Foxnews

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 August 2004 - 14:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 August 2004 - 14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@11 August 2004 - 11:05
To say that fox is "banned" was very misleading to say the least, false to say the facts.

I thought I cleared up the "banned" faux pas with a subsequent post, but, just for you, vid:

Mea Culpa, Maxima Mea Culpa.

Satisfied?

Would that you applied the same scrutiny to the statements of Mr. Kerry?

There is a great link in WN&E that I would love to have you parse. [/b][/quote]
Yes you did clear it up, but that post you quoted of mine was dealing with the original question and the fact that the orginal said it was banned. which is why i suggested the alternative and used "free speech" instead of democracy.

Yes i would apply the same scutiny to kerry statements..yes i would apply the same to Bush statements.

I suspect you want a comment on the Kerry video. What is there to comment about? i disagreed with going into Iraq...no matter who says we needed to.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".

In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 August 2004 - 19:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 August 2004 - 19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".

In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy. [/b][/quote]
Why do these "detractors" say that?
I&#39;ve heard people say it has a right leaning bias but how would that equate to being bad for democracy ?

Are they accusing fox news secretly rigging elections or some other underhanded mischief ?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 August 2004 - 16:07

There is a great link in WN&E that I would love to have you parse.

I suspect you want a comment on the Kerry video. What is there to comment about? [/quote]
Indeed.

This has no impact whatsoever on your opinion of the relative merits of the candidates?

You have testified many times that you do not judge, nor do you ascribe to a candidate the quality of being dishonest, or lying.

As regards the first caveat, how do you go about casting your vote?

As to the second, do you take in the video documentation of Kerry&#39;s contradictory commentaries at all, or does the fact of the video&#39;s having been assembled at the behest of the RNC render it invalid?

[vidcc]

I only watched the first 60 seconds as the content was obvious. I haven&#39;t watched any of the "bush" themed videos so i feel ok in giving up so soon on this video. The bit i saw was kerry saying Iraq actions would be justified and i already told you that i disagree with that.
I might be wrong but the bits i didn&#39;t bother watching were contradictions, the imfamous "flip flop" that you so endered yourself to using at every oportunity.
I have never said i find Kerry an impressisive candidate, but the part i saw certainly wouldn&#39;t suddendly endere me to Bush

You have testified many times that you do not judge, nor do you ascribe to a candidate the quality of being dishonest, or lying.

This is your own spin.

What i said is i don&#39;t care about private lives. The thing you are refering to would no doubt be Clinton and his blowjob.
Lets get one thing absolutely clear here.... if Clinton had lied about anything related to his job as president i would have come down on him like a ton of bricks and it would have made me think twice about voting for him again. As a president i judge on results achieved for America, because that&#39;s what i pay him to do. I don&#39;t care about anything else.
You run your own company.... if you had to cut your staff down who would you pick to make redundant...a hard conscientious worker that does his job without you having to keep watch...but cheats on his wife..... or the one that makes a mess of things but stays home at night?
To me politicians are employees..they work for me... not the other way round, so all i look at is are they doing their job

As regards the first caveat, how do you go about casting your vote?

I look at the manifestos of the candidates to see which i feel has the best policies and how they plan to achieve this.
I do realise that many won&#39;t be met and that some even though they are good ideas won&#39;t stand a chance of passing, our politicians being as they are.
promising something is one thing. being able to keep that promise is another.

As to the second, do you take in the video documentation of Kerry&#39;s contradictory commentaries at all, or does the fact of the video&#39;s having been assembled at the behest of the RNC render it invalid?

would the offering render it invalid if it was by michael moore and about Bush?

I view this kind of thing with distaste along with all the other negative mudslinging that has gone on in the campaign. I find it a repugnant tactic to smear the man himself and not the policies. This counts on both sides.

I am not a democrat or a republican. I look at the issues and make my choice there.
In this case i have the benefit of knowing exactly how Bush will act as president.

Hope this clears it up for you

[Rat Faced]

Im sure i saw a study that reported PBS viewers were the most informed in the USA, and Fox viewers the least...

If true, that must really rankle


As to the Fox Issue...if they dont want to go through the rigmorole everyone lese has to, then tough. Maybe the question should be:

"Why does Fox want special treatment to broadcast on Canadian Cable/Satelite without going through the crap every other "news service" had to?"

[MagicNakor]

I don&#39;t know what the hubub is really. I could watch FoxNews every night if I felt so inclined. I&#39;ve got pretty standard cable. So, obviously FoxNews is broadcasting in Canada.

Although I hope no one actually watches it for news. They broadcast a story so wildly inaccurate, that the RCMP wouldn&#39;t press charges against them in a media-blackout case.

PBS, however, teaches me how to paint happy cabins and trees.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+12 August 2004 - 01:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 August 2004 - 01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".

In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy. [/b][/quote]
Surely democracy is choice made on the basis of ll the available information.

In this respect Fox is a source. However, what happens is that the majority stick to the source that confirms their already preformed prejudices rather than take a "fair and balanced view". (although I do love Fox&#39;s "that is the truth but in the interests of fairness lets hear from an insane left wing loser" approach)

The number of people open to actually vote one way or another, based on the facts as they understand them, is little more than a few percent in most countries. Consequently most politicians make a few noises to appease the given vote (Bush on abortion - Kerry on Tax) without any significant commitment to do anything radical and concentrate their efforts to appeal to the middle ground floating voter (who might be frightened off by a firm commitment to do something radical).

Least, that is my view of the process. The most successful right wing or left wing leaders are those who convince the middle ground that their radical policies are the middle ground. These people are few and far between and Bush isn&#39;t one of them (Reagan actually was - as was Atlee for the left in the UK).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 August 2004 - 06:14
Im sure i saw a study that reported PBS viewers were the most informed in the USA, and Fox viewers the least...



As to the Fox Issue...if they dont want to go through the rigmorole everyone lese has to, then tough. Maybe the question should be:

"Why does Fox want special treatment to broadcast on Canadian Cable/Satelite without going through the crap every other "news service" had to?"

Rat-

How do you suppose one would go about formulating a test/study to determine which news source was doing the best job of keeping it&#39;s viewers informed?

The study you recollect sounds rather subjective to me.

The rigamorole, or "crap", as you put it, is different for FOX, apparently; as I read the decision from the CRTC, FOX, in order to be accorded access to the Canadian market, would have to begin by digitalizing their product, while the services currently permitted in Canada do not.

This is a different brand of "crap", I think.

vid-

I haven&#39;t spun anything relative to your past statements as to honesty, etc., just recounted, more-or-less, what you yourself have said; if you feel I have erred on the side of "less" rather than "more", I apologize, but rest assured there is no mal-intent.

I must say, I have almost always found you to be of most reasonable tone in your commentary.

Biggles-

"Insane, left-wing loser"?

Are you implying those who choose (or are chosen) to represent the liberal point-of-view on FOXNEWS are bench-warmers who can&#39;t carry their water?

I think I can say that any liberal/left spokesperson who so desires could find airtime on FOX; many will not (for fear, it would seem), even though offers constantly circulate.

In short, those who do appear are of "cream-of-the-crop" status.

MN-I cannot account for your reception of FOXNEWS, apart from the unalterable fact of your overwhelming specialness; were it within my ability, I would run a cable over hill and dale directly to your door in order that you might continue to enjoy FOXNEWS.

To me, it is amazing that all of you find time to watch FOX; of course, even those who hated Howard Cosell couldn&#39;t ignore him.

[Biggles]

I don&#39;t really see enough Fox to determine the calibre of those who appear. I was merely suggesting that the balance had one leg longer than the other purely in its presentation.

I feel deprived, who was Mr Cosell and why did I miss the opportunity to hate him?