BS: Faux news

Subject: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:22 AM

I have a friend who keeps insisting that Fox has more viewers than any other network, and that it is gaining more while the others are losing to them.
When I ask for proof, other than Fox's own puffing, I get "I don't have to convince you".

Your thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

If she's not prepared to back up her statements then those statements are worthless. It's so easy to make a claim but the inability to back it up just brings the words down to basic crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:29 AM

It reminds me of the times I say "I don't have to justify what I do to you."!

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:32 AM

I've just realised that what I said could have 2 meanings. What I meant was "I don't have to justify to you what I do".

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:36 AM

This is a common thing among people. They make some idiotic claim and when you challenge them, they get all pissed off.
In this case, this person usually deflects the question by blaming everything on the Clintons.

She said sometime ago that Air America was broke and going off the air. Not so. I think she has a feeding tube straight from Faux, another from Town Hall and another from the Spectator. Saves thinking for yourself.
, as liberals tend to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:42 AM

You're getting the "I don't have to convince you" because the person concerned doesn't have any proof. It's an easy way out.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:58 AM

A poll taken by FOX of FOX viewers reveals that they watch FOX more than any other network...sounds good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: number 6
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 10:30 AM

Is she saying the FOX News Network, or the FOX Network ... regardless Kendall, we shouldn't give a rat's poop over it, as most of the programs on the Toob are equivalent to what can be found on the magazine rack at a supermarket checkout.

I must admit when I require a good laugh at absurdity I do watch Bill O'Rielly ... "Warning you are about to enter the no spin zone!!"


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: jeffp
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

Just reply, "I don't believe you," and leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:04 PM

Time for a new friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:39 PM

Nah, Kendall needs a few assholes about to keep him in fighting trim...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:42 PM

I sometimes tune into Fox when there is breaking news because (it seems to me) they are more willing than other news orgs to put a scoop out, without delay. That also leads to more unconfirmed rumors than the other news orgs run, so I might get a clue at Fox and then tune into a real news org for the real story.

As far as "prove" their numbers-- who cares, anyway?

People can have an opinion without meaning they want to get into a debate about it, and without agreeing to someone else's sense of fair debating rules if they DO want to argue a point.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM

Remember when the truth came out to sink the rumor that the Clintons had vandalized the White House before leaving? Even after he knew the truth, O'Reilley failed to apologize. I have no time for people like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: jeffp
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:45 PM

Claiming that Fox has more viewers is not an opinion. It is a statement of alleged fact and subject to challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:53 PM

How would you prove the statement anyway - statistics? I would think it is difficult to prove hence the "I don't have to convince you". I think Jeffp's "Just reply, "I don't believe you," and leave it at that" is the best idea. It was probably said without any thought in the first place, or maybe it was said to provoke!

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM

People who lead with their chin are always surprised when they get knocked on their ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:41 PM

Figurativly speaking of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

Hi Kendal
Speaking of False News Inc. It's not a news source,,,,,,,,that I bother with.
Here's what I got from MoveOn.org the other day.

Barry

Thanks for taking on Fox!

IMPORTANT: Please tell several friends about the petition today. If ever there was a battle where we could beat Fox, this is it — since Democrats will make the ultimate decision, not Fox executives. To be convinced, they need to see a growing backlash. (Please only contact people who know you personally. Spam hurts our campaign.)

You can just forward the sample letter below.

Spreading the word is critical, but please only pass this message along to those who know you -- spam hurts our campaign.

Thanks for all you do.

–The MoveOn.org Civic Action Team

Here's a sample message to send to your friends:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: It's time to take on Fox


Hi,

I wanted to tell you about something pretty outrageous.

Fox News convinced the Democratic Party to let Fox host a nationally-televised Democratic presidential primary debate this summer in Nevada!

But Fox isn't even a legitimate news channel! It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh—dedicated to smearing Democrats. (Recently, Fox falsely claimed Sen. Barack Obama attended a terrorist school!)

There's a growing backlash of people demanding that Democrats drop Fox. Can you help out by signing this petition to the Democratic Party of Nevada? It's really easy—just click this link:

http://civic.moveon.org/foxdebate/?referring_id=-7942996-cwt5us&taf=1

Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:40 PM

Is moveon.org fair and balanced?

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:48 PM

Moveon.org doesn't claim to be a legitimate news organization. They are honest about their intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 06:52 PM

In the UK CNN, BBC24, Al Jazeera, Euronews, even Chinese state news are all free.

Fox is paid for on subscription or as part of a package contract.

It's a tabloid channel, good for cheap thrills, shallow ethics and dogmatic ppolitical "analysis".

But not news.

We Irish have a word for it ...

Bollox

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM

And what are those intentions of moveon.org?

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:12 PM

Speaking of news, I learned yesterday from the "Globe" that after Bush leaves office Laura will get a divorce settlement of ten million US dollars! I didn't read the whole story because I had to pay for the groceries then.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:16 PM

"And what are those intentions of moveon.org?"

Fair play, Dickey!
And again answered above by jeffp.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 07:49 PM

"It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable now since I began to live it out." -George Soros

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:12 PM

""And what are those intentions of moveon.org?"

Fair play, Dickey!
And again answered above by jeffp.

Barry "

But that's just his normal 'mass debating' technique, Barry...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:02 PM

I don't doubt Kendall's neighbor is right. I'm pretty sure at least one out of every four Americans is an idiot. If Fox News gets all the idiots, and ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN split the non-idiot population pretty evenly, Fox wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:39 PM

Mr. Soros' peculiar moral values, political views, and ideological preferences would be immaterial without the money that he can spend promoting and imposing them. The bulk of that money-currently estimated at not less than seven billion dollars-was earned in the minus-sum game of currency and stock speculation, contributing nothing to the creation of wealth and making millions of ordinary people poorer in the process. His offshore Quantum Fund-legally headquartered in Curacao, beyond U.S.-government supervision-specializes in speculative investments to take advantage of deliberately induced political and economic weaknesses of different countries and regions. In an interview with the Swiss weekly L'hebdo (May 1993), Soros outlined his strategy: "I speculate on discrepancy between the reality and the public image of this reality, until a correctional mechanism occurs, which approaches these two."

His profits are staggering. On September 16, 1992, he famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the Bank of England and the pound sterling. In July 1997, he contributed to the Southeast Asian financial crisis by shorting the Thai bath. In early 2000, he supposedly suffered losses on tech stocks, but some analysts now suggest that the burn of the NASDAQ was controlled and that Soros helped to start the fire. By last November, he was betting the U.S. dollar would plummet. As the London Independent reported (November 28, 2003), his activities were contributing to a growing belief on Wall Street that the dollar would slide even further.

There is nothing new in Soros' approach to making money or in the ability of such a person to make an impact, invariably detrimental, on his host society's morals and culture. What is new with Mr. Soros-in addition to the implausible claim that a private speculator could get as far as he has unaided by any established financial interests-is his systematic, concerted effort to use a large part of his fortune to promote his peculiar social and political views. He does so through a global network of "nongovernmental organizations" named after himself and active primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Africa, Latin America, and the United States. At age 75, money is not his object but his tool. He has used it to develop a well-coordinated global operation centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2004/0204Trifkovic.html

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:10 PM

Assuming your neighbor is referring to Fox News, they have more viewers than any other news network - CNN, MSNBC and you can thrown in CNBC in for good measure.   Currently, Fox News comes in at #5 of all the cable networks, and they are taking viewers from the other networks.   These are based on the Nielsen ratings, which some networks argue are flawed.      The ratings determine ad dollars - if you are Bill O'Reilly you will receive more money when a spot is aired on your program then Keith Olberman gets for the same spot airing on his show.

The ratings simply mean people are watching. Fox News knocked the wind out of CNN and they shut the door for MSNBC.   MSNBC has responded by making numerous program changes and no longer consider themselves to be a strict "news" channel.

Fox News has their flaws, but they know how to reach an audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM

Where's Air America?

Brian C. Anderson states "Liberal bias in the old media (is) what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance.

Political scientist William Mayer, writing in the Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio (air America) because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR."

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:52 PM

Air America is radio. Fox News is television.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:55 AM

William Myer is also full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:00 AM

Guest Dickey, very interesting, now tell us about Rupert Murdock.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Geoff the Duck
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:53 AM

And when George W Bush went on TV to announce that his next "Axis of Elvis" invasion was going to be Liechtenstein, he turned up wearing a very sporty looking Davey Crocket style headpiece made from the fur of a wild fox.
The interviewer was curious, so as an ice breaker to make his guest feel more relaxed, he enquired why the President was wearing such an unusual item.
"Duh!!" said George...
"When the pentangle told me they needed to invade, I decided I should tell my fellow Merkins, and I asked my dear daddy what I should wear to make the announcement"
The interviewer mused "And what did George Senior tell you?"
"Easy" replied George. "He said - Liechtenstein! Wear the fox hat!!"

Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Scrump
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:57 AM

Our esteemed UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken to answering difficult questions with something along the lines of "I can see your (opposing) viewpoint but I don't agree with it". He seems to think that is a satisfactory response to everything these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM

Scrump - isn't that the same as "I dont give a toss what you think!" ?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:07 AM

Keith Rupert Murdoch AC, KCSG, born in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 11 March 1931, is an Australian global media executive and is the controlling shareholder, chairman and managing director of News Corporation, based in New York City in the United States. Beginning with newspapers, magazines and television stations in his native Australia, Murdoch expanded into British and American media, and in recent years has become a powerful force in satellite television, the film industry, the Internet, and other forms of media.

He is one of the few chief executives of any multinational media corporation who has a controlling ownership share in the corporation. In Murdoch's case, it is via a family corporation.

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel has been criticized by many liberal watchdog groups for what they state as it being politically conservative and advocating for conservative policies and candidates in its newscasts. They state that it is not "fair and balanced" as the network's tagline claims. The network is featured in the 2004 documentary Outfoxed described by Film Threat as "a shrill, one-note slam against a very easy target", which was produced and directed by liberal activist Robert Greenwald.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:10 AM

Now will Kendall please tell us about "fair and balanced" Link TV, Outfoxed and George Soros.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:18 AM

DICKey, you really don't think that you made a point by cutting and pasting from a conservative website do you? Do you really think that those were slams against Link TV, Outfoxed and George Soros??? Is that the best you can come up with?

Lets hear your own words instead of someone elses.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:22 AM

note who distributed Outfoxed...

                     
                         Outfoxed
               Distributed by        MoveOn.org
            Release date(s)        July 13, 2004
                Running time        78 mins
                   Language        English
                     Budget        $200,000


...ya don't suppose the $200K could have been used to feed the homeless...nah...

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

MoveOn.org is a 501(c)(4) organization - the same at the National Rifle Association and the Christian Coalition.   Are those groups feeding the homeless too?

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:36 AM

http://www.focsle.org.uk/ginalefaux/

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:40 AM

Ron,

Both of the groups you mention have positive goals such as offering classes in the safe handling of firearms.

Outfoxed is nothing but a nasty hit piece done to discredit people that the producers see as their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:51 AM

So PDQ, what is your complaint then???

Have you watched Outfoxed or are you relying on someone elses opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:07 PM

So now Wikipedia is not fair and balanced like moveon.org?

Link TV, Moveon and Soros were not mentioned in that post.

I just want to know why Murdoch's association with Fox is so important while Soros' association with Moveon, Outfoxed and Link TV are not important.

Is the Washington post fair and balanced?

Tilting at the Right, Leaning to the Left
Robert Greenwald's 'Outfoxed' Has Its Own Slant on Balance

"Greenwald, whose last movie was "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," makes no effort at fairness or balance himself. Not only did he avoid contacting Fox, and indulge in some misleading editing, but the film also features a parade of the network's liberal detractors -- including Al Franken, Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and out-of-the-closet liberal columnist Walter Cronkite."

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:13 PM

Dickey,

You obviously do not understand- a viewpoint that presents what they don't want to hear is biased, whereas a presentation of only what they already beleive is fair and reasonable.

This is why, for example, Amos is a great statesman, and you are a demogogue... at least until you agree with him. THEN you, too, can be a great statesman.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:54 PM

Dickey, there is no doubt that MoveOn has an agenda. Outfoxed had an agenda. Rush Limbaugh has an agenda. Al Franken has an agenda. They are not trying to be "fair and balanced" - they do not have to.

A network that is billing itself as a news channel would be expected to uphold the canons of journalism. Even "closet liberals" would give us the facts - who, what, when, where and why - and they would get their facts, with confirmation, before reporting the story. There is a fine line between reporting the news that lets the viewer decide and slanting the coverage to push an agenda.

I've worked with many of the people who built and run Fox News Channel. I worked with many of them at "liberal" NBC - or at least that is what people like to accuse that network of being.   I've even worked for Roger Ailes, at CNBC and his company was a client at a former company that I worked for. While I could never find myself agreeing with his choice of candidates, I do have respect for his organizational and motivional skills.   The reason Fox News Channel is the #1 rated cable news network is because of his skill and his choice of staff. They work hard.

When he was the boss at CNBC, I NEVER heard of any incident where he tried to direct the direction of our news coverage. He gave direction on how to reach viewers, but he did not dictate what was covered. He is a shrewd businessman and he knows the tools of the trade. His opinions differ greatly from mine, but he knows his work. There is no one on the left that can approach his skills.

Today when I watch Fox News, I see a big difference. If you watch Outfoxed, and forget about the source of the feature, you will see actual clips that show it all.   You watch and then decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:11 PM

"...you will see actual clips that show it all.   You watch and then decide."

There have been groups who have done exactly the same thing (actual clips) to show the bias of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC).

I think perhaps the most telling thing regarding media bias is that people from a more progressive POV have no trouble pointing out those whose bias they disagree with -- they can name pundit, after journalist, after columnist who are "right wing". But ask them to describe all the rest of journalism, they can't seem to find a liberal in the whole lot of 'em. Just unbiased journalists all.

The answer to Kendall's initial question is that Kendall is, indeed, wrong. Fox is bigger than all the others. Bee-Dubya-Ell probably distilled down the main reason -- it is the one alternative to the rest who are in agreement. If one or more of ABC, CBS, or NBC decided to be unbiased they could gain back some of that viewership they lost through the nineties.

Truth is, things will tend to balance out soon I think. One of the early strengths upon which Fox and other alternative media sources drew upon was the fledgling and growing new internet...

...That's because the biggest strength of the left's stranglehold on media was not because of what they wrote or covered, but rather the fact that they could spike stories and no one was the wiser. The internet has made spiking stories almost impossible. That's why the right saw the greatest gain from the new technology.

The left has started to gain back some ground with its own use of the internet for the disemination of information. Curiously, that empowerment has only caused greater problems for the mainstream media. Even though the mainstream media tells the story from the liberal POV, now the liberal is seeking ever more information that is available on the 'net, thereby making even their own major media a redundant source.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:23 PM

"But ask them to describe all the rest of journalism, they can't seem to find a liberal in the whole lot of 'em. Just unbiased journalists all. "

I can name plenty of liberals. Show me the bias.

Ed Murrow was a liberal, and he took a point a view in his broadcasts. He was not giving the news. Neither is Bill O'Reilly. When bias shows up in reporting, that is a different circumstance.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh can have their own network and I will have no problem with that - providing they do not report news. They are entertainers, not journalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:26 PM

Is Link TV fair and balanced?

I was recently informed by Link TV that "Drugs are Wonderful" and not refering to prescriptions. Also Teddy Roosevelt and the rough riders did not charge up San Juan Hill, there were no horses and they advanced up Kettle hill. The charge up San Jaun hill was just hype to sell newspapers.

Is that correct?

"Link TV is the first nationwide television channel dedicated to providing Americans with global perspectives on news, events and culture."

Sounds like a news channel to me or at least an "educational channel" that seeks to tell people the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:27 PM

Enternewsment is amusment
for those who know the facts.
Infotainment needs arraignment
for the fools and the Fox.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:30 PM

Link TV is not a newschannel first of all. They offer liberal programs. They are giving a global perspective but they are not claiming to be "fair and balanced". Their agenda is not hidden.

It has been documented that Teddy Roosevelt did not charge up San Juan Hill. He did not invent the Teddy Bear either. Urban legends do have a tendancy to sell newspapers.

Perhaps that is why Link TV is important - if it can clear up misconceptions like Teddy Roosevelt's supposed charge, maybe it is a good thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:22 PM

However how can any network claim to be educational when they have a liberal agenda?

They do have some good stuff on Link TV. I just watched a program about Beatbox, Tap and Hambone but just when you get to liking that they slip something into a show like "drugs are wonderful". Later I got to thinking about that when I heard heard someone died from taking drugs and I realized how wrong they are. They are "educating" people to think drugs are wonderful.

Then they tell you that newspapers are lying to you.

From what I can gather from other sources Teddy did ride a horse, Little Tex but it was the only horse. He did lead a charge up San Juan hill after Kettle hill had been taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:55 PM

"However how can any network claim to be educational when they have a liberal agenda?"

Maybe you should look up the word "liberal" before you ask.

It sounds like you were interpreting a song in the award winning documentary "The Human Hambone" in a way that wasn't intended. I would also double check your facts about Teddy, a great president regardless of who was riding on a horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:21 PM

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick.

Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights." WIKI

Are you a new liberal or a classic liberal?

I can identify with the broad and classic liberal definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:29 PM

Dickey - you are overthinking all of this. You seem to have a need to classify people and thought. Open up, you will feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:47 PM

When I see a program on Link TV that says Drugs are Wonderful and I see it is associated with George Soros and the production of Outfoxed, It sort of tells me that there is an agenda there. I don't consider it educational but subversive.

I read the definition as requested and I am surprised to find my Ideology is not that far from classic liberalism or general liberalisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Faux news
From: GUEST,Viewer
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:57 PM

CNN and BBC have lots of viewers, which makes this story problematic.

On the morning of Sept 11, 2001, the BBC and CNN were reporting World Trade Center building 7 had collapsed (past tense), but they reported it BEFORE the collapse.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_wtc_7_911_coverup_unraveling.htm

This opens the door to subpoena sources. Who issued those prepared statements?

This is videotaped proof of prior knowledge.

(The googlevideo and youtube links may or may not be active, but a search of those sites will turn up whatever clips are active at the moment).