• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Condi to replace Cheney

I used to watch a lot of Fox and made a lot of the same arguments you're making. In fact trying to prove a guy that worked for me wrong made me looked into this fairly hard. If you look at the evidence, with open eyes, you'll find a different story then the one you're telling. Knock yourself out, watch away, believe it with all your heart. It's still not going to make it any more true. Any more than liberals screaming about Dan Rather being framed or George W. stealing elections. Wanting to believe things or liking the beliefs we hold doesn't make them true.
 
Pacridge said:
I used to watch a lot of Fox and made a lot of the same arguments you're making. In fact trying to prove a guy that worked for me wrong made me looked into this fairly hard. If you look at the evidence, with open eyes, you'll find a different story then the one you're telling. Knock yourself out, watch away, believe it with all your heart. It's still not going to make it any more true. Any more than liberals screaming about Dan Rather being framed or George W. stealing elections. Wanting to believe things or liking the beliefs we hold doesn't make them true.

Here's my point. Your sources of information (at least the ones you have stated to this point) is not the most "fair and balanced". They may have an agenda. Not so much to close down Fox (because its not going away) as to shift and taint the inforamtion coming from Fox, namely a conservative view point mixed in with the liberal view point. If they would drop the conservative arguements to the issuie then you would be ok with them.

Once again I hate to beat a dead horse, but, If what you have said is true then the major media would have Fox in their news everyday like they did CBS/Rather.

I don't go to a liars convention to find the truth.
 
Thor said:
Here's my point. Your sources of information (at least the ones you have stated to this point) is not the most "fair and balanced". They may have an agenda. Not so much to close down Fox (because its not going away) as to shift and taint the inforamtion coming from Fox, namely a conservative view point mixed in with the liberal view point. If they would drop the conservative arguements to the issuie then you would be ok with them.

Once again I hate to beat a dead horse, but, If what you have said is true then the major media would have Fox in their news everyday like they did CBS/Rather.

I don't go to a liars convention to find the truth.

Here's my point. No one's suggesting you attend a liars convetion to seek the truth. I'm merely suggesting you take a serious look at the evidence. If you do that I seriously doubt you'd be saying the same thing you're saying now.

Somewhere on this site there's an article Vauge wrote for a college course he was taking. He's certainly no a liberal. And he certainly didn't find the FNC "Fair and Balanced." I have yet to find anyone capable of looking at the evidence honestly and still be able to contend Fox is "Fair and Balanced." Fox is good at putting up a smoke screen but it's just that, a screen.
 
And he certainly didn't find the FNC "Fair and Balanced." I have yet to find anyone capable of looking at the evidence honestly and still be able to contend Fox is "Fair and Balanced." Fox is good at putting up a smoke screen but it's just that, a screen.
I don't know what you call Fair and Balanced in the media then. The New York Times who also owns the Boston Globe employs 90 percent liberal/10 percent conservative reporters. I would say that is the same for CNN, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC. PBS is predominately liberal. Academia is predominately liberal. What do you want for "Fair and Balanced"? I don't get it.
 
Pacridge said:
Here's my point. No one's suggesting you attend a liars convetion to seek the truth. I'm merely suggesting you take a serious look at the evidence. If you do that I seriously doubt you'd be saying the same thing you're saying now.

Somewhere on this site there's an article Vauge wrote for a college course he was taking. He's certainly no a liberal. And he certainly didn't find the FNC "Fair and Balanced." I have yet to find anyone capable of looking at the evidence honestly and still be able to contend Fox is "Fair and Balanced." Fox is good at putting up a smoke screen but it's just that, a screen.

If we are going to research TV media or for that matter any media then we are all going to be disappointed to a certain extent. So, who are we going to believe?
 
Thor said:
If we are going to research TV media or for that matter any media then we are all going to be disappointed to a certain extent. So, who are we going to believe?

Personally I'm to the point I don't believe any of them. C-span I guess, but I find it hard to stay awake for most of their stuff. Mainly just because so much of it's just footage off the floors or from committee meetings.
 
Pacridge said:
If you look at the evidence, with open eyes, you'll find a different story then the one you're telling.

I've pointed out the CBS false doc story which you know about because you've referenced it. I also pointed out NBC rigging pick-ups to explode for which they had to publicly admit and apologize for. What one story or "lie" has FOX got their butt handed to them for? Not reporters comments or 'spin' but a real doctored or all out falsehood they they had to come clean on.
 
Squawker said:
I don't know what you call Fair and Balanced in the media then. The New York Times who also owns the Boston Globe employs 90 percent liberal/10 percent conservative reporters. I would say that is the same for CNN, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC. PBS is predominately liberal. Academia is predominately liberal. What do you want for "Fair and Balanced"? I don't get it.

I don't think those other media outlets are fair or balanced either. In fact I think all of our media has gotten to the point where it's just about awful. You have to fact check everything. It's gotten to the point you can't believe anything on any station or network. All I'm saying is FNC is far from fair or balanced as they claim. In fact from watching them I'd say they go out of their way to make that point. Yet when you fact check them you'll find they have a very conservative bias. And all of their big name people have well documented lies. O'Rielly, Hume, they've all been outed as major repeated liars. Honestly after the repeated lying and then sex scandal thing broke I can't understand why anyone would watch O'Reilly. But he's still got one of the highest rated shows on cable. Well, I guess Jerry Springer has a big draw too, as do shows like "Who Wants to Marry my Midget Dad." Still, makes no sense to me.
 
Pacridge said:
I don't think those other media outlets are fair or balanced either. In fact I think all of our media has gotten to the point where it's just about awful. You have to fact check everything. It's gotten to the point you can't believe anything on any station or network. All I'm saying is FNC is far from fair or balanced as they claim. In fact from watching them I'd say they go out of their way to make that point. Yet when you fact check them you'll find they have a very conservative bias. And all of their big name people have well documented lies. O'Rielly, Hume, they've all been outed as major repeated liars. Honestly after the repeated lying and then sex scandal thing broke I can't understand why anyone would watch O'Reilly. But he's still got one of the highest rated shows on cable. Well, I guess Jerry Springer has a big draw too, as do shows like "Who Wants to Marry my Midget Dad." Still, makes no sense to me.

This is the part that I don't understand. I watch O'Reilly often and every time he debates a issue he has someone to represent both sides of the fence. He gives them equal time. I don't know how much more fair you can make it? Both sides a represented. I don't know what more you can ask?
 
Thor said:
This is the part that I don't understand. I watch O'Reilly often and every time he debates a issue he has someone to represent both sides of the fence. He gives them equal time. I don't know how much more fair you can make it? Both sides a represented. I don't know what more you can ask?

Well yes and no. This is something Fox is actually pretty famous for- the Gorilla vs. ant. Most of the time when O'Reilly, or any Fox show for that matter, has two people represent an issue or subject the decks stacked. They'll bring in some hard core bright Conservative and put them up against some fairly moderate liberal who probably isn't all that bright. Why do think think it's Hannity and Combs. Does Combs seriously strike you as being very bright? Or exactly how often does he make serious, valid points? Oh, sure he does, but only every now and then. Now how often does Hannity make valid relevant points? Think about that honestly when you watch the show next time. Hannity will slam away at issues, making valid, even great points . Combs- "we'll be right back after this break." The fix is in.

It's my guess that this is exactly why Geraldo Rivera is on Fox. Geraldo is basically a lunatic any more. He was on Leno the other night saying how Michael Jackson was being framed "and if Michaels found guilty I'm going to shave my mustache in protest." I'll bet you anything Fox's owner, Rupert Murdoch, was watching that and thinking "Yeah, that's my liberal, you just keep going nuttier" all while smiling and smoking a big fat cigar.
 
Pacridge said:
Well yes and no. This is something Fox is actually pretty famous for- the Gorilla vs. ant. Most of the time when O'Reilly, or any Fox show for that matter, has two people represent an issue or subject the decks stacked. They'll bring in some hard core bright Conservative and put them up against some fairly moderate liberal who probably isn't all that bright. Why do think think it's Hannity and Combs. Does Combs seriously strike you as being very bright? Or exactly how often does he make serious, valid points? Oh, sure he does, but only every now and then. Now how often does Hannity make valid relevant points? Think about that honestly when you watch the show next time. Hannity will slam away at issues, making valid, even great points . Combs- "we'll be right back after this break." The fix is in.

It's my guess that this is exactly why Geraldo Rivera is on Fox. Geraldo is basically a lunatic any more. He was on Leno the other night saying how Michael Jackson was being framed "and if Michaels found guilty I'm going to shave my mustache in protest." I'll bet you anything Fox's owner, Rupert Murdoch, was watching that and thinking "Yeah, that's my liberal, you just keep going nuttier" all while smiling and smoking a big fat cigar.

I think Geraldo is making a nice noose for himself. I agree Hannity makes much more valid points on issues than Combs. I disagree with the stacking the deck point; during the campaign it seemed FOX had guys on like Joe Lockhart for the dems up against what seemed to be the low guy on the totem pole for the republicans hashing out issues. I was yelling what he should have been saying to Lockhart. But I guess each person sees or hears what they want depending on their political perspective.

As far as a smoking gun scandal for FOX - the only thing I came up with was the parody quotes Carl Cameron wrote up about Kerry that mistakenly got on the FOX website. It was corrected within hours. A far cry from forged docs and sticking with for 2 weeks or blowing up vehicles. If you know of anything else on a CBS/NBC magnitude let me know.
 
Here's the thing about Fox: they are completely shifted to the right. Especially theire primetime political stuff. You'vo got a lineup of O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Sustren. All conservative. Sure, you've got Al Colmes, but he is your typical 'public' lib-moderate who constantly tries to compromise with his master, Hannity. Hannity will go off on a mindless rant, and the Colmes will say something like 'well, you're right, but I just think...'. The problem with Fox isn't so much that they lie, most of the networks do, the problem is Fox's perspective. NBC is pretty moderate, CBS is moderate now since Rather is gone, ABC moderate, perhaps slightly to the left. You could make a case that CNN is left-wing (hey, they are owned by one Ted Turner), but Fox is so far to the right it makes me sick. That is the problem. They need to hire a strong liberal political analyzer to replace Colmes.
 
This confirms what we all knew anyway. People on the left can't tolerate an opposing point of view. That is what all the "outgrage" is about. You can't prove they lie because a lot of the programing is opinion and analasis. Even if they were far right as you claim, so what? We on the right had to tolerate the main stream media spinning for the left for the last 50 years. I know that is why the Democrats stayed in power as long as they did. When the real truth came out people were disgusted with them. No one forces you to watch Fox, so aren't you lucky. You can stay mis-informed forever.
 
Funny how there is still no 'smoking gun' anyone can come up with on FOX. :eek:

anomaly said:
The problem with Fox isn't so much that they lie, most of the networks do, the problem is Fox's perspective.

That's the way we feel about the other networks. When we do, we're told we're complaining about liberal bias that does not exist.
 
Batman said:
Funny how there is still no 'smoking gun' anyone can come up with on FOX. :eek:



That's the way we feel about the other networks. When we do, we're told we're complaining about liberal bias that does not exist.

Well I'll admit I don't watch FNC that often any more. So giving you a recent smoking gun probably isn't going to happen. Two-three years ago I could have given you a laundry list. The closest I can come is a story I saw about the UN food for oil program. It was an hour long or half hour special basically spent the entire time misleading viewers regarding the facts surrounding the role UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan played in the scandal. I don't remember the guy that did the story, but it wasn't Hume. He and every body reporting in story basically framed the entire story around how Annan was completely to blame for this mess. No reporter ever mentioned, not once, that the UN 661 committee had complete control of this program. In fact during the entire broadcast I never even heard mention of the committee in charge of this program. It was all framed that Annan ran it and Annan was responsible for it. Honestly that's not how things work at the UN, or any large governmental organization for that matter. That's like doing a story on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and only telling your viewers that Donald Rumsfeld was in charge and he was completely responsible, omitting any and all commanders and officers in charge of the prison it's self. It's lying by omission and one of Fox's regular and favorite tactics. In this same story one reporter made some statement about how Saddam was using this money from the food for oil program to fund his "evil chemical weapons programs." The reporter never even mentioned that the CIA's Duelfer's report disclaims this assertion. Nor does the reporter make any attempt to support that claim with any evidence. Merely makes the statement like it's a general known fact and moves on. It's not a fact. Everyone, including the Bush administration, has now come out now and said Saddam did not have and was not making chemical weapons. But Fox makes statements like that and Conservatives take it as the gospel. Honestly how could you watch a report that this and not think why aren't people screaming from the roof tops about this outrage. Only problem is Fox isn't giving you an even close to accurate story.
 
Pacridge said:
That's like doing a story on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and only telling your viewers that Donald Rumsfeld was in charge and he was completely responsible

That certainly has been implied by media outlets. Even with new cabinet nominees.

Again, I think it's perspective on viewers part. All viewers.
 
Rupert Mudoch owns a paper called "The Sun" in the UK, purely and totally right wing. Rupert Murdoch is nortoriously right wing. Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News isn't fair and balanced, it is right-wing bias... fair enough though, as long as you don't totally believe it 100%. Maybe Fox is finally a news channel that tells conservatives what they want to hear.
 
GarzaUK said:
Rupert Mudoch owns a paper called "The Sun" in the UK, purely and totally right wing. Rupert Murdoch is nortoriously right wing. Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News isn't fair and balanced, it is right-wing bias... fair enough though, as long as you don't totally believe it 100%. Maybe Fox is finally a news channel that tells conservatives what they want to hear.

Rupert Mudoch is a quite a odd character really. Yen and Yang all in one. Just look at Fox network as a whole. The news network is completely Conservative. But look at the rest of the network, they're fined for FCC violations more than any other network. They have some of the most raunchy stuff on TV. How does that make sense? It doesn't unless he's really only interested in the money. He convinces people through his Fox news that the Conservative movement is the only one that's not completely nutz. They in turn then vote in people who lower taxes on wealthy people and coporations. Then he puts forth shows like "Who Wants to Marry my Naked Stripper Mom" which for some reason Americans watch like the super bowl.
 
Rupert Mudoch is a quite a odd character really.
No odder than Ted Turner. What is your point? As far as the reports on the "Oil for food" scandal go, lets compare them with the Bush administration. The lefties blame Bush for everything, including global warming which he has no control over. You can't tell me Annon was blind to what his son was involved with or doesn't know what is going on at the UN. I personally know many people who work for the UN. It doesn't work that way. Annon knew and should be held accountable. Fox is the only network that even reported on the story. The left wing media ignored it for the most part. They spend more time trashing Bush. :roll:
 
I'd like to ask you cons where this 'liberal media' is? CNN does not give a left-wing oint of view, it's newcasters just happen to be liberals. They don't make you swallow left-wing propaganda, unlike Fox, whick constantly is jamming right-wing propaganda down your throats. The thing with Fox is that, yes, they give 'accurate' news (most of the time), but they only give you half the story. Where is the liberal bias in the news? Liberals had to set up there own radio network, whereas Limbaugh has had a radio show for news. None of the major networks have a liberal bias. They just have liberals giving it. The NY times is the only example of left-wing media bias that I can think of, but conservatives have Limbaugh and Fox. It seems to me that radio is slanted to the right (overall) and so is television. The written word is to the left (maybe), but hey, nobody reads anymore!! This whole cry by the right is just another examply of the 'innocent victim' tactic. The right is always the victim, whether its abortion, judges, the media etc. All this victimization, even though they control 2/3 of the gov't (executive and legislative branches)!!
 
Squawker said:
No odder than Ted Turner. What is your point? As far as the reports on the "Oil for food" scandal go, lets compare them with the Bush administration. The lefties blame Bush for everything, including global warming which he has no control over. You can't tell me Annon was blind to what his son was involved with or doesn't know what is going on at the UN. I personally know many people who work for the UN. It doesn't work that way. Annon knew and should be held accountable. Fox is the only network that even reported on the story. The left wing media ignored it for the most part. They spend more time trashing Bush. :roll:

Squawker, you're obviously an intelligent person. You always make valid points. Other then one time, that I'm aware, where you let another poster (possible far less intelligent then yourself) get under your skin, you avoid the trap of bashing and name calling. I respect that and I respect you. You're above post makes goods points too. But you're incorrect when you say the left wing media ignored the oil for food story or that Fox was the only network to report on it. The New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post all ran lots of stories on this scandal. I would have never heard of the 661 committee if they hadn't. Myself, I'd consider all of them on the left of most issues. And I think it's also true that Annan should be held responsible, if nothing else at least in part, for the scandal. But I think it's completely unreasonable to say he's the only one who had anything to do with it. And the story I saw on Fox certainly was making that claim. In fact Fox never even mentioned the 661 committee that oversaw the program. It's just not factual, that's just lying by omission. Nor was it factual when it reported that Saddam was using the money to build his "evil chemical weapons." That's not lying by omission, that's just lying.

But you're absolutely correct that Ted "I've lost my mind" Turner has gone insane. And you're also correct that the left blames Bush for everything. Global warming is just one example. According to the left- Bush is to blame for every problem anyone ever had. IMO.
 
Pacridge said:
But you're absolutely correct that Ted "I've lost my mind" Turner has gone insane. And you're also correct that the left blames Bush for everything. Global warming is just one example. According to the left- Bush is to blame for every problem anyone ever had. IMO.

Pacridge, are you even a liberal anymore? You are repeating right-wing banter here "the left blames Bush for everything", this is a defense for any argument we have. And regarding the environment (not Global Warming in particular, though) Bush has pulled back several enviromental regulations.
 
Thanks for the compliment Pac, I do try to maintain some level of civility. ;)
But you're incorrect when you say the left wing media ignored the oil for food story or that Fox was the only network to report on it.
I stand corrected. I was speaking in relation to the attention they would have paid to it had it been something they blamed the Bush administration for. They did eventually get around to mentioning it. We tracked this on another forum and it was 72 days from the time the story broke until there was a short story in the NYT on a back page about it. Yes, I took someone else’s word for it. It has been over a year now, so you tell me how many stories they ran. As many as they ran about Abu-Ghraib?

In fact Fox never even mentioned the 661 committee that oversaw the program. It's just not factual, that's just lying by omission. Nor was it factual when it reported that Saddam was using the money to build his "evil chemical weapons." That's not lying by omission, that's just lying.
We both should have said “that I know of”. Fox has covered this story from the beginning. It is obvious that we have different sources we rely on to give us information. I don’t believe everything that is reported by any one source. If the story has legs it survives over time. If it has criminality involved people get indicted. Fox hasn’t had any legal problems regarding their reporting as the other networks have, so I have to assume the accusations about them lying are false.
 
And regarding the environment (not Global Warming in particular, though) Bush has pulled back several enviromental regulations.
Just before Clinton left he signed some strict EPA restrictions by executive order. He knew they would be repealed because they weren’t fair, and it should have been voted on by both parties. It gave the Dem’s something to beat Republicans over the head with in the future. The environmental movement has way too much power in this country IMHO.
 
anomaly said:
Pacridge, are you even a liberal anymore? You are repeating right-wing banter here "the left blames Bush for everything", this is a defense for any argument we have. And regarding the environment (not Global Warming in particular, though) Bush has pulled back several enviromental regulations.

I never claimed to be a liberal. Nor did I ever claim to be a conservative. I think the extremes of both are a little out there. But I do think the liberals tend to blame everything on Bush. Just like the Conservatives blame everything on Clinton and Democrats. As far as I can see neither side wants to except responsibility for anything. They're both merely pointing fingers at the other side. Everything's always somebody else’s fault any more.
 
Back
Top Bottom