NationStates Jolt Archive

Chris Bowers over at My DD (http://mydd.com) has done some work on Fox News' coverage of the London bombings that I found more than a little enlightening. I'll recreate the post here in its entirety.
Brit Hume (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070007) thinks it's time to invest:
I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."
Kilmeade (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005) thinks the attacks were a good thing for the Western world:
And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.
The day before the attack, Fox's Gibson (http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/07/john_gibson_gol.html) wrote:
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.
Which is why he wrote yesterday (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161864,00.html) that it would be good if France was bombed:
The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.
Even though the attacks were targeted at Arab areas of London, finally Fox assures us (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22regular%20--%20of%20nonarab%20people%22) that Arabs living in London are not real Londoners:
these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of nonarab people living in London.
This is about as offensive as coverage can get.
Then again--this is Fox News we're talking about, so I'm not really surprised by it.

And this is part of why I picked the Beeb over Fux for my London news yesterday.

And this is part of why I picked the Beeb over Fux for my London news yesterday.
I picked the Beeb because they're actually a news organization, as compared to Fox, which is a propaganda machine disguised as... well, they're not actually disguised, are they?

im not at all surprised by that--I am surprised however, that they didn't go completely overboard on a possible threat to America. I didn't watch any of it yesterday, as I don't have cable TV, but I spent some time at foxnews.com and didn't find any article that said "ZOMG!!! AMERICA IS NEXT!!! BUSH WILL KEEP YOU SAFE!!!!! OMGGGG!!!"

Utterly revolting. And to be expected from Faux News.

I picked the Beeb because they're actually a news organization, as compared to Fox, which is a propaganda machine disguised as... well, they're not actually disguised, are they?
Not last time I checked, which was when they were giving Dubya the election and changing the exit poll data to suit.

Dr Realnews or: How I Learned to Think For Myself and Love the BBC

im not at all surprised by that--I am surprised however, that they didn't go completely overboard on a possible threat to America. I didn't watch any of it yesterday, as I don't have cable TV, but I spent some time at foxnews.com and didn't find any article that said "ZOMG!!! AMERICA IS NEXT!!! BUSH WILL KEEP YOU SAFE!!!!! OMGGGG!!!"
Funny--you could find something surprisingly similar on CNN today--a question along the lines of "could it happen here?" What a stupid fucking question--of course it could happen here--it has happened here and will probably happen again no matter what kind of preparations we take. Jeez.

Utterly revolting. And to be expected from Faux News.
That's just hilarious :D

Funny--you could find something surprisingly similar on CNN today--a question along the lines of "could it happen here?" What a stupid fucking question--of course it could happen here--it has happened here and will probably happen again no matter what kind of preparations we take. Jeez.
of course it's on every major news media outlet...but FOX tends to imply that the prez will keep you safe. And during their 2 hour special on how to survive a dirty bomb attack..."don't breathe."

"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

I agree with this "anti-Fox News" sentiment. It was not just the recent horrific bombings of London yesterday they exhibited levels of discrimination and bias on, but also, the MJ trial not so long ago also.

DIE YOU F*CKING PROPAGANDA B*LLSHIT MACHINE :sniper: :mp5:

Come on guys, open your eyes!!!! What did you expect?
The whole US society is based on racial identity and profiling.
RACES exist officially in the US. Official, disjointed races.

Just look at the National Census data...

You get data for three to five RACES: "white", "black", "hispanic". (Along with Native and Hawaiian.) And it's official, government sponsored data, not crazy reports from some nutcase racist scientist!!!!

Since the 2000 census, this RACIAL system is being phased away, but come on. It has been a disgrace through the whole 20th century.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
I know a lot about that subject because I used to work in a data processing company; we were using national census data on city populations. Me & my coworkers were shocked by the data attributes that were included in some surveys.

Some cities and counties STILL publish RACIAL statistics on their Internet site, so that when white people want to settle there, they know the racial composition (i.e. they're assured not too many "blacks" and "latinos" live in their community). This data can, and WILL be used for discrimination and exclusion.

Example (among hundreds of cities or counties):
http://co.livingston.mi.us/general_info/population.htm

""98.2% of Livingston County's total 1990 population of 115,645, were white. The remaining population was distributed as follows: Black 0.6 percent, American Indian 0.6 percent and Asian 0.4 percent.
(...)
The township with the highest percentage of Black residents is Green Oak (2.7 percent).""

of course it's on every major news media outlet...but FOX tends to imply that the prez will keep you safe. And during their 2 hour special on how to survive a dirty bomb attack..."don't breathe."

"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Oh--they do more than imply, especially on their talking head shows, and the line between their opinion shows and news shows--always faint to begin with--is practically nonexistent now.

Funny--haven't heard from any Fox defenders yet.

Oh--they do more than imply, especially on their talking head shows, and the line between their opinion shows and news shows--always faint to begin with--is practically nonexistent now.

Funny--haven't heard from any Fox defenders yet.
haha, yeah. Outfoxed: great movie. you're completely right, opinion and news is one in the same on FOX "News." And their slogan of "fair and balanced" makes me laugh...then I get angry and usually hit the TV (on the rare occassion i actually get to watch it)

Funny--haven't heard from any Fox defenders yet.
Of course not. There's no vapid pawn of the Network to tell them what to think and say. How's a Fox defender supposed to reply here?

Come on guys, open your eyes!!!! What did you expect?
The whole US society is based on racial identity and profiling.
RACES exist officially in the US. Official, disjointed races.

Just look at the National Census data...

You get data for three to five RACES: "white", "black", "hispanic". (Along with Native and Hawaiian.) And it's official, government sponsored data, not crazy reports from some nutcase racist scientist!!!!

Since the 2000 census, this RACIAL system is being phased away, but come on. It has been a disgrace through the whole 20th century.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
I know a lot about that subject because I used to work in a data processing company; we were using national census data on city populations. Me & my coworkers were shocked by the data attributes that were included in some surveys.

Some cities and counties STILL publish RACIAL statistics on their Internet site, so that when white people want to settle there, they know the racial composition (i.e. they're assured not too many "blacks" and "latinos" live in their community). This data can, and WILL be used for discrimination and exclusion.

Example (among hundreds of cities or counties):
http://co.livingston.mi.us/general_info/population.htm

""98.2% of Livingston County's total 1990 population of 115,645, were white. The remaining population was distributed as follows: Black 0.6 percent, American Indian 0.6 percent and Asian 0.4 percent.
(...)
The township with the highest percentage of Black residents is Green Oak (2.7 percent).""

I knew it! Racism is caused by the Census!! :rolleyes:

their slogan of "fair and balanced" makes me laugh...
I can't remember where I saw it, but the best response ever to that is:

I don't want fair and balanced. I want to know what's actually going on.

Come on guys, open your eyes!!!! What did you expect?
The whole US society is based on racial identity and profiling.
RACES exist officially in the US. Official, disjointed races.

Just look at the National Census data...

You get data for three to five RACES: "white", "black", "hispanic". (Along with Native and Hawaiian.) And it's official, government sponsored data, not crazy reports from some nutcase racist scientist!!!!

Since the 2000 census, this RACIAL system is being phased away, but come on. It has been a disgrace through the whole 20th century.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
I know a lot about that subject because I used to work in a data processing company; we were using national census data on city populations. Me & my coworkers were shocked by the data attributes that were included in some surveys.

Some cities and counties STILL publish RACIAL statistics on their Internet site, so that when white people want to settle there, they know the racial composition (i.e. they're assured not too many "blacks" and "latinos" live in their community). This data can, and WILL be used for discrimination and exclusion.

Example (among hundreds of cities or counties):
http://co.livingston.mi.us/general_info/population.htm

""98.2% of Livingston County's total 1990 population of 115,645, were white. The remaining population was distributed as follows: Black 0.6 percent, American Indian 0.6 percent and Asian 0.4 percent.
(...)
The township with the highest percentage of Black residents is Green Oak (2.7 percent).""
You know why racial data is collected? So that BENEFITS can be allocated to non-whites. It's called affirmative action.

You're not so different from Fox news. You've taken a fact and spun it so hard that it looks like your enemies are making non-whites wear distinctive badges so they can round them up easier.

Of course not. There's no vapid pawn of the Network to tell them wat to think and say. How's a Fox defender supposed to reply here?

They're waiting for their ideological orders to come through. Give them time to assimilate Faux News' thoughts on the matter and they'll have all manner of one opinion to offer.

They're waiting for their ideological orders to come through. Give them time to assimilate Faux News' thoughts on the matter and they'll have all manner of one opinion to offer.
Fair enough. I think I hear the Fux News Spin Machine starting up now, getting ready to shred facts and evidence.

You know why racial data is collected? So that BENEFITS can be allocated to non-whites. It's called affirmative action.
Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.

Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.
Yep, I actually beleive what I'm writing. You want to know why? Because I actually live in the USA. I have first hand experience.

You, on the other hand, come off as a crazy conspiracy theorist. What's sad is that I think you actually beleive what you're writing.

The government doesn't tell people where they can and can't live. Personal wealth and personal choice do that.

haha, yeah. Outfoxed: great movie. you're completely right, opinion and news is one in the same on FOX "News." And their slogan of "fair and balanced" makes me laugh...then I get angry and usually hit the TV (on the rare occassion i actually get to watch it)

Didn't Outfoxed hire some shitty actors to play as 'ex-employees' for their movie?

Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.

*tosses tin-foil hat to Sarkasis*

*backs away slowly*

whenever I try to watch fox news, I use it as a form of self-punishment, there always seems to be weather on. Hours and hours of weather. The programs seem to last for short amounts of time. Considering how little time they have, it is a tribute to the talents of the fox team that they manage to both end up looking like arseholes, and offend about every minority and sensible person in the world within these constraints.
Hats off to them.

Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.

Perhaps you should have taken the blue pill Neo.

Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.
Excuse me, but I think the "races" do a wonderful job of segregating themselves. Just look at the culture wars going on here in the US. You sure as hell don't need the census to do that.

Canada City']Didn't Outfoxed hire some shitty actors to play as 'ex-employees' for their movie?
if by "shitty actors" you mean former FOX contributors and journalists, yes.

Just look at the culture wars going on here in the US.

Just look at them. Wait a moment, what 'culture wars'? What're you referring to?

Illuminate me.

Most of those statements never[ appeared during Fox News's coverage of the terrorist attacks in London. I watched the coverage on Fox News for at least three hours yesterday in the morning, and only one[ part of that post I saw (the last thing posted, which I still don't see the problem with). What they did show was live aerial views broadcasted by Sky and live reports from reporters on the ground.

The others are from the various (conservative) commentary shows in the afternoon/evening on Fox News (which are not "coverage", but commentary on the news, and should always be taken with reservation).

If you have a problem with what any Fox News person said, email them. They all have email addresses (posted on www.foxnews.com), and nobody can really speak for them.

There is a difference between a news report and commentary. Maybe some people should re examine what they're interpreting and classify it as such.

The others are from the various (conservative) commentary shows in the afternoon/evening on Fox News (which are not "coverage", but commentary on the news, and should always be taken with reservation).

so how are we to decide which is a "commentary show" and which is actually news, since FOX tends to blend the two together all the time?

If that's an actual transcript I'm surprised they're allowed to get away with it. I've actually been thinking alot about the lyrics in punk songs i listen to lately and have been thinkiing that some of the things seem far fetched, and I think maybe they are in britain. much still applies, but often not with that much force. i partly joined this forum as a way for me to hear things actually coming from america, on a site which shouldn't have overall bias, even if us individual posters do. the relevance of that is alot of what is said about mainstream media, propoganda and dissemination of news ans the 'truth' in punk songs.

if by "shitty actors" you mean former FOX contributors and journalists, yes.

And shortly thereafter, Fox News offered to turn over their memos to the public if the other networks did the same.

Guess what? no takers :rolleyes:

And I suggest you learn the truth. What Fox News was broadcasting came from the British Network Sky News. As for the opening post here, none of it was ever broadcasted. I also suggest you learn the difference between coverage and commentary. Apparently you never quite got the difference yet.

so how are we to decide which is a "commentary show" and which is actually news, since FOX tends to blend the two together all the time?

Almost all the shows in the afternoon and evening are (conservative) commentary. The only real news with limited commentary is in the morning. Fox News isn't really a news channel most of the time. ;)

And I suggest you learn the truth. What Fox News was broadcasting came from the British Network Sky News. As for the opening post here, none of it was ever broadcasted. I also suggest you learn the difference between coverage and commentary. Apparently you never quite got the difference yet.

The last thing posted was actually said on Fox News around 6:42 AM. But as I said in my post, it's taken out of context. The Fox News person didn't mean to say "regular" (he stuttered and then said "non-Arab people").

A lot of you have way too much time on your hands to sit there and think that somehow FOX NEWS is Racist amongst other things. I live here in America and I can watch FOX News knowing that they are the only network with both sides of the story. The person who started this thread really took comments out of context, especially John Gibson. The only reason he said that is because the French for the most part think that by appeasing Terrorists by letting them live there without being investigated, that somehow they will remain untouched.

Maybe after yesterday the rest of Europe will finally wake up and see the Terrorirsts don't like you either. You believe in Freedom, they don't. They want to oppress people in a barbaric and old way of interpreting the Koran. Europe as a whole doesn't stand for that. They to believe in Religous freedom, and equal rights for women. The Terrorists don't. Appeasment only works for so long and the next thing you know, you have just been hit by the Terrorists. Keep in mind most of the public in England were anti-war people, and they still got bombed...

The last thing was actually said on Fox News around 6:00 AM. But as I said in my post, it's taken out of context.

Ahh! Thanks :) It was a hectic morning in my household at 600 so I guess I missed it.

A lot of you have way too much time on your hands to sit there and think that somehow FOX NEWS is Racist amongst other things. I live here in America and I can watch FOX News knowing that they are the only network with both sides of the story. The person who started this thread really took comments out of context, especially John Gibson. The only reason he said that is because the French for the most part think that by appeasing Terrorists by letting them live there without being investigated, that somehow they will remain untouched.

Maybe after yesterday the rest of Europe will finally wake up and see the Terrorirsts don't like you either. You believe in Freedom, they don't. They want to oppress people in a barbaric and old way of interpreting the Koran. Europe as a whole doesn't stand for that. They to believe in Religous freedom, and equal rights for women. The Terrorists don't. Appeasment only works for so long and the next thing you know, you have just been hit by the Terrorists. Keep in mind most of the public in England were anti-war people, and they still got bombed...

...
The bolded part made me weep.

It also made t3h bebe jebus cry, too.

And shortly thereafter, Fox News offered to turn over their memos to the public if the other networks did the same.

Guess what? no takers :rolleyes:

And I suggest you learn the truth. What Fox News was broadcasting came from the British Network Sky News. As for the opening post here, none of it was ever broadcasted. I also suggest you learn the difference between coverage and commentary. Apparently you never quite got the difference yet.

Um, gee Corny, didn't your own fellow Faux-apologist show you were lying?

This was not all part of news broadcasts about the London bombing, but I believe it was all broadcast on Faux-News Network.

But since when is commentary not relevant? So long as Dan Rather was in "commentary" mode, nothing he said is objectionable?

Yep, I actually beleive what I'm writing. You want to know why? Because I actually live in the USA. I have first hand experience.

Do you live in the South? I do - and I have first-hand experience of the way some things run here.

And yes, knowing how many blacks live in a given area is a factor in deciding where to move for many racists. In Cobb County (near Atlanta), the primary reason for not allowing the transit system (MARTA) to run into the county is to keep out "undesirable elements" (and, if you know the society there, this basically means "blacks").

Is this a reason to stop having the census? No, not really. But to claim that no one uses it to contribute to discrimination and segregation would simply be silly.

The government doesn't tell people where they can and can't live. Personal wealth and personal choice do that.

I hate to break it to you, but this is a classic strawman. The person you were replying to never once stated that the government tells people where they can and can't live.

A lot of you have way too much time on your hands to sit there and think that somehow FOX NEWS is Racist amongst other things. I live here in America and I can watch FOX News knowing that they are the only network with both sides of the story.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks, I haven't laughed like that in a while.

A lot of you have way too much time on your hands to sit there and think that somehow FOX NEWS is Racist amongst other things. I live here in America and I can watch FOX News knowing that they are the only network with both sides of the story. The person who started this thread really took comments out of context, especially John Gibson. The only reason he said that is because the French for the most part think that by appeasing Terrorists by letting them live there without being investigated, that somehow they will remain untouched.

Maybe after yesterday the rest of Europe will finally wake up and see the Terrorirsts don't like you either. You believe in Freedom, they don't. They want to oppress people in a barbaric and old way of interpreting the Koran. Europe as a whole doesn't stand for that. They to believe in Religous freedom, and equal rights for women. The Terrorists don't. Appeasment only works for so long and the next thing you know, you have just been hit by the Terrorists. Keep in mind most of the public in England were anti-war people, and they still got bombed...

Um, perhaps you don't realize that European nations were fighting terrorism long before 9/11?

That European nations were attacked by Al-Queda and other terrorists groups both before and after 9/11?

That France, in particular has been a leader in fighting terrorism?

Let me give you just a couple of things to read:
Help From France Key In Covert Operations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html)
Fighting Terrorism: Lessons from France (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html)

I live here in America and I can watch FOX News knowing that they are the only network with both sides of the story

I'm reminded somehow of the scene from 'The Blues Brothers' wherein Jake and Elwood attempt to discern what sort of music the crowd at "Bob's Country Bunker" prefer:

ELWOOD (cautiously): So, uh...what kinda music do you usually have here at Bob's Country Bunker?

Barmaid (with enthusiasm): Both kinds! Country and Western!


Just popped into my head.

I'm reminded somehow of the scene from 'The Blues Brothers' wherein Jake and Elwood attempt to discern what sort of music the crowd at "Bob's Country Bunker" prefer:

ELWOOD (cautiously): So, uh...what kinda music do you usually have here at Bob's Country Bunker?

Barmaid (with enthusiasm): Both kinds! Country and Western!


Just popped into my head.

Yeah, Fox has the religious side, and then the truth!

¬_¬

I knew it! Racism is caused by the Census!! :rolleyes:

No, but it certainly might be legitimized or affirmed by it.

i have to say that im completely shocked whenever i watch Fox News, just how Christian and Conservative they are is quite scary, as is the fact that most of america watches it...there coverage of Guantanamo Bay is the scariest bit....the bombs in London just allowed them to say what theyve wanted to since 9/11 and wave more flags...id never switch of from the BBC personally...

Do you REALLY believe what you're writing?

I've seen countless proofs that this data is used to actually help segregating people. Just look to the counties racial data -- why would a county SPECIFICALLY TELL their visitors or new residents where most of the "BLACK" people are living??????? And why the f*ck do they need to gloat about their racial purity, anyway?? "We're 98.2% white in Livingston County" -- WTF???

RACES don't exist. Except when you step up ghettos.
California, not too long ago, tried to get a law passed forbidding the collection of racial data by anyone other than hospitals for research purposes, sponsored by conservatives. It went down to defeat because of the iron grip of the liberal base there, who knew that if no racial data were collected, they couldn't:
1. Allow underqualified students into college over qualified students because of their race.
2. Make the police second-guess themselves every time they stop someone because they might have stopped too high a quota of a particular race or gender that day.
3. Hire contractors or government officials based on the quota set for each race.

California, not too long ago, tried to get a law passed forbidding the collection of racial data by anyone other than hospitals for research purposes, sponsored by conservatives. It went down to defeat because of the iron grip of the liberal base their, who knew that if no racial data were collected, they couldn't:
1. Allow underqualified students into college over qualified students because of their race.
2. Make the police second-guess themselves every time they stop someone because they might have stopped too high a quote of a particular race or gender that day.
3. Hire contractors or government officials based on the quote set for each race.

That's being a little simplistic, don't you think? Of course that happens in some places, but it's stupid to assume that just because quotas happen in some areas that they happen everywhere else.

And in response to the whining about the quotas, yeah, sure, I bet that when the average citizen sits down to move somehwere, say, for a job or something, the first thing they do is sit down, pull out their hand-dandy copy of the lastest US Census (I know I have on just sitting around) and check to see how many Chinese people live in a given area.

Sure, there are racists. Sure, there are more equalists than racists. Sure, racists are going to be racist and not like black people or mexicans or whatever. But, the just realize that inofrmation itslef is not bad, the people that use it are. The gov. needs the Census to accurately determine how many people are in the US.

Unfortunatly there is not news like bad news. Even when the United States basic only form of news was newspapers, if there was a murder the papers would always sell out. That being said, as a viewer you have the right to turn off fox news. Fox gets jumped on a lot. I watch cnn because I think they attempt to stay independent, they are not perfect by any means. However, there does seem to be a lot of liberals who are not watching fox news. So I dont know realy why that would be. But speaking independently I do know that lately they have messed up one some stories, not that I'm saying I expect them to be perfect. But when bad news hits, all news stations jump at the chance to report it first. I think because they jump, they will be willing to get bad info and still go on the air. The point of the news should be to inform, but then again there are many things in life that seem to be wrong.

California, not too long ago, tried to get a law passed forbidding the collection of racial data by anyone other than hospitals for research purposes, sponsored by conservatives. It went down to defeat because of the iron grip of the liberal base their, who knew that if no racial data were collected, they couldn't:
1. Allow underqualified students into college over qualified students because of their race.
2. Make the police second-guess themselves every time they stop someone because they might have stopped too high a quote of a particular race or gender that day.
3. Hire contractors or government officials based on the quote set for each race.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Myth piled on top of manure on top of myth on top of manure ....

Its manure and myths all the way down!

Complete and utter bullshit.

Myth piled on top of manure on top of myth on top of manure ....

Its manure and myths all the way down!

You may feel my opinions are a pile of manure (you wouldn't be the first! :D ),
but it is no myth that such a law, the California Racial Privacy Initiative, was indeed proposed back in 2003, but defeated by the voters. Here is one source:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/findlaw.analysis.chemerinsky.race/

And another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99405,00.html

You may feel my opinions are a pile of manure (you wouldn't be the first! :D ),
but it is no myth that such a law, the California Racial Privacy Initiative, was indeed proposed back in 2003, but defeated by the voters. Here is one source:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/findlaw.analysis.chemerinsky.race/

And another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99405,00.html

I don't deny that there was such an initiative. It is one of the only true things in your post.

The crap about "the iron grip of the liberal base," "underqualified students," and quotas was all make-believe.

I don't deny that there was such an initiative. It is one of the only true things in your post.

The crap about "the iron grip of the liberal base," "underqualified students," and quotas was all make-believe.
Fact: the legislature in California is overwhelmingly, almost veto-proof, made up of Democrats, the vast majority of which would be classified as liberal.

Where I was wrong: Proposition 209 abolished affirmative action in California, so I guess the California Racial Initiative wouldn't affect that. Also, I perhaps could have clarified in my numbered statements that those were my opinions, not statements of fact.

Fact: Texas recently passed a law requiring the collection of racial data for every stop made by a policeman. The policeman's union, and individual lawmen themselves, have stated this practice has inhibited their ability to enforce the law to the best of their ability.

I guess any OPINION contrary to your own must be "make-believe".

Fact: the legislature in California is overwhelmingly, almost veto-proof, made up of Democrats, the vast majority of which would be classified as liberal.

Where I was wrong: Proposition 209 abolished affirmative action in California, so I guess the California Racial Initiative wouldn't affect that. Also, I perhaps could have clarified in my numbered statements that those were my opinions, not statements of fact.

Fact: Texas recently passed a law requiring the collection of racial data for every stop made by a policeman. The policeman's union, and individual lawmen themselves, have stated this practice has inhibited their ability to enforce the law to the best of their ability.

I guess any OPINION contrary to your own must be "make-believe".

Um, you just admitted that several of your points were completely in error -- i.e., make-believe.

And, we happen to have a Republican Governor. Perhaps you've heard of him?

EDIT: I'm not going to continue arguing these off-topic points. We're hijacking the thread.

Rascist well i dont know about that although i wouldnt be surprised. What i do know is that it is the most right wing propaganduss republican bullshit any monkey with an IQ lower than that of my goldfish could hope for. If you didnt get that i was talking about Bush. Everything on it is twisted and corrupted to suit the souless republican narrow minded (most probably rascist) view of the world.

Rascist well i dont know about that although i wouldnt be surprised. What i do know is that it is the most right wing propaganduss republican bullshit any monkey with an IQ lower than that of my golfish could hope for. If you didnt get that i was talking about Bush. Everything on it is twisted and corrupted to suit the souless republican narrow minded (most probably rascist) view of the world.

Whats a golfish? Is that a type of monkey? ;)

Um, you just admitted that several of your points were completely in error -- i.e., make-believe.

And, we happen to have a Republican Governor. Perhaps you've heard of him?
Perhaps you should examine some of your own erroneous statements.
"Complete and utter bullshit."

Apparently not, as you have admitted there was indeed such an initiative as I described.

"Myth ..."

Myth means a fictional event. I did not describe a fictional event, I described an actual event.

"Several" does not mean one. If you read more closely, I only admitted error on the second of my opinions.

The opinions I listed were not necessarily limited to California, but general issues when dealing with race across the country, if you need further clarification.

A Republican governor does no good when the legislature he is dealing with is of the opposite party, and not just a small majority, one capable of overriding his vetoes with only a few defections from his own party.

EDIT: Apologies to the thread owner for brief hijacking. Goodnight all.

Democrats rule republicans drool (the only republican president i ever liked was teddy roosevelt)

Democrats rule republicans drool (the only republican president i ever liked was teddy roosevelt)
and he was liberal.

and he was liberal.

The correct term was progressive republican altough that movement kind of died with him most unfortunate we might actually have a good republican party now adays if it hadnt died with him.

Democrats rule republicans drool (the only republican president i ever liked was teddy roosevelt)
No love for Lincoln?

The correct term was progressive republican altough that movement kind of died with him most unfortunate we might actually have a good republican party now adays if it hadnt died with him.
Way off the original topic here, but what the hell--the progressive Republican movement didn't die with Roosevelt. It died after Nixon went down to corruption and the cultural conservatives sealed their grasp on the party. They were strengthened by Reagan and are dominant now--sorry to say--in part because of a lap dog media led by Fox News. (See how I brought that around to the original topic again?)

Way off the original topic here, but what the hell--the progressive Republican movement didn't die with Roosevelt. It died after Nixon went down to corruption and the cultural conservatives sealed their grasp on the party. They were strengthened by Reagan and are dominant now--sorry to say--in part because of a lap dog media led by Fox News. (See how I brought that around to the original topic again?)
nice...that was smooth and it makes sense too. Just like my junior history teacher--go off on tangents about sandwiches--and still manage to bring it back to the topic! Totally true, too. (sadly)

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I did want to comment on the references to BBC as a superior source of information/news. With respect to Fox, yes it has far higher standards of journalistic integrity; however, it also has its draw backs. In many issues the BBC has been known to over empathize many "unimportant" points beyond that of the US's 24hr networks.

That said, the best reporting that I have stumbled upon has been from France. It is dull, dry, and almost so boring it is painful to view for prolonged periods of time, but it does, in a good 90% of the stories I’ve followed with it, state clear facts without spin. In the 10% that it has had noticeable spin, it was expected and easy still get the fact from the source if you had some basic history about it.

Now, if you don't happen to speak French (and believe me my French linguistic skills are pretty low, I can just barley make out the stories (I need close-captioning on and sometimes I need to look up the transcripts (which is pretty hard) to translate them for full understanding) or lack access to French news sources, PBS and NPR (NPR can be notably liberal in its "fun shows," such as "wait-wait don't tell me," but its reporting is indeed top notch) are your best bet for news. For PBS commentary shows, I love the Mcloghin group (I know I spelt it wrong, please don't sue me), and it is hosted by a conservative. Doesn't bug me.

Anyway, the point I was attempting to make before I rambled off, was that even the BBC has weaknesses in its reporting, so do the French (because it is so darn boring it is hard to pay attention and draw conclusions in some situations), heck and so do PBS and NPR. The question then becomes to which degree of specifics do you want to know. If you just want a glazing of facts and commentary thrown in: Fox is your best bet. It won't educate you about he world or its workings, but it will tell you what is going on. If you want facts, pick French. And if you want to have a good middle ground PBS, BBC, and NPR are your best bets (from what I have gained in my attempts to gain information from the news).

I laugh everytime they say "Fair and balanced". I'm sure some people actually believe it, which is sad. I mean O'reilly?Ann Coulter? They are almost conservative extremists(which is quite the contradiction!) especially Coulter.

I laugh everytime they say "Fair and balanced". I'm sure some people actually believe it, which is sad. I mean O'reilly?Ann Coulter? They are almost conservative extremists(which is quite the contradiction!) especially Coulter.
it's such blatant consumer fraud and no one does anything! Like I said earlier, whenever they say that and fly that convincing slogan around the screen with the American flag in the background, I just laugh...then I get mad and hit the TV...then I cry.

Except for the last quote and perhaps the french one, those weren't really racist. Callous, yes. Racist, no.

I laugh everytime they say "Fair and balanced". I'm sure some people actually believe it, which is sad. I mean O'reilly?Ann Coulter? They are almost conservative extremists(which is quite the contradiction!) especially Coulter.

Coulter doesn’t have a show on Fox News, and O’Reilly gets hate mail from the left and the right.

Of course not. There's no vapid pawn of the Network to tell them what to think and say. How's a Fox defender supposed to reply here?

Reply to what exactly?
Leftist propaganda that the media is incredibly racist, or identifying a persons racial type in a census, is now considered racist? :rolleyes:
Its the dope isnt it?

Foxnews is not racist that's rediculous. Their shows are entertianing, their commentary is predictable, but fairly MAINSTREAM. I think they do have a conservative slant but who cares. CNN has a liberal slant, I dont care about that either. If you dont like foxnews then dont watch it. I agree that public radio news is probably the fairest, come to think of it, every time I listen to thier news, it's actually BBC. They must have some arrangement? For all you bros&sis overseas I gotta tell you that in america the truth will come out, eventually. There's no conspiracy, money (Ratings) drives the whole thing. The best way to boost ratings is to get the scoop, whether the story follows your personal ideology or not.

Foxnews is not racist that's rediculous. Their shows are entertianing, their commentary is predictable, but fairly MAINSTREAM. I think they do have a conservative slant but who cares. CNN has a liberal slant, I dont care about that either. If you dont like foxnews then dont watch it. I agree that public radio news is probably the fairest, come to think of it, every time I listen to thier news, it's actually BBC. They must have some arrangement? For all you bros&sis overseas I gotta tell you that in america the truth will come out, eventually. There's no conspiracy, money (Ratings) drives the whole thing. The best way to boost ratings is to get the scoop, whether the story follows your personal ideology or not.

1: FOX News is hardly mainstream.

2: Even if it was, being "mainstream" wouldn't justify the utter bullshit they spew.

1: FOX News is hardly mainstream.

2: Even if it was, being "mainstream" wouldn't justify the utter bullshit they spew.
They are mainstream, in fact most americans get their 24 hour news from them, not just some fringe group of whackos. You just hate them because your own liberal slant conflicts with their conservative slant. Get over it.

They are mainstream, in fact most americans get their 24 hour news from them, not just some fringe group of whackos. You just hate them because your own liberal slant conflicts with their conservative slant. Get over it.

Naw, I couldn't possibly hate them because their "news" is utter bullshit and complete garbage. Oh, and the fact that they're a part of a huge attack machine makes things so much better.

They are mainstream, in fact most americans get their 24 hour news from them, not just some fringe group of whackos. You just hate them because your own liberal slant conflicts with their conservative slant. Get over it.

Since when?

Since when?

You know where he got that statistic? FOX News. They're the ones who came up with it, after all, so it must be true!

Naw, I couldn't possibly hate them because their "news" is utter bullshit and complete garbage. Oh, and the fact that they're a part of a huge attack machine makes things so much better.
Answer me this, What news network broke the story on Dubya's DUI? Clue-(rhymes with box hews) Why? The scoop outweighs all ideology in news. They attack whoever has it coming. For the scoop, for the ratings, for the money!!! Get it?

I'm not some foxnews fanboy, In fact I am really not much of a tv guy, I mainly stick with PBR. I just think it's rediculous how you guys are demonizing them. Plus, I kind of like that Neil Cavuto guy, he's allright.

I laugh everytime they say "Fair and balanced". I'm sure some people actually believe it, which is sad. I mean O'reilly?Ann Coulter? They are almost conservative extremists(which is quite the contradiction!) especially Coulter.

No contradiction at all, unfortunately. 'Conservative extremists' are, however, better known as 'fascists'. And don't try telling me that equating Ann Coulter and her ilk with jackbooted thugs and anti-intellectualism is unfair, unseemly, or unthinkable.

It's been a long day. Feh.

Democrats rule republicans drool (the only republican president i ever liked was teddy roosevelt)

I could say that Republicans rule (and they do, at least right now :p) and democrats drool. That doesn't make it accurate. No one party is better than the other.

Coulter doesn’t have a show on Fox News, and O’Reilly gets hate mail from the left and the right.

And he puts both of them on the air. Yep fair and balanced in my book :D

They are mainstream, in fact most americans get their 24 hour news from them, not just some fringe group of whackos. You just hate them because your own liberal slant conflicts with their conservative slant. Get over it.

Not to mention, they dominate the cable news. I know you said it but most of their shows pull better ratings than those on the other networks. They're jealous because of it.

Since when?

I think he's talking about the fact that Fox News gets higher ratings.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/june05ranker.pdf

I'm not some foxnews fanboy, In fact I am really not much of a tv guy, I mainly stick with PBR. I just think it's rediculous how you guys are demonizing them. Plus, I kind of like that Neil Cavuto guy, he's allright.

He's got a fat head! :D

Sorry couldn't help it. Yea he is good though I still like Tony snow and Sheppard Smith better.

Brit Hume thinks it's time to invest:

Quote:
I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."


If it is true he had said this, then I will say this about him.

What a vile, vile, nasty little 'man' or rather, nob.

So nice you think you can make a profit out of people's death.

Did you think this when Americans died on September 11th, or just when it is non-Americans who are dying?

Is that what you think about British lives? Come to London! Tell the injured and the dying, their relatives and friends and all of the British people your views! Come on! Ye who advocates capitalising out of death!

I hope your views are not what the majority of Americans thought, and Americans distance themselves from these comments.



Kilmeade thinks the attacks were a good thing for the Western world:

I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.


Would he have said this if it happened in America?


The day before the attack, Fox's Gibson wrote:

Quote:
So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.


Which is why he wrote yesterday that it would be good if France was bombed:

Quote:
The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.


What a charming man, ranks with Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi for rhetoric advocating killings.



Even though the attacks were targeted at Arab areas of London, finally Fox assures us that Arabs living in London are not real Londoners:

Quote:
these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of nonarab people living in London.


This is about as offensive as coverage can get.


Disgusting.


Then again--this is Fox News we're talking about, so I'm not really surprised by it.



Just thinking of that channel makes me want to vomit. All over them.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Myth piled on top of manure on top of myth on top of manure ....

Its manure and myths all the way down!


*tosses you a cookie* :D yeah.

Ann Coulter is a scary she-witch who just yaks her head off spewing split-pea soup and throwing catholics priest around...

no wait... that's the Exorcist...

close enough.

Fox should not even be allowed to call what they do "news"

I'll report, you decide..lol

You can watch the whole thing.. at the top of the page there is a link to watch the program... All you need is Media Player or Quick Time.

Fox Is NOT News! (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html)

I think he's talking about the fact that Fox News gets higher ratings.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/june05ranker.pdf
Which is true, for what it's worth--the original poster did qualify it properly when he/she said that more people get their 24-hour news from Fox than anywhere else (if you can call what Fox provides news, but that's another, more existential question for another time).

However, Fox News is not the major source for news for people in the US, which is what I imagine Cat-Tribe understood the original poster to mean. The networks still out pull the cable news channels by a factor of at least 4, and perhaps as many as 10.

I could say that Republicans rule (and they do, at least right now :p) and democrats drool. That doesn't make it accurate.You're right. It doesn't make it accurate. :D

If you don't like the views in Fox you could always hit the 'program up' button and change to CNN or some other US news network (whichi don't know as i am a brit).

If you don't like the views in Fox you could always hit the 'program up' button and change to CNN or some other US news network (whichi don't know as i am a brit).
That's not really the issue here. My point in starting the thread was more to show the attitude Fox News brings to their "reporting"--in this case, a racist slant.

That's not really the issue here. My point in starting the thread was more to show the attitude Fox News brings to their "reporting"--in this case, a racist slant.Since I don't really watch Fox news I'll say only this. A TV station will have a tendency to share the personal views of the people/entity that finance and or run and or edit the said TV station.

If the people in charge are racist than it's likely the station will be racist as well.

Q: Who's the man in charge at FoxNews?

Coulter doesn’t have a show on Fox News, and O’Reilly gets hate mail from the left and the right.

She does'nt have a 'regular' show, but she is used in panals and sometime gets her own specials. Which is totally unacceptable.

Is Fox racist? I don't think it is. Is it biased? YES

Which is true, for what it's worth--the original poster did qualify it properly when he/she said that more people get their 24-hour news from Fox than anywhere else (if you can call what Fox provides news, but that's another, more existential question for another time).

However, Fox News is not the major source for news for people in the US, which is what I imagine Cat-Tribe understood the original poster to mean. The networks still out pull the cable news channels by a factor of at least 4, and perhaps as many as 10.

As well as more people cumulatively watch CNN for news during a day than Fox News does.

Fox has higher ratings for average viewers at a particular time. That is a different assertion than saying more people get their 24-hour news from Fox than anywhere else.

Most Americans get their 24-hour news from CNN.

(BTW, all that post shows is viewers for particular shows. Not for networks.)

That's not really the issue here. My point in starting the thread was more to show the attitude Fox News brings to their "reporting"--in this case, a racist slant.

Even if the guy called white Londoners "regular," what does that prove? Maybe something about the guy, but not the entire network, and it's doubtful that the guy meant to say that non-white British citizens are any less a part of that country. Meh.

I personally can't take much t.v. news. Anything I need to know is online, with unlimited commentary on any issue, if I choose to read it. However, I'll quite often read a Weblog where the author has a note saying "I'll be on Fox News (MSN, CNN, etc.) tonight!" It's nice to put a face to someone's writing sometimes, and entertaining, too.

Is Fox racist? I don't think it is. Is it biased? YES

But aren't they all? CNN certainly is.

But aren't they all? CNN certainly is.
Of course every major media outlet is biased. It is impossible to find a truly unbiased story, whether it's on TV, in the newspaper or online. CNN is biased, FOX is biased, MSNBC is biased....they all are. The point here is that FOX is a proponent of the GOP agenda and a mouthpiece of Bush himself, and that FOX speaks directly to the white male, which has been, for the most part in the past, fiercely racist. FOX hasn't lost that appeal.

The point here is that FOX is a proponent of the GOP agenda and a mouthpiece of Bush himself, and that FOX speaks directly to the white male, which has been, for the most part in the past, fiercely racist. FOX hasn't lost that appeal.

Hell yeah.. stick it to the white male, brotha'.. :) I'm so in..

Hell yeah.. stick it to the white male, brotha'.. :) I'm so in..
lol

That's not really the issue here. My point in starting the thread was more to show the attitude Fox News brings to their "reporting"--in this case, a racist slant.

Racist how? You posted a half-dozen quotes, of which only the last made any mention of race. Big deal.

lol

Fight the Power! Who's with me?

Fight the Power! Who's with me?

No thanks.
*Releases hounds and cocks shotgun.

Fox News racist?

Of course!!!!

Are some Americans so ignorant they don't know the difference between an Arab and a South Asian? and they can both be British. Liverpool Street , Aldgate is the heart of the Bangladeshi community in London and they still referred to them as Arabs, so in their mentality anyone who has a brown face is an Arab!

Basically according to FOX, you cannot win an argument unless you are Christian, American and conservative.

"Fair and unbias"....my ass.

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I did want to comment on the references to BBC as a superior source of information/news. With respect to Fox, yes it has far higher standards of journalistic integrity

See, funny thing - to me, that's all that matters in a news programme. Y'know, that the journalists behave like journalists and not commentators. That they give you the news, not their own opinions. Just because anchormen and women are revered in the States as sources of delicious, prime information and correct opinion does not mean they are right to be considered as such. See Part I.E.2. here (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html).

I've recently begun watching American news, as some of it is broadcast early in the morning on BBC News 24. It is ABC World News. However, I have seen CNN and FOX in the past, on numerous occasions, and what is fascinatingly different is the nature of soundbytes. Politicians, celebrities, influential figures; these people are not used to make points. The anchors are used to make the points, and the politicians etc. back them up. To paraphrase from something the other night:

Anchor: ...in fact, some leading scientists think this new gender test may lead to an increase in abortions.
Leading Scientist: I think that this new gender test may lead to an increase in abortions.
Anchor: The new test...

If this were BBC, the soundbyte[s] would be 10-25 seconds and contain a lot more information than the anchor had provided. This is a recurring theme; I'm not just quoting one example.

however, it also has its draw backs. In many issues the BBC has been known to over empathize many "unimportant" points beyond that of the US's 24hr networks.

Please - unbiased, honest question, because I don't know what Americans think of the Beeb - give me examples of this.

That said, the best reporting that I have stumbled upon has been from France. It is dull, dry, and almost so boring it is painful to view for prolonged periods of time, but it does, in a good 90% of the stories I’ve followed with it, state clear facts without spin. In the 10% that it has had noticeable spin, it was expected and easy still get the fact from the source if you had some basic history about it.

I don't speak enough French to comment on such a thing; I'll have to take your word for it.

...PBS and NPR (NPR can be notably liberal in its "fun shows," such as "wait-wait don't tell me," but its reporting is indeed top notch) are your best bet for news. For PBS commentary shows, I love the Mcloghin group (I know I spelt it wrong, please don't sue me), and it is hosted by a conservative. Doesn't bug me.

Funny, that, that PBS, paid for by the public, you note to be "top notch". You are aware that the BBC is neither state-funded nor sponsored or owned by corporate backers? Just because it's the British Broadcasting Corporation does not mean it's government. A point which was very clearly illustrated recently by the story of Andrew Gilligan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan).

The question then becomes to which degree of specifics do you want to know.

No intent to sound patronising (but it's quite difficult not to), but: If I want news, I'd like to know everything that is known. I don't turn on the news to get told what to think, I do it so I can work out what to think, and in some cases why the important people think as they do (so as to work out if they're talking out of their arses or not). In regards to London, I do not consider details about the bombs superfluous. I do not consider details about the people involved, should any be shown from CCTV, superfluous. I do not consider details about my politicians' affairs superfluous, because as America knows the difference between being impeached for having an affair and being impeached for lying in Congress is an important one, but one which is becoming ever more blurry.

If you just want a glazing of facts and commentary thrown in: Fox is your best bet.

Allow me to demonstrate the fallacy of arguing this is acceptable news practice:

If you just want five minutes spent cooking the ham but a whole bunch of strawberries thrown in the oven with it: Delia is your best bet.

It won't educate you about he world or its workings, but it will tell you what is going on.

It won't feed you well, but it will give you enough to prevent you dying until tomorrow morning.

Would you go back to Delia's restaurant?

Overall, I apologise if I have been a little rude at any point during my post; it's been a long night, so please forgive. To cut a long story short, Bela Telax, I disagree with your contention that a news network merely needs to provide "a glazing of news and commentary". This is exactly how news is edited and spun; only when all the information available is provided can people make up their own minds. Things may be withheld by the police, but if they are released (and relevant) by the police then it is the press' obligation, the very definition of their work, to reveal that information to the public. The press must not compromise journalistic integrity in the face of political agendas; this is far more dangerous than keeping information withheld "for the public safety/the moral safety of the nation".

Now, if you don't mind, Silverstone's on.

She does'nt have a 'regular' show, but she is used in panals and sometime gets her own specials. Which is totally unacceptable.

Is Fox racist? I don't think it is. Is it biased? YES

When has Ann Coulter ever had a special? I’d really like to know since I find her hilarious. It is true that she is a Fox News contributor, but so is Wesley Clark.

Orignally Posted by: New Watenho
To cut a long story short, Bela Telax, I disagree with your contention that a news network merely needs to provide "a glazing of news and commentary". This is exactly how news is edited and spun; only when all the information available is provided can people make up their own minds. Things may be withheld by the police, but if they are released (and relevant) by the police then it is the press' obligation, the very definition of their work, to reveal that information to the public. The press must not compromise journalistic integrity in the face of political agendas; this is far more dangerous than keeping information withheld "for the public safety/the moral safety of the nation".

I just wanted to clarify something, I had no intention of accepting that "a glazing of news and commentary" was appropriate. In fact it is in my personal opinion that everyone should have access to all information. But realistically, not many people have the time, patience, or effort to take in all of this information and synthesize it; hence, why Fox exists. I, in no way, like Fox. I think what it does is deplorable and outright evil for attempting to dumb down information to continue an agenda, the same goes for many other news sources. But I do not have the power, nor do I want the power, to stop them because I feel everyone has the right to say whatever they wish, just so long as they put it into the context that: This is Opinion, and This is Fact!

Fox doesn't do this and it irritates the hell out of me, but for a large portion of Americans it is exactly what they want from the news. So doesn't look like I can stop them.

I find that this following table is somewhat relevant to discussing the topic.
Media source Respondants believing WMD had been found in Iraq since the war ended
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print media 17%
PBS-NPR 11%

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

In judging these numbers may the record show that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq since the war ended.

Chris Bowers over at My DD (http://mydd.com) has done some work on Fox News' coverage of the London bombings that I found more than a little enlightening. I'll recreate the post here in its entirety.

Then again--this is Fox News we're talking about, so I'm not really surprised by it.


Fox news. You have to love it.

They are mainstream, in fact most americans get their 24 hour news from them, not just some fringe group of whackos. You just hate them because your own liberal slant conflicts with their conservative slant. Get over it.
Yeah because we all know popular = good :rolleyes:

Regarding the original statement made by the fox new correspondant that incited this thrashing of a network whose comedy gold far outweighs any bandwagon conservative support (I don't remember it being this way during the Clinton years...), it is entirely possible for one to justify a linguistic distinction between regular, meaning average, londoners and arab londoners, people of a religion, culture, and heritage similar to those deemed responsible for the attack. Jews have words for people not of their faith, and these words are innoffensive. Yes, the correspondant should have known better than to say anything which could be misconstrued, should it immediately be jumped upon as racist? I think not.

Yeah because we all know popular = good :rolleyes:

And that americans always collectively make the best choices ^_^

And that americans always collectively make the best choices ^_^
People in general not just americans

People in general not just americans

Of course, but in light of recent times, someone deserves the title more than others