibly small or blatantly obvious.

That's basically what scientific studies of media bias of concluded. That is, the ones that analyze Fox's news programs (Brit Hume), not commentators and editorials.

Anyone trying to claim bias based on other programs run on that channel is just kidding himself/herself. Of course the editorials (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=editorial) have bias. Anyone who claims those editorials are fair is also, in addition, kidding himself/herself. (Just trying to be fair and balanced. ;))
not true--Foxnews CREATES news to fit their rightwing agenda-they also use buzzwords in their news reports to pander to a certain biased worldview and they daily demonize democrats and rarely if ever attack republicans

If you're going to single out Fox, that would be absurd. This is media, people. That's what it's about.

I'll never forget the first day of my political science class in college, when the prof told us that in addition to our texts it would be required to read the NY Times daily. However, he strongly cautioned that we would be have to read between the lines to figure out the real story, as they never really tell it and in fact can't in the vast majority of cases.

That's how it works, my friends. So don't single out Fox. You may not like their platform, but "them's the breaks". My suggestion: Get over it. It's the media.
well Fox monopolizes a major chunk of the media--in fact the media in America is concolidated into so few hands that its becoming a total farce

Is Fox conservative? Yes.
Are all the other networks super duper liberal? Yes.

Honestly, I don't disagree that Fox is wholly conservative, but it bothers me when liberals complain that they don't control the entire media.

I'm not complaining, the point I was having trouble with was that they were saying fox isn't biased, I am trying to say everyone is! refer to something another poster said further along, about the bias of everyone, not just fox, but hell, this thread is called "Fox = propoganda" what were people expecting!?

I'm not complaining, the point I was having trouble with was that they were saying fox isn't biased, I am trying to say everyone is! refer to something another poster said further along, about the bias of everyone, not just fox, but hell, this thread is called "Fox = propoganda" what were people expecting!?
Foxnews broke every single barrier regarding media bias and brought everything to an unprecedented new low

dont forget C-Span

C-Span is not news, it is coverage. It is the material that one makes and interprets news FROM. News reporters can cover a story, but they also provide a lense (called bias here) to view that information from.

Example; most people think that the deaths over 150,000 people is tragic; thus the headline "Tragedy follows Indian Ocean earthquake; Tsunami claims 150,000 lives. Many Children among the dead." The focus on children and the mentioning of it being a tragedy make it clear that one should not be overjoyed.

If it was a good thing, the headline would read, "Thousand of miles of coastline ready for development. Widespread vacancies reported, ready labor market available cheaply."

To be as C-Span is now, the headline would have to read something like, "Tsunami in Indian Ocean kills 150,000 people." Nothing but info; no lense to see it through. No information on HOW to feel about the Tsunami.

C-Span is a vital keyhole into Washington DC's political scene; but it is not news.

...I kinda feel two steps closer to hell just for writing that "If the Tsunami were good news" line. **laughs**

Everything that has been said about Fox News can be said about CBS news, ABC news, CNN, BBC, NBC, etc.

Here's the deal: all the afore mentioned stations have liberal tendencies. If liberals actually chose to look with a truly unbiased point of view, they'd see that these people use the presentations of stories (ie "fierce battles in Iraq" vs "coward suicide bombers") to push their own political agenda. However, liberals, often not seeing past their own personal beliefs, chose to ignore that fact and focus on the single nationally syndicated station FNC.

There is a reason why Fox News is increasing its viewerbase. People are tired of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc telling them to think liberal. There's one reason why they're all being forced into retirement...

All I can say is at least Fox News has shows that allow equal hosts for both sides to weigh in on issues (Hannity and Combs, etc). Do you see that on CBS? NBC? ABC? Nope.

If you look solely at O'Reilly you'll find unbalanced reporting. But I challenge you to watch other shows that do present each side and then tell me that the other stations even try to match the opportunity for equal input from both sides.

And if you still think it's unfair reporting, then simply don't watch it!!!!

obviously nothing i can say to you can change your narrow minded veiw of anything, what do you want from me? to hunt you down and force you to watch while i explain to you what is wrong with their reporting? your arguement holds nothing because you just keep repeating yourself over, and over again while still holding the same useless creed. You can believe you are right all you want, you will just die uninformed and no more intelligent than when you graced this earth and without a single independant thought in your head like every other lemming that follows blindly.

I happen to know the difference between REPORTING and COMMENTARY!! The Reporting is not biased. However, I do know that the commentary is. CNN is also bias in this regard. NPR is too as is ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC.

I happen to watch Fox News all the time. I've tried watching the other networks, all of them, but I prefer fox news. Its all in what we believe so there really is no point in argueing about this.

I do like the way you debate though. Your better at this than Chess Squares is because you don't come right out and ignore people when they disagree with you.

Do all Media have bias? Most definitely. Everyone is bias. Show me an unbiased reporter and I'll call you a liar. I don't believe everything FNC says but most of what they're saying is true just like most of what the other networks are saying is true but are just as bias.

I know--you strongly prefer hearing comfortable lies over the aweful truth in almost everything you choose to believe

If that was the case Skapedroe, then I would've loved to see him stay. Any reporter that lies should be tossed right out of the business but if that was the case, there would be NO MEDIA whatsoever.

get the Movie OutFoxed

It has been debunked.

If you're going to single out Fox, that would be absurd. This is media, people. That's what it's about.

I'll never forget the first day of my political science class in college, when the prof told us that in addition to our texts it would be required to read the NY Times daily. However, he strongly cautioned that we would be have to read between the lines to figure out the real story, as they never really tell it and in fact can't in the vast majority of cases.

That's how it works, my friends. So don't single out Fox. You may not like their platform, but "them's the breaks". My suggestion: Get over it. It's the media.

Finally!

Thanks Power of Brunette. Your absolutely right.

you make things up when you use words like "liberal media" --also the only reason we're losing the war in Iraq is cause its based on Bushs lies

And just how are we losing the war in Iraq?

The media isn't broadcasting the GOOD NEWS that comes out. I've heard of the good news. There is also a good news out of Iraq thread around here somewhere. Oh and did you know that the Iraqi Elections are taking place at the end of the month?

not true--Foxnews CREATES news to fit their rightwing agenda-they also use buzzwords in their news reports to pander to a certain biased worldview and they daily demonize democrats and rarely if ever attack republicans

Now this is a bunch of BS but then again, its what I've come to expect from Skapedroe

Foxnews broke every single barrier regarding media bias and brought everything to an unprecedented new low

Dan Rather did that quite nicely with those false memos.

Everything that has been said about Fox News can be said about CBS news, ABC news, CNN, BBC, NBC, etc.

Please, could people who mention the BBC, or any other overseas boradcaster, in the same breath as US broadcasters back it up in some remotely tangible way? I'm getting tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. I may have to bring out Mr Slappy-Stick.

Please, could people who mention the BBC, or any other overseas boradcaster, in the same breath as US broadcasters back it up in some remotely tangible way? I'm getting tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. I may have to bring out Mr Slappy-Stick.

Ask the people on the Ark Royal! They obviously didn't like the way the BBC was reporting the war in Iraq.

Please, could people who mention the BBC, or any other overseas boradcaster, in the same breath as US broadcasters back it up in some remotely tangible way? I'm getting tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. I may have to bring out Mr Slappy-Stick.

I think that whole incident over the British weapons expert speaks for itself. Especially since the investigation found that Blair didn't lie about anything, but the BBC was found to be complicit in forcing a story with an unsubstantiated viewpoint.

One might wonder what their bias and political agenda would be in trying to force such a story. To the point that a man kills himself. To the point where BBC reporters and management felt the need to still push that agenda after the man's death.

Way to go FOX. Propoganda and distortion of the truth at its finest.


And you've only come to that conclusion now??? But well done. What an entertaining show it is!

I think that whole incident over the British weapons expert speaks for itself. Especially since the investigation found that Blair didn't lie about anything, but the BBC was found to be complicit in forcing a story with an unsubstantiated viewpoint.

One might wonder what their bias and political agenda would be in trying to force such a story. To the point that a man kills himself. To the point where BBC reporters and management felt the need to still push that agenda after the man's death.

And to top it off, don't they get government funding?

Ask the people on the Ark Royal! They obviously didn't like the way the BBC was reporting the war in Iraq.

I think that whole incident over the British weapons expert speaks for itself. Especially since the investigation found that Blair didn't lie about anything, but the BBC was found to be complicit in forcing a story with an unsubstantiated viewpoint.

One might wonder what their bias and political agenda would be in trying to force such a story. To the point that a man kills himself. To the point where BBC reporters and management felt the need to still push that agenda after the man's death.

So we have one mistake and one, erm, something (just what is the relevance of the Ark Royal story, anyway, Coreneliu?).

"One might wonder what their bias and political agenda would be in trying to force such a story"

One might indeed. It seems nobody has to wonder in the US. Care to elaborate?

You guys (liberals) got used to having every TV news network on your side... ya just can't handle it that conservatives finally have a voice on TV. lol

Maybe Fox IS balanced... coming from the standpoint that every other station is friendly to the left.

The BBC was so "convinced" in their own minds that the Iraq war was wrong, and that Blair had lied about it, and they were SO convinced he had lied, they were constantly pressuring that expert to say so. The pressure continued until they posted a false story that he had said so. Then they released his name to provide more pressure.

And then they lied at first that they had done any of that.

When you start out with a premise that is unfounded, and then you beat the information out of an informant, and lie on his behalf, and force him to back up your lie that backs up your unfounded premise, that's unmitigated bias.

If you can't see that as bias, then you're completely blind, or don't want to see it.
They obviously don't like Blair, and want to find that he lied, so that they can destroy his political power. Since they couldn't find what they wanted, they cooked up a story that fell apart.

Rather like the Rather attempt to put forth a fake memo to try to make Bush look bad. At least no one committed suicide over the Rather crap.

Fox doesnt stop at just putting its own spin on the news it actually LIES and creates fake news out of thin air to promote a certain agenda and worldview-its an incidious form of brainwashing and its the only "news" our troops are exposed to

Ok, so back that up. What lies have you heard out of FOX - do you mean the lies about the Memos that supposedly "proved" President Bush was AWOL? OH wait...that wasn't FOX. You must mean how FOX cowtowed to Saddam and didn't report the truth about what was going on so that Saddam would allow them to keep their reporters in Baghdad. Oh WAIT that was CNN! Yeah, I can see how you would attack FOX. And by the way, objectivity in journalism doesn't have to mean you ONLY report bad things about your own country. Foxnews shows patriotism and does have a bias for America. I find it refreshing. It doesn't mean they are not reporting the truth or holding anything back. They just don't attack everything America does.

You guys (liberals) got used to having every TV news network on your side... ya just can't handle it that conservatives finally have a voice on TV. lol

Maybe Fox IS balanced... coming from the standpoint that every other station is friendly to the left.

my point is there shouldn't be a news network on anyones side, we should be able to watch the news and get the news without anyones bias coming through, that's why I watch the news, to get facts, not speculations and biased comments. the only way to get anything unbiased is to do it yourself, or to watch a couple of the channels and take a middle ground.

not true--Foxnews CREATES news to fit their rightwing agenda-they also use buzzwords in their news reports to pander to a certain biased worldview and they daily demonize democrats and rarely if ever attack republicansUntrue. You've seen what happens when news outlets make up news (ie. Dan Rather). When it happens, everyone jumps on it and its huge. Show me something they made up.

Indeed. Which is why I feel the words "partisan" or even "propagandised" to be of more use. American broadcasters are, by and large, more partisan than those of other western countries (with the obvious exception of Italy).No....no. They are either equally as partisan or moreso, because while pushing ordinary national agendas, they also most often peddle international anti-Americanism, even where none is due.

Why is everyone here competing about who's news media is better. "My news media is better than your news media!" Sad.

For anyone interested: A Measure of Media Bias (http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc).

So we have one mistake and one, erm, something (just what is the relevance of the Ark Royal story, anyway, Coreneliu?).

British Flagship in the Persian Gulf for Operation Iraqi Freedom. They pulled the plug on it because BBC was being biased in how the covered the war. Surprised you didn't know this.

Ok, so back that up.
No chance of that happening.

I haven't read all the posts on this, but I thought I'd just chime in really quickly. Not saying that Fox is the only news program that is politically biased, but I noticed something when watching it a few weeks ago while working out (it's the only station they have on at the gym). They were running a story about how, now that Bush has won a second term, conservatives in Hollywood have felt like they can come out in the open more. :confused: What sort of station besides a right-leaning one would run that sort of story, honestly?

I haven't read all the posts on this, but I thought I'd just chime in really quickly. Not saying that Fox is the only news program that is politically biased, but I noticed something when watching it a few weeks ago while working out (it's the only station they have on at the gym). They were running a story about how, now that Bush has won a second term, conservatives in Hollywood have felt like they can come out in the open more. :confused: What sort of station besides a right-leaning one would run that sort of story, honestly?

Because the Hollywood left has bashed most of those on the Hollywood right. Of course they'll say that because that is actually true.

not true--Foxnews CREATES news to fit their rightwing agenda-they also use buzzwords in their news reports to pander to a certain biased worldview and they daily demonize democrats and rarely if ever attack republicans

Skapedroe is right in at least one case. I don't follow FOX news but they did a report series called eurabia. In this serie they had a report from my hometown Malmö, Sweden. This report got harsh criticism in Sweden from both left and right wing media.

First Eurabia is a term (or so called buzzword) that nazi, facist and racist groups in europe are using to spread fear of arab immigration. To pick up and give power to this term is not only unfair, unbalanced and untrue but dispicable.

Secondly the report was filled with erronous material like "a city of one quarter million is now one quarter muslim". There was also evident hints like "the citizens of Malmö have had enough. Recently the moske was burned down". Were recently was two years ago and the citizen of Malmo who burned it down is suspected to have been a muslim with a personal agenda against a school connected to the moske. In juridical terms not a lie, but everybody knows what they are aiming for.

As the reporter couldn't find a person to say that the imigration was a problem he instead interviewed himself. Stating in front of the camera that the swedish population was afraid to say their true feelings in front of the camera but that he could feel that they had had enough. I certainly hope he can telepaticly pick up my gutt-turning feel about him.

I have never seen this kind of blatant truth-wrestling on CNN or BBC or in swedish news.

To have free speech it is very important that criticism is taken seriously. Free speech does not allow media to lie because "the others" aren't doing better.

I have never seen this kind of blatant truth-wrestling on CNN or BBC or in swedish news.

To have free speech it is very important that criticism is taken seriously. Free speech does not allow media to lie because "the others" aren't doing better.

I guess then that you feel that CBS was unbiased when it went with, and stuck to, their faked story on Bush with its fake memo that no experts would back up. And not until it looked really, really bad did Dan Rather finally sort of back off the story.

If that isn't lying (which is far more than truth-wrestling), then I don't know what is.

I guess then that you feel that CBS was unbiased when it went with, and stuck to, their faked story on Bush with its fake memo that no experts would back up. And not until it looked really, really bad did Dan Rather finally sort of back off the story.

If that isn't lying (which is far more than truth-wrestling), then I don't know what is.

I haven't seen CBS. But accordning to previous messages they officially backed from the report and "axed" Dan Rather. Every organisation also media has employees that can act without the borders. It seems to me like CBS did what they should do. fill me in: Could anyone prove the memo false?

Fox news has not given any feedback to swedish media, public or politic pressure and the story is still on their web-page unchanged.

Sweden is one of those europeon countries isnt it? They make good knives.... But really, who gives a crap? Dont like FOX new? DONT WATCH IT. I Dont like BBC news, so I'm not gonna watch it, dont like CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC either, so I dont watch em.

Grow up you childish little idiots.

For anyone interested: A Measure of Media Bias (http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc).A very flawed study, even on cursory examination. "Since we know the ACLU is liberal, we'll throw out data until the ACLU has a liberal score instead of a conservative score." "In spite of the fact that we "know" - in the same fashion - that RAND is conservative, we'll leave that data alone when it indicates it as liberal." Etc.

Further, it is fundamentally based on Congress and, even more fundamentally, on the ADA itself as a measure of absolute liberality. A comparative basis that has, in the end, nothing to do with public opinion.

A better "result" considered from that study is that the ADA is, in fact, more centrist than previously assumed, or that there is an overall difference in the agreement of Congress with the ADA, and the agreement of the media with the ADA.

In spite of their stated conclusions, the study's data also suggests that Democrats are more centrist than Republicans, and that most media sources fall in the general range of conservative/moderate Democrats, and that Fox's Special Report cannot be construed as anything but right of the median of a body that is generally considered to have more conservatives than liberals.

Very curious assumptions, and very curious methodology. To me, this looks like the methodology of "let's play with the numbers until they give us what we want without having to do too much work." The main content of the study is worth very little.

The note that reporters have historically tended to lean strongly away from the Republican party is worth considering... it's also worth noting that the reporters on the ground are hardly the only influences on media output. Where is the analysis of media employees from recent years? Where the analysis of anchors, executives, scriptwriters, management, and boards of directors?

I haven't seen CBS. But accordning to previous messages they officially backed from the report and "axed" Dan Rather. Every organisation also media has employees that can act without the borders. It seems to me like CBS did what they should do. fill me in: Could anyone prove the memo false?

Fox news has not given any feedback to swedish media, public or politic pressure and the story is still on their web-page unchanged.They were proved fake, actually, yes. Big time. The memos were not even physically possible to produce in the manner they were during the time they were supposed to have been made (typewriters at that time could not produce all of the characters on the memos). CBS only backed down once they looked really bad and they had to save face.

fill me in: Could anyone prove the memo false?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_memos

The memos were forgeries. Dan Rather clung to them like a child.

Sweden is one of those europeon countries isnt it? They make good knives.... But really, who gives a crap? Dont like FOX new? DONT WATCH IT. I Dont like BBC news, so I'm not gonna watch it, dont like CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC either, so I dont watch em.

Grow up you childish little idiots.

So teradoc you don't know much about sweden and if you are only going to watch FOX you will only learn untruths about it. That is the problem.
Dont like something? Then try to change it. But maybe thats childish...

CBS obviously was wrong and acted more slowly than what could be expected. Shame on them, too.

Sweden is one of those europeon countries isnt it? They make good knives.... But really, who gives a crap? Dont like FOX new? DONT WATCH IT. I Dont like BBC news, so I'm not gonna watch it, dont like CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC either, so I dont watch em.

Grow up you childish little idiots.
So, if there were a network which presented, for news, that George Bush eats babies, you wouldn't mind, because you can just "not watch it?"

So, if there were a network which presented, for news, that George Bush eats babies, you wouldn't mind, because you can just "not watch it?"Now we're talking about blatant falseness, not bias. Besides, it would probably be democrats eating babies anyway.

Please, could people who mention the BBC, or any other overseas boradcaster, in the same breath as US broadcasters back it up in some remotely tangible way? I'm getting tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. I may have to bring out Mr Slappy-Stick.

I am extremely tired of having to explain it to you. Here's the deal: if you don't believe BBC is liberal that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I believe if you explored their reporting with an unbiased point of view, you'd agree that it is heavily liberal.

But then again, that requires you step back from your safety zone and look at people the way they should be. Everyone is biased in one way or another. To think otherwise goes against human nature. This includes your beloved BBC "news" people.

And if I did propose tangible evidence, you'd simply disregard it because you cannot see beyond your own biases. So why waste my and everybody else's time?

Just go ahead believing what you want to believe and I'll do the same. Just remember that for every liberal out there calling Fox News unfair and unbalanced there is a conservative saying the same thing about ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and CNN.

Just go ahead believing what you want to believe and I'll do the same. Just remember that for every liberal out there calling Fox News unfair and unbalanced there is a conservative saying the same thing about ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and CNN.
(And, of course, NPR.)
On one hand, Fox News. On the other hand, every other major source of news, including sources from different nations, different natures of organizations (nonprofit organization, government run, corporate). Which, in truth, is it more reasonable to believe is biased? Relative bias implies a deviation from the norm, and when one station stands out as holding a bias strongly distinct from the others', an accuracy record through the toilet, a studied history of misinforming the public (according to studies thus far)... I call that the biased station for ample reason.

So teradoc you don't know much about sweden and if you are only going to watch FOX you will only learn untruths about it. That is the problem.
Dont like something? Then try to change it. But maybe thats childish...

CBS obviously was wrong and acted more slowly than what could be expected. Shame on them, too.

I just couldnt care less about sweden.... Why dont you just care less about the US? Instead of wasting your life on a worthless forum, bitching about things you dont understand, and have no control over. Just go back to you socialist hell hole, and leave my country, and my TV alone.

The BBC was so "convinced" in their own minds that the Iraq war was wrong, and that Blair had lied about it, and they were SO convinced he had lied, they were constantly pressuring that expert to say so. The pressure continued until they posted a false story that he had said so. Then they released his name to provide more pressure.

And then they lied at first that they had done any of that.

When you start out with a premise that is unfounded, and then you beat the information out of an informant, and lie on his behalf, and force him to back up your lie that backs up your unfounded premise, that's unmitigated bias.

If you can't see that as bias, then you're completely blind, or don't want to see it.
They obviously don't like Blair, and want to find that he lied, so that they can destroy his political power. Since they couldn't find what they wanted, they cooked up a story that fell apart.

Rather like the Rather attempt to put forth a fake memo to try to make Bush look bad. At least no one committed suicide over the Rather crap.

Interesting hypothesis. Interesting in that it flies in the face of both informed opinion in the UK at the time and the findings of the Hutton Inquiry. In particular you allege that Gilligan's report was somehow a product of systematic bias. The Hutton Inquiry states:

"I consider that the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective in that Mr Gilligan was allowed to broadcast his report at 6.07am without editors having seen a script of what he was going to say and having considered whether it should be approved"

All the criticism about the affair, as regards the BBC (read the findings of report at:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings/statement280104.htm),
focused on managerial failings. There was no suggestion of an agenda to push a certain kind of story.

Even if you had succeeded in proving such a bias, however, it would still only show bias over one particular event. What Fox, CBS, CNN and their like exhibit is consistent bias towards one, partisan, political viewpoint. This is, of course, something the BBC is often accused of. The fact that it is accused of it by both Labour and the Conservatives, however, should tell us something.

British Flagship in the Persian Gulf for Operation Iraqi Freedom. They pulled the plug on it because BBC was being biased in how the covered the war. Surprised you didn't know this.

Well, since I've been living outside the UK for the last year and a half I'm not as up on the news as I would like. Still, two points:

1) As above, at best you've proven the BBC to be biased over one issue. That is nowhere near the same as the kind of systematic, partisan bias that US broadcasters are frequently guilty of.
2) How, exactly, does the decision of the commander of one Royal Navy ship prove bias?


No....no. They are either equally as partisan or moreso, because while pushing ordinary national agendas, they also most often peddle international anti-Americanism, even where none is due.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant politically partisan, not nationally partisan. It would naturally be absurd to expect a national news organisation not to be skewed somewhat towards its own nation. What I'm talking about is the propensity of American broadcast organisations to fall in line with one of the two major parties. This is a virtually unheard of phenomenon in western Europe (again, with the exception of Italy).

Why is everyone here competing about who's news media is better. "My news media is better than your news media!" Sad.


Well I for one am not doing this out of any misplaced nationalism; I would happily accept that the major American daily newspapers are considerably superior to their British counterparts. I won't let any American citizen claim that US media partisanship is just a part of an international phenomenon, however, because Americans need to wake up and realise just how many problems there are with their broadcast media.

I am extremely tired of having to explain it to you.

Erm, what? You posted one, unsubstantiated argument and when I ask you to support it you're suddenly extremely tired of having to explain it? Man, you must have the lowest patience threshold of anyone alive.

Here's the deal: if you don't believe BBC is liberal that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I believe if you explored their reporting with an unbiased point of view, you'd agree that it is heavily liberal.

But then again, that requires you step back from your safety zone and look at people the way they should be. Everyone is biased in one way or another. To think otherwise goes against human nature. This includes your beloved BBC "news" people.

And if I did propose tangible evidence, you'd simply disregard it because you cannot see beyond your own biases. So why waste my and everybody else's time?

Just go ahead believing what you want to believe and I'll do the same. Just remember that for every liberal out there calling Fox News unfair and unbalanced there is a conservative saying the same thing about ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, and CNN.

So, I ask for support. What I get is exactly the same argument restated, (though spread across 4 paragraphs instead of just one this time) supported by, erm, the fact that I'm a biased liberal. Well bravo, sir, you have truly convinced me.

A few points:

1) You don't actually have a clue what my political viewpoint is, so please, don't assume. If you "assume" you make an "ass" out of "u" and... well, it's just you, actually.

2) I would happily admit that CNN, CBS and ABC are biased (I'm not familiar with the rest) to virtually the same degree as FOX. So even though I am an evil, blikered liberal I can still evidently just about perceive bias.

3) I do not deny that the BBC, like all news groups, has a certain bias. It would probably be considered "liberal" by American standards (along with the rest of the developed word), that is true. I deny, however, that it is biased towards one particular political viewpoint to the same degree as FOX, or any other American broadcaster, which is what you were alleging.

4) If you post tangible evidence I will listen to it and appraise it on its own merits. As you've seen I'm not blind to liberal bias. I await with baited breath your response.

Oh, and one question: how often do you watch the BBC news?

Huh. Is'nt the point of ANY news station propaganda, no matter how extreme or where it's directed?

Everything that has been said about Fox News can be said about CBS news, ABC news, CNN, BBC, NBC, etc.

Here's the deal: all the afore mentioned stations have liberal tendencies. If liberals actually chose to look with a truly unbiased point of view, they'd see that these people use the presentations of stories (ie "fierce battles in Iraq" vs "coward suicide bombers") to push their own political agenda. However, liberals, often not seeing past their own personal beliefs, chose to ignore that fact and focus on the single nationally syndicated station FNC.

There is a reason why Fox News is increasing its viewerbase. People are tired of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc telling them to think liberal. There's one reason why they're all being forced into retirement...

All I can say is at least Fox News has shows that allow equal hosts for both sides to weigh in on issues (Hannity and Combs, etc). Do you see that on CBS? NBC? ABC? Nope.

If you look solely at O'Reilly you'll find unbalanced reporting. But I challenge you to watch other shows that do present each side and then tell me that the other stations even try to match the opportunity for equal input from both sides.

And if you still think it's unfair reporting, then simply don't watch it!!!!Your totally wrong--theres not one liberal TV news station--ZERO NADA ZILCH--not even ONE and anyone who thinks Fox is in anyway "balanced" has to be themselves mentally unbalanced

It has been debunked.
not by the people who matter

And just how are we losing the war in Iraq?

The media isn't broadcasting the GOOD NEWS that comes out. I've heard of the good news. There is also a good news out of Iraq thread around here somewhere. Oh and did you know that the Iraqi Elections are taking place at the end of the month?
under conditions that exist in Iraq now this election will be as much of a sham as the recent election in America was