| 0 |
Subject: Fox News Manipulating the Media? (PLEASE HELP)
Posted by: TaRhEElKiD
- [40612721] Mon, Jan 17, 2005, 18:15
Alright guys. I need your help. In a meeting with a prospective college's representative this morning he mentioned that I should write about "Fox manipulating the media" in an essay I have to write to gain entrance into a media program and the University of Depauw.
So I tried to look around and found this; however, how can I believe this website also?
I would like to ask you esteemed Gurupies to expand on the subject a little and enlight me please...
I am not the most politically astute person and thought this would be interested material if Fox is indeed using false reporting, etc...
Thanks,
THK |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 149 | katietx
ID: 243562819
Sun, Apr 29, 2007, 10:56
|
I find it somewhat interesting that one of the talk radio stations I listen to on occasion...is a Fox station. At the end of every news broadcast is "Fox News, fair and balanced."
Trying to drive the point home and not doing a good job of it. ;-)
The morning show guys are the best, 3 of them: 1 uber conservative, 1 moderate, and one obviously with liberal "leanings." Lends to some pretty intense conversations.
The rest of it...well the usual, Rush, Bortz, etc.
Does the MSM slant things? Of course they do, as do any and all other TV/radio/print media. NPR probably does the best job of trying to have a middle of the road, simple news reporting.
|
| 150 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 29, 2007, 23:04
|
Baldwin once again attempts to divert the discussion from his failure to prove that WND is indistinguishable from the liberal mainstream media with regard to balance.
He attempts this this with the false and pathetic assertion that I deny any bias on the part of liberal mainstream media. Of course anyone who bothers to read my recent posts here and longtime history throughout the forum on the topic that I am eagerly forthright about their bias.
Now pretending you are the forum referee is the sort of buffoonery I expect from Tree, not you, MITH.
My apologies for such buffoonery! Have it your way then, the discussion isn't over.
Challenge reissued.
Once again, for the third time over 4 days, find me that article from any source in today's (Sunday, Monday, I don't care) liberal mainstream media that is as unrepresentative of the opposition as what I have recently seen from WND.
As you continue to debate me on this by changing the subject rather than address the actual point of contention, it occurs to me that the buffoonery I'm most accostomed to from Tree and (especially) Jag is not knowing or admitting when they're beat.
Find me an article. Just one. Show the forum you aren't beat. Show the forum how outrageous my contention is.
Show any new lurkers and unanointed news watchers the righteous path and display for them how WND is easily proven no less balanced than the liberal mainstream news!
If you can.
|
| 151 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 00:39
|
When did I ever claim the WND was neutral?
WND isn't claiming to be neutral. They are most accurately described as a conservative news clipping service.
FOX claims to be fair and balanced which are not coterminous with neutral BTW.
If you want to see liberal media bias watch them cover the recent Ted Kenedy push for universal healthcare socialism redux infinity+1. 'Breathless lovefest' would about cover their stance. Or 'full court press in favor of' would be my second choice description.
|
| 152 | Tree
ID: 17343304
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 06:47
|
They are most accurately described as a conservative news clipping service.
i'd say that's correct, as they clip out anything that might actually show even the slighest level of balance.
by doing so, they become a conservative news-rewriting service, to be used by those who aren't smart enough to have news delivered to them in a form that they could decide for themselves as to what side of the fence they want to be on for that issue.
|
| 153 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 07:26
|
A conservative new clipping service is essential because a NYT article about SOWL causing the Katrina debacle is as rare as a blue moon. And MITH may not get around to point it out in timely fashion nor trumpet the story as loudly as it deserves.
The idea that somehow WND readers would be unaware of liberal news finger-pointing at everyone else but SOWL as the culprit is ludicrous.
|
| 154 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 07:29
|
When did I ever claim the WND was neutral?
Buffoonery in action:Mith: (Re: WND) Not outright lies so much as information with key facts often left out (tho there have definitely been some instances when games were played with facts as well). Its a propaganda outlet that caters to readers who want to read stories that are biased toward their particular slant.
B: Even if you could prove that, how would that distinguish them from every other news outlet on the left?
Mith: Pick any political article from today's NYT. I haven't read a single Times item today but I'll flat out guarantee you that they offer far more (and more balanced) representation of the opposing side than WND contributers do for the news stories they write.
B: And you think a couple articles cover the MSM collective butt? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that they allowed that issue it's rightful place in the debate about what went wrong?
Mith: I don't know - and neither do you.
I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. You called WND indistinguishable from (what you refer to as) MSM with regard to representation of opposition points and called me oblivious for disagreeing with you.
I asked you show just one example from yesterday's or today's liberal mainstream news to show me just how "outrageous" that I am.
B: OMG... WND is somehow the badguy even tho they are the ones who won't let the MSM bury these stories and for the most part they are only quoting the rare newspaper articles where the truth briefly slips out from under the self-censorship of the left MSM.
Mith: your old evasion tricks from when you know you are beat.... you're not fooling anyone. ... For days now I've asked you to find just one news article from a liberal mainstream media source that is as completely biased.
B: Guess I missed that question. You didn't think for example, the NYT... blah blah blah.
Mith: Have it your way then... Challenge reissued. ... find me that article from any source in today's (Sunday, Monday, I don't care) liberal mainstream media that is as unrepresentative of the opposition as what I have recently seen from WND.
B: When did I ever claim the WND was neutral? Of course no one ever made any claims that any source was neutral or unbiased (despite your efforts to paint my poistion that way). It was my claim that WND is less representative of the opposition than liberal mainstream news that you contended. It was that contention that I challenged. A challenge you have danced around since Wednesday night. This is Monday morning. You'll defend it or you won't. There's no one here who doesn't see your evasion for exactly what it is.
Tell me, how much time did you spend looking?
Did you even try, or did you know immediately there was no way you could back yourself up?
|
| 155 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 10:21
|
A couple observations:
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Don't believe everything you see on TV.
If it were not for WorldNetDaily, I would never have heard the true story behind the crash of TWA 800.
|
| 156 | Perm Dude
ID: 40329307
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 10:28
|
So, don't believe everything on the intenet, except the "true" story, which you'll only find on WND?
|
| 157 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 10:29
|
I won't deny that WND has been a source for information otherwise ignored or uncovered by the greater media.
My argument is not about whether it has any value at all. Its about a much more specific comparison drawn between it and the liberal mainstream media.
|
| 158 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 11:19
|
Don't believe everything does not mean don't believe anything.
|
| 159 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 11:24
|
And my specific complaint is the pretention of the MSM that they are the referee on what is objective truth and every other source of information is inferior.
In my mind they aren't one bit less biased than the democrat'ic' party aparatus, and are even made up of the same people moving back and forth between jobs on each.
|
| 161 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 11:38
|
In my mind they aren't one bit less biased than the democrat'ic' party aparatus
Well thats a revelation. Of course its very easy to show that by any reasonable standard that they are in fact much more biased, since they will only write and post stories that cater to their base.
The liberal mainstream media, on the other hand, does tend to write and pick up items which favor to the political left, but they, on the other hand, will also represent the other side, even if to a lesser degree.
The point is that WND offers far less representation, and very often none at all.
This is how their bias is distinguishable from that of liberal mainstream news.
|
| 162 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 11:58
|
Congrats, MITH, for pointing out that Baldwin does not even have the honor to admit defeat. I guess his unwillingness comes from a lifetime of being on the extremely short end of the stick. He is constantly challenging people to a battle of wits, wielding a overcooked linguine noodle in a sword fight. The psychological toll must be immense.
|
| 163 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 12:07
|
You have made a nice sidestep in the last series of posts in that you have switched to dueling with the strawman that WND isn't objective.
No one claimed WND was an objective news network. I've said all along that they were a conservative watchdog and news clipping service.
Stick to Fox news. Look at the thread title. If you feel the MSM is more fair and more balanced than FOX then stick to your story and prove it.
|
| 164 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 12:24
|
sidestep in the last series of posts in that you have switched to dueling with the strawman that WND isn't objective...
Stick to Fox news. Look at the thread title.
Lol! It was written two years ago! This thread wa abandoned for over a year until post 94!
If you feel the MSM is more fair and more balanced than FOX then stick to your story and prove it.
You should have been a pretzel maker.
a. Fox is mainstream media. The most mainstream of the cable news nets.
b. Please point out this argument that I have sidestepped from. What did I say and where and when did I say it?
|
| 165 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 12:45
|
I thnk that would be your post #150...
Baldwin once again attempts to divert the discussion from his failure to prove that WND is indistinguishable from the liberal mainstream media with regard to balance.
- MITH
I had never tried to prove WND was balanced or unbiased.
I had never compared WND with the MSM.
You had never asked me to do so.
The issue had not even come up and here you start to pretend it was the point of the discussion.
When I see a move like this I can only presume you felt you were doing so poorly discussing Fox vs liberal MSM, that you decided to pick an argument you had a better chance of winning.
|
| 166 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 13:00
|
I had never compared WND with the MSM.
Then what in the world was post 121 all about?
You had never asked me to do so.
You'll tell me now you never read post 122?
|
| 167 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 13:37
|
I can only presume you felt you were doing so poorly discussing Fox vs liberal MSM, that you decided to pick an argument you had a better chance of winning.
Lets get this straight right now - I have not waivered on (much less sidestepped) anything I've said regarding FNC. In fact, I've been much easier on FOX in this thread than most or all of the other leftists who have discussed them. I don't know that I've said anything about them for you to take any great exception to.
The only significant point of contention between you and I regarding Fox is whether or not they actually are mainstream media. Since you deliberately intend an inaccurate definition for that term, its not worth fighting with you over.
Either you've performed the sloppiest and most absurd subject change evasion in the history of this forum or you are cracked enough to be in total denial of what is plain and obvious in front of everyone's face in black and gray or you are completely out of your mind, posting through this thread in response to arguments entirely fabricated in your imagination.
|
| 168 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 14:08
|
I had never compared WND with the MSM.
Then what in the world was post 121 all about?
???? I have been just reading allong so i may have missed some pionts but post 121 does not seem to do that.
Oh, and Fox, as biased as it maybe, is mainstream media and really i can not see how anyone can argue that. the one thing about Fox news is that you know it biased, so atleast you do not have to questions biasiness.
|
| 169 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 14:17
|
Are you saying that post 121 was not in response to my 120?
He wrote, "Even if you could prove that, how would that distinguish them from every other news outlet on the left?"
What other post could he have been responding to with that question?
|
| 170 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:01
|
no i think he was answer 120, though i could not follow how that was comparing WND to MSN.
|
| 171 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:09
|
What does the very first line of post 120 say?
Is this really rocket science?
|
| 172 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:19
|
i must be going crazy, either i can not read today or something.
Post 118
post 118:
I wonder how WorldNetDaily remains in business if they print lies day after day.
|
| 173 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:30
|
Right, then I offered further comments about WND in post 120.
Post 121 he responded by asking how that distinguishes them from every other news outlet on the left. You think he was referring there to Talking Points Memo and Wonkette? He's referring to what he calls the democrat'ic' party aparatus. And if there's somehow any doubt that he means liberal mainstream media, simply read the rest of his post 121.
Or do you think he changed the subject right in the middle of post 121 from a cryptic reference to Daily Kos to explicitly discussing liberal mainstream news?
|
| 174 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:37
|
Ah ok i see what happened here i am reading from every other news outlet on the left? and not making the connect that includes MSN. I must have read that bost 50 times before i made the connection. then again he could have just totally ment something else and typed it out wrong like i would do.
|
| 175 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 15:47
|
At the very least, "every other news outlet on the left" includes what he calls MSM. Much more likely, he intends MSM, specifically.
It's not as if I deviously changed the subject someplace. I took issue with what he wrote in post 121 and challenged him to prove it. For whatever reason, he's still failed and even refused to do so. In post 165 he even denied that I ever issued the challenge in the first place.
|
| 176 | katietx
ID: 243562819
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 16:36
|
You should have been a pretzel maker.
This is likely one of the best lines I've read in 3 days.
Thank you...I needed that.
|
| 177 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 17:09
|
Well, WND has taken abuse in this thread, that's undeniable, but there was never any discussion about whether or not they were taking sides right up front.
WND has been slandered as if they've never said a true word in their lives. No one even bothered to call them merely biased. I've defended them and will go on defending them for the invaluable job they do, finding the nuggets of truth that infrequently slip past the spinning editors.
Again I never said they weren't 'biased' but frankly as I stated they aren't any less partisan than the MSM.
Pick any political article from today's NYT. I haven't read a single Times item today but I'll flat out guarantee you that they offer far more (and more balanced) representation of the opposing side than WND contributers do for the news stories they write. - MITH
OK, I admit I didn't scroll back and find #122. But here is why I don't think we are discussing WND in this thread. WND makes no claim to be neutral. The MSM claim to be the definition of objectivity. They claim to have a monopoly on defining reality.
FOX claims to present a balanced report, that you will hear both sides. That is why they make a fair analogy for comparison to the track record of the MSM. I think they deliver infinitely moreso than the MSM.
Not only does the MSM not live up to the claim FOX makes, but they claim there is no other side to tell. All other naratives are phony. In doing so they are clearly as biased as an upfront take-sides-on-every-issue outfit like WND, only without the honesty to admit it which is very dangerous to their audience. The public too often turn off their spin detectors and sit defenseless to the premeditated spin-doctoring of the MSM.
|
| 178 | Perm Dude
ID: 40329307
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 17:19
|
WND has been slandered as if they've never said a true word in their lives
No, they've been attacked for pretending to be a news organization which slandering Democrats and for lying.
If WND were a person, you would have cut all ties with him a long time ago. What is the point of finding "nuggets" (whatever that is--apparently "of truth") amongst all the crap?
If a liberal news outlet had many times the success of finding these "nuggets" you would still call them too biased to be trusted. And that's what we say about WND.
If you are going to get defensive and try to circle your arms around WND to protect them from some kind of unfair criticism, at least understand what the critics are saying.
|
| 179 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 17:34
|
WND makes no claim to be neutral.
no, they don't.
however, they do make these claims:
We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power...
...Indeed, WorldNetDaily.com is a fiercely independent newssite committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.
government fraud and abuse? if that were true, they'd be frothing about themselves with nearly every move the Bush regime makes.
remember, there was a time not so long ago - in the 3 or 4 years following 9/11, where the so-called MSM was on Bush's jock. generally speaking, his decisions were taken on blind faith and almost no one questioned the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act.
a couple of years later, as the haze lifted, people began to see the horrors in iraq, the horrors of the patriot act, and the horrors of much of the Bush administration.
then, and only then, did the Clinton-era bashing of the "libural media" really begin again.
|
| 180 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 18:15
|
As I recall the MSM did their level best to produce another self-fullfilling prophecy of Viet Nam quagmire in Afghanistan until the charge started looking unexpectedly silly and disappeared without apology.
The loyal opposition for the most part has their eye on the door from the first day.
If you have the time look back and see how long the honeymoon period lasted for Bush from Tree and Sarge.
|
| 181 | biliruben
ID: 52014814
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 18:21
|
My recollection is quite different. The main complaint I remember was that Bush was pulling troops out of Afghanistan with the job only half-done to throw them into his folly over in mesopotamia.
I recall saying (and I believe I was echoed by MSM), that we need to dedicate the time, money and troops to completely stamp out the Taliban and rebuild Afganistan or they will return in force, and we will lose the hearts of the people.
Sounds about like what we are seeing now.
George Bush is either a complete fool, or he is an outright evil-doer. I will be charitable and continue to call him simply a fool.
|
| 182 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 30, 2007, 18:50
|
MSM claim to be the definition of objectivity. They claim to have a monopoly on defining reality.
In my opinion, this is true only with regard to mainstream print and for the time being, network news. With the emergence of the web and Fox News totally changing the game, I'm not sure that CNN and MSNBC know what they are at all anymore.
FOX claims to present a balanced report, that you will hear both sides. That is why they make a fair analogy for comparison to the track record of the MSM. I think they deliver infinitely moreso than the MSM.
Not only does the MSM not live up to the claim FOX makes...
You fail to realize how the priority of 'objectivity' appears to have been all but trumped by 'balance' on cable. I think you have done a terrible disservice to yourself as a news watcher by failing to fully ponder the difference. It is not at all insignificant.
And even if you believe 'balanace' is a better approach than objectivity, it is not something any information outlet can successfully live up to as it ever further blurs the difference betwen news and entertainment. How can any show anchored by openly opinionated talking heads like Neil Cavuto or Keith Olberman possibly be truly balanced?
And with network tv losing more and more ground to other media, I don't know how much longer we'll seem objectivity prioritized (earnestly or not) in their newsrooms, either.
|
| 183 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Tue, May 01, 2007, 12:01
|
MITH
At this point I am three decades beyond expecting objectivity.
While I'd love to hold FOX to the standard of perfect objectivity, even settling for the european model of openly left and right partisan media is a step up from the deceptive situation we have now.
When the zeitgeist openly acknowleges that the MSM are not objective and need some other source to balance their biased subjective nature out then I will be on my way to calming down over this subject.
|
| 184 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Tue, May 01, 2007, 13:24
|
At this point I am three decades beyond expecting objectivity.
fixed that for ya.
|
| 185 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 01, 2007, 14:00
|
With all due respect, B, Tree's point is fair enough. Your model of objectivity refers to the Save Our Wetlands issue as the "the nub of the matter" of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Re that issue, I won't say that it couldn't have received greater coverege on TV and in print but
a: what reading up on the issue I did last week showed that there were considerable differences of opinion, including from Army Corps of Engineers, on whether the origial barrier plan would have prevented the flooding of NO and whether that can even be determined, and
b: you can't accurately say how much coverege it actually got at the time, anyway.
And again, if you disagree strongly enough to revisit SOWL in depth, lets do so where that topic belongs, in the thread linked in post 131.
|
| 186 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Mon, May 21, 2007, 19:06
|
Evidence you can't trust the power elite and conservatives can't trust FOX NEWS, or Rupert Murdock.
Murdock personally spiked stories negative of the Clintons
The story is about multiple cases of Murdock spiking stories and advertising negative of the Clintons in his NY POST but we can reasonably infer he would be willing to do the same at FOX NEWS.
|
| 187 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Mon, May 21, 2007, 19:31
|
we can reasonably infer he would be willing to do the same at FOX NEWS.
And the Simpsons!
|
| 188 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, May 22, 2007, 11:34
|
Yet another propaganda report from WND staff that includes little or no objectitity or balance. No account from Murdoch's office or the even a described attempt to contact Murdoch or the Post or News Corp on the suit or the allegations.
Why, exactly, should I believe WND and a professional gossip columnist who is trying to win a lawsuit after being fired for allegedly using his position to extort tens of thousands of dollars over anyone?
Why should I trust the discretion of Baldwin, who (despite his well known distaste for trial lawyers and Democrats) will eagerly rush to believe the account of a lawyer with a bone to pick and some Democrat Senator from decades past over various university studies, at least one government investigation and more than one engineer with the USACoE on assessments regarding a major civil engineering project researched and constructed by the USACoE?
|
| 189 | Perm Dude
ID: 10414228
Tue, May 22, 2007, 11:57
|
I think we can "reasonably infer" that Dow Jones would look quite a bit like that article: Baseless propoganda mascarading as "news" without sources.
As WND reported last year, a television ad critical of President Clinton was accepted by CNN but rejected by Fox News. A spokesman for the cable channel told WND the ad was not accepted because it made an undocumented claim about the former president.
Let's play "spot the factual error."
|
| 190 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Tue, May 22, 2007, 22:39
|
Why should I trust the discretion of Baldwin, who (despite his well known distaste for trial lawyers and Democrats) will eagerly rush to believe the account of a lawyer with a bone to pick and some Democrat Senator from decades past over various university studies, at least one government investigation and more than one engineer with the USACoE on assessments regarding a major civil engineering project researched and constructed by the USACoE?
You'll even defend FOX NEWS if WND pokes a hole?
BTW you need to actually read your own links. Just the fact that you can find SOWL's rebuttal on their site doesn't mean squat. Just having presented a rebuttal doesn't mean squat. You still have to consider the source and consider the actual strength of the argument.
Forget for a moment the odds that a university is going to objectively report that environmentalists and the legal structure they put in place doomed N.O...
I think they all but admitted flat out that the ACoE defenses in place very nearly saved the richest sections of N.O. and that the addition of seagates would have provided the margin for error needed to save it.
Ironically liberals actually have a case in there that the power structure protected rich N.O. better than poor N.O. [a class warfare bonanza]but to get into the details would damn the environmentalists and their process which doomed N.O.
Saving sacred cows before poor people I guess.
|
| 191 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 23, 2007, 00:06
|
You'll even defend FOX NEWS if WND pokes a hole?
Thats a stupid thing to say. Look over this thread and you'll see a vast difference between my posts regarding Fox and WND.
Fox New Channel is mainstream media with a rightist slant rather than the typical leftist slant. Their bias is more open and I take some issue with their principle of balance over objectivity. WND material is simple propaganda that deliberately disregards any and all facts and events that don't mesh with their agenda.
You are cornered and now must refuse to acknowledge the difference between a bias and and a near absolute omission of counterpoints in almost every story. Don't worry, there are plenty enough fools who don't and won't see it and continue to feed the lie.
|
| 192 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Wed, May 23, 2007, 06:23
|
Oh my, where would we ever get the liberal POV? WND is censoring it so who can know the balancing POV?
Only 365 days a year of MSM to balance WND, that's all.
|
| 193 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 23, 2007, 09:25
|
Change the discussion if you want, tough guy, but my question remains unanswered; why would I trust a propaganda rag, a disgraced gossip columnist/extortionist and your displayed disregard for even your own standards of accountability over anyone?
Obviously, your standards for reliablility fly out the window when you're trying to support your own agenda. You'll never seen me disregard a news item out of hand for the sole reason that it came from FOX. Do you think I can say the same about you when the only opposition to your position on a particular topic comes from a trial lawyer and a single Democrat Senator? Please! You'd disregard them out of hand based solely on their professions and political affiliation.
Unless, as we see, they happen to be on your side.
I wonder if you would have been so willing and fast to immolate your own integrity here in years past.
|
| 194 | Perm Dude
ID: 47415248
Fri, May 25, 2007, 21:59
|
FOX cutting back on Iraqi War coverage.
No surprise there. There isn't all that much good news for them. But to ensure that they don't accidently cover any "news" to fill the gap:
If Fox was less focused on the Iraq War, what took its place? Mostly—according to the numbers—Anna Nicole Smith. Coverage of her death trailed just barely the airtime spent on the Iraq policy debate, accounting for 9.6% of all the Fox content studied (versus 10.1% for the Iraq policy debate).
|
| 195 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, May 26, 2007, 00:32
|
MSNBC and CNN were no different.
|
| 196 | Perm Dude
ID: 1464918
Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 19:31
|
JibJab with another good one
|
| 197 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 12:53
|
Embarrasing Republican? Make him a Dem!
|
| 198 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 10:40
|
TPM - Fox News Tells McCain Not To Use Fox Footage On Web Site -- But Lets Rudy (And Romney) Use It
|
| 199 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 10:55
|
typical of FOX reporting style too though. They dont so much "report" the news, as try and make/manufacture/fabricate it.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|