Fox News

[j2k4]

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's readability; could be considered part of the "editting process"

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

[hobbes]

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]

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)

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

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]

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.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

"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]

[clocker]

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

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

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]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@21 May 2003 - 17:28

Maybe we should call this place "The No Spin Zone"&#33;

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