- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Wow, yet another one declaring victory, this time, with out even responding. You must have had that victory in your head. Too bad it never made it to the forum.ABC?
Okay folks, I think this ends the discussion quite well don't you?
Sheik, thank you for the reply, we shall let this stand as evidence of what this thread REALLY was all about. Just as I stated it was.
Wow, yet another one declaring victory, this time, with out even responding. You must have had that victory in your head. Too bad it never made it to the forum.
This is nothing more than a Conservative whining that ABC is biased, but not actual evidence of it. Regardless, this is a specific incident that may or may not be bias. I'm not talking about specific incidents of bias. I already agreed with another gentleman that all news agencies suffer bouts of isolated cases of bias on occassion. I'm talking about systemic bias, which I believe is the case with Fox and I believe is the case with MSNBC.
What? It's ABC's fault that Palin made an idiot of herself? She thought the Bush Doctrine was George Bush's "world view." :roll:
This article is about Michael Moore, not ABC.
This is an article about ABC not being biased ... "I quit ABC a couple weeks ago partly because they didn’t like what I was doing. They viewed it as too biased…So I am going to Fox Business" ~ John Stossel
This is another example like your first, a Conservative whining that ABC is biased, but not actual evidence of it. And like your first example, even if you consider it biased, it's just a specific incident of a reporter being biased. It's not indicative of the network being biased systemically.
This was a valid citation on your part. This was a case where someone working for ABC confessed systemic bias from the network. But to his credit, he also worked to rid his news agency of what he called, "old media" bias.
Just watch this one.
I am a fan of the Lehrer News Hour. The news portion is pretty well presented, the people they bring in to discuss issues tend to be polite and intelligent even if they disagree with each other, which is a nice change of pace.
I don't care much for Lehrer but if you like him it really doesn't matter, and the same is true for Sheil Yerbuti enjoying ABC. The only thing I find interesting is that Fox News really inspires strong emotions from those who lean towards the Left, and their complaints usually tend to be non-specific.
To each his own, I reckon, and we can learn whatever we can from Jim Lehrer, ABC News and Fox News to better debate each other on these boards. That's when whatever we learned from whatever we've watched takes on more value.
Why were they even on the air in the first place? Is credibility not a prerequisite for being a Fox News contributor?
Regrettably, that you dismiss me and mock me is not an indication that you've figured out yet what I'm talking about. Case in point, the portion of your quote above that I highlighted -- I never said that. Yet you "dismiss me" and "mock me" for it.You slam Fox as false news for having Republican Conservative commentators for editorial pieces yet claim ABC, the same ABC News that hired Clinton's mouth piece as a Journalist is centered reliable news.
It's more then just amusing.
I think I like you. When was the last time we had one so easy to dismiss and mock as you?
Funny, but I did not even mention FOX news, and in fact watch it on occasion.
Why were they even on the air in the first place? Is credibility not a prerequisite for being a Fox News contributor?
Sheik Yerbuti said:Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased.
What is your statute of limitations? How long before an election should FOX avoid having someone on the payroll if they 'might' run for President? 1 year? 2? 4? Never? Be specific.
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.Never did get an answer to this. Maybe because you simply don't have an answer???
Regrettably, that you dismiss me and mock me is not an indication that you've figured out yet what I'm talking about. Case in point, the portion of your quote above that I highlighted -- I never said that. Yet you "dismiss me" and "mock me" for it.
Do you even realize what you're dismissing and mocking isn't even me, it's your own strawman?
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.
That aside, do you understand my belief that there needs to be a definitive wall separating the press from the government?
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.
That aside, do you understand my belief that there needs to be a definitive wall separating the press from the government?
I didn't use your exact words, OMG! Would you prefer I cut and pasted your silliness? You have a problem with potential GOP Presidential candidates getting paid by Fox news and others believing fox is a viable news source.
Yet you watch ABC News.
The amusement, is strong with this one.
Do you agree or disagree with me that the line between the press and the government should not be blurred?My point is... no news organization should have as hiring criteria 'Do you plan to now, or in the near future, run for President of the United States.' They should hire based on knowledge, credibility, ability to bring in viewers, etc. Possible future plans in politics should not be used as hiring criteria.
What I'd like to know is how can Fox News be considered a credible news agency when it's very likely that most, if not all, of the serious Republican candidates next year will have at one time been on their pay role? How can they possibly be fair and balanced?
Whovian said:My point is... no news organization should have as hiring criteria 'Do you plan to now, or in the near future, run for President of the United States.' They should hire based on knowledge, credibility, ability to bring in viewers, etc. Possible future plans in politics should not be used as hiring criteria.
Does Fox have any Liberal commentators?Still, I think the bigger point is how can a TV/cable news entity be taken at face value as being "fair and balanced" when the majority of their contract commentators are of only one political party? Answer: You really can't.
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?