Fox News attacks the Free Press

Actually, it's not too far off the mark. More words, but not a heck of a lot more information, if any.

Like I said, I didn't watch the whole thing, they may have described what they were actually upset about, but not in the periods I looked in, it was a bunch of people nodding at each other and echoing "bad bad bad" in various forms.

Which I find singularly uninformative, as well as not very concerned with the idea of a free press.

Since you're the only one who saw the show, I guess you're the only one who could say it went like that.
 
Fox news could successfully be prosecuted under the trades description Act in the uK

And the NYT should be prosecuted for treason because of their ridiculous article about the secret bank data story.

Whats your point?
 
i showed some dvds which had fox news broadcasts to a jounralist freind of mine and he jsut laughed all the way through them and could not beleive they were fro real.

I could have sworn you knew how to type better just last week. Should I be apologizing for not knowing about a disability that can't be bothered to edit, or what?
 
Look, I don't trust any of 'em. I don't want bias in the news at all. A conservative bias is no better than a liberal one. Just give me the damned facts, and then let me form my own opinion. Don't play games with me.

The biggest problem I have with Fox or CNN is that they have so little trust in the people they broadcast to that they have to direct the opinions of others. It's complete crap. I don't have time for this sort of manipulation.
 
Look, I don't trust any of 'em. I don't want bias in the news at all. A conservative bias is no better than a liberal one. Just give me the damned facts, and then let me form my own opinion. Don't play games with me.

The biggest problem I have with Fox or CNN is that they have so little trust in the people they broadcast to that they have to direct the opinions of others. It's complete crap. I don't have time for this sort of manipulation.

I don't think Fox News goes down the one-sided road as much as CNN does. Sure, they are conservative based, but you you get more fact from Fox News then you get get opinion.

Thats my take.
 
I don't think Fox News goes down the one-sided road as much as CNN does. Sure, they are conservative based, but you you get more fact from Fox News then you get get opinion.

Thats my take.

You and I will disagree on this one.

There are none who are so angry as those who've had the blinders removed, and seen that what they believed in was a lie.
 
You and I will disagree on this one.

There are none who are so angry as those who've had the blinders removed, and seen that what they believed in was a lie.

I guess it all depends on what you call a lie. I prefer the conservative viewpoint, so obviously I want to watch Fox News over CNN.

I think many other people agree with me as well, given the ratings of the major news networks.
 
Look, I don't trust any of 'em. I don't want bias in the news at all. A conservative bias is no better than a liberal one. Just give me the damned facts, and then let me form my own opinion. Don't play games with me.

The biggest problem I have with Fox or CNN is that they have so little trust in the people they broadcast to that they have to direct the opinions of others. It's complete crap. I don't have time for this sort of manipulation.

So what is unbiased news in your opinion? The NYT publishing anything for ratings, whether it helps Americans or helps terrorists. Makes no difference to them. Is that unbiased truth that you admire?

Don't trust 'em. Fine. But if you think it is humanly possible to discuss anything under the sun without someone considering some "fact" a biased opinion, then you are being unrealistic; biased even.
 
Yes, there will be bias in the news. But damn it, when it's as blatant as it is today, or worse, when it's pointed out and people actually defend it, that's where I start drawing some hard, deep lines. Only a damned fool defends that kind of crap and expects to retain viewers/readers/listeners.

I know, for example, that Rush Limbaugh is expressing an opinion. That's what he gets paid to do. But, you have an obligation when you do so to also provide the facts behind that opinion. (Sort of like a lot of folks expect around here. And that's generally a GOOD thing.) And you have an obligation to present all the facts, not just the ones you like.

It's even more important when you're doing straight news. And if you can't get that through your head, then you need to get out of the news business, and get a job in Hollywood. Because you're no longer reporting. You're now an entertainer.
 
The most unbiased news you can get is The Christian Science Monitor. I know a lot of the people here wouldn’t touch it because it has the word “Christian” in the name. It’s their loss. It’s really very good at reporting just the news.
 
It's even more important when you're doing straight news. And if you can't get that through your head, then you need to get out of the news business, and get a job in Hollywood. Because you're no longer reporting. You're now an entertainer.

Well, on that I agree with you. Sometimes there are facts, sometimes there are opinions, and often there is stupidity; but one common factor is that it is first and foremost entertainment. Entertainment is what sells advertising, not facts.
 
The most unbiased news you can get is The Christian Science Monitor. I know a lot of the people here wouldn’t touch it because it has the word “Christian” in the name. It’s their loss. It’s really very good at reporting just the news.

I won't be the one to say PBS is always unbiased by any means, but they don't try to be entertainers. Overall my favorite is the WSJ.
 
Yes, there will be bias in the news. But damn it, when it's as blatant as it is today, or worse, when it's pointed out and people actually defend it, that's where I start drawing some hard, deep lines. Only a damned fool defends that kind of crap and expects to retain viewers/readers/listeners.

I know, for example, that Rush Limbaugh is expressing an opinion. That's what he gets paid to do. But, you have an obligation when you do so to also provide the facts behind that opinion. (Sort of like a lot of folks expect around here. And that's generally a GOOD thing.) And you have an obligation to present all the facts, not just the ones you like.

It's even more important when you're doing straight news. And if you can't get that through your head, then you need to get out of the news business, and get a job in Hollywood. Because you're no longer reporting. You're now an entertainer.

Basically, you're refering to 90% of the news world today. Take for example the situation in Iraq; CNN. MSNBC and CBS will all report about the killings and destruction that happens, but never once will they report about the rebuilding efforts that ARE happening. Not that is wrong to report about the daily death in Iraq, but it only shows one side of the viewpoint, giving such news station zero credibility in my books, plus a biased viewpoint.
 
I'm not defending the NYT, but on Face The Nation this morning, one of the NYT's editors said that although the banking program was legal, it lacked proper oversight by congress, and is yet another example of the current administration expanding the powers of the executive branch.
 
I'm not defending the NYT, but on Face The Nation this morning, one of the NYT's editors said that although the banking program was legal, it lacked proper oversight by congress, and is yet another example of the current administration expanding the powers of the executive branch.

I see; the editors of the NYT are the ones who decide what oversight is or is not adequate and they will decide to make their point by disabling such need by crippling the program in question. Problem solved.
 
I'm not defending the NYT, but on Face The Nation this morning, one of the NYT's editors said that although the banking program was legal, it lacked proper oversight by congress, and is yet another example of the current administration expanding the powers of the executive branch.
If it wasn't for the fact that Congressional leaders (both Dems and Reps) were briefed on the program AND an independent, third-party was auditing the program (Did the NYT editors happen to mention that?), they'd be right too.
 
I'm not defending the NYT, but on Face The Nation this morning, one of the NYT's editors said that although the banking program was legal, it lacked proper oversight by congress, and is yet another example of the current administration expanding the powers of the executive branch.

Just goes to show who is the idiot here, and who is ACTUALLY right.

Its hilarious how far some people will go to defend their stupidity. :rolleyes:
 
Just goes to show who is the idiot here, and who is ACTUALLY right.

Its hilarious how far some people will go to defend their stupidity. :rolleyes:

I'm assuming you're not refering to me.

I am of the opinion that if you don't watch your government closely, you deserve the government you get.
 

Back
Top Bottom