Fox News...not O'Reilly/Hannity/talking head

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I cant stand Olberman's faux outrage...

What makes you think his outrage is "faux?" He's pissed at the same Bushwhacko treason, murder, torture, war crimes, war profiteering and general incompetence as the those of us who were paying attention for the last eight years, and he's pissed at both Faux Noise "commentators" and their alleged "news," all of whom conspired with the Bushwhackos to pimp the administration's continuing shit flood of lies.

Your right he is pissed and has a right to be... What I mean by faux, is the level of outrage. He just seems... fake. Like he is laying it on extra thick, to try and make it sound worse than it is. The WAY he EMphasises CERtain SYLabiles is GUTwrenching

I think if Obama planted a bomb to blow up a mall and Bush single handidly took out its defense team then unwired it himself Olberman would find a way to be outraged at Bush. When guys like him rant endlessly, always from the exact same side of the issue, they become a joke.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: retrospooty

I cant stand Olberman's faux outrage...

What makes you think his outrage is "faux?" He's pissed at the same Bushwhacko treason, murder, torture, war crimes, war profiteering and general incompetence as the those of us who were paying attention for the last eight years, and he's pissed at both Faux Noise "commentators" and their alleged "news," all of whom conspired with the Bushwhackos to pimp the administration's continuing shit flood of lies.

Your right he is pissed and has a right to be... What I mean by faux, is the level of outrage. He just seems... fake. Like he is laying it on extra thick, to try and make it sound worse than it is. The WAY he EMphasises CERtain SYLabiles is GUTwrenching

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fox sucks. I used to hate it more than the rest, but after watching olberman on msnbc, nothing more than a left wing whore's whore if there ever was one, really no more palatable than the worst on Fox (that would be Hannity, btw), it's no better, either.

I actually like Hannity, what he does is use humor to promote conservatism and mock liberals, but that's what most all of it is, humor, entertainment, not to be taken too seriously. Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, uses genuine hate to push his agenda against Republicans and Fox News (of which he'll never say "Fox News" it's always "Fix News", "Faux News" or "Fox Noise"). Hannity focuses on how he believes conservative principles and philosophies help Americans, while Olbermann focuses on how he believes Fox News is evil.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fox sucks. I used to hate it more than the rest, but after watching olberman on msnbc, nothing more than a left wing whore's whore if there ever was one, really no more palatable than the worst on Fox (that would be Hannity, btw), it's no better, either.

I actually like Hannity.

Of course you do.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

Malmedy massacre controversy

On October 3, 2005, retired four-star general Wesley Clark was a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. A topic of debate on the program was a ruling regarding the potential release of more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Clark defended the release of the additional Abu Ghraib photos saying the country needed to know what happened. While debating with Clark, O'Reilly incorrectly stated a historical fact of World War II when he said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne that did it." Historically, German troops were actually responsible for the massacre of 84 American soldiers in the town of Malmedy, Belgium during World War II.

On May 30, 2006, Clark again appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. While discussing "the apparent murder of Iraqi civilians in Haditha", O'Reilly once again incorrectly referred to the Malmedy massacre, stating "In Malmedy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces, who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record; [it's] been documented."

The next day, on May 31, 2006, O'Reilly addressed a viewer email regarding the inaccuracy. As reported on The O'Reilly Factor, the email came from a Fort Worth Texas viewer named Donn Caldwell and stated: "Bill, you mentioned Malmedy as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners." O'Reilly responded to this by saying: "In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough Mr. Caldwell. After Malmedy, some German captives were executed by American troops."

According to Keith Olbermann and Media Matters, Fox News' website edited the transcript of O'Reilly's second interview with Clark, changing the line to, "In Normandy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces" when the video clearly shows that O'Reilly said "Malmedy" rather than "Normandy."

This second instance of O'Reilly misstating the facts of the massacre, combined with his denial of doing so and the apparent cover up in the transcript by Fox News prompted a harsh response by Olbermann on the June 1, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann showed video clips of O'Reilly making these incorrect statements from the October 3 and May 30 editions of The O'Reilly Factor and showed the clip of O'Reilly addressing the viewer email the following day. Olbermann lambasted O'Reilly, calling him a "false patriot who would rather be loud than right." He also compared the editing of the transcript to George Orwell's 1984.

After the airing, Fox News corrected the afore-mentioned transcript on June 2, which was noted in a follow up report on Countdown with Keith Olbermann the following Monday. The Media Matters for America website also posted a report detailing the correction of the transcript that same day.

Billo's "cock-up" was stating during an interview with Gen. Wesley Clark that American troops massacred captured German troops. As noted in the above quote, the truth was exactly the inverse. Historically, German troops were actually responsible for the massacre of 84 American soldiers in the town of Malmedy.

Olbermann noted it the first time Billo booted the facts. He had every right to be outraged seven months later, when Clark returned to Billo's show, and Billo, ever detached from reality, made the same exact mis-statement of the facts.

Even worse, Faux attempted to cover up Billo's second gaff on their site by editing the transcript to replace Malmeady with Normandy, which would still be false, even if the transcript was accurate. Olbermann blasted O'Reilly for repeating the same stupid lie in a second interview with the same person and Faux for editing the transcript.

Faux restored the transcript the next day, well after being called out for it across the media.

Olbermann's outrage was justified. Falsely stating that Americans committed a massacre is one thing. Doing it again seven months later is just nuts, and Faux should rightly be ashamed of themselves for trying to cover up Billo's bullshit... should being the operative word, but they've got so much more to be ashamed of that his is just one drop in a major ocean of continuous lies from a network of pathological liars.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

Malmedy massacre controversy

On October 3, 2005, retired four-star general Wesley Clark was a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. A topic of debate on the program was a ruling regarding the potential release of more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Clark defended the release of the additional Abu Ghraib photos saying the country needed to know what happened. While debating with Clark, O'Reilly incorrectly stated a historical fact of World War II when he said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne that did it." Historically, German troops were actually responsible for the massacre of 84 American soldiers in the town of Malmedy, Belgium during World War II.

On May 30, 2006, Clark again appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. While discussing "the apparent murder of Iraqi civilians in Haditha", O'Reilly once again incorrectly referred to the Malmedy massacre, stating "In Malmedy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces, who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record; [it's] been documented."

The next day, on May 31, 2006, O'Reilly addressed a viewer email regarding the inaccuracy. As reported on The O'Reilly Factor, the email came from a Fort Worth Texas viewer named Donn Caldwell and stated: "Bill, you mentioned Malmedy as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners." O'Reilly responded to this by saying: "In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough Mr. Caldwell. After Malmedy, some German captives were executed by American troops."

According to Keith Olbermann and Media Matters, Fox News' website edited the transcript of O'Reilly's second interview with Clark, changing the line to, "In Normandy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces" when the video clearly shows that O'Reilly said "Malmedy" rather than "Normandy."

This second instance of O'Reilly misstating the facts of the massacre, combined with his denial of doing so and the apparent cover up in the transcript by Fox News prompted a harsh response by Olbermann on the June 1, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann showed video clips of O'Reilly making these incorrect statements from the October 3 and May 30 editions of The O'Reilly Factor and showed the clip of O'Reilly addressing the viewer email the following day. Olbermann lambasted O'Reilly, calling him a "false patriot who would rather be loud than right." He also compared the editing of the transcript to George Orwell's 1984.

After the airing, Fox News corrected the afore-mentioned transcript on June 2, which was noted in a follow up report on Countdown with Keith Olbermann the following Monday. The Media Matters for America website also posted a report detailing the correction of the transcript that same day.

Billo's "cock-up" was stating during an interview with Gen. Wesley Clark that American troops massacred captured German troops. As noted in the above quote, the truth was exactly the inverse. Historically, German troops were actually responsible for the massacre of 84 American soldiers in the town of Malmedy.

Olbermann noted it the first time Billo booted the facts. He had every right to be outraged seven months later, when Clark returned to Billo's show, and Billo, ever detached from reality, made the same exact mis-statement of the facts.

Even worse, Faux attempted to cover up Billo's second gaff on their site by editing the transcript to replace Malmeady with Normandy, which would still be false, even if the transcript was accurate. Olbermann blasted O'Reilly for repeating the same stupid lie in a second interview with the same person and Faux for editing the transcript.

Faux restored the transcript the next day, well after being called out for it across the media.

Olbermann's outrage was justified. Falsely stating that Americans committed a massacre is one thing. Doing it again seven months later is just nuts, and Faux should rightly be ashamed of themselves for trying to cover up Billo's bullshit... should being the operative word, but they've got so much more to be ashamed of that his is just one drop in a major ocean of continuous lies from a network of pathological liars.

Yes, I recall that little bit of insanity and watched Olbermann take O'Reilly apart. About 200 IQ points separate them though! UNFAIR!!

I think Ken Burns' piece on WWII has made mention of the Germans killing everyone in one of the small villages in the Ardenne, including some American soldiers. Subsequently, a young American second lieutenant apparently told his men to kill about 20 German soldiers they'd captured. Burns is well-known for his liberal views, so I'm not sure how accurate that story is. Or, how accurate my recollection is since it's been 20 years or so since I saw the film.

-Robert

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

I merely referenced the incident and assumed people would know what I'm referring to. There was no intent to deceive by omitting details. I gave no details that favored one side or the other. :roll: Thanks for wasting so much time trying to correct me, but it doesn't change the fact that I think Olbermann was more interested in sticking it to O'Reilly than actually being outraged.

If you want another example of overplayed or feigned outrage by Olbermann, look at his reaction to the video at the Republican National Convention. <--- Look, i didn't give any details about the video; what are you going to accuse me of omitting now? :roll: My honest opinion as a fan of Olbermann is that he was feigning outrage at that video, and he was laying it on thick. I thought the Republicans were pandering, but it was nothing to be outraged about.

 

[JD50]

What I don't understand, is the left's fascination with FNC and right wing talk radio. Just watch something else.

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50
What I don't understand, is the left's fascination with FNC and right wing talk radio. Just watch something else.

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

If many are going to debate and base arguments based on misinformation from the sources you mentioned, then guess what...

You're going to get called on it...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: nutxo
My 14 year old has to do a debate and could'nt find a subject. I suggested he read the paprer or watch the news. Being the typical 14 year old he grabbed the remote and sat down.
I showed him all the cable news channels and I could see from the dining roon that every 10 minutes or so he was changing channels. After a while I noticed the channels flipping back and forth so I went to ask him what he was doing.

Me " Can't find anything?"
My son " I can't figure out if these guys are trying to be funny or not. "

I got a kick out of that.

:laugh:
Perfect!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
What I don't understand, is the left's fascination with FNC and right wing talk radio. Just watch something else.

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

If many are going to debate and base arguments based on misinformation from the sources you mentioned, then guess what...

You're going to get called on it...

If someone cites a source that is incorrect, then I'd expect for someone to call them on it, in that particular debate. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the raging hard on that many liberals have when it comes to FNC and right wing talk radio. I'm a pretty big conservative, and I hear far more about FNC and right wing talk radio from the left then I do from other conservatives, or from those sources themselves.

Stop whining about conservative media outlets, just don't watch or listen. Liberals have plenty of other choices too.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
What I don't understand, is the left's fascination with FNC and right wing talk radio. Just watch something else.

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

If many are going to debate and base arguments based on misinformation from the sources you mentioned, then guess what...

You're going to get called on it...

If someone cites a source that is incorrect, then I'd expect for someone to call them on it, in that particular debate. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the raging hard on that many liberals have when it comes to FNC and right wing talk radio. I'm a pretty big conservative, and I hear far more about FNC and right wing talk radio from the left then I do from other conservatives, or from those sources themselves.

Stop whining about conservative media outlets, just don't watch or listen. Liberals have plenty of other choices too.

They are probably mad because those two outlets address tens of millions of people each day with a highly partisan, dishonest steam of 'news'. People always attack things that they dislike more than they pimp things that they like, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party, and right wing talk radio is...well... jesus I don't even know. An arm of the batshit insane? People have a right to be angry and worried that these two crazy-ass sources are influencing such a large number of voters.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ayabe
I can only stomach Olbermann in short bursts now, I used to like him and he occasionally will do something worth watching.

But his O'Reilly obsession and unfair coverage of certain issues has really made me sour on him, especially since the election.

I cant stand Olberman's faux outrage... He sounds like such a whiney ninny boy when he goes on a rant... Even if he is right. HE is defintely the equal POS that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly are.

I was trying to figure that out the other day. Did MSNBC take a hard left in order to better position themselves as the polar opposite of Fox News Channel, while simultaneously positioning themselves to be the mouthpiece of the Obama administration?

Interesting strategery if that was indeed their plan . . .

 

[AliasX]

I think it is good. Get back at Biden for his personal attacks on others. He deserves it.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Good news travels fast.
http://www.google.com/search?h...rch&aq=f&oq=biden+fox+


Here's how they responded.

March 17, 2009
Categories: Fox News

Fox apologizes for using Biden clip UPDATE

Both ThinkProgress and Huffington Post pointed out that Fox aired a clip of Joe Biden commenting on the fundamentals of the economy, supposedly from this past weekend.

Actually, the Biden quote was from a stump speech last year criticizing McCain for talking up the strength of the fundamentals.

I've now heard that Fox will address this at 1:10 p.m. during "Live Desk." Will update later.

UPDATE: According to a Fox spokesperson, here's part of the response: "We inadvertently used a piece of video of Vice President Biden saying the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". This video was from the campaign trail, when the Vice President was a candidate, and was actually quoting Senator John McCain."

UPDATE 2: Fox, right around 1:10, apologized for using the Biden clip.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...iden_edit_mistake.html

Has Dan Rather come off his high horse about the fraudulent word document smear right before the 2004 election? Nope he still believes that crap.

Fox slanted? Yes to the right.

Every ither single network slanted? Yes to the left.
Papers? yup to the left
Magazines? widely to the left again.

Radio? where real people can call in? Hell the left can't crack that. Rachel madow freezes and Air America has to pay for the time.

I don't see what you lefties have against having 1 network devoted to right slant.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

I merely referenced the incident and assumed people would know what I'm referring to. There was no intent to deceive by omitting details. I gave no details that favored one side or the other. :roll: Thanks for wasting so much time trying to correct me, but it doesn't change the fact that I think Olbermann was more interested in sticking it to O'Reilly than actually being outraged.

Understood. I filled in the details specifically because those "details" DO favor one side in this story... the side that told the truth and stood for right over wrong and good over evil. That wasn't O'Reilly or Faux Noise.

Originally posted by: JD50

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

No, I have a huge MAD on for lying pieces of shit like Bill O'Reilly and Faux Noise. I'm a fan of Olbermann because he's so good at skewering them with well documented truth.

If you want to criticize his work, start by disproving what he says. If you can't, as objectionable as you find it, you may have to accept the idea that he's right about O'Reilly, Faux and the Bushwhackos' criminality. :light:

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

I merely referenced the incident and assumed people would know what I'm referring to. There was no intent to deceive by omitting details. I gave no details that favored one side or the other. :roll: Thanks for wasting so much time trying to correct me, but it doesn't change the fact that I think Olbermann was more interested in sticking it to O'Reilly than actually being outraged.

Understood. I filled in the details specifically because those "details" DO favor one side in this story... the side that told the truth and stood for right over wrong and good over evil. That wasn't O'Reilly or Faux Noise.

Originally posted by: JD50

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

No, I have a huge MAD on for lying pieces of shit like Bill O'Reilly and Faux Noise. I'm a fan of Olbermann because he's so good at skewering them with well documented truth.

If you want to criticize his work, start by disproving what he says. If you can't, as objectionable as you find it, you may have to accept the idea that he's right about O'Reilly, Faux and the Bushwhackos' criminality. :light:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I would respond but I'm too busy LMAO!!!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50
What I don't understand, is the left's fascination with FNC and right wing talk radio. Just watch something else.

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

If many are going to debate and base arguments based on misinformation from the sources you mentioned, then guess what...

You're going to get called on it...

If someone cites a source that is incorrect, then I'd expect for someone to call them on it, in that particular debate. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the raging hard on that many liberals have when it comes to FNC and right wing talk radio. I'm a pretty big conservative, and I hear far more about FNC and right wing talk radio from the left then I do from other conservatives, or from those sources themselves.

Stop whining about conservative media outlets, just don't watch or listen. Liberals have plenty of other choices too.

They are probably mad because those two outlets address tens of millions of people each day with a highly partisan, dishonest steam of 'news'. People always attack things that they dislike more than they pimp things that they like, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party, and right wing talk radio is...well... jesus I don't even know. An arm of the batshit insane? People have a right to be angry and worried that these two crazy-ass sources are influencing such a large number of voters.

And MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democratic party, so what? It's a free country, people can listen to and watch whatever they want. What are you going to do, try and shut them down? Some of you spend way too much time worrying about FNC and right wing talk radio, really.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: mugs

:thumbsup: I like Olbermann and can't stand O'Reilly, but for instance when he was calling O'Reilly out over the Malmedy cock-up, you could tell it was more about sticking it to O'Reilly than genuine outrage.

Umm... you omitted a few salient details of O'Reilly's "cock-up" regarding Malmedy that were good reason for Olbermann's outrage:

I merely referenced the incident and assumed people would know what I'm referring to. There was no intent to deceive by omitting details. I gave no details that favored one side or the other. :roll: Thanks for wasting so much time trying to correct me, but it doesn't change the fact that I think Olbermann was more interested in sticking it to O'Reilly than actually being outraged.

Understood. I filled in the details specifically because those "details" DO favor one side in this story... the side that told the truth and stood for right over wrong and good over evil. That wasn't O'Reilly or Faux Noise.

Originally posted by: JD50

And wow, Harvey has a HUGE hard on for Olbermann.

No, I have a huge MAD on for lying pieces of shit like Bill O'Reilly and Faux Noise. I'm a fan of Olbermann because he's so good at skewering them with well documented truth.

If you want to criticize his work, start by disproving what he says. If you can't, as objectionable as you find it, you may have to accept the idea that he's right about O'Reilly, Faux and the Bushwhackos' criminality. :light:

I think Olbermann is a douche, so I don't watch him. You should try the same with O"Reilly. That's really nice of Olbermann to put a laptop under his desk for you btw.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

That's really nice of Olbermann to put a laptop under his desk for you btw.

Aww... You're just jealous because all you got from Billo was one of his used loofas. :laugh:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: EXman
Has Dan Rather come off his high horse about the fraudulent word document smear right before the 2004 election? Nope he still believes that crap.

Fox slanted? Yes to the right.

Every ither single network slanted? Yes to the left.
Papers? yup to the left
Magazines? widely to the left again.

Radio? where real people can call in? Hell the left can't crack that. Rachel madow freezes and Air America has to pay for the time.

I don't see what you lefties have against having 1 network devoted to right slant.

If you see a slant to the left in every form of media there is, maybe the slant is with you. Of the peer-reviewed studies I've read - and being that I majored in this in college, it's been a few - the majority of studies found a common theme that reporters leaned slightly to the left while the publishers leaned predominantly to the right. But since the publishers decide the final content, whether it's broadcast or print media, it's absurd to say that the slight liberal bias of the reporters is going to turn every single form of media overwhelmingly liberal. The myth of the "liberal media" is perpetuated by conservative talk show hosts despite no evidence that it actually exists.

Tell me, where was this "liberal media" bias when it came to 9/11? Where was this "liberal media" bias when we were invading Iraq? Where was this "liberal media" bias when they gave airtime to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? Why did the "liberal media" bias wait until Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet before they started critiquing his policies?

Media doesn't have a liberal bias, it has a bias in reporting that favors whatever story is going to get the highest ratings. If the Iraq War is big this week, air that. If the President's polling numbers are up, do favorable reports on his policies. If they're down, critique him. Report on whatever the topic du jour is among the American people to fetch the highest ratings so that you can charge more for advertising and generate more revenue. Media is a business driven by profit, and that profit is entirely tied to how many consumers they can get. If the war is popular, you'd have to be a complete idiot to present it in a negative light (even if the facts support you), because you're just alienating your viewer base.

If you perceive a liberal bias in the media, perhaps it's in conjunction with the liberal bias in the last two elections, the falling poll numbers for Republicans, and the fact that the media wants the biggest market share it can get.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: EXman

Fox slanted? Yes to the right.

Every ither single network slanted? Yes to the left.
Papers? yup to the left
Magazines? widely to the left again.

Radio? where real people can call in? Hell the left can't crack that. Rachel madow freezes and Air America has to pay for the time.

I don't see what you lefties have against having 1 network devoted to right slant.

I think you're wrong about news papers, which your post seems to indicate you think are left leaning to the point where it's hard to find a conservative voice in print. Not true.

Here's a list of the top 10 Newspapers in the US and their circulation.

1. USA Today (Arlington, Va.) 2,528,437
2. Wall Street Journal (New York, N.Y.) 2,058,342
3. Times (New York, N.Y.) 1,683,855
4. Times (Los Angeles) 1,231,318
5. Post (Washington, DC) 960,684
6. Tribune (Chicago) 957,212
7. Daily News (New York, N.Y.) 795,153
8. Inquirer (Philadelphia) 705,965
9. Post/Rocky Mountain News (Denver) 704,806
10. Chronicle (Houston) 692,557

The bolded are considered traditionally conservative papers, and some of the unbolded are considered independent/apolitical.

In fact, in its 161 year history, the Chicago Tribune has only endorsed one Democrat for President. Guess who? So you might want to ask yourself, are you seeing bias, or are you simply seeing these papers report what's happening, where what's happeneing has not been kind to Republicans of late?

As to your final point, I don't think anyone begrudges Fox having a conservative slant. It's their claim that they are "fair and balanced" that is the problem. Even O'Reilly, though he is a pundit, claims to have a "no-spin" zone, which is utter bs. If they said "Conservative America's choice for News", well, that'd leave the critics nowhere to go really. But except for Shep Smith who's pretty fair imo, the network is far from F&B.