Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

  1. #1
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Many folks criticize FOX NEWS for "right wing spin" and for inter alia being apologists for Bush and the Republicans. I honestly think that's somewhat fair and Ailes has pretty much admitted as much in a recent speech arguing for "diversity of thought" in newsrooms and among reporters. Therefore the purpose of this thread is not to argue that point nor is it to argue alleged "left wing media bias." What I WOULD like to see (and would appreciate if you'd confine yourselves thereto) are concrete examples where FOX NEWS "got it wrong".
    Exmples where their report ( not something Hannity or O'Reilly said) was proven to be erroneous; unfairly redacted- they left out a crucial fact; TOTALLY one sided-they didn't even TRY to get a response or opposing view and cases where they did not retract, correct, supplement or revise an erroneous report and did not acknowledge error or apologize. Blatantly incomplete qualifies; allegedly "one-sided" does not

    I'm not interested in cases where they REPEATED erroneous reports from other news sources. All media outlets do that- " The A.P. reported that " ; "The latest Drudge Report accuses so and so of this and that." They're effectively just "reporting the report." I don't like it. I think it's sloppy journalism but FOX is far from alone in doing it. No, I'd like examples along the lines of Dan Rather and his phony National Guard records for Bush ( for which he has never apologized or even admitted he was wrong. )

    So let's see what you serious Fox News critics can come up with about their NEWS REPORTING !

  2. #2
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    ooh this topic should be fun

    First I want to point out that Rather DID say he was sorry and that he got it wrong. His exact words were "we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry."

    But Eric wants to meat of this discussion to be about FoxNews not Rather or any other media outlet so I will get us started on the topic of FauxNews.


    Here is a link on the Schiavo case -


    This one is about the ABC tv movie on 9/11 -

    Here is a little something from Salon-

    Here is something from Daily Kos-

    Here is one on Obama -

    Here is one on "White House Vandalism"
    -

    Here is something on Fox lying about their lies -

    Here is another link. It has a list of time and dates along with the "FauxNews" information

    Here is one on Douglas Feith lying on Fox News-

    Here is a little something on the typical way Fox works their spin -

    Here is one that shows screen shots of the "FauxNews". A personal favorite of mine from this link is where FoxNews reported Mark Foley as a Dem



    Another link -

    This one is kind of funny, imo. It shows how Fox News lied about of all things South Park-

    Here is one on the Iran threat -

    This one is on the Democrats refusal to do that Fox debate -

    PS- I am not claiming ALL these sites to be reputable or not, they are just some things that came up in a quick web search. I am posting them for the purpose of getting this discussion started.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-21-2007 at 09:25 PM. Reason: adding the Rather quote

  3. #3
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Now this is seriously disturbing to me because a court of appeals says it was ok.

    ' In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

    Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

    According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired'

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Not intending to attack or defend Fox or any mainstream news outlet, but I'd like to ask a question related to the above post. I assume that it also 'legal' for news outlets to simply cherry pick content from particular events, and to heavily publicize some facts/statements while making absolutely no mention of other facts/statements at the discretion of the editor ? While from a legal standpoint this couldn't constitute disseminating false information, IMHO it certainly constitutes disseminating 'one sided' information, doesn't it ?

  5. #5
    aussiepunkshocker
    Guest

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    I dont believe any news is 100% honest with the way they report. Censorship of events is huge IMO. I definatly prefer independent / smaller news services to the mainstram ones, but even they have been known to tell some major pork pies.

    Im certainly not a fan of Murdoch, never have been.

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    T-10 You get a "D+". I looked through your links and ON BALANCE they simply do NOT make the case that FOX NEWS is any sloppier or biased in their reporting than anyone else.

    The first item re: Dr.Hammesfahr related to HIS lying about his qualifications. We KNOW Hannity's a not too bright right-wing hack and he was ridiculous in pushing half-truths and incomplete information to try and convince people that Schiavo was NOT a non-functional vegetable which her autopsy PROVED she was. Please remember,I said, forget about Hannity and O'Reilly. Confine it to News Reporting !

    The second item contained NOTHING inaccurate or unfair. Rather than stand up to Willy's squealing and whining ABC DID edit out scenes from its "9/11" T.V. movie. It wasn't FOX's movie and they showed the edited scenes. How is that unfair or inaccurate ? It's not.

    The third item concerns Hannity and O'Reilly. They host topical discussion shows. They are PUNDITS ; not reporters.Just like Russert, Matthews, OLBERMAN etc.

    Did you READ your 4th link ? What Chris Wallace said was correct: a Senate Resolution to "BEGIN the withdrawl". No inaccuracy at all.

    Your 5th item- You get an "A". A good example of sloppy journalism by Fox. They were 100 % wrong and should have known better than to rely on a gossip like Drudge.

    The White House "trashing" and "looting" stories were WIDELY reported. FOX and their personnel may have "enjoyed them" more than other outlets and it was salacious gossip BUT Fox reported that the stories were ultimately shown to be untrue.

    The Newshound item shows absolutely NOTHING ! Piddling variants between the broadcast and web-site contents signifying nothing.

    The "Lewrockwell" piece shows that FOX, along with the Bush Administration AND CNN and the New York Times essentially got it wrong on WMD. It can be fairly argued that Fox let itself be a mouthpiece for the Military and the Bush Administration.CNN's been guilty of the exact same thing for Clinton. It essentially shows how the stories on Iraqi WMD shifted. O'Reilly has been harshly critical of Bush for relying on phony intel.

    The "thinkprogress" iktem. Again, Did YOU READ IT ! Wallace works for FOX. HE pointed out that Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's former aide lied about Saddam-Al Queda links. Wallace pulled down the pants of a former Bush Admin. official for lying and you think that's "bad reporting " ???????

    The "prospect.org" item was a REAL JOKE. Leaving aside the fact that Reich was Clinton's Sec. of Labor and is an unabashed FDR admirer; he's FULL OF CRAP ! His own "hit-piece" shows that FOX ACCURATELY reported EXACTLY what FDR said in 1935 vis a vis Social Security and "voluntary contribution plans" i.e. modern day IRA's.

    The "media matters" item recounted a roundtable discussion expressing OPINION about Edwards pulling out of the Fox-sponsored Nevada debate. Edwards pulled out for 2 reasons- the incorrect Obama story and Ann Coulter's bad joke about him. Coulter doesn't work for Fox and didn't say it on a FOX program. She said it at the C-PAC convention. Ironically, O'Reilly had on many guests who were highly critical of Coulter. More irony, the Nevada Democrat Party pulled out over a joke Ailes made ABOUT BUSH ! The point of the joke was Bush was too ignorant or too stupid ( take your pick ) to tell the difference between Osama and OBAMA. He delivered it to a convention of Broadcast JOURNALISTS and it got a big laugh !Everyone "got it" except the Chairman of the Nevada Democrat Party.

    I haven't bothered checking your other links but out of the first 11 you managed to come up with exactly one example of sloppy or lazy journalism and one other where they carelessly let themselves be a rumor or gossip mill for Bush. Not their finest hour but again, they HAVE reported that ultimately no "wmd's" were found and FOX was not alone in this kind of carelessness during the run up to the war and the actaul invasion.

    Btw, Are you familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court case of NEW YORK TIMES vs.SULLIVAN ? Read it ! and then you'll know that a news organization is only liable for defamation when the plaintiff can show "ACTUAL MALICE"- they printed or broadcast a FALSE and defamatory item KNOWING it was untrue or they should have known it was untrue. Btw, if Bush had chosen to sue Rather & CBS over the
    phony National Guard documents; he would have won. Just because a story later proves to be untrue does not mean the journalist necessarily did anything wrong. Dan Rather did- his own expert told him the documents were fake.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-22-2007 at 12:36 PM.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    T-10 You get a "D+". I looked through your links and ON BALANCE they simply do NOT make the case that FOX NEWS is any sloppier or biased in their reporting than anyone else.
    LMFAO! Ok teacher

    You just changed the "test" objective. Your OP didn't ask to show that FoxNews was so much worse than any other news group. And I quote-

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Therefore the purpose of this thread is not to argue that point nor is it to argue alleged "left wing media bias." What I WOULD like to see (and would appreciate if you'd confine yourselves thereto) are concrete examples where FOX NEWS "got it wrong".

    Exmples where their report ( not something Hannity or O'Reilly said) was proven to be erroneous; unfairly redacted- they left out a crucial fact
    So as you can see what you actually asked for was examples of where FOX NEWS got it wrong, was proven to be erroneous; or where they left out a crucial facts. I provided you a large list of available examples.

    Ofcourse I already knew that it wouldn't matter to you in the slightest how many or how reputable the example were because you are a conservative FoxNews kind of guy, but that is ofcourse your prerogative.

    As for your grade system, I respectfully refer you to the post script in my first reply.

    Just for the record, I believe that FoxNews originally got it's nickname of FauxNews due to the fact that they made an assertion in court that they had the right to distort or to go about falsifying the news in the United States.

    It's not a very a thinly veiled secret that they intentionally report false information on a regular basis for the entertainment of their target audience of conservative and neoconservative viewers.

    I have more than proven my case and thus my job is done. In this topic anyway
    Last edited by T-10; 03-22-2007 at 11:35 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    T-10- NOT even close ! Alright you didn't like my little grading system. My bad- no disrespect intended BUT your own links contain examples where FOX got it right ! Where there was NO INACCURACY ! Please READ your own links ! The Kerry-Chris Wallace exchange- No misquote by Wallace- the Senate Resolution was designed to "START" a pull out. Wallace outed Feith as a LIAR ! there was NO MISQUOTE
    of FDR and Reich's own piece shows it.

    Btw, MEDIA- MATTERS is far from "reputable". They NEVER go after CNN the same way they go after FOX.

    Another btw, I'd like a reference to the ACTUAL Court filing where FOX supposedly said what you claim. No news org. in their right mind would say that ! Even Murdoch doesn't have enough money to pay off all the defamation suits that would result. INTENTIONAL reportage of facts KNOWN to be false = "MALICE". FOX has a squad of lawyers who do nothing but vet their broadcasts for anything potentially defamatory and if there's " ACTUAL MALICE" they'd be dead ducks in court ! Even "public figures" and politicians would have viable lawsuits
    if they did that.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-22-2007 at 12:59 PM.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Eric,

    I guess for the second time now you didn't read my post script. I am not going to repeat it. You can read it this time or not, your choice.

    As for your grading system, it's not that I didn't like it. In fact, I thought it was funny.

    You can look for the court filing yourself, sorry but I am not going to bother because it is a well known case. If you want to read all the details, go for it!

    As for the rest of this topic, all I am going to say is that it's pretty obvious that you like FoxNews more than you don't. But so what? Why wouldn't you considering that they promote alot of your political positions. It's just like I prefer CNN. Big deal. We are all entitled to our own preferences.

    You may not be as "out there" as some rightwingers around here but you are still aligned with the rightwing political point of view for the most part. So ofcourse you want to defend or prefer FoxNews. It's only natural. The same things could be said about me being more of a lefty and all the same things can be said about me and CNN.

    FoxNews people have beef with CNN and vice verses. It's nothing new and not the end of the world. It's just, well part of modern life in the USA. We can sit here and pick apart each network all day long but what good would that do? Would you never watch FoxNews again? I doubt it. So like I said before, you wanted examples and I provided many. Thus my work here is complete

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    FoxNews people have beef with CNN and vice verses. It's nothing new and not the end of the world. It's just, well part of modern life in the USA. We can sit here and pick apart each network all day long but what good would that do?
    An interesting question. Prior to the rollout of Fox News, mainstream broadcast media in the USA consisted of ('lefty' by your own admission) CNN plus CBS / ABC / NBC. Thus it is arguable that the existance of Fox News has indeed provided a greater degree of broadcast media 'balance' on the whole than was the case when essentially all of mainstream broadcast media in the USA held a left of center viewpoint.

  11. #11
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ...Prior to the rollout of Fox News, mainstream broadcast media in the USA consisted of ('lefty' by your own admission) CNN plus CBS / ABC / NBC...
    I watch Fox News very rarely. I actually prefer KABC here in the SoCal area for my news, but usually on the radio. But if I do watch the nightly news, it is usually KABC television here. Both the radio station and KABC television are currently owned by the Disney corporation, so the conservative bias on the radio, and the the liberal bias on the television station are from the same source.

    While I do prefer KABC radio, I also sometimes listen to the local Pacifica radio station, which is about as left-wing as you can get. I also have difficulty with either Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, and prefer the local hosts on KABC radio - If I can listen to the radio during O'Reilly's time period on KABC, I usually switch to Dennis Prager on another station once O'Reilly starts on KABC, simply because I find Prager to be much more interesting.

    As to the following, my apologies for going off-topic, but I believe this is at least somewhat related to the current topic. One of the things which does interest me here is why is televsion news libertally biased, while most of the radio talk shows are conservatively biased? I know there was one psychologist who divided people into those who are "aural," those who are "visual," and those who are "feeling."

    That psychologist did this research before MRIs were as available as today. It would be an interesting research project, imho, for one or more psychologists to see if there is any correlation between liberal/conservative views on a psychological test, and individual MRIs indicating just which areas of the brain are most active right after a person has listened to political content on the radio or watched similar content on televsion. I'd just be interested to see if conservatives are more aurally inclined, while liberals are more visually inclined. It might explain more than a few things re: interations between the two groups, politically speaking.

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    T-10 - FOX was correct. There is NO Law and NO FCC rule against alleged "distorting" or "falsifying" the news and THANK GOD ! First, there's this little technicality you may have heard of called The FIRST AMENDMENT which states in pertinent part: "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or OF THE PRESS ..... " (emphasis added). Are you seriously advocating such a law ? They have such laws in China and just about every other dictatorship you'd care to mention and the press gets prosecuted for all sorts of things the government
    doesn't like, agree with or appreciate . In Orwell's book "1984" didn't they have a "Ministry of Truth" or somesuch. or was that Huxley's "BRAVE NEW WORLD " ?
    I forget.

    In the U.S. we have a "free press" and except for FCC regulations relating to "decency" media outlets are free to broadcast pretty much what they want. The only checks are some semblance of "journalistic ethics" and libel laws which I've previously explained to you.

    Yes, I watch FOX. I also watch Stewart, Colbert and Bill Maher. Why ? Because they are ENTERTAINING ! O'Reilly gets the highest ratings because his show is interesting, balanced ( you see plenty of Libs on his show and Hannity's but you don't see many Conservatives on CNN or MSNBC ) and it's ENTERTAINING ! It's "tabloid news" and doesn't pretend otherwise. As for journalistic QUALITY I think it's better than CBS, NBC,ABC, CNN and MSNBC and certainly NO WORSE !

    I asked you and other critics of Fox (FAUX) news to come up with examples of sloppy or lazy journalism and you actually came up with very few. So my argument that they are just as "accurate" as everyone else appears to be holding. Do they put a "conservative" spin on the news ? Of course they do ! Roger Ailes has admitted that they do and has argued that it is a good thing when all the other
    T.V. broadcast outlets are dominated by liberals and spin the news in a liberal way. They must be doing soemthing right because their ratings are higher than all the other cable news outlets.

    Do you really think it's healthy when there are only two "conservative" major daily newspapapers in this country- The Washington Times and The New York Post ? When all three major news networks are dominated by liberals ?Why do you think talk radio and the Internet are so popular and where most people now get their news ? Why FOX's ratings go up and everyone else's are going down ?

    Btw, I can't stand Hannity. I watch and listen once in a while but I don't like him.A few weeks ago it was almost comical to watch him try to help Coulter get her foot out of her mouth and last night he was almost in tears when they showed the video of that fat Chicago pig of a cop beating up that poor female bartender with hannitydecrying "Trial by Video " and trying to pretend that something similar dosn't happen
    almost every day in this country .

    As for my politics- I am a Practical Realist and a Constitutional Originalist. I believe in limited government with only those powers granted to it by the Constitution and that the Constitution means what it says ; what it said back in 1787 and what it says now. That makes me a "flaming liberal" about civil liberties and individual rights and a "conservative" about the proper size and role of government.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Are you seriously advocating such a law ? They have such laws in China and just about every other dictatorship you'd care to mention and the press gets prosecuted for all sorts of things the government
    doesn't like, agree with or appreciate .

    Ok, now you have just lost it. I have been sitting here saying we all have the right to watch or listen to whatever programming we choose or prefer and somehow you twist that into me supporting some sort of "Brave new World" nightmare.

    I had thought maybe you weren't as "out there" or as biased as some other rightwing people around here but I see now that in regards to that matter I was wrong. You just hide it a bit better and a bit longer than most.

    Everyone is entitled to have and express their own opinions and positions but honestly I don't feel like wasting anymore of my time with wacky wingnuts.

    Enjoy preaching to your very small choir of fellow rightwing site members.
    Bye


    Quote Originally Posted by PhaedrusZ View Post

    That psychologist did this research before MRIs were as available as today. It would be an interesting research project, imho, for one or more psychologists to see if there is any correlation between liberal/conservative views on a psychological test, and individual MRIs indicating just which areas of the brain are most active right after a person has listened to political content on the radio or watched similar content on televsion. I'd just be interested to see if conservatives are more aurally inclined, while liberals are more visually inclined. It might explain more than a few things re: interations between the two groups, politically speaking.
    What a great experiment idea

    I had always thought that most news in the USA had a more liberal slant because that better represented the views of the general population.

    It would be most interesting to see how the results of an experiment such as you suggested would compare to my theory.

  14. #14
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    FoxNews people have beef with CNN and vice verses. It's nothing new and not the end of the world. It's just, well part of modern life in the USA. We can sit here and pick apart each network all day long but what good would that do? Would you never watch FoxNews again? I doubt it. So like I said before, you wanted examples and I provided many. Thus my work here is complete
    Hehehehe! I find this amusing because it sounds a little bit like the "Tastes great!" and "Less filling!" arguments posed by miller lite.

    Both Foxnews and CNN are newsertainment, and not to be referenced in any serious sense. The majority of either company's reporting would be inadmissible in a court of law.

    Inaccuracy goes along with the newsertaiment genre. You might as well look to Glen Beck and John Stewart for your news coverage as soon as tuning in to CNN or Foxnews. All of it is "junk food news" for the mind.

    BTW, I watch both and find them both entertaining.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  15. #15
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    T-10 - Excuse me ! YOU were the one who chided FOX for claiming in a court filing (correctly btw ) that they had "NO LEGAL OBLIGATION not to distort or even falsify " and I had to point out to you that they were on solid legal ground in saying that based on the First Amendment and volumes of Supreme Court case law.

    Since you apparently found their position so upsetting ( a position shared btw by any news outlet or publisher you care to mention ) I wondered whether you thought there ought to be a Government Office to enforce statutes mandating "truth and accuracy ' in reporting with the worst case scenario being a "Ministry of Truth" like in Orwell's "1984" ( I checked ).

    Now your panties are really down around your ankles because you just said in response to Phaedrus : " I had always thought that most news in the USA had a more liberal slant because that better represented the views of the general population." Nothing could be FURTHER from the ACTUAL TRUTH ! The news media is FAR MORE liberal than the population at large and every poll makes that clear. In fact, many reporters and editors currently REFUSE to answer polling questions about their own political views because past polls clearly showed how overwhelmingly liberal most reporters were and how many were willing to admit that they let their views affect how they covered the news.

    90 % of the current White House Press Corps voted for Kerry.

    80-something % of reporters described themselves as "liberal" and voted Democrat. In more recent polls, about 50% of reporters polled
    refused to answer the questions. Gee. I wonder why ? I doubt many have shifted from being libs to becoming "Ditto-heads".

    59% of editors said they were liberal and something like 80% admitted that reporters political views affected their coverage at least ''sometimes" and almost HALF said "frequently".

    You remind me of Pauline Kael, a film critic for the New York Times in the 70's who couldn't believe Nixon beat McGovern in 1972 and famously said : "How can that be ? I don't know ANYONE who voted for Nixon."

    Like it or not this country is essentially CONSERVATIVE ! The Constitution as originally written was a CONSERVATIVE document designed to strictly limit the power of the Federal Government. Folks like me want it strictly construed to protect OUR FREEDOM and keep government under control as much as possible. And if you must know, afaic Roe v. Wade was correctly decided but poorly
    reasoned which is hardly the view of most "conservatives" today.I am irreligious and believe in a SECULAR STATE. I like a strong military , a clean environment;low taxes , minimal government intrusion and competent leaders which disqualifies the current occupant of the White House.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-24-2007 at 02:39 PM.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    Both Foxnews and CNN are newsertainment, and not to be referenced in any serious sense. The majority of either company's reporting would be inadmissible in a court of law.

    Inaccuracy goes along with the newsertaiment genre. You might as well look to Glen Beck and John Stewart for your news coverage as soon as tuning in to CNN or Foxnews. All of it is "junk food news" for the mind.

    BTW, I watch both and find them both entertaining.
    Awesome Someone else besides me who actually "gets it" about, as Paris put it, newsertaiment.

    I watch a little FoxNews too because it can be oh so entertaining to watch Sean Hannity's head almost explode when a person refuses to agree with him.

  17. #17
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    houston
    Posts
    513
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    ^^^ in the interests of equal time ....

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Space-Cadet- Thank you for providing concrete examples of sloppy journalism by FOX including examples of their spin run amok but compared to examples of "liberal media bias" they are no worse than any other media outlet.

  20. #20
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Space-Cadet- Thank you for providing concrete examples of sloppy journalism by FOX including examples of their spin run amok but compared to examples of "liberal media bias" they are no worse than any other media outlet.
    I haven't read all of this thread but have you provided any concrete examples of this so-called "liberal media bias"? It seems to me that many on the right like to make this claim but don't really have much to back it up with (and please cite something besides Dan Rather and MoveOn.org).

  21. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    I haven't read all of this thread but have you provided any concrete examples of this so-called "liberal media bias"? It seems to me that many on the right like to make this claim but don't really have much to back it up with (and please cite something besides Dan Rather and MoveOn.org).
    When over 80 % of reporters polled describe themselves as "liberal"; when over 90% of the White House Press Corps admitted voting for Kerry just how many examples would you like ?

    Dear me, where to begin ? There's SO much to choose from.

    How about Blitzer on CNN asking Gonzalez about whether or not his parents were "legal immigrants" ? Ever see him do that with Bill Richardson or any Latino Democrat ? Or calling Gonzalez "Bush's 'waterboy' and Karl Rove a 'political hack' ".? He never had anything judgemental to say when Clinton was President. Ever watch Olberman ? Why is he so obsessed with Bill O'Reilly ? How about "THE VIEW " ? Ever see them book any conservatives ? Where are the factual correctives to Rosie O'Donnel's erroneous blather ? Or Bill Maher ( as much as I like him & enjoy his show ) who NEVER has a strong conservative ON THE PANEL.

    How about the New York Times ? When it was just revealed that one of the subjects in their New York Times Magazine Article who claimed to have been sexually attacked while serving in Iraq had in fact NEVER been in Iraq AND that they were so told by the Pentagon BEFORE publishing, the editor lamely said that she "thought she had been in Iraq ". Or their totally erroneous report on the treatment of children caught up in a recent immigration raid for which they've yet to publish a retraction ? Or NBC News not retracting the blatantly erroneous comments of their "military consultant" ? How about Paul Krugman "rooting" for a world -wide Depression in a recent column ?

    As for Rather, it wasn't so much his recklessness and lack of professionalism, ut the way his fellow anchorman circled the wagons and stood up for him instead of condemning his arrogantly biased reporting.

  22. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    When over 80 % of reporters polled describe themselves as "liberal"; when over 90% of the White House Press Corps admitted voting for Kerry just how many examples would you like ?

    Dear me, where to begin ? There's SO much to choose from.

    How about Blitzer on CNN asking Gonzalez about whether or not his parents were "legal immigrants" ? Ever see him do that with Bill Richardson or any Latino Democrat ? Or calling Gonzalez "Bush's 'waterboy' and Karl Rove a 'political hack' ".? He never had anything judgemental to say when Clinton was President. Ever watch Olberman ? Why is he so obsessed with Bill O'Reilly ? How about "THE VIEW " ? Ever see them book any conservatives ? Where are the factual correctives to Rosie O'Donnel's erroneous blather ? Or Bill Maher ( as much as I like him & enjoy his show ) who NEVER has a strong conservative ON THE PANEL.

    How about the New York Times ? When it was just revealed that one of the subjects in their New York Times Magazine Article who claimed to have been sexually attacked while serving in Iraq had in fact NEVER been in Iraq AND that they were so told by the Pentagon BEFORE publishing, the editor lamely said that she "thought she had been in Iraq ". Or their totally erroneous report on the treatment of children caught up in a recent immigration raid for which they've yet to publish a retraction ? Or NBC News not retracting the blatantly erroneous comments of their "military consultant" ? How about Paul Krugman "rooting" for a world -wide Depression in a recent column ?

    As for Rather, it wasn't so much his recklessness and lack of professionalism, ut the way his fellow anchorman circled the wagons and stood up for him instead of condemning his arrogantly biased reporting.
    I'll give you a D+ on that. Bill Maher? Rosie O'Donnell? Aren't they comedians? Why are you bringing them up? Paul Krugman? Isn't he entitled to his opinion every much as Anne Coulter is? Or should only conservative wingnuts be allowed to have a voice? Glad you mentioned Bill O'Reilly, you really don't consider him a moderate do you? You also seemed to have overlooked the 8 years of persecution that Clinton went through by the supposed "liberal" media. Take the blinders off.

  23. #23
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Quote Originally Posted by Pan Dah View Post
    This seemed like as good a place as any to throw this in.

    I <3 JibJab.
    Love it Great addition to this topic,thanks!

  24. #24
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: How "Faux" is FOX NEWS

    Richard- Maher is a comedian ; a VERY funny one imo but his OPINIONS are delivered on a T.V. show. So are Rosie's ; on a topical panel show composed of 3 VERY liberal women and one poorly informed, ill-equipped moderate who continually lets herself get steamrolled and bullied by Rosie and Joy. Why don't they have conservative guests ? Or a strong conservative like Ingraham ? Why doesn't Maher have more conservatives on his show ? It's ALL part of the media dude. It's all ratings driven entertainment these days.

    Persecution of Clinton ? Rotfmao ! By whom ? Rick Kaplan at the " Clinton News Network" ? Eleanor Rodham Clift ? 90 &#37; of Clinton's problems were of his own making - he WAS effectively disbarred ; found in contempt ; found to have perjured himself ; fined and forced to pay civil judgements.

    Just as I read Krugman ; watch Maher and otherwise expose myself to a variey of points of view including plenty of folks I neither like nor agree with you NEVER seem to do that and I respectfully suggest you do. Keep reading Mediamatters and FAIR.com but add in newsmax and AIM and you might develop an appreciation for truth and the ability to see issues from more than one side.

    Btw, what's so bad about O'Reilly ? He believes in GW ; opposes capital punishment ; is tolerant of gays ; is ambivalent on Iraq etc. He has plenty of liberal and Democrat guests etc. Oh I know ! He's intolerant of liberal media hypocrisy. Yes, that is unforgivable I suppose. Btw, i can't stand Ann Coulter. Not only is she rude and immature but she can't get her facts straight.

Similar Threads

  1. In today's "News of the sick and twisted"
    By Mr Hyde in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 11:32 PM
  2. I Love the "Weekly World News"
    By DJ_Duane in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 11:04 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-16-2005, 07:48 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-05-2005, 09:05 AM
  5. "Objective" news coverage of Iraq
    By Melonie in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-20-2004, 04:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •