• 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

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

The problem is that they claim to be "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.
 

Exactly. I don't think there is a problem with FOXNews catering to the GOP and the right. Why shouldn't these people have an outlet to voice there views? As right or as wrong as they can be they are just as American as you and I are, and their voices and opinions are just as valid. Why shouldn't they have a sanctuary or a "port in the storm," if you will, to get their news/entertainment the way they want it?

Fortunantly for FOX, they do not have to share their market with a lot of mainstream competetors. Most mainstream media, with a couple of exceptions, caters to the center, center right and center left. Moderates. They have to share their target audience amongst many stations. Whereas FOX almost has a monopoly. I think it's smart thinking on behalf of FOX to offer these rightwing thinking folks something more akin to their tastes. Where else they gonna get it?

With the extreme right being ostracized as they are these days, and the moderate right starting to reconsider, I look for FOX to actually move towards accuracy in the coming months. They MIGHT lose a few hard righties, but the % numbers of those people are dropping daily. They will pick up more viewers than they will lose. But then again, maybe not. Maybe FOX will continue to be cockeyed to the right. Still, even if FOX can capture and hold 15-20% of the viewing public, that is an enourmous number of viewers.

The problem is, the fact that FOX taunts "Fair and Balanced" and "No Spin Zone" when in fact, by all indicators and personal observation, they are anything but. And it further complicates the issue when the fringe elements on the right try to proclaim that FOX is, in fact, fair and balanced. It's OK that they believe that. But some people can get pretty offended when those out there on the neocon perimeter expect others to swallow the rediculous notion that FOX is fair. That is much like calling me an idiot for not thinking the world is flat.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
The problem is that they claim to be "fair and balanced" when they clearly aren't.
Click to expand...

No it's that they give the conservative side at all and that when that side is presented the liberal side is shown for what it is. And all the faux whinning and moaning and assertions thrown out about FOX are just phony justification to shut down the opposition. Goes right along with the liberal principle that if you can't beat them at the ballot box, trump up phony charges and have them thrown in prison.

So instead of trying to win that battle on the merits of their own arguments the left want government to suppress free speech and have government control it. And liberals are foolish enough to let them do it just so a balanced presentation of news and opinion can't be presented just the liberal side.

Breitbart.tv » SENATOR CLAIMS: Clinton, Boxer Conspiring to Rein In Talk Radio
 

Listen, you claimed that Fox is fair and balanced, I asked you to support your assertion, and you were unable to do so (your response was "it's obvious" which isn't a substantiation at all). Because of this, I'm not going to take you seriously on this subject until you do so. If you're not going to do so, then you might as well not respond to my posts as you'd be wasting your time (although not completely, as I find them very entertaining).
 
Shut the hell up.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

One day I was in a restaurant eating lunch and the TV was on. I wasn’t watching it but listening to it. They went on and on about some arcane news story that outlets like AP, BBC, and the major networks just touched on. I was wondering “why the hell are they going on and on about nothing”.

I looked up and saw it was FOX and realized that the particular news story fit perfectly with their pro-Bush agenda and the world view they project. It had something to do with Chavez, and sure he does newsworthy stuff from time to time, but on this occasion it was really something very minor and FOX’s coverage was extreme overkill.
 

I went to an orthopedic surgeon awhile back and the tv was turned to Faux. I asked the receptionist if I could have the remote. She said they only keep the tv on one station. I asked her if she really expected patients to view Faux while waiting and she said WHAT? It's not supposed to be on Faux. She turned it to the NW Weather channel. Later, in the room waiting for the doc, I picked up a magazine that was pure neocon propaganda (I think it was called NewsMax?). I read it and was livid by the time by doc came in.

I told him first I came into this facility and had to deal with Faux, then I come into the room and find $hit like this magazine. I started going off on a rant about how I wasn't going to have a doctor who tried to politically influence me or others......before I got too far in my rant, he was agreeing with me. Actually he was pi$$ed off too. He thought maybe one of the other docs or a patient brought the magazine in. Needless to say, he took the magazine and said he'd take care of it and make sure that there were no religious or political materials in the office.

When I go to the doc, I'm there for medical issues, not political. When I go to a restaurant I'm there for hunger issues, not political. When I go to the CPA, I'm there for financial issues, not political.

I made up my mind a long time ago that any business that caters to the neocon agenda in the course of their day-to-day duties (faux, neocon magazines, etc) has lost my business.
 
missypea said:
I made up my mind a long time ago that any business that caters to the neocon agenda in the course of their day-to-day duties (faux, neocon magazines, etc) has lost my business.
Click to expand...

But obviously not your attention.
 
I don't mind bias, but propaganda gets old.
 

You may not care about the rise of a communist dictator, but other Americans do.
 
Originally Posted by missypea View Post
I made up my mind a long time ago that any business that caters to the neocon agenda in the course of their day-to-day duties (faux, neocon magazines, etc) has lost my business.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
But obviously not your attention.
Click to expand...

nor should it
 
wonder cow said:
I don't mind bias, but propaganda gets old.
Click to expand...

If fox got a fax from an anonymous source showing that John Kerry went AWOL during his military service, then went and reported it as news, going as far as to say it had been independently verified 3 months before the presidential election...

Would that qualify as propaganda? Or no?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Perhaps you should hop over to the Venezuela thread and begin participating there.
Click to expand...

One of your comrades a few posts up was writing a book on the horror of seeing fox cover chavez instead of iraq, I merely responded.

If you don't want him discussed, don't bring him up.
 
By the way:

"A Fox TV reporter in Omaha, Calvert Collins, posted a photo on Facebook.com with her cozying up to a Democratic candidate for Congress. She urged her friends, "Vote for him Tuesday, Nov. 7!" She also gave him $500. She said she was just trying to build rapport with the candidates."

Journalists give campaign cash - Politics - MSNBC.com

THOSE DARN FAUX NEWS PEOPLE GIVING DEMO----I MEAN REPUBLICANS MONEY DURRR DA DUR DUR
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Which terrorists did they sponsor?
Click to expand...

The most prominent, by far, was Palestinian suicide bombers, but they were involved with others as well.

Khayembii Communique said:
What does this have to do with being a threat to the US?
Click to expand...

It proved that a U.S. enemy with which diplomacy was clearly not an option, that regularly, openly sponsored terrorism, was willing to use WMD for political gain.

In a post-9/11 world, threats like that have to be eradicated.

Khayembii Communique said:
False. See the other thread that this is being discussed. Read Hersch's article.
Click to expand...

If you have evidence contradicting the overwhelming majority of mainstream media sources, and disproving that Bill Clinton's cruise missile strike on Saddam wasn't about the assassination attempt, as Bill Clinton said, then YOU present it.

Khayembii Communique said:
So he wasn't a threat; you just don't like him.
Click to expand...

Non-sequiter. Pointing out that diplomatic measures had been exhausted in no way implies that Saddam wasn't a threat.

Khayembii Communique said:
And what does "someone like him" mean? What about others that are like him? Why doesn't the US take them out? Because they're allies with them. Your entire perception is based on false premises.
Click to expand...

Show me one country we've allied ourselves with in a post-9/11 world (or a pre-9/11 world for that matter) that has used WMD to commit genocide for political gain while being one of the world's most prolific terror-sponsors...after 15 years of failed diplomacy.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Listen, you claimed that Fox is fair and balanced, I asked you to support your assertion, and you were unable to do so (your response was "it's obvious" which isn't a substantiation at all).
Click to expand...

Just watch, had you watched this morning you'd have seen 4 liberals plus a liberal commentator on NBC meet the press. On Fox a impartial commentator and a balanced panel.

No study can substitute for your own unbias'd viewing and anyone who does so clearly sees that FOX is the balance network while the others parrot the Democrat agenda and talking points and do not present the other side in a fair and balanced manner. If you can't even honestly agree with that then no one is going to take you seriously at all.

Because of this, I'm not going to take you seriously on this subject until you do so.
Click to expand...
:boohoo:

If you're not going to do so, then you might as well not respond to my posts as you'd be wasting your time (although not completely, as I find them very entertaining).
Click to expand...
Actually it's far more entertaining watching you guys try to smear FOX because the other networks are so bias'd.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
First, the US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.
Click to expand...

Which side had committed an act of war against us?

And we supported a stand-still with neither side winning and our policy towards both was geared to that end.

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.
Click to expand...
It was authorized under the resolutions and cease fire agreements. When Blix came back and said Saddam was STILL not cooperating that was it.
 
Shouldn't this thread be a sticky now?
 
A news organization sued for "behaving a grossly irresponsible way."

Hmmm.

One would hope that even the Fox News haters among you would hope that such a suit would not prevail. Or is skewering Fox News so important to you that you'd be willing to have the precedent hanging over every other news source as well? Would it be worth it?

(Besides, if it prevails, George W. Bush might look into suing CBS, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes on exactly the same grounds. What say ye?)
 

What precedent would it set? Would FOX have to be careful of what crap they slop up on the screen? Will they have to actually investigate stories and check sources?

You're right. That would be horrible.

If you broadcast something and that broadcast results in some kind of damage, you are responsible if it turns out what you broadcast was untrue, if through negligence you did not investigate it or check sources, ect. If you had a good reason to believe it was true, then you are still safe.
 
Harshaw said:
(Besides, if it prevails, George W. Bush might look into suing CBS, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes on exactly the same grounds. What say ye?)
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Bush would want to do that... It would actually mean that there would have to be an investigation into his military record or lack of it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.