Pacridge
DP Veteran
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
Pacridge said:If you look at the evidence, with open eyes, you'll find a different story then the one you're telling.
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.
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.
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?
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.
anomaly said:The problem with Fox isn't so much that they lie, most of the networks do, the problem is Fox's perspective.
Batman said:Funny how there is still no 'smoking gun' anyone can come up with on FOX.
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.
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
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.
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:Rupert Mudoch is a quite a odd character really.
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:
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.And regarding the environment (not Global Warming in particular, though) Bush has pulled back several enviromental regulations.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?