NationStates Jolt Archive

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.

Why, why do you hate God, freedom, and apple sex!?!!!!


Bastard!


Schmuck!


Educated bastard

I'm out of stuff now

Why, why do you hate God, freedom, and apple sex!?!!!!


Bastard!


Schmuck!


Educated bastard

I'm out of stuff now

It's better than scratching my nads all day.

I wonder if the reporter managed to say Fair & Balanced with a straight face after reading this story...

It's better than scratching my nads all day.

Dude, NOTHING is better than scratching your nads all day.:D

Dude, NOTHING is better than scratching your nads all day.:D

What about having a very hot woman scratch your nads all day?

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

No, he can't stop proving it. The right-wing has yet to demonstrate that it's capable of retaining this rather critical information for any discernable length of time.

Nazz: keep at it. Let me know if you need to borrow my ballpeen hammer.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

Well, you're completely free to not click on any thread that you feel might make you nauseous. I do it all the time.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

If they don't want people to keep pointing out they ae being stupid then they should stop doing stupid things.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

But... but... isn't left-wing glee rather the point? What's wrong with left-wing glee? Or, you know, glee in general?

Well, you're completely free to not click on any thread that you feel might make you nauseous. I do it all the time.
My point is that you're overdoing it in a way that makes you look just as biased as they are, quite honestly.

But... but... isn't left-wing glee rather the point? What's wrong with left-wing glee? Or, you know, glee in general?
Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.

My point is that you're overdoing it in a way that makes you look just as biased as they are, quite honestly.

Nazz isn't a network news channel with millions of viewers.

There is no such thing as a victorious withdrawal. By leaving Iraq to the sectarian wolves, we are conceding defeat. No one but the extreme left could consider full-scale, unmitigated civil war anything but a loss.

Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.

Oh... Okay. I'm not gonna argue there, because I'm tired and hurting, and frankly, what's left wing radical in one country is fascist in another, so... All depends on your point of view.

There is no such thing as a victorious withdrawal.

So the U.S. lost WWI and II, Korea, and Iraq war part I?

Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.
So your actual point of contention is gibberish?

So the U.S. lost WWI and II, Korea, and Iraq war part I?

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing. The enemy was annihilated and the war won. The sectarian militias are still going at it; the Nazis are not.

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing.

But we still withdrew, did we not? This isn't going anywhere, but I hoped you learned something about absolutes.

I couldn't decide between fair and balanced, so I just closed my eye and picked :p

Nazz isn't a network news channel with millions of viewers.
You're right. He's a person I respect, though that respect has decreased a bit recently thanks to him acting as foolishly as Eve, Myrmi, or others opposing him politically.
So your actual point of contention is gibberish?

...how is that gibberish?

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing. The enemy was annihilated and the war won. The sectarian militias are still going at it; the Nazis are not.

Wait?!@?! The enemy was annihilated in Iraq?

It says right there "9:01 PT" That means it's 9:01 and on the West Coast. You should be able to find what is on then.

But... but... isn't left-wing glee rather the point? What's wrong with left-wing glee? Or, you know, glee in general?

:D <--- Se this? This is my GLEE face!

Wait?!@?! The enemy was annihilated in Iraq?

I mean for you to take no offense to this but you need to learn how to read.

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.
Here's the obvious question that wouldn't occur to any of you in the mutual admiration society. How do we know it isn't Photoshopped? It sure isn't leading the list of topics at Media Matters, is it?

Here's the obvious question that wouldn't occur to any of you in the mutual admiration society. How do we know it isn't Photoshopped? It sure isn't leading the list of topics at Media Matters, is it?

That's actually a possible valid point. Frankly, though, given what Fox News has shown in the past I am more inclined to believe it is real unless proven otherwise.

I mean for you to take no offense to this but you need to learn how to read.

Ok what am I missing?

So the U.S. lost WWI and II, Korea, and Iraq war part I?

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing. The enemy was annihilated and the war won.

Here's the obvious question that wouldn't occur to any of you in the mutual admiration society. How do we know it isn't Photoshopped? It sure isn't leading the list of topics at Media Matters, is it?

Crooks and Liars has a reputation to uphold. They've worked hard to get it, and I have no reason to believe they'd piss it away over something like this.

Ok what am I missing?

...uh...the obvious fact that he is referring to the Gulf War and not the current war?

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing. The enemy was annihilated and the war won. The sectarian militias are still going at it; the Nazis are not.

How bout Korea? How is that going?

Crooks and Liars has a reputation to uphold. They've worked hard to get it, and I have no reason to believe they'd piss it away over something like this.
I am surprised that MM doesn't lead off with a silver bullet like this...except that 6 Pacific is 9 Eastern and that puts it in the lead in to Hannity and Colmes.

Shucks Nazz, it's another show that is based on commentary. Again, you have failed to nail a Fox news program to the door of bias.

I am surprised that MM doesn't lead off with a silver bullet like this...except that 6 Pacific is 9 Eastern and that puts it in the lead in to Hannity and Colmes.

Shucks Nazz, it's another show that is based on commentary. Again, you have failed to nail a Fox news program to the door of bias.

I think you have it backwards. It's 9:01 Pacific, which would make it either midnight or noon Eastern--I don't see an am or pm on the chyron--and that puts it outside the realm of commentary time, I believe.

Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.

And they call Americans abrasive, arrogant, and ideologically monolithic...

And they call Americans abrasive, arrogant, and ideologically monolithic...

How refreshing.

Hey, uh, Nazz?

WE KNOW. You can stop proving to us that Fox News is a right-winged piece of shit. We know that. Now you're just beating us over the head with it in a celebration of American left-wing glee that's beginning to make me sick.

In movies, many would have lived if they'd just pumped one more round into the killer/beast/thing to make sure it was dead before relaxing. He's merely taking this as a metaphor, and translating it to RL in a healthy and intelligent way.

My point is that you're overdoing it in a way that makes you look just as biased as they are, quite honestly.


Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.

What exactly are you referring to as center right? Does legalizing gay marriage, l group marriage, prostitution and marijuana and several other drugs, and getting religion out of schools and the government count as "center right"? Or am I still a lefty?

I couldn't decide between fair and balanced, so I just closed my eye and picked :p

What was wrong with "you go to hell and you die!"?

You're right. He's a person I respect, though that respect has decreased a bit recently thanks to him acting as foolishly as Eve, Myrmi, or others opposing him politically.

Bwaaa? :confused: How exactly has he done this? :confused:

...uh...the obvious fact that he is referring to the Gulf War and not the current war?

What about the fact that we left Gulf 1 before victory? Or am I misremembering Sadam still being alive and in charge when we left the first time?

What about the fact that we left Gulf 1 before victory? Or am I misremembering Sadam still being alive and in charge when we left the first time?

Well the first gulf war wasn't about toppling Saddam regime, it was about getting him out of Kuwait.

Quite clearly fair and balanced.

I think you have it backwards. It's 9:01 Pacific, which would make it either midnight or noon Eastern--I don't see an am or pm on the chyron--and that puts it outside the realm of commentary time, I believe.

You're right about the 9:01 part. That's what I get for not using the glasses I've got at the office. I doubt there's any hard news at midnight, though. That's probably a repeat of one of the earlier shows. In fact, it's a repeat of Hannity and Colmes. Facts are that we're looking at half of a single sample(no audio) from a day of programming. If you want to draw conclusions from that, fine. In the digital world, we'd call it undersampled. In the common sense world, we'd call it bullshit.

Well the first gulf war wasn't about toppling Saddam regime, it was about getting him out of Kuwait.

Really?
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities

You're right about the 9:01 part. That's what I get for not using the glasses I've got at the office. I doubt there's any hard news at midnight, though. That's probably a repeat of one of the earlier shows. In fact, it's a repeat of Hannity and Colmes. Facts are that we're looking at half of a single sample(no audio) from a day of programming. If you want to draw conclusions from that, fine. In the digital world, we'd call it undersampled. In the common sense world, we'd call it bullshit.

If you assume that it is indeed midnight. If it's noon, then it's hard news, and if I'm not mistaken, H&C has a personalized chyron like most commentary shows do. I think this is a hard news period.

And they call Americans abrasive, arrogant, and ideologically monolithic...
I am an American, remember.

In movies, many would have lived if they'd just pumped one more round into the killer/beast/thing to make sure it was dead before relaxing. He's merely taking this as a metaphor, and translating it to RL in a healthy and intelligent way.
I don't have a problem with pointing out how Fox News is bad, because it is. I have a problem with his methods.

What exactly are you referring to as center right? Does legalizing gay marriage, l group marriage, prostitution and marijuana and several other drugs, and getting religion out of schools and the government count as "center right"? Or am I still a lefty?
Oh, you're left-wing, obviously. I'm referring to what is typically considered left-wing in this country by the major parties, rather than specific people. I'm a social libertarian and an economic moderate, but if you ask any average person in the U.S. I'd be considered an extreme-far-lefty.

What about the fact that we left Gulf 1 before victory? Or am I misremembering Sadam still being alive and in charge when we left the first time?
I'm not defending what he's saying there, merely pointing out that he was speaking of the Gulf War. He's still wrong, but if Black Forrest was going to debate him, Forrest should at least debate his points accurately.

I wonder if the reporter managed to say Fair & Balanced with a straight face after reading this story...

It's as fair as anything I've seen on CBS... Or read in the New York Times... or seen in an AP report.... or a Reuters photograph... or heard on Air America...

It's as fair as anything I've seen on CBS... Or read in the New York Times... or seen in an AP report.... or a Reuters photograph... or heard on Air America...

Only on Air America do you get a pass. The other examples are bullshit and you know it--and so does everyone else around here.

It's as fair as anything I've seen on CBS... Or read in the New York Times... or seen in an AP report.... or a Reuters photograph... or heard on Air America...
Another man's centrist is Eve Online's raving left wing nutjob.

Only on Air America do you get a pass. The other examples are bullshit and you know it--and so does everyone else around here.

True, but I wouldn't put it past CBS to eventually do something like this if it meant higher ratings. You know corporate news.

New York Times and AP though...that's a definite no, unless he's talking the opinion pages.

If you assume that it is indeed midnight. If it's noon, then it's hard news, and if I'm not mistaken, H&C has a personalized chyron like most commentary shows do. I think this is a hard news period.
Like I said, it's undersampled. Even on the noon news, it may have been emphasizing a point that a speaker off camera was making. I'm still not discounting the possibility of photoshopping, either. The edges don't look as crisp as on some other video available at the FNN site.

Don't let those other guys discourage you, though. Keep trying to find an incontrovertible example of bias on Fox News Network.

Like I said, it's undersampled. Even on the noon news, it may have been emphasizing a point that a speaker off camera was making. I'm still not discounting the possibility of photoshopping, either. The edges don't look as crisp as on some other video available at the FNN site.

Don't let those other guys discourage you, though. Keep trying to find an incontrovertible example of bias on Fox News Network.

Why must you live in denial about this? Why are you so wrapped up in defending such an openly conservative news outlet?

Like I said, it's undersampled. Even on the noon news, it may have been emphasizing a point that a speaker off camera was making. I'm still not discounting the possibility of photoshopping, either. The edges don't look as crisp as on some other video available at the FNN site.

Don't let those other guys discourage you, though. Keep trying to find an incontrovertible example of bias on Fox News Network.

And if this was the only example of Fox News bias, you might actually have a point about undersampling. It's not, however, and is merely one more example of the bias.

I question why you are so intent on defending the network.

that image can be ver isleading. foxnews has a few commentary shows. during these shows it is opinion that is being discussed. they do have actuall news breaks where they read the news. but during these shows they talk to guests and they show imagesof news footage and they sum up what the guest or what the subject they may be discussing is. so in order for you to go ahead and say fox news is biased you first have to state wether or not that came from the actuall news or commentary/arguement discussion.

someone can do the same thing if they had enough freetime (as it seems the major advocates of saying fox news is biased do) about all the other major news networks.

Why must you live in denial about this? Why are you so wrapped up in defending such an openly conservative news outlet?
See there? That's the problem. It's an objective news outlet, but a conservatively owned and managed network. You, nor anyone else, has been able to present anything to the contrary. We don't jump up and down when the NY Times writes a blisteringly liberal editorial, do we? Of course not, they're expressing the opinions of their editorial board. So why is there so much turmoil over what Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, or even Britt Hume say in the context of commentary?

All I've ever seen to document any of these bias claims are out of context facts that mean absolutely nothing without context. Your latest example is exactly that. We can presuppose that the context either supports bias or it doesn't, but the main argument is that "...on Fox...must be biased" end of argument. Now, I'm not the scholar of argument and debate that Haikuoku, or whatever claims to be, but I can see that is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition to back up the claim.

Why are you so intent on finding bias where there is none? You should start looking at the other media. Haven't you ever noticed that pols with a 'R' following their name is almost always labeled as right wing? Yet, those same institutions that find it necessary to label the 'R' people almost never label any politician as left wing or liberal if they have a 'D' following their name? You can't tell me that Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, or Patrick Leahy are moderates.

Or how about think tanks? How is it that the Heritage Foundation is always labeled "conservative"? Yet the Brookings Institution is never called "liberal" or "left leaning", while they are certainly not a centrist or moderate institution.

It isn't a big deal by itself, but it adds up. Another example of subtle bias was in a story I read about the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was called two wars. It's not two wars, I'm not really sure it's one war. It's really more of an armed occupation. Anyway, all this crap adds up to bias. And it's a lot more prevalent in the old media than it is on Fox News.

Anyhow, I mostly just feel the need to break up the backslapping and self-congratulatory mutual admiration where it doesn't deserve to exist.

See there? That's the problem. It's an objective news outlet,


Thanks for the laugh!

Thanks for the laugh!

Glad to oblige. Everyone ought to have a good laugh each day. I know I do whenever I start reading down the topics on NSG.

So the U.S. lost WWI and II, Korea, and Iraq war part I?

Korea is still legally going on and Iraq War I also ended in a cease-fire.

It says right there "9:01 PT" That means it's 9:01 and on the West Coast. You should be able to find what is on then.

Your World with Neil Cavuto unless I'm mistaken.

Glad to oblige. Everyone ought to have a good laugh each day. I know I do whenever I start reading down the topics on NSG.

:D

For once we agree on something!

Korea is still legally going on and Iraq War I also ended in a cease-fire.

Damn and that didn't even sink in. I claim the cold meds!

If you assume that it is indeed midnight. If it's noon, then it's hard news, and if I'm not mistaken, H&C has a personalized chyron like most commentary shows do. I think this is a hard news period.

It is Hannity and Colmbs that is on at midnight. Their 12 PM news show is not re-aired and that is Fox News Live.

Well, you're completely free to not click on any thread that you feel might make you nauseous. I do it all the time.

You mean you don't do it all the time. To not click, you must not do.

EDIT: And reading this thread makes my brain hurt. Someone telling Nazz to stop trying to prove it because it's so strongly supported while another person is telling Nazz that it's never even been remotely demonstrated. Myrm's got it right. It's fair and balanced. Just like Bush is a uniter not a divider and Clinton didn't know what IS means.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mUO_HEHnhH4J:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html+democrats+are+legislating+defeat+in+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

*points to "Top Video"*

State of America
Hannity: Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq

It wont work though. :confused:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mUO_HEHnhH4J:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html+democrats+are+legislating+defeat+in+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

*points to "Top Video"*

State of America
Hannity: Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq

It wont work though. :confused:

Vindication! I owe you.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mUO_HEHnhH4J:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html+democrats+are+legislating+defeat+in+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

*points to "Top Video"*

State of America
Hannity: Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq

It wont work though. :confused:

And that's Hannity for ya.

You mean you don't do it all the time. To not click, you must not do.

EDIT: And reading this thread makes my brain hurt. Someone telling Nazz to stop trying to prove it because it's so strongly supported while another person is telling Nazz that it's never even been remotely demonstrated. Myrm's got it right. It's fair and balanced. Just like Bush is a uniter not a divider and Clinton didn't know what IS means.

Awww, you do have a sense of humor. I take back all the bad things I said about where you keep that stick.

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.

Gotta love that.

And that's Hannity for ya.

I watched it. Just click on the picture of 'Smilin' Sean'.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mUO_HEHnhH4J:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211562,00.html+democrats+are+legislating+defeat+in+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

*points to "Top Video"*

State of America
Hannity: Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq

It wont work though. :confused:

According to Newshounds it was H&C. What I think is telling that it had to be proved. If this was any fair and balanced news source it would be patently obvious it was not from the actual news. With FOX news there was such a question even to Myrm that he actually considers this vindication.

If FOX were actually fair or balanced then this would be comparable to the vindication I wouldn't feel if someone at work accused me of being a woman and then found out otherwise. The only reason Myrm feels vindicated is because he recognizes their is nothing obvious or even likely about FOX News being fair or balanced.

Vindication! I owe you.

A: "Eric, you're a woman right."
Me: "Nope."
A: "Yes, you are. I think you're a woman."
Me: "That's because you're an idiot. I'm not."
and so on...
B: "I've seen it and he's all man."

Now what's more likely as my response.

1) Yes, of course, I'm a man. This conversation is silly.
2) Vindication! I owe you, B!

I think it's pretty obvious that in that situation most people would react like 1 unless they feel like they really do appear to be a woman, then it would be 2. I cite Myrm as proof that FOX is biased even in the mind of conservatives.

We should just have a Fox News thread. Where everytime we see something ridiculous, frightening or just plain stupid we can post it. Would make it simpler than posting a new thread every time FNC makes an ass out of itself.

Awww, you do have a sense of humor. I take back all the bad things I said about where you keep that stick.

You realize all of the last two sentences are BS, right? If you don't here's some swampl... I mean choice waterfront property for you at just 1000$ an acre.

According to Newshounds it was H&C. What I think is telling that it had to be proved. If this was any fair and balanced news source it would be patently obvious it was not from the actual news. With FOX news there was such a question even to Myrm that he actually considers this vindication.

If FOX were actually fair or balanced then this would be comparable to the vindication I wouldn't feel if someone at work accused me of being a woman and then found out otherwise. The only reason Myrm feels vindicated is because he recognizes their is nothing obvious or even likely about FOX News being fair or balanced.
I guess I was wrong about that stick. It seems to have found it's way back in place.

I think it's a little presumptive for you to think or write for me. My previous position that there have been no proven incidents of bias on Fox News still stands. I correctly speculated that the out of context fact that Nazz so proudly displayed was, indeed, insufficient to prove bias. I'm also relieved that my participation in this edition of "fox is biased" can come to an end.

I guess I was wrong about that stick. It seems to have found it's way back in place.

Hmmmm... let's see if we can figure this out. I make fun of a democrat. No stick. I make fun of a Republican. Stick. Yep, doesn't take much to devise the formula for determining what your reaction will be.

Let X = 1 if Republican and -1 if not.

Let Y= -1 if Myrm thinks I have a stick and 1 if not.

Let Z = 1 if a postive comment and -1 if negative.

XY = Z

I think it's a little presumptive for you to think or write for me. My previous position that there have been no proven incidents of bias on Fox News still stands. I correctly speculated that the out of context fact that Nazz so proudly displayed was, indeed, insufficient to prove bias. I'm also relieved that my participation in this edition of "fox is biased" can come to an end.

Yes, and you're so sure of that, that you cry out VINDICATION! I OWE YOU! when you find proof. It would like me getting exciting for finding evidence of gravity. Instead what it sounds like is how a Anti-Choice person would react if they found proof that life begins at conception.

You see you only feel vindicated when you're don't believe that absent the evidence that anyone should believe your premise "that FOX is fair and balanced". And you're right. Because there is no reason to believe that, so your reaction was justified.

You asked for proof of bias, and I present for the world, MYRM, a raging Republican who doesn't even actually believe that FOX appears fair or balanced.

EDIT: Given the formula, I'm guessing you think this post is because the "stick" is back.

And the thread dies at a screeching halt in 5 pages.

Nice run, guys!

And the thread dies at a screeching halt in 5 pages.

Nice run, guys!

I think it was pretty effective. I know I found the evidence it provided compelling.

I think it was pretty effective. I know I found the evidence it provided compelling.

It certainly was. Myrmi proved he's scared by the reality of Fox News' bias by screaming "vindication!" about anything that might make it look as though it wasn't. Quite telling, all things considered.

It certainly was. Myrmi proved he's scared by the reality of Fox News' bias by screaming "vindication!" about anything that might make it look as though it wasn't. Quite telling, all things considered.

Wait, what? You guys think I'm right? VINDICATION! I owe you one, Kyr!

Wait, what? You guys think I'm right? VINDICATION! I owe you one, Kyr!

<3 Jocabia.

<3 Jocabia.

*feels all warm and fuzzy*

As per usual, the surest way you can see a victory against some of those on the "ebil liberal media" side is to just wait for the silence. It comes when they can no longer refute your points, at all. Considering how weak their support is to begin with, when even they lose faith in their argument, it speaks volumes. *listens to the crickets*

(And if you don't run away from the topic when you get challenged on your assertions, I'm not talking about you.)

Left-wing glee? Nothing. American left-wing glee, on the other hand, is disgusting because it trots itself out as left-wing when it's really centre-right at most.
We can only work with what we have. Left-wing isn't our specialty. But I'd put our extreme right-wing nuts up against yours any day. :D

We can only work with what we have. Left-wing isn't our specialty. But I'd put our extreme right-wing nuts up against yours any day. :D

So...you'd put up American right-wing nuts against American right-wing nuts?

So...you'd put up American right-wing nuts against American right-wing nuts?

Sounds like a perfectly workable concept!

So...you'd put up American right-wing nuts against American right-wing nuts?

Kind of like on Alien: Resurrection where the three drones were in the lab cage, and the two punched through the membranes of the one so its acids would eat through the floor and provide them escape to ever lower levels of the ship and to further malfeasance and mayhem.
Yes, VERY much like that, come to think of it, although the aliens had more charm.

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.

What's a chyron, you 20th-century killjoy? They're called lower-thirds (L3s) now... :p

Yes, VERY much like that, come to think of it, although the aliens had more charm.

And they're already free! We need to act now!

Sounds like a perfectly workable concept!

Perhaps...but we'd have to set up some rules and regulations...given their propensity for cheating we can't just let them at each other rules-free...

What's a chyron, you 20th-century killjoy? They're called lower-thirds (L3s) now... :p

I'm an old fogey, can't keep up with the new terminology, damn kids with their ipods and Lucky Charms, mutter mutter mutter

My point is that you're overdoing it in a way that makes you look just as biased as they are, quite honestly.

Then you don't understand what bias is.

It would be a bias if he were to accuse people like Dennis Kucinich of being right wing. To point out over and over again that an organization whose defenders call balanced over and over again is in fact biased, that's not a bias. It's participating in an ongoing argument in which the other side refuses to acknowledge fact.

Enjoy.
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/fox-legislatingdefeat.jpg

From Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/open-thread-fair-or-balanced/) I only wish they'd let us know which show this was on, because I'm sure someone will claim it was on one of their commentary shows and not a news one. I don't know, but I see nothing in the chyron to suggest it's a commentary spot.
You know what's really telling about this whole discussion? A regular Hannity viewer would have known that the "State of America" thing is apparently a regular feature of his show, spotted it immediately and dispatched this whole thing to the shit can in about ten seconds.

Then you don't understand what bias is.

It would be a bias if he were to accuse people like Dennis Kucinich of being right wing. To point out over and over again that an organization whose defenders call balanced over and over again is in fact biased, that's not a bias. It's participating in an ongoing argument in which the other side refuses to acknowledge fact.
It's in his method of speaking, the way he prances about with it like its a huge present under the tree at Christmas.

...okay, so really I'm just personally annoyed by his mildly antagonistic actions towards Myrmi and the gang on that side, but I'm hardly the only one to shout bias when I hear something I don't like, you know. Not that such a claim excuses my actions, of course.

No, because we subdued our foe prior to withdrawing. The enemy was annihilated and the war won. The sectarian militias are still going at it; the Nazis are not.

If a stray dog attacks your family and you beat the dog into submission, you've won.

If you see two dogs fighting and you go and put yourself in the middle of it, you're a moron.

We beat Iraq. We had their leader executed. We beat Iraq more thoroughly than we ever beat Japan. We also left Japan more intact. We just humiliated their head of state, because we knew that he held the country together. George Bush had Saddam Hussein killed because he knows when the Very Hungry Caterpillar ate several things he wasn't hungry anymore.

What he doesn't know is that that is the principle difference between him and an immature bug. The other is that time will never make the Bush Administration something pleasant to look at.

Perhaps...but we'd have to set up some rules and regulations...given their propensity for cheating we can't just let them at each other rules-free...You can only cheat if there are rules to break. ;)

*feels all warm and fuzzy*

As per usual, the surest way you can see a victory against some of those on the "ebil liberal media" side is to just wait for the silence. It comes when they can no longer refute your points, at all. Considering how weak their support is to begin with, when even they lose faith in their argument, it speaks volumes. *listens to the crickets*

(And if you don't run away from the topic when you get challenged on your assertions, I'm not talking about you.)
You're right. Except that the argument should have been over long ago. In fact, the screen shot was insufficient in and of itself to prove anything. My job was over at that point.

My challenge is still there -- point out a single incident of bias on a news program on the Fox News Network. It can't be done.

Any more discussion is just going around in circles. I talk, you talk, but the topic isn't getting advanced. Now why don't you go help one of you IT customers - that is what you do, isn't it?

You can only cheat if there are rules to break. ;)

I was speaking more about cheating in the sense of fair play, those unwritten rules that make it fair for all, and we know that American right-wing nuts are anything but Fair and Balanced. :D

Myrmi: You know, many incidents of such bias have been pointed out to you. I personally have none at hand but I'm sure Nazz, Jocabia, and others do, so I'll let them speak up. Thing is, you just don't want to listen. You keep shouting for proof then when it's handed to you, you either shout about something that disproves it or you dismiss it out of hand using one reason or another.

You're right. Except that the argument should have been over long ago. In fact, the screen shot was insufficient in and of itself to prove anything. My job was over at that point.

My challenge is still there -- point out a single incident of bias on a news program on the Fox News Network. It can't be done.

Any more discussion is just going around in circles. I talk, you talk, but the topic isn't getting advanced. Now why don't you go help one of you IT customers - that is what you do, isn't it?

Actually, if you omit the pundits (which every news network has), I can't cite any bias as egregious as the Rathergate scandal, or CBS coverage of the last election.

Fox had two known "liberal" pundits on their last election night coverage (two people from National Public Radio who made it obvious that they wanted Kerry to win) along with their usual pro-Republican pundits. Did any of the other news networks have a similar "balance"? Well, I guess CNN tried. CBS didn't even make it a secret that they didn't.

I was speaking more about cheating in the sense of fair play, those unwritten rules that make it fair for all, and we know that American right-wing nuts are anything but Fair and Balanced. :D

Myrmi: You know, many incidents of such bias have been pointed out to you. I personally have none at hand but I'm sure Nazz, Jocabia, and others do, so I'll let them speak up. Thing is, you just don't want to listen. You keep shouting for proof then when it's handed to you, you either shout about something that disproves it or you dismiss it out of hand using one reason or another.

No, it doesn't and yes I do listen. You just don't like the answers. Every single incident that has been reported has fallen into a couple different categories. The incidents have been out of context, where it is impossible to determine whether or not it was produced during a news segment or during an editorial segment, or even during what program it aired. There are other incidents that have clearly been aired in opinion shows such as Hannity, O'Reilly, or the roundtable portions of Special Report.

I'm still waiting for even something as subtle as how Shepard Smith always referring to Nancy Pelosi as the Left-wing Democrat from San Francisco. He doesn't, of course. However, CBS, NBC, and the others have no problem with the right-wing label, yet we don't see Fox do that. Additionally, we don't call MSNBC to task for what happens on Hardball, why are the commentary shows on Fox different? So, until you show me that the news programs on Fox are as biased as the news programs on the other networks, my challenge still stands unmet.

No, it doesn't and yes I do listen. You just don't like the answers. Every single incident that has been reported has fallen into a couple different categories. The incidents have been out of context, where it is impossible to determine whether or not it was produced during a news segment or during an editorial segment, or even during what program it aired. There are other incidents that have clearly been aired in opinion shows such as Hannity, O'Reilly, or the roundtable portions of Special Report.

I'm still waiting for even something as subtle as how Shepard Smith always referring to Nancy Pelosi as the Left-wing Democrat from San Francisco. He doesn't, of course. However, CBS, NBC, and the others have no problem with the right-wing label, yet we don't see Fox do that. Additionally, we don't call MSNBC to task for what happens on Hardball, why are the commentary shows on Fox different? So, until you show me that the news programs on Fox are as biased as the news programs on the other networks, my challenge still stands unmet.

Don't forget that Reuters and AP won't call Islamic militants who blow themselves up "terrorists".

No, it doesn't and yes I do listen. You just don't like the answers. Every single incident that has been reported has fallen into a couple different categories. The incidents have been out of context, where it is impossible to determine whether or not it was produced during a news segment or during an editorial segment, or even during what program it aired. There are other incidents that have clearly been aired in opinion shows such as Hannity, O'Reilly, or the roundtable portions of Special Report.


....but the incidents take place in a context of managment pressure to report a very distinct political line, which comes in the form of both verbal direction and written memo.

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

....but the incidents take place in a context of managment pressure to report a very distinct political line, which comes in the form of both verbal direction and written memo.

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

Just like CBS...

....but the incidents take place in a context of managment pressure to report a very distinct political line, which comes in the form of both verbal direction and written memo.

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
Great. "The Memo" suggests angles. Maybe that's because Fox is sometimes the only alternate point of view on a topic? Maybe that's because they don't want to encourage the hive mentality that Bernie Goldberg exposed at CBS?
Same comments apply to the MM piece.

Okay. I'm out of here until tonight -- maybe. I'm still adding on to the garage and it's hard work. Jocabia, accuse me of what you want, but I've got evals to do for ten engineers and they're all due tomorrow.

It's in his method of speaking, the way he prances about with it like its a huge present under the tree at Christmas.

With FoxNews, every day is Christmas day. It's just sour grapes on your part, Ky.

Great. "The Memo" suggests angles. .

No, it gives an angle. Not really in keeping with "we present the facts". Not really 'fair and balanced'.



Maybe that's because Fox is sometimes the only alternate point of view on a topic?.

So because everybody else is biased to the left, its biased to the right? Still not very 'fair and balanced' then.

Just like CBS...?.

And if this CBS does have memos, and they expose directions to create a left wing bias, how does this invalidate the Fox memos?

You know what's really telling about this whole discussion? A regular Hannity viewer would have known that the "State of America" thing is apparently a regular feature of his show, spotted it immediately and dispatched this whole thing to the shit can in about ten seconds.

Someone who believes there is no merit to this argument would have said, "whatever. Once again it's shown you're wrong about bias." not "Vindication! I owe you one!" exclamation points and all.

Come on, just admit it. You know it's biased. We know it's biased. Why is it so hard for people on both sides to simply admit the truth?

Like I said, Bush is not a uniter, he's a divider. He tore the country in half. Pretending like he ever cared about uniting people, particularly more than any someone like Clinton who was far more broadly popular is just not facing the truth.. Clinton knew what they were asking and lied. He lied. He shouldn't have answered at all and they had no right to ask, but pretending like he didn't lie is denying the truth.

Why is it so hard for some people to be a liberal or a conservative without acting like it's "with us or against us" and other Star Wars dark side crap?

FOX News is a conservative resource supporting the machine. You really have to simply close your eyes to not see that. And you're know someone CAN prove that and this is why you were excited to have slipped out of that noose this time.

It's in his method of speaking, the way he prances about with it like its a huge present under the tree at Christmas.

...okay, so really I'm just personally annoyed by his mildly antagonistic actions towards Myrmi and the gang on that side, but I'm hardly the only one to shout bias when I hear something I don't like, you know. Not that such a claim excuses my actions, of course.

So is it bias to continually present evidence that ID isn't science while people are still trying to push it into classrooms? As long as there are people arguing otherwise, it's reasonable to try and establish a point.

I find it amusing that you're claiming it's beyond proven and that continuing to prove it is ridiculous, while Myrm is saying he's never seen a single example of bias.

Just like CBS...

Yes, just like CBS. CBS exhibited bias and, guess what, acknowledged it as an absurd mistake. We all admit it was a mistake and, pray tell, where is that reporter now? Not on CBS.

FOX does it an the conservative spinmobile rallies the troops and circles the wagons and denies, denies, denies. CBS is an excellent example of how FOX, if it were a real news source actually attempting to be fair or balanced, would handle the repeated and ridiculous examples of bias.

Great. "The Memo" suggests angles. Maybe that's because Fox is sometimes the only alternate point of view on a topic? Maybe that's because they don't want to encourage the hive mentality that Bernie Goldberg exposed at CBS?
Same comments apply to the MM piece.

Okay. I'm out of here until tonight -- maybe. I'm still adding on to the garage and it's hard work. Jocabia, accuse me of what you want, but I've got evals to do for ten engineers and they're all due tomorrow.

So let's see, now there is a bias, the bias you claimed didn't exist and there are no examples of, except that bias is just to balance the scales. Even if the FOX overall creates a more balanced media by existings, which is debatable, that still leaves us with it being biased to right in order to overcome what it views as a bias to the left.

Interesting that you admit a bias while requesting a single example of that bias. Can we say "disingenuous", boys and girls? This stuff is gold.

You know what's really telling about this whole discussion? A regular Hannity viewer would have known that the "State of America" thing is apparently a regular feature of his show, spotted it immediately and dispatched this whole thing to the shit can in about ten seconds.

Indeed.

....but the incidents take place in a context of managment pressure to report a very distinct political line, which comes in the form of both verbal direction and written memo.

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

And yet Fox News offered to make all of their memos public if all the other networks did the same thing. Guess what? The other networks did not do so. That says alot right there.

And yet Fox News offered to make all of their memos public if all the other networks did the same thing. Guess what? The other networks did not do so. That says alot right there.What exactly does it say?

Indeed.

Which shows that most liberals are not regular Hannity viewers? I'm not sure why that matters.

What exactly does it say?

It says that the other networks do not want the public to know how they run things whereas FNC is willing to expose themselves to the public. Other networks did not take them up on it. As I said, that says alot about what goes on behind the scenes.

Why was Fox News the only one willing to show their memos and other networks weren't?

It says that the other networks do not want the public to know how they run things whereas FNC is willing to expose themselves to the public. Other networks did not take them up on it. As I said, that says alot about what goes on behind the scenes.

Why was Fox News the only one willing to show their memos and other networks weren't?Maybe they're engaged in criminal activity. Assuming that their memos are more incriminating than the FNC memos leaked is just as likely as assuming that FNC knew they wouldn't do it, which kept them from showing theirs while giving them a false sympathy bonus.

Maybe they're engaged in criminal activity. Assuming that their memos are more incriminating than the FNC memos leaked is just as likely as assuming that FNC knew they wouldn't do it, which kept them from showing theirs while giving them a false sympathy bonus.

Yes, exactly. Tell you what, Corny, I'll post my SSN if everyone other poster over 10,000 posts, does it?

What? You mean people won't do it? They must have something to hide that I don't.

Yes, exactly. Tell you what, Corny, I'll post my SSN if everyone other poster over 10,000 posts, does it?

What? You mean people won't do it? They must have something to hide that I don't.

Ohhh very nice :rolleyes:

So, what I'm understanding here is that Fox isn't biased, it's just a news network that fills the bulk of its programing with conservative opinion shows that spin the apparent minute and a half of hard news (that has had up to an 8:1 ratio of conservative:liberal speakers and guests) into a hard conservative vein, but that isn't a bias, it's opinion. An opinion that is weighted heavily towards one side, which is an odd interpertation of the word "balanced." Since it is also riddled with opinion, "We report, you decide" seems equally silly.

So.

In what way is Fox a news channel? It seems a news channel in the same way that MTV is a music channel.

In what way is Fox a news channel? It seems a news channel in the same way that MTV is a music channel.To be honest, in what way are any American news channels actually news channels?

To be honest, in what way are any American news channels actually news channels?

Hear Hear!

Hear Hear!
Well, yeah. The larger news channels' business models appear to be based on providing lots of pictures, preferably of violence or other extreme attention-grabbers. Plenty of stories about how you are personally affected by such things as "killer-bees", "stairways to danger" and whatnot. Avoid stories that aren't exciting, unless they absolutely can't be ignored because the President or the US are somehow involved. "If it bleeds, it leads" and "sex sells" are more important than some book fair. Add some exciting music when the anchor talks.

What you get is infotainment, and that isn't news.

Fox is a bit different. Their business model is similar to the above, except that the channel exclusively caters to a very conservative audience, focussing specifically on stories and topics (and then displaying them in a manner) appealing to a very conservative person.

That isn't news either. If anything, it's even less news than what the other channels broadcast.

Hear Hear!

Great! So we can acknowledge that Fox actually is a Conservative channel then and dispense with the embarrassing denials since we acknowledge that it has less to do with news and more to do with programing which in this case is clearly conservative.

Man, that was easy. Why'd we need all these pages?

Great! So we can acknowledge that Fox actually is a Conservative channel then and dispense with the embarrassing denials since we acknowledge that it has less to do with news and more to do with programing which in this case is clearly conservative.

Man, that was easy. Why'd we need all these pages?

Never said it wasn't did I? :D

Never said it wasn't did I? :D

Then you must be a conservative, because no rational conservative would ever you know admit the very obvious bias of FOX News, that would be.... well rational. /sarcasm

In all seriousness, Corny that's a very reasonable thing to say. Good on ya. If only we could other social conservatives to accept the obvious.

Then you must be a conservative, because no rational conservative would ever you know admit the very obvious bias of FOX News, that would be.... well rational. /sarcasm

In all seriousness, Corny that's a very reasonable thing to say. Good on ya. If only we could other social conservatives to accept the obvious.

Just because I debate one way does not mean I can't see the obvious. I see the obvious all the time.

So is it bias to continually present evidence that ID isn't science while people are still trying to push it into classrooms? As long as there are people arguing otherwise, it's reasonable to try and establish a point.

I find it amusing that you're claiming it's beyond proven and that continuing to prove it is ridiculous, while Myrm is saying he's never seen a single example of bias.
You're right...it's not bias. It's the way he acts exactly like Myrmi and others, complete with the snarky comments, the sideways insults, and other methods that frankly have been pissing me off because I respect Nazz and I think he ought to be above such childish methods of debating.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just someone who likes to hear rational debate instead of classroom pissing contests.

Great! So we can acknowledge that Fox actually is a Conservative channel then and dispense with the embarrassing denials since we acknowledge that it has less to do with news and more to do with programing which in this case is clearly conservative.

Man, that was easy. Why'd we need all these pages?
People don't like admitting harsh truths. That's true of all of us, really. I can definitely understand why Myrmi might rally his forces against the claims of bias on the part of Fox News because he really doesn't want to hear it. The truth hurts.

And yet Fox News offered to make all of their memos public if all the other networks did the same thing. Guess what? The other networks did not do so. That says alot right there.


Guess what...It means fuck all because we still have statistically proven skewed content against a background of executive direction towards a conservative editorial line. And yes, even if they all revealed biases towards everything from masons to devil worship, it still doesnt let off Fox.


Just because I debate one way does not mean I can't see the obvious. I see the obvious all the time..

...if only that could be applied to your great ass/elbow dilemma.....

You're right...it's not bias. It's the way he acts exactly like Myrmi and others, complete with the snarky comments, the sideways insults, and other methods that frankly have been pissing me off because I respect Nazz and I think he ought to be above such childish methods of debating.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just someone who likes to hear rational debate instead of classroom pissing contests.

I agree. I think it's hard to rise above such things when their arguments look like "You criticized Democrats. You must have removed that stick from your butt." and "You criticized Republicans, therefore you must have a stick up your butt". The Nazz attacks their arguments and their mothers. (Just kidding, Nazz).

Conservatives often make who you are a part of the debate, making it impossible to leave that idea alone. When Bush presents himself as a uniter (suggesting the previous administration was not) then he's going to get ridiculed when it becomes clear that within a few weeks, the country is more divided than it ever was under the previous several administrations. When he presents himself as restoring honor, he's going to get ridiculed when his administration has scandal every other day.

When FOX News uses terms like "fair and balanced" to describe what they admit is an attempt to tip the scales and terms like "We report the news. You decide." when they majority of their programing uses terms like "evil" and "democrats are betraying America", etc., then they are going to be openly and appropriately ridiculed.

The ridicule is deserved and necessary. Every bit as much as ridicule was appropriate when Clinton has the gall to stand in front of a nation that is convinced he's one of the most intelligent presidents ever and say "I'm sorry I didn't know what you meant with your basic and clear question."

You make ridiculous arguments and repeat them and pound them down people's throats and you're eventually going to see people not just laughing but pointing out to others what they're laughing about. Only FOX News isn't funny because people actually believe those people are telling the truth and they are sharing the moral high ground with Jerry Falwell and Strom Thurmond.

I don't agree with The Nazz on a lot of things, but I understand the ire and the desire to not just show them to be wrong, but completely destroy their argument. I hope The Nazz is successful and that we don't have another administration with such distaste for the rights on which were founded for another 50 years.

The Nazz attacks their arguments and their mothers. (Just kidding, Nazz).
As long as you're talking about the mothers of the arguments (or the muthas making them :D )...

Vindication! I owe you.

A bottle of green apple vodka will be just fine. *nod*

*snip lovely argument*
Now there's a way to debate, Jocabia: nice and rational, without any insults.

I know you're right intellectually...it's just that I hate it when I see people whom I respect, who are arguing fact against someone who refuses to believe the fact, dropping to their level when they're supposed to hold the moral high ground. It's distasteful to me, really, because I do honestly feel one should be above such petty bickering.

Still...I guess that's just how it is. One thing though:
Conservatives often make who you are a part of the debate, making it impossible to leave that idea alone.
THat is hardly limited to conservatives. I'd say it's more a debate tactic by those who either know their argument is flawed but hate the other argument for whatever reason, or have no better argument than to attack the person themselves. Be they conservative or liberal, libertarian or authoritarian, a fan of sports or a fan of science fiction, you're going to see many of them acting just like Myrmi.

Now there's a way to debate, Jocabia: nice and rational, without any insults.

I know you're right intellectually...it's just that I hate it when I see people whom I respect, who are arguing fact against someone who refuses to believe the fact, dropping to their level when they're supposed to hold the moral high ground. It's distasteful to me, really, because I do honestly feel one should be above such petty bickering.

Still...I guess that's just how it is. One thing though:

THat is hardly limited to conservatives. I'd say it's more a debate tactic by those who either know their argument is flawed but hate the other argument for whatever reason, or have no better argument than to attack the person themselves. Be they conservative or liberal, libertarian or authoritarian, a fan of sports or a fan of science fiction, you're going to see many of them acting just like Myrmi.

Yes, but those qualities are more commonly found in conservatives. :p

Dude, NOTHING is better than scratching your nads all day.:D

QFT