Originally posted by: Pabster
ROFL
As if we're supposed to believe anything Olbermann says.
The hypocrisy of liberals raving about Fox News while holding up people like Olbermann is simply hilarious.
What is hilarious is you talking about other people "raving"!! :laugh:
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Pabster
ROFL
As if we're supposed to believe anything Olbermann says.
The hypocrisy of liberals raving about Fox News while holding up people like Olbermann is simply hilarious.
Watch the video.
Why should he? He already thinks he knows more about the subject then Clinton or anybody else for that matter.
Originally posted by: Pabster
ROFL
As if we're supposed to believe anything Olbermann says.
The hypocrisy of liberals raving about Fox News while holding up people like Olbermann is simply hilarious.
Awwwwww how cute, Olbermann is a real threat
It depends on how much of what they actually report is true. In the case of Faux, almost none of what they say passes the stench test for "truthiness," let alone real truth.
Weak are the forces of reading comprehension skills in these trolls... Did either of you Bushwhacko sycophants bother to read what I said before opening your mouth? Do you have a clue about the meaning of the word, sarcasm]? Do you really think I don't know who Stephen Colbert is or what his show is about?
For that matter, do you even comprehend that everything he says is a sarcastic jab at your beloved Criminal In Chief and his adminstration of traitors?
If the best you clowns can do is to pick on me for juxtiposing the words, truth and "truthiness" in a sentence as sarcasm to make a point, you really need to go home and practice. You may be ready to try again someday, but don't expect it in this decade. :laugh:
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,631
- 2,016
- 126
So once again you cant prove your point that Fox News lies the majority of the time, instead, you call me a "Bushwhacko sycophant" when this has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush and no where in this thread have I said that I am a supporter of Geoarge Bush. I was merely suggesting that you need better proof that Fox News lies all the time than a link to wikipedia. I think you need to lighten up a little bit.
A strong part of the reason why everything is such a mess is because the two most powerful political parties are too busy trying to undermine the other one....as opposed to finding workable solutions to all of the problems that this country faces. 90% of you pricks haven't even served in the military, yet you pretend to have a notion of what needs to be done to eliminate the threat of terrorism. The political parties, media, and public need to let our military do that and quite hamstringing them.
I repeat -- Weak are the forces of reading comprehension skills in these trolls. If my post bothers you so much, you're welcome to search my posts, including in this thread, in which case, you'll find that I document the majority of what I say, including and especially how full of sh8 Faux and their staff are. You could also go out an search for examples where Faux actually tells the truth about anything beyond the time of day and their own putrid name.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
There are no left wing news networks in the U.S. That is a myth repeated endlessly by the right so they have an excuse to dismiss stories they don't like. Fox is blatantly biased towards the right. The rest are blatantly biased to whatever they can best sell (without hurting their corporate owners and advertisers, of course).
Actually, I personally think Fox is biased towards whoever holds power at the time. Call me crazy, but I don't remember it being this pathetically on its knees towards the right during the Clinton era.
Not only are the US media 'biased', but the whole debate about 'left' and 'right' bias seems designed to make people not notice how they're biased.
It's like debating whether Bush deserves credit for his perfect Iraq policy, or whether he's a jerk stealing the credit for it from his aides. Note how it gives Bush fans and enemies each a side to passionately engage on, with all kinds of witticisms about 'Bush stole every good policy he has' or commentary about how the president deserves credit for choosing good aides, all the while leaving the question whether is IS a perfect policy unasked. I use an extreme example that would be caught by most to illustrate the idea - things like *corporate* bias in the media are not even hardly discussed by the public when they are arguing over 'left' and 'right'. It's a wonderful way to hide the bias and get away with it.
Look how much 'crap' journalism there is - the name JonBenet Ramsey is well known across the nation - while one of the most important stories in the nation affecting Americans is the huge shift in wealth to the top in the last 25 years: how many stories do you see which say anything about the fact that the top 5% of Americans owned half of the nation's total wealth 30 years ago, but more than three times as much as the lower 95% by 1999 (and a higher share since then)?
I'm not saying why the big story is not covered, though it's in the interests for it not to be for the wealthy (and the corporations they own) - but it's a problem that it's not reported.
It's a hard to deny example of 'media bias' whatever the explanation, even if the bias is not any 'conspiracy' but just reflecting the public's preference for puffery.
A clear example recently was the Newsweek issue which had a cover story on the re-emergence of the Taliban on issues globally - except in the US.
That issue replaced the cover story - and I heard the article altogether - with an article on celebrity photos.
It's like debating whether Bush deserves credit for his perfect Iraq policy, or whether he's a jerk stealing the credit for it from his aides. Note how it gives Bush fans and enemies each a side to passionately engage on, with all kinds of witticisms about 'Bush stole every good policy he has' or commentary about how the president deserves credit for choosing good aides, all the while leaving the question whether is IS a perfect policy unasked. I use an extreme example that would be caught by most to illustrate the idea - things like *corporate* bias in the media are not even hardly discussed by the public when they are arguing over 'left' and 'right'. It's a wonderful way to hide the bias and get away with it.
Look how much 'crap' journalism there is - the name JonBenet Ramsey is well known across the nation - while one of the most important stories in the nation affecting Americans is the huge shift in wealth to the top in the last 25 years: how many stories do you see which say anything about the fact that the top 5% of Americans owned half of the nation's total wealth 30 years ago, but more than three times as much as the lower 95% by 1999 (and a higher share since then)?
I'm not saying why the big story is not covered, though it's in the interests for it not to be for the wealthy (and the corporations they own) - but it's a problem that it's not reported.
It's a hard to deny example of 'media bias' whatever the explanation, even if the bias is not any 'conspiracy' but just reflecting the public's preference for puffery.
A clear example recently was the Newsweek issue which had a cover story on the re-emergence of the Taliban on issues globally - except in the US.
That issue replaced the cover story - and I heard the article altogether - with an article on celebrity photos.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,713
- 12
- 56
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter