Way to go Fox News.....

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:47 pm

I don't have cable because I wouldn't pay for that much brain box. But I do watch fox news sunday and meet the press on sundays. As long as fox brings me some tight baseball in the next month they can spin anything they want. Who watches this ★■◆● for anything other than pictures?

Iâ??ve been listening to talk of the nation on npr perty steady for the last 3 weeks and it is much more interesting than flash bomb news coverage. They actually interview people (that's sometimes called "asking good questions") and let the person finish a thought. The panels or interviews go on for 25 minutes sometimes not 7 minutes like fox news sunday and meet the press. I don't care if someone thinks it's a hippie news outlet I think it's valid and a good use of my tax money.

On pop news shows half the game is 'readers digesting' your answers into a sliver of the time required to explain the complexities of any given subject. Itâ??s simply not possible, I don't care if you are a liberal or conservative... just ain't gonna happen in 2 minutes.

So yea, blow me.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 9:40 am

"Who watches this **** for anything other than pictures?"

The numbers are too scary to think about! I've heard the cerebrally deficient mention FOX as their true news source.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:28 pm

Palzon wrote:I'm not criticizing one media outlet versus another. They can all kiss my ***. I'm criticizing you for lacking the stones to pony up and admit that you were wrong.

You were wrong and yet you refuse to admit it. First you want the transcript and now that it's posted you want to claim it could be taken out of context.

Plus, you are the one guilty of giving preferential treatment to a media outlet in the first place! Halifax is suspect but FOX gets the benefit of the doubt? Whatever, fella.

Mayby John Gibson was serious. Or mayby he was joking around and someone trying to undermine Fox took what he said and try to put his take on the words without the readers of the article actually having a chance to view the show. I dont know because I do not watch Fox news as often as some of you may think I do and I did not watch that particular show.

I never gave FOX the benefit of the doubt.

Learn to read.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:40 pm

Top Wop wrote:Until someone posts the actual transcript of the show im going to treat this like the other accusation...Typical spin....On top of that the source is suspicious.

i learned to read a long time ago, which is nice because it makes it easy to detect your BS. your words are devoid of all meaning. first you can't admit you're wrong. now you're just full of crap.

see, you already posted your little statement giving FOX the benefit of the doubt FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. You should change your name to Turd Word.

wow.

Am I being too harsh? I'm just tired of the way people think that saying a falsehood over and over will somehow make it true. or that if you say it and no one catches the falsehood, that somehow establishes its veracity. sorry!

continue to post BS and i will continue to call attention to it. You get no pass from me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:09 pm

"Yes, because anything conservative is utterly evil and must be abolished, right?

Until someone posts the actual transcript of the show im going to treat this like the other accusation that Heraldo Riviera pushed aside an aid to help a guy in a wheelchair not to help but to get a photo-op. Typical spin. On top of that the source is suspicious."

This; right here, is where you're giving foxnews the benefit of the doubt.

You also never backed up your accusation of why the source was suspicious. also known as a fly-by post.

In short: You seem to believe we are easily convinced about most things as you are.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:27 pm

to quote "zing!"

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:54 pm

Halifaxians... I hate those bastards.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:23 pm

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:49 am

did any of you actually see the interview?!?!?!?
I did. Gibson was tongue in cheek about it, the transcript give you the words but not the tone

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:13 am

Two commentators on Faux:

Gerldo Rivra
ran around Iraq with a pistol and admited it on air saying "I want to put a bullet in Saddam's head MYSELF!" thereby putting ALL REPORTERS AT RISK, by blurring the press/combatant line. A record number of reporters has been killed, recently leading to Reuters and other becoming increasingly vocal. Yes, it's a war zone, we know that, but reports bring reality to us. We need that, to know for example are we accidently killing a lot of covilians. People like Gerldo put these brave needed amazing "reality check" people at risk.

Olivr Nrth
sold weapons to terrorists in exchange for hostages in the Reagn era, probably emboldening them and setting the stage for some of our world problems today. His selling of weapons to terrorists to get hostages free was like selling bullets to a home invasion posse to get them to leave your house. It sets the stage for horrific recent events.

Some net info on ILieNrth *******
Ollie" is, without question, America's favorite traitor. He helped the Reagan administration commit a bunch of felonies, then destroyed evidence as fast as he could before the Iran-Contra investigation got into full swing. But people just seem to adore the guy anyway, despite his continual lies and total disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

North once had a job sitting behind a desk in the bowels of Ronald Reagan's White House, working for the National Security Council. As Assistant Deputy Director for Political-Military Affairs, he managed the day-to-day operations of a clandestine agency operating completely outside the law, without any form of oversight whatsoever. According to North's sworn testimony, his primary effort was coordinating covert sales of weapons to the government of Iran, and then funneling those profits to buy weapons for the Contra army in Nicaragua.

The only problem is, those actions were completely illegal. The Boland Amendment banned the U.S. Government from funding the Contras. Ollie claimed that he had only been following orders, but that's bull★■◆●. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a soldier's duty to disobey illegal orders. (North spent a year in Vietnam. Is it possible that somehow he never heard of the My Lai Massacre?)

But North had the best possible reason to wipe his ass with the American flag: cash money. Ollie was buying his weapons through a business owned by Richard Secord, a retired Air Force Major General. In May of 1996, Secord stuffed $200,000 into a Swiss bank account earmarked for tuition fees for Ollie's children. The previous year, Secord had personally handed over thousands of dollars in cash.

At trial, North had a hard time explaining how he had managed to save up the $15,000 found in his closet. Or why he made two separate cash payments for a $9,500 used car, the second after visiting Secord. He said that the $4,300 in traveler's checks he had received were reimbursement for expenses he had personally incurred on the job. He spent these checks on gas, groceries, and other sundries -- all for himself.

Somehow the jury failed to nail him for any of these accounting irregularities. Of course, it would have been easier for prosecutors had Ollie refrained from burning the ledger for his slush fund. Instead, they convicted him of accepting an illegal gratuity from Secord, in the form of a $13,800 home security system -- complete with an eight-foot tall fence to encircle the property. North requested the alarm system after he wound up on Abu Nidal's ★■◆● list. Oh, and they also found him guilty of two other felonies: lying to Congress and shredding official documents. But he only committed those crimes to cover up his overweening graft.

Nowadays, Ollie is a bulletproof vest manufacturer, book author, motivational speaker, part-time TV actor, and conservative radio commentator. In 1994, North made a failed bid for the US Senate. And, with the endorsement of Jerry Falwell and other elements of the Christian Right, he very nearly won. Kind of ironic when you consider his perjury conviction.
*******************

And in case you still think Faux is the fun happy anti terror News network, keep in mind those Contras that ollie was selling weapons to (in addition to Iran) were well known to come to villages in Nicaragua and SLAUGHTER EVERYONE, men women children, etc.

Why would a network hire such poeple? Fine choice of people to hire. Good job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:34 am

ned,
are you kanye west?

;-0

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:06 am

Top Wop wrote:
But this all boils down to vicious partisan rivalry, and Fox being attacked because it is seen by you all as a bastion for conservatism. It is not.

I'm sorry but you no longer have a shred of credibility.

Am I being too harsh? I'm just tired of the way people think that saying a falsehood over and over will somehow make it true. or that if you say it and no one catches the falsehood, that somehow establishes its veracity. sorry!

continue to post BS and i will continue to call attention to it. You get no pass from me.

No, you are not. If someone can't admit Fox is a conservative television station, they are a non-entity to me in any political argument.

If you can't see Fox is a conservative network, you are totally blind and devoid of objective analyzation skills (i.e. being able to step outside your own preferences)

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:34 am

Faux News, Communist News Network, whatever. Just right and left wings of the same demonic bird. I avoid the CCSRMSM (all TV news stations and their websites) whenever possible.

And yes, FOX is blatantly transparent in its pandering to the conservative and rabid-rightwing "ultra-patriotic" parts of the country. I used to follow the MSM like a hawk, especially the rightwing channels (Ferno remembers that.), but I realized what I was in and stopped back in February. Damn good, too. I almost got completely caught up in the dark return of a rapidly growing 72 year old -ism that's taking over the country.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:06 pm

CUDA wrote:did any of you actually see the interview?!?!?!?
I did. Gibson was tongue in cheek about it, the transcript give you the words but not the tone

That's what I suspected, it's just too wierd otherwise...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:19 pm

Ironically Fox news is the top rated cable news network in the country, so that means more ppl watch Fox news than any other cable network so if this is the case then that would seem to make it a MAIN STREAM network and not a wing of the right, I will admit that Fox is more conservative than any other news agency but that seems to be the tone of the nation, question is are the rest of you man enough to admit that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and the rest lean more liberal?

http://www.tommcmahon.net/2004/08/cable_news_rati.html

08/24/2004
Cable News Ratings
Matt Drudge runs these every now and then, and so here are some recent ones taken during a week when perennial leader Bill O'Reilly was on vacation:

FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6 [RATING]
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1.6
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1.3
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.2
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1.2
CNN LARRY KING 0.9
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.8
CNN PAULA ZAHN 0.6
CNN AARON BROWN 0.5
MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.5
MSNBC NORVILLE 0.4
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.4
CNBC DENNIS MILLER 0.1
CNBC MCENROE 0.1
Fox News not only beats the other networks, but beats them badly. And MSNBC/CNBC continues to be an embarrassment for GE's CEO Jeff Immelt. If only they had kept Roger Ailes . . .

August 24, 2004 in Television | Permalink

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:29 pm

Mark my words, some day on Hannity and Colmes, someone is gonna throw a chair. At least Jerry Springer tells us to love one another at the end.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:42 pm

Gooberman wrote:Mark my words, some day on Hannity and Colmes, someone is gonna throw a chair. And least Jerry Springer tells us to love one another at the end.

I dont care for Hannity my self, he's too abrasive. I think he could get his point across better if he wasnt so much of an A-hole sometimes. I think Alan Combs comes across as too much of a pu$$ and I cant stand Ann Coulter, grade A biotch if you ask me. its not that I dont agree with thier stance on issues. I just dont like the delivery method. but O'Reily I really like, I've seen him go after both side with the same zeal, he's not afraid to call a spade a spade

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:52 pm

Yeah, O'Reilly even won a peabody!

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:00 pm

TheCope wrote:ned,
are you kanye west?

;-0

Can't wwwwwrrrrrap . . . .

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:01 pm

kanye is an awesome lyracist

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:10 pm

CUDA wrote: I will admit that Fox is more conservative than any other news agency but that seems to be the tone of the nation, question is are the rest of you man enough to admit that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and the rest lean more liberal?

I think they are all mainstream corporate media, which makes them all kind of narrowly similar in a way, although I appreciate the point you are making.

Corporate media will NOT run some stories, right or left or up or down. Some of the sweatshop stories were too hot to run, or things about GE making lots of nuclear bombs, as well as washing machines and coffee makers (we bring good things to life. . . such as nuclear winter).

Y'all might find this video clip enlightening. Realize that virtually no TV station would run it, despite the group being willing to pay top dollar:

http://www.beawitness.org/splash/Beawitness.mp4

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:40 am

Mobius wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:I would of slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
Of course, we know you meant to type: I would HAVE slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.

Of course, Mobius, we know you meant to type: I would have slapped that guy silly if I WERE anywhere close by.

But you only would HAVE typed that if you WERE a grammatical pain in the ass who ACTUALLY UnDersTooD grammar.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:05 am

Birdseye wrote:Yeah, O'Reilly even won a peabody!

cute birds. have you ever watched him? and I mean for more than 5 seconds

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:23 am

Ned wrote:
Y'all might find this video clip enlightening. Realize that virtually no TV station would run it, despite the group being willing to pay top dollar:

http://www.beawitness.org/splash/Beawitness.mp4

good question, why didn't they run it, easy answer, because it did not serve thier political agenda. there are some news agency's that "try" to report the news as accurate as possible, then there are some that make up the news to try to gain some advantage either with viewers or with political clout or $$$ (cough) New York times, Heraldo Rivera story (cough) regardless of what we sometimes want to think ALL news agency are political, some more than others, but everyone puts thier own slant on the story, unfortunatelly with the print press, most national or world stories are from 1 news agency (AP) and just parroted in each paper, I have found print press to be the most biased of all in that respect since you usually only get 1 source.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:27 am

Suncho wrote:
Mobius wrote:
CDN_Merlin wrote:I would of slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
Of course, we know you meant to type: I would HAVE slapped that guy silly if I was anywhere close by.
Of course, Mobius, we know you meant to type: I would have slapped that guy silly if I WERE anywhere close by.

But you only would HAVE typed that if you WERE a grammatical pain in the *** who ACTUALLY UnDersTooD grammar.

Millions of people actually say "of" instead of "have", the latter being correct of course. What Mobius forgets is that the beauty of language is its capriciousness. Eventually 'of will replace 'have' and be the norm....untill summert else comes along.

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:11 am

"Flabby
What Mobius forgets is that the beauty of language is its capriciousness.

True Dhat!

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:38 am

Flabby Chick wrote:Millions of people actually say "of" instead of "have", the latter being correct of course. What Mobius forgets is that the beauty of language is its capriciousness. Eventually 'of will replace 'have' and be the norm....untill summert else comes along.

Good call. We could also even get backlash:

99 bottles have beer on the wall! 99 bottles have beer!

This has been seen with I/me:

Jimbo helped Carla and I with our project

and with who/whom:

Aaron Sorkin is the guy whom created The West Wing

Oh the marvels of modern language! You never know where it will go. =)

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:40 am

CUDA wrote:Ironically Fox news is the top rated cable news network in the country, so that means more ppl watch Fox news than any other cable network so if this is the case then that would seem to make it a MAIN STREAM network and not a wing of the right, I will admit that Fox is more conservative than any other news agency but that seems to be the tone of the nation, question is are the rest of you man enough to admit that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and the rest lean more liberal?

No. They just lean less conservative. =)

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:59 am

Bad grammar, huh? Some of it bothers me now and then. Back in High School it was all of the girls and their "like like like"s every 3 seconds. Like like like I-want-to-slap-you-dumb-bitches!

Today, it is this:

S. Person #2 did not go out today.
P1. "You didn't go out today?"
P2. "No." [Wrong Answer]

Don't answer a negative question with a negative answer when the goddamn correct answer is "Yes[, I didn't go out today]". The only ways to not confuse grammatically incorrect people are to say more than just the "yes" or to leave out the word altogether and respond with the sentence.

Millions of people actually say "of" instead of "have", the latter being correct of course. What Mobius forgets is that the beauty of language is its capriciousness. Eventually 'of will replace 'have' and be the norm....untill summert else comes along.

This has become true of the "No." example. I see it everywhere, in both conversation and novels. I don't know whether it was a trend started by some blockhead or just that people can't process a simple grammar math problem in their heads.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:40 pm

Skyalmian wrote: Today, it is this:

S. Person #2 did not go out today.
P1. "You didn't go out today?"
P2. "No." [Wrong Answer]

Don't answer a negative question with a negative answer when the ****mn correct answer is "Yes[, I didn't go out today]". The only ways to not confuse grammatically incorrect people are to say more than just the "yes" or to leave out the word altogether and respond with the sentence.

Actually, you're wrong about this Skyalmian. It's more than just simple math. When someone asks a "negative question" such as yours, there is an implied "positive question tag" at the end.

Example:

S. Person #2 did not go out today.
P1. You didn't go out today, did you?
P2. No.

This is perfectly acceptable, commonly understood, and therefore correct. Saying "Yes" here is not. To avoid confusion, just fill out the whole question or answer in your mind...

So instead of:

P1. You didn't go out today?
P2. No.

You get:

P1. You didn't go out today, did you?
P2. No, I didn't.

Also look at the opposite:
P1. You went out today, didn't you?
P2. Yes, I did.

Generally:
A "No" confirms a negative statement/question.
A "Yes" confirms an affirmitave statement/question.

EDIT:

Also try rephrasing the question.

P1. Didn't you go out today?
P2. No. (This means he didn't go out)

P1. Didn't you go out today?
P2. Yes. (This means he did go out)

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:13 pm

A splitting of threads is in order no?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:28 pm

I just watched a documentary called 'outfoxed'. and the stuff Fox has pulled over the years is just despicable to say the least.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:06 pm

Ferno wrote:I just watched a documentary called 'outfoxed'. and the stuff Fox has pulled over the years is just despicable to say the least.

LOL ya from moveon.org ROFL no biased there huh Ferno, Michael Goerbles Moore's best friend, cmon ferno here we are dabating a media bias and you choose the most biased orginazation out there to use as a reference

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:34 pm

interesting Cuda.. Even before outfoxed came out, I had the opinion of Fox being shady for a long time.

did I think outfoxed told me some interesting stuff? yes. do I take it as gospel? I'm undecided on that.

Back up your claim of bias or I'll just write off what you said as a weak attack.

Also, the ratings part of your previous post is dated 2004. This is the year 2005. If you wanna post ratings, use the current year. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to fit the facts into your opinion (where have we seen THAT trick before...).

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:37 pm

CUDA wrote:we are dabating a media bias and you choose the most biased orginazation out there to use as a reference

If the devil says E=mc^2, he is right. If the Pope says the earth is flat, he is wrong. What does source have to do with it? But since you are smearing the source, let's talk about it:

Previous HIGH LEVEL FauxNews insiders are saying point blank, on video, that there was a memo every morning telling them how to SPIN and INTERPRET the news data.

Faux is a propaganda wing of the republican party. Read the three links I posted above if you don't believe me. If you want to be informed, I suggest you check out other sources of information.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:40 pm

[Debasing nickname for news organization created by group leaning in the other direction] is utter crap. I mean seriously, how can you take *anything* that the "news" anchors on [debasing nickname for news organization created by group leaning in the other direction] say seriously? Anyway, why are we having this discussion if even when the devil says [fact] is true, and the pope says [fiction] is false, [fact] is true regardless of the source, and any debasing nicknames attached to it?

This thread is full of some of the most partisan, circular, self-serving logic I've ever seen, on both sides.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:09 pm

i must have missed the logic error you refer to DC. your quoted statement makes perfect sense to me, when read in context of this thread which has given ample backing proof to justify the opinion.

just insert "[refer to previous posts]" all through it and you can see how the post really can't be made neutral - when taken in context of the backing proofs previously given in the thread.

ie: you gave the formula:

[Debasing nickname for news organization created by group leaning in the other direction] is utter crap. I mean seriously, how can you take *anything* that the "news" anchors on [debasing nickname for news organization created by group leaning in the other direction] say seriously?

trying to keep to the methematical theme, the inputed information into the formula would be:
1- "your ideological/political affiliation"

but you have fergotten the important input:
2- "proof that backs up my given opinion"
which is the reality-check that makes sure that this formula is not taken outof it's given context. if taken outof context then yes i agree with you that your formula can easily be used either way.

but there is little backing proof in this thread to justify anything other than "FOX NEWS" claiming it's justified place in the above quote.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:52 am

It's the use of "Faux News" in a sentence intended to denounce CUDA's description of Outfoxed as worthless through use of similar pejoratives.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:56 am

CUDA wrote:
Birdseye wrote:Yeah, O'Reilly even won a peabody!
cute birds. have you ever watched him? and I mean for more than 5 seconds

Yes, I've watched many of his shows all the way through. I've also read his book and Al Franken's book on him to get both sides.

let's remember I hate the democrats almost as much as the republicans, they are such wussy sheep... I've never voted democrat in a major election (non city/county position), but I have voted for a republican before.

It's just that Fox news is much more aggregious and deceptive in its bias.

It reeks of double speak, such as "Fair and Balanced" when it is the least balanced network I can think of. This is not to say something like CNN is not Democrat biased, and doesnt give a greater bias towards democrats... just fox is a significantly worse abuser.

If I were you, I wouldn't write off Out-Foxed before you see it. The most important thing about it is just the stats they count. They count guests, time devoted to subjects, people, etc. and big surprise... its overwhelmingly republican, so much so you will be sickened. You may ask, well maybe they lie, stats can lie... but i've even tried doign my own stats over an hour, and they came up even worse (i'm not kidding). There are highs and lows of any statistical sample size, sure... but man, I knew all this from just watching the crap myself. Its the jerry springer of news, with republican bias. I don't think it should legally be allowed to call itself Balanced. Fair, I dunno, thats too subjective. But Balanced is not true, and anyone can just take their own statistical poll by watching TV. I encourage you to try it.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:18 am

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

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

I encourage you all to read these. I did.

...and stop calling it "Faux". It's annoying.