PDA

View Full Version : Fox News



junkyardking
04-08-2003, 06:45 AM
I was watching a Program called Mediawatch and the topic of Fox news came up, i have to say this is the most biased shit i have ever seen, i was disgusted when i heard them say

"‘Thank you Shepherd very much. Well, Shep, don’t look now but the Shi’ites have hit the fan."
- Fox News, 26 March 2003

and they even joked about using the mother of all bombs

The links also have links to the video
*******************************************************
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcrip...pts/s826189.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s826189.htm)

With the nation at war and on high alert for terror. Stay brave, stay aware and stay with Fox, for Cavuto coming right now. Hello Neil.


‘Thank you Shepherd very much. Well, Shep, don’t look now but the Shi’ites have hit the fan.’
- Fox News, 26 March 2003
- Watch video »

Human beings as faeces on the Fox News Channel.
Welcome to week three of the war on Australia’s own Media Watch. I’m David Marr.
That war can brutalise those left behind is an old lesson of history and we’re getting worried about The Sydney Morning Herald’s Miranda Devine, who’s starting to write about humans as vermin.

‘Better to bring [war] on now, at a time of our choosing, with all the cockroaches gathered for a showdown out in the open in Iraq, rather than cower at home…
- Sydney Morning Herald, 3 April 2003

And so on and on and on. Evangelist Franklin Graham – son of Billy – might remember her as he prays for all journalists – including Oliver North – on Fox News.

‘I pray for our President. I pray God will give him wisdom. I pray for our military commanders. And I watched Olly, and I watched the other reporters tonight on your program give their reports. I pray for these men who bring us the news, whose lives are on the line. I just say God bless these men, keep them safe, keep them all safe and bring them home safely.’
- Fox News, 29 March 2003



http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcrip...pts/s826188.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s826188.htm)

Fox at war :: 7/4/2003

Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Network – its strange intimacy with God and the US Administration – but it takes real flair to put this on national television.

‘One of the questions that people keep asking me about you and the guys you’re out there with – I don’t know how you want to answer this question but – using the facilities when there aren’t any facilities: how are you going to the bathroom buddy?’
- Fox News, 29 March 2003
Watch video »

So he called the soldier over.

‘You want to demonstrate for us how you sit on that shovel? You want me to do it. There you go. Isn’t that something?’
- Fox News, 29 March 2003
Watch video »

Not that Fox neglects the sharp end of the business. They love bombs on Fox.

‘Should they have used more? Should they, you know, use the MOAB, the Mother of All Bombs and a few Daisy Cutters. You know, lets not just stop at a couple of Cruise Missiles.’
‘Only 40, huh?’
‘I want to see them use that MOAB. We all want to see them use that MOAB.’
- Fox News, 25 March 2003
Watch video »

Free of charge to the US taxpayer, Fox delivers threats to the enemies of the Bush administration.
*******************************************************
I have to say if you get your info just from Fox then there's not much hope for you.

MagicNakor
04-08-2003, 07:47 AM
This isn't really anything new. ;) Fox News has impressive Republican backing.


Here (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html) is a rather lengthy article about Fox News, if you want to see.


:ninja:

ne1GotZardoz
04-08-2003, 09:45 AM
I doubt you'll get an argument from anyone on that.

Its common knowlege.

Of course, Fox Swears its not. :rolleyes:

CNN isn't as biased. The only problem with CNN is that to keep up with Fox, they have sensationalize the news.

If you watch CNN you can see the reporters struggling to maintain their self respect as serious journalists while at the same time, trying to maintain their market share.

I like watching Fox because they its like the comic relief version of the war.

To find out whats really going on though, I turn to CNN.

Its easier to gather the truth of the matter from the hype.

Then of course, to get the best and purest assessment, I go online and check out cnn.com

The website is not obligated to sensationalize the war so the info is about as accurate and unclouded as you can get in todays news world.

As for the MOAB, they may be right.

Most people thought they had used it on day one.
When we found out they hadn't, we began to wonder, just how much of an explosion does it do.

Between you and me and anyone who reads this though, I don't think we have another one made yet.

The one they tested in Florida was just that, a test.

And a 21,000 lbs bomb cannot be put together overnight.


I think the biggest bomb we've used so far was 4,000 lbs.

Peace

Z
04-09-2003, 03:48 AM
biased news? *cough* CNN *cough*!

i dont think any others compare. and no, i haven't read any of the posts here. :lol:

edit: why would u watch fox neways? :lol: obviously its not a legit news source.

kAb
04-11-2003, 02:31 AM
wow. thats really bad.

but NBC showing the Iraqi pow was just incredible. its sad how corrupt the media now seems to be..

random nut
04-24-2003, 10:49 PM
Fox News biased? Never! Ever seen Iraqi state television, Al-Jazeera, and Baghdad Bob? And CNN reporters in Iraq are a bunch of liars. Didn't report everything they knew so they wouldn't get thrown out of Iraq (happened before the war).

hobbes
04-25-2003, 12:05 AM
News has become more about hyping stories and promising exclusive coverage, than about the actual state of affairs.

They have found it is more ratings worthy to delcare the worst and apologize later on page 12 between womens lingerie ads.


I am going to be vague here but I knew one of the people arrested by the FBI after 9/11. He was eventually declared innocent of any wrongdoing, but before this became apparent he was slandered by front page headlines. No less than 5 totally unsubstantiated charges were made, the guy had nothing to do with anything.

He and I previously discussed the differences in the media between my country and his. He told me that my news was full of lies. I laughed and told him that's what his state controlled media wants him to think.

Anyway, after the debacle, he came to me and said, "I told you so!". I said you are right, the media was totally irresponsible, clearly caring more about money than facts. I am sorry.

Yeah, thats what the media said too, on page 12..........




This is the problem with a free press, they must enforce responsiblity upon themselves, or else they will keep upping the ante to improve sales, eventually gaining the credibility of the National Enquirer.

This can be easily solved by letting the government control the media so that dollars won't interfere with the truth. Yeah, lets not even go there.

Why not have a "lie fund". Everytime the news acts irresponsibly, they have to pay a huge fine directly to me. This fine will ensure that they check the facts before slander someone on the front page. At the end of the year I will throw a pool party with the fine money.

But seriously, I wish there were some enforcing body to oversee credibility in the media, with fines so steeep for irresponsibilty that no false headline would be financially worth it.

The media should come up with this governing entity themselves before they lose all credibility and someone does it for them.


Edit: found in more amusing to leave the typo (steeep).

myfiles3000
04-25-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@8 April 2003 - 10:45
If you watch CNN you can see the reporters struggling to maintain their self respect as serious journalists while at the same time, trying to maintain their market share.
cnn as serious journalism....that's outrageous.....ne1, where do you get this stuff? i don't mean to keep harping on you, but nearly every one of your posts has managed to make me raise my eyebrows and drop my jaw.

sAdam
04-25-2003, 12:21 AM
CNN is pretty damn good about being the very first to air a story.

as to their bias, of course its pro american, its AOL Time goddamn Warner u idiots. one of the largest companies in the states.

j2k4
04-25-2003, 02:59 AM
FOX has, by far, the best collection of newsbabes. :shifty:

hobbes
04-25-2003, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2003 - 03:59
FOX has, by far, the best collection of newsbabes. :shifty:
What about "The naked news" where they peel off their clothing and read the headlines nude.

That's all about revealing the "truth".

Let's do a little research first before making such hasty statements, eh?

myfiles3000
04-25-2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2003 - 03:59
FOX has, by far, the best collection of newsbabes. :shifty:
which speaks volumes about their viewership. haven't read Amusing Ourselves To Death in years, but neil postman really nailed the impact of tv on journalism, imho.

j2k4
04-25-2003, 01:42 PM
Alright-
Somebody give an opinion as to which, of all available, (network OR cable) suffers NO bias.

kAb
04-25-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2003 - 05:42
Alright-
Somebody give an opinion as to which, of all available, (network OR cable) suffers NO bias.
local newstations.

clocker
04-25-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by kAb+25 April 2003 - 10:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kAb @ 25 April 2003 - 10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@25 April 2003 - 05:42
Alright-
Somebody give an opinion as to which, of all available, (network OR cable) suffers NO bias.
local newstations. [/b][/quote]
Not in Denver.
My local news consists mainly of recycled bits right from the network. Very irritating in fact, as they cover very little "local" news at all, preferring instead to rehash the same stories I just saw on national news. Personally, I enjoy watching BBC News. I&#39;m sure they are just as biased as anyone else, but it&#39;s interesting to get a non-US approach to stories. I was VERY sorry to see Daljit go... now she was a newsbabe&#33;

DiogenesUK
04-25-2003, 05:39 PM
A small tribute to comical Ari & others.....people at the real cutting edge of truthful recounting of non-embellished &#39;facts&#39;.

I thought comical Ali was a strangely endearing character at times,but at least he said it with a wry smile.These guys are the &#39;Tellers&#39; of media management,without a flicker of humour crossing their blank visages.

Some of &#39;em could at least have had spinning bow-ties,huge flat shoes,or noses that light up :D :D :D


http://pearly7000.tripod.com/htmls/bush-ari.html



Take care

j2k4
04-25-2003, 06:11 PM
Somewhere, a good while back, someone coined the description "Talking Head" (way before the group-BTW-burned Milwaukee down one night w/David Byrne and Jerry Harrison, on Harrison&#39;s birthday-forgot that one) to refer to those who "say the news".
I think it was at that point the unapologetic slanting of news began in earnest, at ALL levels.
Historically, of course, bias has always existed; Edward R. Murrow being amongst the earliest and most effective practicioners.
As re: local news: The copy-cat/mimicry of big-city news is a foregone conclusion. The only content therein that can be described as "local" is weather and sports, and even those are adulterated, especially stylistically.

I could go on, but I know I shouldn&#39;t.

Suffice it to say, these days, you don&#39;t choose your news, you choose your bias; the only option is to watch as much as possible from as many different directions as possible and hope your mental filtering/tagging apparatus is equipped with the latest "drivers", updates, etc.

myfiles3000
04-28-2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2003 - 14:42
Alright-
Somebody give an opinion as to which, of all available, (network OR cable) suffers NO bias.
just wanted to clarify, i&#39;m certainly not asking for bias-free journalism, i don&#39;t believe it exists. Like you say, j2k4, choose your bias. But there&#39;s good and there&#39;s bad bias, and neither cnn nor fox has the kind of depth or analysis to warrant "professional" status imho. so give up on the myth of objectivity, but don&#39;t give up the idea that that all points along the political spectrum have their own specturm of good and bad, the professionals and the geraldo rivieras.

j2k4
04-28-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+28 April 2003 - 03:40--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 28 April 2003 - 03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@25 April 2003 - 14:42
Alright-
Somebody give an opinion as to which, of all available, (network OR cable) suffers NO bias.
just wanted to clarify, i&#39;m certainly not asking for bias-free journalism, i don&#39;t believe it exists. Like you say, j2k4, choose your bias. But there&#39;s good and there&#39;s bad bias, and neither cnn nor fox has the kind of depth or analysis to warrant "professional" status imho. so give up on the myth of objectivity, but don&#39;t give up the idea that that all points along the political spectrum have their own specturm of good and bad, the professionals and the geraldo rivieras. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m having difficulty with your post; "Good bias and bad bias"??

Methinks it would require a "bias" to determine which.

Give up on WHAT objectivity-given that it doesn&#39;t exist?

I think we all have a predilection, or bias, if you will, re: the nooze we chooze :P

As far as "depth of analysis", T.V. (twenty-second-sound-bite) doesn&#39;t provide this, and so "depth of analysis" remains the province of the print media, and I am afraid here I mean books.

Books are as close as we can come to being the "true" repositories of fact/opinion, as the process of bringing a book to market affords the author more time to reflect on his/her subject, and is hence less "knee-jerk" than other media.

One still must discriminate carefully when choosing reading material (bias still exists, after all), but at least reading makes for better digestion. :D

clocker
04-28-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2003 - 07:08


As far as "depth of analysis", T.V. (twenty-second-sound-bite) doesn&#39;t provide this, and so "depth of analysis" remains the province of the print media, and I am afraid here I mean books.

Books are as close as we can come to being the "true" repositories of fact/opinion, as the process of bringing a book to market affords the author more time to reflect on his/her subject, and is hence less "knee-jerk" than other media.


Interesting opinion, j2, and probably accurate to boot, unfortunately it&#39;s difficult to form opinions on current events if one must wait years for the definative book to come along.

I would alter "books" to "magazines"* and then agree completely.


*People is NOT a magazine. It is very well printed toilet paper.

j2k4
04-28-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by clocker@28 April 2003 - 12:12
*People is NOT a magazine. It is very well printed toilet paper.
A succinct observation.

My point was, I guess, that no "news" should be considered anything other than "contingent" upon time and subsequent events, for an undefined period.

Re:"People"-a good wipe does wonders for the magazine&#39;s readability; could be considered part of the "editting process" :lol:

BTW-I thought your avatar signified your view of France, not Nebraska. :huh:

hobbes
04-28-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by clocker+28 April 2003 - 18:12--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 April 2003 - 18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@28 April 2003 - 07:08


As far as "depth of analysis", T.V. (twenty-second-sound-bite) doesn&#39;t provide this, and so "depth of analysis" remains the province of the print media, and I am afraid here I mean books.

Books are as close as we can come to being the "true" repositories of fact/opinion, as the process of bringing a book to market affords the author more time to reflect on his/her subject, and is hence less "knee-jerk" than other media.


Interesting opinion, j2, and probably accurate to boot, unfortunately it&#39;s difficult to form opinions on current events if one must wait years for the definative book to come along.

I would alter "books" to "magazines"* and then agree completely.


*People is NOT a magazine. It is very well printed toilet paper.[/b][/quote]
Hey, don&#39;t dis on "People". I read it every month while getting my haircut. I use it to catch up all my favorite pretty people.

I actually don&#39;t read it. My eyes kind of gloss over and I stare at the pretty pictures as drool spindles from my slack agape mouth onto the strategically placed bib they have wrapped me in.

The key is to know that you are reading fluff, then it&#39;s ok. Just like we enjoy eating candy now and then, sometimes we can also enjoy the nonsense in People and the Enquirer. My mother referred to it as "junkfood for the mind". Helps to decompress our minds from all those deep thoughts.


PS: The glossy pages are too slickery to be an effective wiping agent.

j2k4
04-29-2003, 03:34 AM
Well-looks like Hobbes has caught us out again; can&#39;t lie, even a little bit, when he&#39;s monitoring.

(Actually, he must go to a pretty high-zoot barber; mine subscribes to "US" magazine, which is to PEOPLE as HUSTLER is to PLAYBOY) :P

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-21-2003, 09:33 AM
Foxnews bias?
I watch all the cable news channels and I don&#39;t think there are too many people that stay on 1 station.
The left wing dominated media just can&#39;t stand the fact that Foxnews refuses to put a left wing spin on their reporting.
Also Americans are waking up to this and are making Foxnew NO.1
These examples(links)to show bias are ridiculous.
C&#39;mon we could go tit 4 tat with that all day long.
How about the NYTimes repoter admitting to all kinds of false reporting yet getting promoted.
How about CNN?
They refused to report the truth of whats going on in Iraq for years in order to get an interview(which they never got)with Saddam.
See what I mean?
Btw I always knew about the very far left wing reporting of CNN and was&#39;nt shocked at all that they were willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives for ratings.
Foxnews is "fair and balanced"&#33;
MSNBC - Peter Arnet..need I say More?

j2k4
05-21-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@21 May 2003 - 04:33
Foxnews bias?
I watch all the cable news channels and I don&#39;t think there are too many people that stay on 1 station.
The left wing dominated media just can&#39;t stand the fact that Foxnews refuses to put a left wing spin on their reporting.
Also Americans are waking up to this and are making Foxnew NO.1
These examples(links)to show bias are ridiculous.
C&#39;mon we could go tit 4 tat with that all day long.
How about the NYTimes repoter admitting to all kinds of false reporting yet getting promoted.
How about CNN?
They refused to report the truth of whats going on in Iraq for years in order to get an interview(which they never got)with Saddam.
See what I mean?
Btw I always knew about the very far left wing reporting of CNN and was&#39;nt shocked at all that they were willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives for ratings.
Foxnews is "fair and balanced"&#33;
MSNBC - Peter Arnet..need I say More?
Shock-

On this point we agree; we must, however, grant our fellow posters an appropriate withdrawal/rehabilitation period.

Consider the dynamic: You (not YOU, Shock) are not a newshound, yet you are familiar with CNN (as is EVERYONE ELSE).
When you watch any news that is not local or network, you watch CNN.
Even if you ARE a newshound, you are a creature of habit, and since Ted Turner (what a disappointment he is) was there first, you watch CNN.

Then: 9/11/2001

Everybody is a newshound.

Some stumble across FOX NEWS.

Some stay, for obvious reasons, one being they haven&#39;t watched enough CNN to notice how biased it is, therefore they are not put out by the lack of same at FOX.

People talk-FOX audience grows.

People who ARE attuned to news DO notice the difference on FOX; but fail to realize that what they witness there is not BIAS, but BALANCE. The &#39;appearance&#39; of bias is merely due to the FACT that the CONSERVATIVE point-of-view kicks ass, and the LIBERAL views, are, by comparison, indefensible and wishy-washy.

Conservatism=politics of reason. B)

Liberalism=politics of emotion. :(

At least as defined THESE days-it wasn&#39;t always this way.

Give it time-we&#39;ll get &#39;em. :D

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-21-2003, 10:24 PM
"what they witness there is not BIAS, but BALANCE"

You&#39;ve really hit the nail on the head with that one.
The Professional left (for lack of a better word)realizes this and just don&#39;t know what to do.
What we&#39;re seeing here is the same ol tactics they&#39;ve used for years.
Tear down,mislead,distract and outright lie.

clocker
05-21-2003, 10:41 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/oreilly-sucks/images/oreillyevolution1.gif

clocker
05-21-2003, 10:50 PM
http://www.humourqc.com/special/horoscope/balance.jpg

Now there is "fair and balanced"&#33;

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-21-2003, 11:28 PM
hehehe
Btw did anyone happen to hear the grad speech by that NY Time reporter.
What trype&#33;
There showing themselves more and more.
But even the mainly liberal grad students boo&#39;ed him off the stage.
This threads main theme should be about the Times and CNN and not Fox.

Bill O&#39;Reilly Rocks.
I think I prefer The Savage Nation.
Maybe we should call this place "The No Spin Zone"&#33; ;)

clocker
05-21-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@21 May 2003 - 17:28

Maybe we should call this place "The No Spin Zone"&#33; ;)
http://www.fortworthmuseum.org/MusmGifs/store1.jpg

Here&#39;s a logo for you.
It&#39;s even leaning in your favorite direction... :P

myfiles3000
05-22-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@21 May 2003 - 23:24
"what they witness there is not BIAS, but BALANCE"

You&#39;ve really hit the nail on the head with that one.
The Professional left (for lack of a better word)realizes this and just don&#39;t know what to do.
What we&#39;re seeing here is the same ol tactics they&#39;ve used for years.
Tear down,mislead,distract and outright lie.
i think i&#39;m gonna barf. again.

clocker
05-22-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@21 May 2003 - 18:16

i think i&#39;m gonna barf. again.
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~gop/weekly/weeklyimages/old/oreilly.jpg

There, that should push you over the edge.

hobbes
05-22-2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+22 May 2003 - 01:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 22 May 2003 - 01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--ShockAndAwe^i^@21 May 2003 - 23:24
"what they witness there is not BIAS, but BALANCE"

You&#39;ve really hit the nail on the head with that one.
The Professional left (for lack of a better word)realizes this and just don&#39;t know what to do.
What we&#39;re seeing here is the same ol tactics they&#39;ve used for years.
Tear down,mislead,distract and outright lie.
i think i&#39;m gonna barf. again.[/b][/quote]
Must be fun to live in anonimity and post platitudes.

Your posts have dubious value when people know Shockand Awe has gotten under your skin and you follow him around throwing stones in his direction.

I will be forth coming, stating that I am an American who is neither conservative nor liberal. You can; therefore, have a better perspective about "where I&#39;m coming from".

You seem to enjoy hiding behind the bushes, throwing stones at the passersby and calling them cowards.

Who is the coward?

myfiles3000
05-22-2003, 12:49 AM
i&#39;m the coward. but give me a bit to recuperate from a nasty flu, as throwing stones is all i&#39;m good for right about now.

hobbes
05-22-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 May 2003 - 01:49
i&#39;m the coward. but give me a bit to recuperate from a nasty flu, as throwing stones is all i&#39;m good for right about now.
Good man, a very high road reply&#33; I&#39;ve read enough of your posts that know that you can defend yourself with your intellect. I was wondering why you were wandering astray.

Get well soon and show ShockandAwe the real you.

clocker
05-22-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@21 May 2003 - 18:56


Get well soon and show ShockandAwe the real you.
Here you go Myfiles.
Hobbes has arranged for some medical care...
http://www.crazytracy.com/nurseratched.jpg

hobbes
05-22-2003, 01:21 AM
Yes, I have, indeed.

Hey Clocker, have you seen my comb?

http://www.tijean.freeserve.co.uk/cuckoo.gif

clocker
05-22-2003, 02:30 AM
Hey Clocker, have you seen my comb?


Yeah, but I&#39;m kinda busy right now...
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/ect-photo.jpg

and I may not remember later.

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-22-2003, 02:35 AM
He&#39;s taken an indefensible position.
Maybe Gloria could help him?
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/allred1.jpg

hobbes
05-22-2003, 02:42 AM
I think she just farted&#33; Seems pretty proud of herself.

clocker
05-22-2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@21 May 2003 - 20:42
I think she just farted&#33;&nbsp; Seems pretty proud of herself.
Back to the high road, hobbes.
http://www.goldenapplecomics.com/february99/fart.jpg

hobbes
05-22-2003, 02:54 AM
/me bows out

Seems I&#39;ve be one up&#39;ed.

ROFL&#33;

clocker
05-22-2003, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@21 May 2003 - 20:54
/me bows out

Seems I&#39;ve be one up&#39;ed.


Noooo, Hobbes, COME BACK&#33;
http://www.bigbrotherskw.com/_borders/lonely.jpg

hobbes
05-22-2003, 03:05 AM
Oh no, I&#39;ve left&#33;

But, I did leave something behind for ya&#33; Or was it something FROM my behind?