• 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 News at it again

That was certainly the picture Mr. Bush painted. And if you didn't watch FOX news so much Stinger, you would know that.

Painting Saddam as an imminent threat? He did nothing of the sort and said explictly he must be remove BEFORE he BECAME an imminent threat. Why didn't you listen to what he actually said instead of listening to the myths on MSNBC, CNN, et al?



MSNBC is crap also, but I believe this thread is about FOX.

Which network told you Bush said Saddam was an imminent threat and failed to tell you the truth then?
 
You've been doing it all along.

No, I presented substantiation; you just didn't accept it.

But the fact remains anyone who watches both would clearly see that FOX indeed presents both sides of the issue in both their hard news and opinion segments.

And you keep on going making claims without backing them up.
 
No, I presented substantiation; you just didn't accept it.

No more or less than me.



And you keep on going making claims without backing them up.

They're backed up every night and by the ratings.

Are you denying that the Democrats and left are trying to shut down FOX so that their propaganda goes unchallenged?

What are you so scared of FOX and a balanced news presentation?
 
No more or less than me.

Really. Then you could show me where you provided evidence to support your claim that Fox is fair and balanced.

They're backed up every night and by the ratings.

That doesn't mean it's "fair and balanced".

Are you denying that the Democrats and left are trying to shut down FOX so that their propaganda goes unchallenged?

Yes.

What are you so scared of FOX and a balanced news presentation?

What are you so scared of MSNBC and a balanced news presentation?
 
Really. Then you could show me where you provided evidence to support your claim that Fox is fair and balanced.

They demonstrate it 24 hours a day, what better proves it than their actually broadcast?



That doesn't mean it's "fair and balanced".
You don't believe most people want a fair and balanced presentation of the news?

Quote:
Are you denying that the Democrats and left are trying to shut down FOX so that their propaganda goes unchallenged?

You deny they have blacklisted them?



What are you so scared of MSNBC and a balanced news presentation?
Where do you get the idea I'm scared of them, I have no problem with them giving their slanted view every night, it proves my point every night and they are constantly shown to be one sided and they continue to whallow in a ratings dark hole.

Why do you prefer such a slanted view rather than getting both sides of the issue as on FOX?

Here is an example of slanted news

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/08/shuster-convinced/

That was presented as hard news.
 
Hey Khayembii:

"THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED"

This argument is over. Next thread please.

I wasn't claiming MSNBC is balanced.

They demonstrate it 24 hours a day, what better proves it than their actually broadcast?

Really. Then you could show me where you provided evidence to support your claim that Fox is fair and balanced.

You don't believe most people want a fair and balanced presentation of the news?

Ratings mean that it's popular; not that it's balanced. This isn't proof of your assertion.

You deny they have blacklisted them?

Many have.

Why do you prefer such a slanted view rather than getting both sides of the issue as on FOX?

Why do you prefer such a slanted view rather than getting both sides of the issue as on MSNBC?

If I do this enough, maybe you'll catch on to my point.
 
I wasn't claiming MSNBC is balanced.

And thankfully we have a cable news channel that is.


Really. Then you could show me where you provided evidence to support your claim that Fox is fair and balanced.

http://www.foxnews.com/

You will find the programming and guest for the last several nights and see that they give a balance viewpoint.


Ratings mean that it's popular; not that it's balanced. This isn't proof of your assertion.

It's means that the audience that watches news chooses them above all the others. Liberals, moderates and conservatives. You don't get that by not offer all sides of the story.


Why do you prefer such a slanted view rather than getting both sides of the issue as on MSNBC?

So you were lying in your first statement?

If I do this enough, maybe you'll catch on to my point.

I catch yours.........................:rofl
 
Breaking News | News & Media | Latest Current - FOXNews.com

You will find the programming and guest for the last several nights and see that they give a balance viewpoint.

I'm not going to do your data mining for you. If you want to back up your statement then do it. If not, then stop saying it.

It's means that the audience that watches news chooses them above all the others. Liberals, moderates and conservatives. You don't get that by not offer all sides of the story.

Sure you do. I watch Fox all the time; I'm certainly not a conservative, but I watch it every night. Does that make it balanced? Certainly not.

*EDIT: In fact, the majority of Fox viewers are republicans.
Overview: News Audiences Increasingly Politicized
215-2.gif


So you were lying in your first statement?

I was making a point that you hopefully got. I could continue, if you want, to make unsubstantiated claims. Check out how balanced MSNBC is:

MSNBC - MSNBC - Breaking World and US News Stories & Headlines - Get the Latest Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, & Technology updates from around the world Front Page
 
I'm not going to do your data mining for you. If you want to back up your statement then do it. If not, then stop saying it.

There is no better source than their actual broadcast.


Sure you do. I watch Fox all the time; I'm certainly not a conservative, but I watch it every night. Does that make it balanced? Certainly not.

Oh and you do because all they give you is a conservative viewpoint.....yeah right/

*EDIT: In fact, the majority of Fox viewers are republicans.

Wrong and your graph doesn't show that.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215



I was making a point that you hopefully got. I could continue, if you want, to make unsubstantiated claims. Check out how balanced MSNBC is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Prove YOUR claim, and not by using an anti-FOX outlet. Oh and I posted the proof of MSNBC. So were you lying when you said they were balanced?
 
There is no better source than their actual broadcast.

Same with MSNBC.

:roll:

Oh and you do because all they give you is a conservative viewpoint.....yeah right/

No they give me entertainment. Oreilly's a pompous *** that always makes a fool out of himself and Hannity's a joke. They're hilarious.

Wrong and your graph doesn't show that.

Yes it does.

Prove YOUR claim, and not by using an anti-FOX outlet.

That would be impossible, as any evidence I present you would consider "anti-Fox".

Oh and I posted the proof of MSNBC.

Show me where you did that.
 
Hannity's a joke.

I saw him at an anti-war rally, when he started to film where the radicals were I told him to **** off and he eventually was chased out.

Oh and you do because all they give you is a conservative viewpoint.....yeah right/

wai..wait...wait, are you implying that FOX NEWS takes non-conservative view points??? When??? Where??? WTF??? Why wasn't I alerted on this great event???
 
Same with MSNBC.

:roll:

I agree and MSNBC and CNN and ABC clearly show their bias each night and FOX clearly demonstrates that it puts on more balance programming every night.


No they give me entertainment. Oreilly's a pompous *** that always makes a fool out of himself and Hannity's a joke. They're hilarious.

OReilly has the most highly rated program because he presents issues from both sides and goes after Republicans and much as he does Democrats. Hannity is a serious conservative commentator who presents his position from an informed stand point.

Your invective merely shows weakness to your argument.


Quote:
Wrong and your graph doesn't show that.

Yes it does.

No it does not, it shows the majority of listeners are NOT Republican, almost 2/3's are NOT Republican.



That would be impossible, as any evidence I present you would consider "anti-Fox".

:rofl, as I said the shows speak for themselves and tonight as usual a fair and balance hard news report, and the commentary giving equal voice to both sides of the issues.


Show me where you did that.

The David Schuster clip.
 
Which network told you Bush said Saddam was an imminent threat and failed to tell you the truth then?

Symantics.......

Media Matters - FOX panelists: Bush never labeled Iraqi threat "imminent" (only "urgent")

FOX News Channel hosts Morton M. Kondracke (Roll Call executive editor); Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard executive editor); and Brit Hume (FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent) all agreed that President George W. Bush never claimed that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" while making his public case for war and that, in fact, "he said the opposite."

The truth is that while Bush never uttered the phrase "imminent threat," he and members of his administration conveyed essentially the same message using other language: Bush called Iraq an "urgent threat"; Vice President Dick Cheney called Iraq a "mortal threat"; and other senior White House officials agreed in response to press questions that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

From the August 4 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

KONDRACKE: I think everybody would agree that the word "imminent" was the crucial word, over which the fight [over whether Bush misled the public into war] took place. And in the case of Iraq, clearly there was not an imminent threat, and Bush didn't say there was.

HUME: He said there wasn't.

BARNES: He said the opposite. Yes.

In a September 28, 2002, radio address, Bush said of Iraq, "We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America."

In an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said, "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

In an August 26, 2002, speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Cheney said, "What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness."

In the daily White House press briefing on October 16, 2002, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer unequivocally agreed with a reporter who interpreted Bush's recent public statements as depicting an imminent threat:

QUESTION: Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

FLEISCHER: Yes.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett had a similar exchange on the January 26, 2003, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But the question is, he's a threat based on what the information you're suggesting, to his own people, to his neighbors.

But is he an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?

BARTLETT: Well, of course he is.
 
In an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said, "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

And this coming after the evidence glaringly showed absolutely no possibility of Iraq developing nuclear weaponry.
 
From the August 4 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

KONDRACKE: I think everybody would agree that the word "imminent" was the crucial word, over which the fight [over whether Bush misled the public into war] took place. And in the case of Iraq, clearly there was not an imminent threat, and Bush didn't say there was.

HUME: He said there wasn't.

BARNES: He said the opposite. Yes.

Here is a lovely example of how Fox twists things to fit the neo-con agenda. Thanks for the tip, Stinger.

Regardless of whether or not Bush used the word imminent, he certainly implied that with his statements. His staff agreed with the word imminent when questioned by reporters on and on and ON.

Then Fox gets their talking points and comes out with the BS that Bush never used the word imminent.

Urgent, moral threat, mushroom cloud....words like that tend to lean towards the word that Fox doesn't want to attribute to GW or his administration. Their job is to be apologists for the neo-con agenda and they are very good (although blatant) at it.
 
Symantics.......

No, words matter and those trying to spin this into the adminsistration claiming Saddam was an imminent threat are doing so dishonestly and for poltical gain.

Media Matters - FOX panelists: Bush never labeled Iraqi threat "imminent" (only "urgent")
FOX News Channel hosts Morton M. Kondracke (Roll Call executive editor); Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard executive editor); and Brit Hume (FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent) all agreed that President George W. Bush never claimed that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" while making his public case for war and that, in fact, "he said the opposite."

Yep, the administrations position was that Saddam could not be allowed to become an imminent threat, the same position of the Clinton administration.

Here it is, can't be any clearer

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."


"In the daily White House press briefing on October 16, 2002, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer unequivocally agreed with a reporter who interpreted Bush's recent public statements as depicting an imminent threat:

QUESTION: ................................ that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

FLEISCHER: Yes."

A two part question, Fleischer was addressing the second half, note he did not say Saddam was an imminent threat the report falsely claimed Bush did.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett had a similar exchange on the January 26, 2003, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But the question is, he's a threat based on what the information you're suggesting, to his own people, to his neighbors.

But is he an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?

BARTLETT: Well, of course he is.

Again a convoluted question, where the REPORTER is making the assertion in a long line of questioning not the person being questioned. Yes he was threat to his neighbors and US Interest. It was the press that choose to frame it as imminent not the administration.

It's very simple, had the administration thought Saddam was an imminent threat, they would have clearly stated so and made the case and done so LOUDLY. Had they thought that they wouldn't have waited 14 months to remove him and would not have gone to the UN.

Here is a more reasoned, and not pro-Bush, detailed article on the whole matter

"
A need for nuance
As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make it appear that the Bush administration's case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side."
Spinsanity - Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate
 
I don't see how this debate over "imminent threat" is relevant at all to the overall situation in which the US waged a "preventive" war against Iraq based on false premises and selective intelligence.
 
I don't see how this debate over "imminent threat" is relevant at all to the overall situation in which the US waged a "preventive" war against Iraq based on false premises and selective intelligence.

Actually it does demonstrate how FOX gives the more balanced view as opposed to the other media. They have from the get go exposed the propaganda of the the "imminent threat" claims.

We waged a war on Iraq because they twice invaded neighboring countries and then violated the cease fire agreements.

If you watched FOX you would not have such a slanted view and you would know why we resumed hostilities and did what even the previous administration said would be the final solution, removing Saddam from power by the use of force.
 
We waged a war on Iraq because they twice invaded neighboring countries and then violated the cease fire agreements.

First, the US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Second, the Gulf War was authorized by the UN and the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not. The only party that could authorize force was the Security Council, which it did not do.

If you watched FOX you would not have such a slanted view and you would know why we resumed hostilities and did what even the previous administration said would be the final solution, removing Saddam from power by the use of force.

Yeah, that's not a slanted view at all.:roll:
 
Beware of foxes dressed in sheeple clothimg.

Fox News is biased. There is no denying it. There is no getting around it. It is what it is. It is a propaganda channel catering specifically to the rightwing viewer marketshare and the Republican Party. To argue anything different, when you can turn on the channel RIGHT NOW, or at anytime, and see the obviousness of their bias, is absurd and rediculous. Case Closed. Period.

There is no winning the arguement that FOX is fair and balanced. You would have better luck proving the existance of the tooth fairy.

In fact, FOX News has started a cottage internet industry surrounding their slanted propaganda. Let's take a looksy shall we? Let's drop by our friends of at Wiki!

Fox News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks. Its self-promotion includes the phrases "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide."

Despite this, many media commentators and competitors have alleged that Fox News has a conservative bias and tailors its news to support the Republican Party. Critics frequently refer to Fox News as the "Faux News Network," the "Republican News Network," "GOP TV," "Fear and Bias," or "Unfair and Unbalanced. Although most critics do not claim that all Fox News reporting is slanted, most allege that bias at Fox News is systemic, and implemented to target a largely right-wing audience.
<snip> User:Crazyeddie/Fox News Allegations rewrite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fair and Balanced"
Fox News Channel promotes itself under the slogan "fair and balanced", but examinations of the channel's guest selection have found notable imbalances towards Republicans and conservatives. In 2001, when the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting studied the guestlist of FNC's flagship news program, Special Report, it found that Republicans made up 89 percent of Fox News' partisan guests, outnumbering Democrats 50 to 6. Avowed conservatives made up 71 percent of guests.[2] <snip> Fox News - SourceWatch

People are making money selling books about the rightwing propaganda machine. Fox News - SourceWatch
Amazon.com: The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy: Books: David Brock

The Ratings Mirage
Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers
The Ratings Mirage
How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers. <snip>

And these people who do mostly watch FOX, is it really any suprise that they would argue that FOX truly is fair and balanced?

While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.

As the researchers explained in their report, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions
<snip> The Carpetbagger Report » Blog Archive » Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD

Enough. You guys can Google the FOX NEWS propaganda machine yourself. There are no shortages of links to follow. I do not need to research and validate what I already know to be true. It is what it is.

FOX News is a business. They are out to make a profit. They have found their niche. There is a substantial market out there to cater your news to sooth the people of rightwing ideology. There isn't much competition in the market. FOX seized the oppertunity and have done well for themselves. There is no real shame in that. Look at The New York Times. They have done the same only catering to the left.

Granted, it might be a bit embarassing to know that your views and ideas have been groomed and molded by a propaganda machine and nobody wants to admit they are less informed than their neighbor. But as long as people can hear what they want to hear, derive some sort of validation for their views from a major media outlet, there will be propaganda machines such as FAUXNews. FOX only gets so much attention because their bias is so over the top who can ignore it?

Fair and balanced.... gimme a break.

Don't pi$$ in my hair and tell me it's raining. Sheeeesh....:roll:
 
Those sources don't count because they're all liberal propaganda lies.

:doh

Well of course they are. :roll: Anything that suggests anything other than rightwing ideology is liberal propaganda lies...
:rofl

But that does not matter to me. I do not need a link for me to validate what I already know to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When it's storming outside with lighting all around, I do not need the Weather Channel to tell me there's a chance of rain.

I do not care that neoconazi's people watch FOX and believe in them. I do not care that tree hugging liberals read the New York Times while sipping their latte's. What does get under my skin is these people insulting my intelligence by proclaiming that neither are what they are when it is what it is. Shut the hell up. Belive in Santa Claus for all I care. But don't call me a fool for not believing in Santa.

There is no right or left to me. Only right and wrong.
 
Interestingly, no one harping on Fox News seems to want to address my question . . .

Fox News is the lone conservative network news among numerous liberal organizations. So, what's the problem? Where's the harm?

Interesting story on MSNBC today, by the way, about how the vast majority of reporters are aligned and what they do with their money and time:

Journalists give campaign cash - Politics - MSNBC.com
 
Back
Top Bottom