 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Fox News
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:26 PM Guest H: Obviously you are more in line with the O'Reilly camp, full of sounds and fury and denigration but with little to substantiate your finger-waving. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,H Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:20 PM A spell checker would not be a big assset for Bobert but a fact checker would be a boon for all - it would basically eliminate all his posts. Bobert, why not try, just once, to explain yourself out of a situation rather than trying to insult your way out? Exhibit A - Martin Gibson 25 Sep @ 11:26 PM Exhibit B = Bobert 25 Sep @ 11:43 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Ebbie Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:01 PM I'm another who used to listen to Buckley. The difference between him and O'Reilly is the difference between a stiletto and a sledge hammer, the difference between intellect and phone sex, the difference between thinking and reacting... If he were dead today, William F. Buckley would be spinning in his grave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Sep 05 - 07:09 AM I watch no TV news. Why should anybody be subject to what a network thinks we should see? I read newspapers, primarily the Wall St. Journal, which often gives more than one side to a given issue--and many more facts than a newscast. There's plenty of information in the Journal to counter the misinformation of the current "administration". I'll admit Jon Stewart (especially the first 10 minutes) is great--especially at skewering Bush and his minions with their own words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Skivee Date: 27 Sep 05 - 02:18 AM Wow, Don. Your mention of "Firing Line" sucked me way back in time. I always looked forward to hearing the infuriating, but well thought out musings of Mr. Buckley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Don Firth Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:52 PM Speaking of PUBLIC broadcasting, I keep hearing from conservatives on this web site and elsewhere that PBS and NPR are the most blatant of the liberal media. They are the worst of the worst, to hear conservatives tell it, despite PBS and NPR's efforts to keep their programming really "fair and balanced." I have a couple of theories as to why this idea is so popular with conservatives. FIRST: There is no shouting and desk-pounding on PBS and NPR. No WWF "Smackdown" factor. More information, less mayhem. They really make an effort to keep the straightnews unbiased. And in the cases where they do broadcast something that someone might construe as partisan (SOME of the Frontline or POV programs, or, among conservatives, the notorious NOW with Bill Moyers, recently, with Moyers' retirement, taken over by David Brancaccio), the position the program takes is made abundantly clear ahead of time. Anyone who hasn't lived in a cave for the last forty years knows that Moyers is a liberal, and he has never claimed to be otherwise. Likewise David Brancaccio makes no bones about his liberal viewpoint either. So you know where they're coming from. Furthermore, when they interview someone who also has a liberal viewpoint, both Moyers and Brancaccio took the "Devil's Advocate" position and asked questions or raised issues that conservatives would have asked or raised. And when interviewing someone with a conservative viewpoint, they did not challenge, argue, shout at them, or tell them to "shut up!" I have never seen any of that kind of barbaric behavior on PBS or heard it on NPR. On Fox News, or on Rush Limbaugh's program, it's almost a daily occurrence. On the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, toward the end of the program, they have a sort of "Point-Counterpoint" segment in which Jim Lehrer, Ray Suarez, or Gwen Ifill asks questions on current issues to be discussed by two guest columnists, one liberal, one conservative. What is striking about these discussions in comparison with something like Fox News is the civility of the discussions. Disagreements, yes, different viewpoints expressed, yes—but no shouting and no insults. And just in case anyone has forgotten, in 1966, William F. Buckley, a hard-charging conservative writer and commentator, began hosting Firing Line, a political talk show on National Educational Television, the forerunner of PBS. 1,429 weekly episodes were produced over the next 33 years, until Buckley retired in 2000. In contrast to people such as Bill O'Reilly, William F. Buckley was urbane, cosmopolitan, intellectual, and every bit the gentleman. O'Reilly, in contrast to Buckley, is an offensive, hate-spewing boor, and I can't stand to listen to him for more than a few minutes. I used to listen closely to Buckley. As far as I can see, the conservative media has none like him today. SECOND: Programs on PBS and NPR (such as Frontline and POV) often call attention to news stories that haven't actually made the news—or stories that various factions would rather not be mentioned on the national media, and were it not for PBS or NPR, would not make the national media. And these are not always negative stories about the current administration or some corporate scandal, although there is certainly opportunity for much programming like this. For example, one segment on NOW with Bill Moyers a couple of years ago featured a machine tool company in one of the southern states that, in contrast to companies all around them downsizing, cutting benefits, laying people off, and "outsourcing' much of their work, kept their work-force steady and hadn't had a lay-off in years, paid wages that were equal to or better than other wages paid in the area for similar work, and had an excellent benefits package including a solid and secure retirement program, full health care coverage (including an on-site infirmary), and free on-site day-care. And because the company (which was family owned, and had not gone "public" ) made products which were consistently top quality, was operating solidly in the black and had done so for years. The owners attributed their consistent quality to a long-term, stable, and experienced work force. It sounds like a real American success story. The point of this feature was that "when company loyalty is a two-way street, it can be done." Yet—this feature drew a lot of flak from various sources, saying, among other things, that this was subversive, un-American, and socialist! Socialist? How was this socialist? Nevertheless, this is the kind of thing that gets PBS and NPR branded as "left-wing." Not that I get all of my news from these sources. Far from it! I take all of this with a large grain of salt as well as all the others. But what I have seen and heard, these two news services are indeed the most "fair and balanced" in the country at the present time. Okay, folks. Let's hear those shrieks and bellows! All together now? Let 'er rip!! Don Firth P. S. You want "liberal?" Try Air America or Pacifica. Al Franken. Phil Donahue. But they don't try to palm themselves off as "fair and balanced" like our friends at Fox do. P. P. S. I am surprised that C-SPAN is not lumped in there with the "liberal media." Because, after all, you can sit there in front of the television set and actually watch the sausage being made! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bill D Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:28 PM ...and no amount of facts can shake some fervently held beliefs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: kendall Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:28 PM No amount of belief can create a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:22 PM It isn't as cut and dry as you try to make it out John. You almost make it sound as if the government was dictating the content of the media, and that wasn't the case. I should clarify something. The Fairness Doctrine NEVER meant that broadcasters were REQUIRED to present opposing views on ALL subjects. Stations were required to offer REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY to discuss conflicting views on issues of public importance. Stations were also required to conduct surveys of their community to determine what these issue were, and then submit the survey along with documentation on how they were addressing the issues with their listeners or viewers. There was a time when editorials were not even allowed on radio. When the Fairness Doctrine was launched, you only had AM radio stations and the infancy of television and FM. The Fairness Doctrine was put into place so that interests would not gain control of the airwaves, which were limited at the time. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in an age when cable tv, FM radio and AM radio created enormous potential. The thought at the time was it would be impossible for interests to gain control of all the outlets. The abolishment of the doctrine was widely supported by liberals and conservatives. I do agree that journalists should not be inhibited by governmental restraints on their reporting. I don't think anyone really grasped that the conservatives would have a better game plan and much better on-air talent. I saw a report that something like 90% of the talk shows on radio are conservative. With the stations being bought corporations like Clear Channel, it is become difficult for ALTERNATE views to get a forum. Again, I'm not a fan of the Fairness Doctrine. I'm not a fan of what has happened to the media in this country. I could care less if a reporter declares himself as a liberal or a conservative, or all the shades in between. What I do care about is the lack of opportunity to have the PUBLIC airwaves represent the actual PUBLIC. Big money buys Big Media, and they present programming that serves their consitutents. There are few voices and outlets that really represent the rest of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: John Hardly Date: 26 Sep 05 - 04:31 PM "I'm just saying that without checks and balances, take caution when you hear somebody talking on the tv or radio." And I'm saying that I would NEVER trust the kind of checks and balances suggested by the Fairness Doctrine so much that I would not take caution when I hear someone talking on the radio [i]anyway[/i]. In fact, with or without regulation, I wouldn't expect ANYONE to be so naive as to think that they need not take caution when they hear someone talking on the radio ...... or when they read something in the paper, or when they read something on the internet. In fact, that has been the soap box from which I've shouted for years now ------ I don't want ANY goddamn media to have the power to operate with a listening public that is under the illusion that they are unbiased. I do not want an unbiased media. An unbiased media is not even a possibility. All I have EVER wanted is a media that does not claim to be objective/unbiased, but rather, shows their prejudice up front -- rather than this cute little game we play now with journalists swearing to their objectivity. And I wouldn't want a governmental agency to be able to come in and act as judge as to who represents the "balance" of opinion, should there ever be a "fairness doctrine". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:44 PM Okay, maybe peeing is not the best example. The point I was trying to make is that the Fairness Doctrine stated that broadcasters could not make personal attacks on the integrity of individuals without giving equal time. Believe it or not, a false statement is not always something you can fight in a court of law. To prove libel in a court of law is difficult because you need to prove actual malice and that it harmed the reputation of the person in question. It is very rare to have a successful libel suit against the media because it is very hard to prove. In the case that led to the formation of the Fairness Doctrine, a right wing broadcast made false claims against an author of a book that was anti-Goldwater. The station refused the authors request for a rebuttal, and the case was brought to court. Because the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists, it is easy for broadcasters to have Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, and Randi Rhodes on the radio. I'm not saying that the Fairness Doctine was the right thing to have. I'm just saying that without checks and balances, take caution when you hear somebody talking on the tv or radio. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: John Hardly Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:11 PM If you went on the air and said that I was a well-known bed-wetter, I would already have legal recourse without going to the extreme of limiting everyone's freedom of speech. I wouldn't use dynamite to kill flies. ...now excuse me while I go pee-pee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Sep 05 - 02:08 PM There was one main issues that created the Fairness Doctrine in the first place. The FCC did not want stations (TV or radio) to be purchased and used by organizations for their poltical agendas. The Fairness Doctrine was supposed to prevent stations from slander. If I went on the air and called John Hardly is a well known bedwetter, you should have the opportunity to rebutt my statement under the Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine was never popular with journalists because it was felt that they had right to determine how a story should be presented. The result was that many stories went uncovered, simply because the press did not want to go find opposing views. It should be noted that the Fairness Doctrine was FCC policy, not governmental law. Federal courts ruled that the FCC did not have to enforce the law at which point there was a push to have it passed as law. That was when Reagan vetoed the measure. We rely on journalists to have integrity. Having worked with them, I would not trust them with anything - especially my opinion. Good or bad, we no longer have checks and balances. The result is obvious. Sometimes you get what you pay for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:59 PM Papers have been slanted since the first copy. Some of the older stuff was a lot worse!!! You can't have 90% plus of the journalistic community voting for democrats without it affecting the news coverage. Geraldo is worthless and should have been fired (literally and figuratively) when he reported troop locations in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: John Hardly Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:51 PM The "Fairness Doctrine" is the closest thing to truly fascist (and I never use that word lightly) government censorship. The notion that no "news" can be broadcast without the presentation of an opposing view -- given equal time -- is not only the worst kind of censorship, it is utterly impractical. I don't want the government deciding for me who can and cannot present a news story. Damn, that's scary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:47 PM The loss of the Fairness Doctrine has created the situation we are in. The "liberal" NYTimes and the "conservative" Fox News would have had better checks and balances in the past. Unfortunately, it is gone. Because of this, one thing that you should recognize, Fox "News" Channel does not have to be "fair and balanced". Shows like Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo are not newscoverage, they are editorial programs. Public advocacy programs can exist now The issue of "showboating" is nothing new. I worked in a technical capacity at a cable business network for 12 years. I know some of the names that have been mentioned in this article. I have friends who work for Fox. I no longer trust ANYONE who uses the media to get their views across. It has become infotainment and not a place to fidn news. My opinion of Geraldo Rivera is that he will go where the money is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Don Firth Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM "Fair," perhaps as in "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor?" They sometimes have about five minutes of actual news (i.e., things that have actually happened rather than their fairly steady pouring forth of frothing-at-the-mouth) at the top of the hour, hence "fair" rather than "poor." Otherwise. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:16 AM Liberal garbage, junk science and crazy constitutionalists. the bane of your existence eh? I don't blame you. Hitler felt the same way. It is easy to see that spoon feeding some people doesn't work. They need it crammed down their neck FOX style. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:10 AM LOL. Now some of you know how conservatives have been feeling for decades. I love the idea of balance on Meet the Press; three reporters from the NYTimes ROFL!!! Give me a break. What angers some of you is that there is a voice out there other than the liberal garbage that has been spoon fed by the liberal media for the last 2 generations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 05 - 10:28 AM The overall mission statement regarding editorializing political stories is to create anger in the viewers. Anger is paramount to emotionally shape viewer thinking. This is done with "moderators" who shout people down, call people all kinds of hateful names, make stories up, slander, attempt to humilliate - all in the name of fairness and the claim that viewers will get "news" in a "no spin zone" that is unavailable anywhere else in the world. Sometimes the generated anger does not serve their purpose and sometimes it does. In an attempt to turn heros into villains and villains into heros many injustices have been done. PS: The abolishment of the FCC Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan administration has led to the current brand of opinion programs on TV and radio. FOX now uses the term FAIR as a FOX brand name of sorts. The irony should not be lost on any one. the oldest trick in the book: Accuse an opponent of the actual crime/lie in which you yourself are guilty of, and the response of accused paints the accused in guilty hues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: kendall Date: 26 Sep 05 - 07:47 AM Hannity and Colmes is balanced? Pull the other one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:29 AM Hi Martin, Welcome back. Tell us about the non-residents who live in West Virginia? LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:43 PM Yo, MG Impersonator... You suck, maybe you need to study the "master" a little more before comin' 'round with this feeble attempt??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:27 PM BTW, it is known as the Fairness Doctrine and it was repealed in the Reagan years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 05 - 10:59 PM Thanks, GUEST, fir the recommendation fir community gardenin' but I gotta a new 330 foot long garden that the P-Vine an' I have been moving out pl;ants from Wes Ginny to and that's lie a fool time job... Ahh, thanks fir the smell check Idea but, hey, I got a new anti-purserrant an' I thoguht it was workin' jus' fine... BTW, I read in the mornin paper that Chief Ramsey said that 150,000 was probable which means it wewas the 300,000 that ANSWER said... Which means that the 73 pro-war Bushite brownshirts got, ahhhh, hmmmm.... Considerin' thaey was out gunned 300,000 to 74, ahhhh, they owe the anitwar folks now bout 7 days of 24 hour coverage to meet the equal time provison.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,petr Date: 25 Sep 05 - 04:37 PM for a news network that claims its 'fair and balanced' the announcer (whos name I dont recall) ended each pre-election (2004) broadcast with there are x number of days before George W. Bush is re-elected. I think that pretty much says it all. whenever the economy was up some 'economics pundit' would say the business sector is upbeat about a Bush victory, if the market was down business was 'worried' about a possible Kerry victory... (of course the market could be up or down because a multitude of factors they just put their slant on it.. whenever there was a debate there's always 2 right wing guys and 1 left wing guy (if that). check out the Documentary Outfoxed, it features a number of Ex fox reporters fed up with the slant.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 03:30 PM In our capitalist system, mainstream media "news" (network, cable, or radio) is never about reporting the facts, the truth, or the news. It's about selling dish soap, drugs and oil (in commercial broadcasts) or promoting the interests of the corporations that produce dishsoap, drugs and oil (in the case of "public" broadcasting). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Don Firth Date: 25 Sep 05 - 03:20 PM That's why I don't get my news from any one source. Particularly on stuff that has the potential for being controversial, in addition to what comes over the radio or television, I check various sources on the internet (not blogs!), including the news services of other countries. There's a helluva lot going on in the world that never makes it to the NBC evening news--or, God knows, to Fox News Service. If you want to know what's going on, you've got to be pro active. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:32 PM "Just because more of ya are shoutin in here doesn't make ya right." Why is it that you right wing nuttos never seem to be able to read? The reference to shouting clearly referred to the Fox anchors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: CarolC Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:30 PM They're all shills and media whores. All of them, including PBS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:20 PM "Democracy has no place in news reporting." What a stunningly ignorant comment. Thanks for saying the dumbest thing I've heard anyone mutter in over a week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Susu's Hubby Date: 25 Sep 05 - 02:00 PM First we have to decide what the news really is You might as well loop the NY Times in with the Weekly World News and The National Enquirer. All three show a penchant for making up the news. But by no means am I denying the existence of "BATBOY"!!!! Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Susu's Hubby Date: 25 Sep 05 - 01:52 PM Just because more of ya are shoutin in here doesn't make ya right. Let's hear both sides so we can all make up our minds. The Fox commentators may be right leaning but in almost broadcast you watch on Fox....there's always differing viewpoints. There's always somebody for and against. That's the way it should be. Always somebody for and against. And when it's done that way in reporting the news, you stand up and say it's not fair because there's more of us than them. Democracy has no place in news reporting. The news is the news. Editors subjectivly decide what's "news". If that's going to be the case then I want to hear both sides of what is finally considered news. Any American should want that. Regardless of what's being said or who's saying it. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 01:51 PM Bobert, my man, I think you need to find some hobbies that are more productive than just reacting to mainstream media infotainment, be it Fox or the Washington Post. Why not get yourself involved in a community gardening project or something? You always predictably react to those who are trying to push your buttons--even go seeking them out. You know what Fox is all about, so why would you even tune in to it for anything? This is getting very tiresome. Not your politics, which I agree with, but your need to provoke your internal reptilean reactionary response to anything and everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Sep 05 - 01:31 PM I don't know anything about FOX News, but neither the proportion of numbers nor the give both arguments equal time argument sound convincing. If five Greenpeace activist stage an interesting protest against say Shell I do not expect a proportional airing of peaceful people filling their tanks at Shell stations the same day. If a maverick scientist trumpets that he sees evidence for a young Earth I don't expect equal treatment just because there are two different opinions about the age of the Earth. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: pdq Date: 25 Sep 05 - 01:04 PM Wow, it's hard to believe. "Dirty Gerty" von Sistern is a right-wing extremist? Geraldo "Where did Capone's stuff go?" is Republican activist? "Kooky, lend me your" Combs is really an ultra-conservative propagandist? Wow, I didn't know. Thanks for the "heads up", folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: John Hardly Date: 25 Sep 05 - 12:56 PM I think it's great to be able to go back and forth between, for instance, Fox and PBS. I don't find one any more or less biased than the other and am tickled pick at the options available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Don Firth Date: 25 Sep 05 - 12:54 PM Fox News is an oxymoron. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Don Firth Date: 25 Sep 05 - 12:37 PM I don't know about the others (I don't watch Fox very often because their bias is so blatant, my bullshit meter pegs out almost immediately), but Bill O'Reilly operates entirely on a mix of testosterone, adrenalin, and bile. Two modes: loud and obnoxious, and even louder and more obnoxious. And Geraldo Rivera is all ego and no ethics. People actually watch this bellowing fest thinking that it's news? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 11:48 AM Can anyone explain why they need to shout? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Nigel Parsons Date: 25 Sep 05 - 10:29 AM Depending on your understanding of the pronunciation of Fox/Faux/Fough; Surely that is why we have The BBC World Service, to fight the Foe/faux/fox/faugh Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,Tweed Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:51 AM BOBERDZZ, Lissent to me a minute!!! You gotta run some obv yore stuff through a spell checker my brovther. Expecialy when syaing stuff lik; "Ignorabce is bliss"???? What the heck is that? Yore fren, Tweed (too lazy to loging) PS Yaz, shoot all TVs. Shoot them now. The epoch is done and thar time iz obver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:36 AM I've only seen a few examples of Fox news reporting. The last one came as an example when we we looking to see how US reporting of Katrina compared to ours in the UK and watched this clip which left the person who commented on it "stuck for words" and I was stuck for words too after I located it. If that my sample is representative, all I can say is that if there are people who take Fox News seriously, it's no wonder that people like me regard a number (not all by any means) of Americans as being so brainwashed. It strikes me more as being part of a propoganda machine than a news medium. Other than that, I did listen to a rather hillarious clip linked to from another thread here with Bill O'Reily coming a distinct 3rd in a debate with just him and one other person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,H Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:31 AM I can't begin to understand what was meant by that last post. For all practical purposes, it is probably a good thing that I don't. I think logic is more important than disorientation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:31 AM Don't watch any of 'em! Don't watch television at all! It's not information! It's propaganda! Shoot the damned thing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:17 AM BS, hubby.. I one person had died or had been displaced by Katrina and her sister Rita, would it have been such a big story??? Only one bnetween the two of us with the washed out brain is you, you and you... They even threw in an extra dose of Klorox when they ran yers thru the Maytag... But, hey, like they say, "Ignorabce is bliss", so ity must be real nice to look at the world thru hubby's eyes... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: kendall Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:01 AM Faux is balanced between right and far right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:30 AM Watching Fox from the European side of the water, it's just a propoganda channel using news as infotainment for those of a Right persuasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,Boab Date: 25 Sep 05 - 03:47 AM Hubby---your a real deMOCKratic kind of a guy---- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby Date: 25 Sep 05 - 12:16 AM "Just a few minutes ago they had a story on the 100,000 anitwar demonstrators in Wsahington, D.C. today... Well, there were may 200 pro-war demonsrators... Both got equal time... Like what's this all about... Would they have given equal tiome to the pro-war folks had the number been 100??? 50??? 10???? 3????" Bobert, You're proving just how brainwashed you really are. The number of protesters isn't the story. The story is the message that each group is trying to convey. Just because 100,000 is more than 200 doesn't mean the message of the 200 is any less important than the message of the 100,000. Why not give them equal time? Give both sides of the story...let the people decide who's right and who's wrong. Are you afraid of which side may make more sense? It sure sounds like it. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: number 6 Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:46 PM I watch Fox new every now and then ... when I need a good kick to get my anger pistons poppin. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:26 PM and it's all FAUGH! news..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:11 PM O'Reilly was a host of one of the faux news programs that comes on right after the regular local 5:00 news, wasn't he? There's a woman who anchored it a lot also. I never watched those, always turned them off, because it was "pretend" news as far as I was concerned. The idea that today he is taken seriously by anyone still is pretty amazing. And the fact that he couldn't take Terry Gross' questions when he appeared on Fresh Air speaks volumes regarding his ego. As interviewers go, she is one of the best out there. Interesting. I just noticed a similarity in my first paragraph. Someone not acquainted with French might see "faux" news and Fox news as the same thing, no? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:10 PM Well, based on the amount of time the 100 'er so Bushites got ion Fox tonight, the Wes Ginny Slide Rule figgures that had the anit-war demonsrators been given equal time based on porportion that FOX would have to broadcaast the anit-war folks messages fir 3 days, 18 hours and 21 minutes... Hmmmmm??? BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fox News From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:03 PM Fox uses Bill O'Reilly to anchor its news... I don't think he'll fly on a plane that has one left wing....'nuff said. (They also use Geraldo Rivera to |
|
Subject: BS: Fox News From: Bobert Date: 24 Sep 05 - 10:39 PM Okay, I'll confess that I watch Fox News from 10:00 to 11:00 at night so that I can get the sports and weahter and get off to bed early but, hey, these folks got a real agenda... Let me give an example: Just a few minutes ago they had a story on the 100,000 anitwar demonstrators in Wsahington, D.C. today... Well, there were may 200 pro-war demonsrators... Both got equal time... Like what's this all about... Would they have given equal tiome to the pro-war folks had the number been 100??? 50??? 10???? 3???? Well, when I was part of a major pre-war demonstartion there were 500,00 and maybe 10 pro-warer's and we got maybe 90% but the 10 got the other???? Now, this don't involve no Wes Ginny Slide Rule here... It's obvious that when 200 folks get get as mush media message out on Fox as can 100,000 there's something stinky about the unbiasness of Fox... Bobert |
