• 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.

Fox: Biased? Or Deceptive?

Indecent

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
63
Reaction score
21
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
About a week ago, I was challenged to post a listing of Fox news falsifications. In the meantime, the Nevada Democratic party has decided not to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. So the question for many people is, why is Fox so hated by those on the left?

I would first like note the difference between bias and deception. Of course Fox is biased, it's hard to find a reporter anywhere who isn't. It's just different when an entire network enlists reporters who all share the same bias, and are willing to falsify the facts in order to do so.

All of these truths are - or should be - common knowledge...

The first example isn't exclusive to Fox: Nearly all the American media were complicit. April 2003, a crowd of angry Iraqis gather at a public square, tie a rope around a statue of Saddam, and pull the statue down. Except a wide angel shot shows tanks encircling the sparse crowd, and a crane used to pull the statue over during the "impromptu" protest. Turns out Ahmed Chalabi & the Pentagon flew some of the protesters into town for the astroturf protest.

Fox News specific disinformation during the runup to the war can be seen here.

Especially tough to report the truth about was the non-existence of WMD's in Iraq.

How about the still-repeated lie that Valerie Plame's occupation wasn't classified, that she didn't have non-official cover?

Misinformation also means ignoring the real news: Three weeks after her death, Anna Nicole warranted 121 mentions on Fox News, on the same day that the Walter Reed neglect story broke and was mentioned only 10 times. When a NRCC businessman-of-the-year in New York was indicted for financing terrorism, Fox was silent.

Fox led the way in repeating The Washington Times' smear that Barrack Obama was schooled in a madrassa.

And just before the November elections, they consistently labeled Republican Mark Foley as a Democrat.

Then there's the classy way they handled the last Democratic debate:

Four years ago, in typically unfiltered fashion, Fox cut away from the Democratic debate they hosted a couple of minutes before it ended, in order to give arch-conservative William Bennett the first shot at post-debate spin
Click to expand...
.

This is only a partial listing, by no means is it exhaustive. The point is that every story Fox airs is tilted to the right, all the pundits they employ (even the token milquetoast Dems like Williams and Colmes) are Republican apologists. "Fair and Balanced" is probably the least accurate slogan for them.
 
I checked out two of your sources and decided I'd seen enough.

Indecent said:
1) Fox News specific disinformation during the runup to the war can be seen here.

2) How about the still-repeated lie that Valerie Plame's occupation wasn't classified, that she didn't have non-official cover?
Click to expand...

1) According to your source about Plame: "Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had 'nonofficial cover.'"

No one broke any law when they corrected Joe Wilson's lies by pointing out that Plame, rather than Cheney, sent Wilson on his unpaid trip.

And "classified" can literally mean a grocery list you wrote up in a secure location. It is a minor misstatement to say "classified" when you mean, "covert," and most people understand that.

An example of a substantive misrepresentation would be more like the one FOX didn't repeat while all the other media were repeating it...the false title of "Ambassador" Joe Wilson.

2) The author of this, Dale Steinreich, is an anti-war activist all over the blogs. He is hardly a credible source.


You seem smart, but you also seem to have crappy research skills and low standards for credibility.
 
You seem smart, but you also seem to have crappy research skills and low standards for credibility.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe he has a future with FOXNews! :rofl
 

Um, do you realize what you just said?
I said they're lying by saying she didn't have non-official cover - in other words, the truth is that she did have non-official cover. And you posted something that confirmed that she was, in fact, in non-official cover. Do you need the definition of non-official cover, too, or would you like to make another snide remark?

And whether you like Steinrich or not, you could also go through FOX transcripts and find that on the dates he said they showed/said things, they did, but I don't have the time or patience to do so while on my break at work. If you find something on that link that is false, please let me know, and I'll remove it.
 
Something else worthy of putting here:
On the day of the Scooter Libby verdict, FOX announced he was not guilty.


Sorry, just came across that while perusing a blogroll, thought it was almost humorous,
 
Last edited:
Indecent said:
Something else worthy of putting here:
On the day of the Scooter Libby verdict, FOX announced he was not guilty.


Sorry, just came across that while perusing a blogroll, thought it was almost humorous,
Click to expand...
There's absolutely nothing fair about faux news, it's the greatest most bias televised news there is. They attack anyone that disagrees with them including the formation of a fake news show to counter the daily show and the colbert report.
 
jfuh said:
There's absolutely nothing fair about faux news, it's the greatest most bias televised news there is. They attack anyone that disagrees with them including the formation of a fake news show to counter the daily show and the colbert report.
Click to expand...

What I found so amusing about the 1/2 news hour was that they actually enlisted the aid of the "characters" they were falsely portraying. They don't even make an attempt at being a comedy...comedy has the purpose of being funny...not the purpose of countering what we already find funny.
 
Or for example having guests and hosts being extremely critical of Edwards because he refused to join the Fox Debate in Nevada. Not once did they mention why he refused....

Fox News is as biased and deceptive as Pravda was under the Soviets and basicly uses many of the same technics that Gobbels and other dictators have used to attempt to control opinion and hide the truth.

So basicly Fox is biased and deceptive.
 

Actually I cited your source saying she had non-official cover. What your source didn't mention, however was that she had it more than 5 years before any of this, which, according to the statute, means whe was not covert.

"Plame was not covert"

Trial in Error - washingtonpost.com

And yes, I would like to make another snide remark. How about, WRONG AGAIN.

:lol:
 
Indecent said:
Something else worthy of putting here:
On the day of the Scooter Libby verdict, FOX announced he was not guilty.
Click to expand...

And here's FOX News saying he was found guilty a hundred other times.

Search Results: scooter libby

It's pathetic how threatened you people are by a news station showing multiple sides of a story, that you regularly resort to showing every little error they make and deliberately misrepresenting it as propaganda.

:liar
 
Indecent, it seems to me you should be a little more careful than to engage in hyperbole and endeavor to say things that are more true. Don't get me wrong. I despise FOX.

Indecent said:
So the question for many people is, why is Fox so hated by those on the left?
Click to expand...
and I am indeed leftish. I despise FOX because it is mostly opinion, not mostly news.

all good points. but FOX's bias and its deception are part of the same thing. its bias is made apparent in its deception.


Whoa, careful there pardner. Not all pundits they employ are Republican apologists. nearly all of them are. Not every story Fox airs is tilted to the right. Nearly all of them do.

just nitpicking here in the interest of being accurate.
 

So you using an opinion piece in what you probally consider "a liberal rag" as proof that Plame was not a covert operative? Talk about grasping a straws. What next, gonna use the bilbe as proof that the sun revolves around Earth?
 

And that they changed their story to fit with reality means they did not start out with announcing he was NOT guilty?

That Fox called Mark Foley as a democrat more than once on various shows?

That Fox and its "opion journalists" continue to promote the idea that Clinton was behind the whole Obama schooling attack?
 
It's pathetic how threatened you people are by a news station showing multiple sides of a story, that you regularly resort to showing every little error they make and deliberately misrepresenting it as propaganda.
Click to expand...

There is no side of the Libby story that had him as not guilty. Out of four counts, he was guilty of three. God knows they changed their "mistake" later on, I never said they continued to say it that way. But it was consistently shown and said as "not guilty" for over two hours.

Actually I cited your source saying she had non-official cover. What your source didn't mention, however was that she had it more than 5 years before any of this, which, according to the statute, means whe was not covert.
Click to expand...

If you had actually read my source, you'dve noticed she was still NOC in 1998 at the very least, which would have been within the 5 year limit of when the story was published in 03. You'll notice Wilson said she continued to work until 2003.
Also, the court ruling itself (not the Jury, but from the 05 hearing):
a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. The Grand Jury indictment concurred with this. You could read the transcript of the hearing.
I'll take their word anyday over the word of one Washinton Post journalist who makes assertations and doesn't actually provide any substance to the claim that she was not classified- he just states she wasn't, except to say "Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column." And, as you can see from multiple sources (there are well over 10) in wiki, she had served overseas within five years. USA Today also attempted a story that she had not been covert for since 1997, but there were hit by Media Matters and many other agencies that told USA Today relied on unsupported reading of the law.
David Corn notes that:
"When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator — to rise up a notch or two — and then return to secret operations.".

Sorry, I'll continue to take the word of several others before I take the word of one Washinton Post author.
 

No doubt. And their diehard viewers remind me of the "commies" we were warned about back in the days of the Cold War.
 
NO QUARTER: FOX NEWS, Crazy Right Wing Propaganda

you've got to be kidding right?

OMG! They sometimes have segments that actually question what the typical media belief is. Oh my god, they scroll multiple things on their bottom line just like every other channel and if you take one of them out of 10 and put it by myself it looks condemning and biased! OMG! They're opinion shows at times invite both people far right and far left to ask rather provocative questions, and a lot of times even the far right ones are somewhat mocked! OMG they are definitely just a subsidiary of the RNC, shut it down now! BIASED!
 

OMG yet another person comes into OMG yet another thread and comments on one RANDOM post, Oh my god, because its too frickin hard to read from the beginning and come up with, like, SUBSTANTIVE posts. OMG.

</mimic>
 
Captain America said:
No doubt. And their diehard viewers remind me of the "commies" we were warned about back in the days of the Cold War.
Click to expand...

That's a bit over the top. I am a FOX viewer...I watch O'Reilly every night...does that make me a commie. Broad brushes are inappropriate...especially in liberal hands.
 
jallman said:
That's a bit over the top. I am a FOX viewer...I watch O'Reilly every night...does that make me a commie. Broad brushes are inappropriate...especially in liberal hands.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the people who subscribe to the hard rightwing ideologies and propaganda that FOXNews is well known for. They remind me of the commies we were warned about. You may watch FOXNews Jallman but you are NOT a diehard comm....er....rightwinger.

I suppose just watching FOX doesn't necessarily make one a communist. You do have a point sir. I watch HGTV on occassion. That don't make me gay.
 
As an outsider, I see corporations fighting for viewers, and Fox is winning, you are all just pawns in this big game to sell your burgers and colas, it's funny to watch you Americans, hahahaha!:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…