• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fox News, maybe gay friendly, no climate change discussions, still might kill you

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
this article has a pretty good tear-down of the Gawker piece --

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/gawkers-shep-smith-report-is-full-of-holes-187724.html

POLITICO has learned that Shine was not in attendance at the party cited in Gawker's report, but rather in Charleston, South Carolina, with his family. Moreover, the party in question took place on July 4, after Smith renewed his contract with the network in June -- which means the contract negotiations were over by the time Gawker's alleged exchange would have taken place.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, this might would deserve being spun into its own thread if Fox wasn't taking the high road in their response.
iyzblkvz7dcpyqg2df3a.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-hosts-brand-scientific-american-editor-coward
 
A tv network has the right to control what content it presents and when they have someone on their show (especially if they're paid) the network has the right to decide what they'll talk about. There's no story here.
 
Fox and high road don't go in the same sentence, do they?

There's no story here because Fox is known to do that, right? It's not really a news channel, it's a TV show. Please, don't speak the truth, we don't want that out there, hah.
 
As if none of the other new channels aren't guilty of presenting the view they want to present.

So much outrage over nothing as usual.
 
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription (Moyer is an editor) years ago because almost all articles took the climate change is #1 side of every subject. They also never posted any of the other side which is part of the scientific method.

Jim
 
xgsound said:
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription (Moyer is an editor) years ago because almost all articles took the climate change is #1 side of every subject. They also never posted any of the other side which is part of the scientific method.

Jim
Click to expand...

What other side did they not post? If you're trying to say that Scientific American was unwilling to post that climate change is not real, well the reason for that is simple, science doesn't support that.
 
xgsound said:
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription (Moyer is an editor) years ago because almost all articles took the climate change is #1 side of every subject. They also never posted any of the other side which is part of the scientific method.

Jim
Click to expand...

lol. That's not how the scientific method works. For example, articles on gravitation in "Physical review letters" (top physics journal) does not include a discussion on the flat earth theory, which in your definition would be the "other side."
 
Here is a link to 31,000 scientists that have a differing opinion. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Many scientists within the IPCC report disagree with the "summary" and have since the beginning.
Using the term flat earth is cute, but doesn't address any fact.

Jim
 
xgsound said:
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription (Moyer is an editor) years ago because almost all articles took the climate change is #1 side of every subject. They also never posted any of the other side which is part of the scientific method.

Jim
Click to expand...

lol :whiste:
 
xgsound said:
Here is a link to 31,000 scientists that have a differing opinion. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Many scientists within the IPCC report disagree with the "summary" and have since the beginning.
Using the term flat earth is cute, but doesn't address any fact.

Jim
Click to expand...
Wow, only requirement is that you have a BS or higher in an appropriate scientific field. No data need be reviewed.
 
007ELmO said:
Fox and high road don't go in the same sentence, do they?

There's no story here because Fox is known to do that, right? It's not really a news channel, it's a TV show. Please, don't speak the truth, we don't want that out there, hah.
Click to expand...

So Fox isn't news but msnbc is?
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
because your misinformation, your xenophobia, your hateful rhetoric needs to be exposed for what it is. didn't think I had to spell that out, but I guess I did. 🙄
Click to expand...

What misinformation? I am not a xenophobe why do you keep spreading lies. What hateful rhetoric? You are derailing the thread.
 
werepossum said:
Who - in yet another of those amazing coincidences - also happens to be the only liberal anchor.

From the OP's "article":


Of course, some great Gawker reportage about Shine's evil reaction to Shep showing up with his gay lover at a picnic can't be wasted just because Shine wasn't actually at the picnic. Cue Dan Rather's "factually false but morally accurate" excuse.
Click to expand...

Shepard a liberal, now that is funny. Just shows how wacked down the other end of the spectrum you are.
 
hal2kilo said:
Shepard a liberal, now that is funny. Just shows how wacked down the other end of the spectrum you are.
Click to expand...
😀 Oh, you're one of those. There is no left wing, only the center, the right wing, the far right wing and the ultra right wing. Gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top