Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I don't give a crap where you get your news from. Why are you so concerned about everyone else?
You must have me confused with someone else, since you were the one that replied to my post and, funnily enough, proved my point in the process.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I don't give a crap where you get your news from. Why are you so concerned about everyone else?
You must have me confused with someone else, since you were the one that replied to my post and, funnily enough, proved my point in the process.
How so? Are you ASSuming that I watch Fox?
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
:disgust:
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
:disgust:
Good, you just prove my point with each and every post like this. Continue. Seriously.
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Caminetto
Why is it that it's normally the conservative republicans who don't see the obvious bias? My lord, most moderates think Fox is a joke.
I guess when you are standing so far to the right, every thing to the left of you looks liberal.
examples please of foxnews bias. oh and i would like to see a comparison between foxnews bias to CNN bias.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.Originally posted by: ayabe
Here you go smart guy:
Link to Study
Who is your uncle, Dick Jones? You can't trust that guy.
As a general rule I don't spread FUD.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
On Iraq and al Qaeda: There is a lot of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda did have a relationship of some kind in the past. Remember all the stories about how Saddam had cut ties with al Qaeda and Osama? Well please explain how he could have cut ties if he never had them in the first place?An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
On WMD: While we never found the massive stock piles promised by Bush and Co. We have had dozens of smaller finds ranging from chemical warheads to the parts of their nuclear program buried in someone?s garden. So the question of whether WMD have been found in Iraq is open to interpretation. Depends on what your definition of WMD is, as Clinton might say.
What is interesting is that these ?misconceptions? are all Democratic talking points on the war. Which would explain why viewers of the more liberal sources would not have any of the misconceptions.
The only thing you study seems to prove is that if you listen to or watch PBS or CNN you are more likely to know what the Democratic are saying about the war.
Instead of a personal attack why don't you refute what I said.Originally posted by: Czar
wow, you realy are an idiot by still proclaiming these things, its been so long that pleeding ignorance is no longer an excuse.. so what else is thereOriginally posted by: ProfJohn
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.Originally posted by: ayabe
Here you go smart guy:
Link to Study
Who is your uncle, Dick Jones? You can't trust that guy.
As a general rule I don't spread FUD.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
On Iraq and al Qaeda: There is a lot of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda did have a relationship of some kind in the past. Remember all the stories about how Saddam had cut ties with al Qaeda and Osama? Well please explain how he could have cut ties if he never had them in the first place?An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
On WMD: While we never found the massive stock piles promised by Bush and Co. We have had dozens of smaller finds ranging from chemical warheads to the parts of their nuclear program buried in someone?s garden. So the question of whether WMD have been found in Iraq is open to interpretation. Depends on what your definition of WMD is, as Clinton might say.
What is interesting is that these ?misconceptions? are all Democratic talking points on the war. Which would explain why viewers of the more liberal sources would not have any of the misconceptions.
The only thing you study seems to prove is that if you listen to or watch PBS or CNN you are more likely to know what the Democratic are saying about the war.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Have there been ANY WMD finds in Iraq?
2. Where there ever any Saddam-al Qaeda connections, of any type?
The answer to both questions in yes.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Instead of a personal attack why don't you refute what I said.Originally posted by: Czar
wow, you realy are an idiot by still proclaiming these things, its been so long that pleeding ignorance is no longer an excuse.. so what else is thereOriginally posted by: ProfJohn
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.Originally posted by: ayabe
Here you go smart guy:
Link to Study
Who is your uncle, Dick Jones? You can't trust that guy.
As a general rule I don't spread FUD.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
On Iraq and al Qaeda: There is a lot of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda did have a relationship of some kind in the past. Remember all the stories about how Saddam had cut ties with al Qaeda and Osama? Well please explain how he could have cut ties if he never had them in the first place?An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
On WMD: While we never found the massive stock piles promised by Bush and Co. We have had dozens of smaller finds ranging from chemical warheads to the parts of their nuclear program buried in someone?s garden. So the question of whether WMD have been found in Iraq is open to interpretation. Depends on what your definition of WMD is, as Clinton might say.
What is interesting is that these ?misconceptions? are all Democratic talking points on the war. Which would explain why viewers of the more liberal sources would not have any of the misconceptions.
The only thing you study seems to prove is that if you listen to or watch PBS or CNN you are more likely to know what the Democratic are saying about the war.
1. Have there been ANY WMD finds in Iraq?
2. Where there ever any Saddam-al Qaeda connections, of any type?
The answer to both questions in yes.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.Originally posted by: ayabe
Here you go smart guy:
Link to Study
Who is your uncle, Dick Jones? You can't trust that guy.
As a general rule I don't spread FUD.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
On Iraq and al Qaeda: There is a lot of evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda did have a relationship of some kind in the past. Remember all the stories about how Saddam had cut ties with al Qaeda and Osama? Well please explain how he could have cut ties if he never had them in the first place?An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
On WMD: While we never found the massive stock piles promised by Bush and Co. We have had dozens of smaller finds ranging from chemical warheads to the parts of their nuclear program buried in someone?s garden. So the question of whether WMD have been found in Iraq is open to interpretation. Depends on what your definition of WMD is, as Clinton might say.
What is interesting is that these ?misconceptions? are all Democratic talking points on the war. Which would explain why viewers of the more liberal sources would not have any of the misconceptions.
The only thing you study seems to prove is that if you listen to or watch PBS or CNN you are more likely to know what the Democratic are saying about the war.
Originally posted by: Czar
heheh, it must be hard to try to bend reality to your own made up fantasy world
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Czar
heheh, it must be hard to try to bend reality to your own made up fantasy world
whereas for you, it's quite easy![]()
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Anyone who honestly compares CNN or MSNBC to Fox News is an absolute joke of a poster. Doesn't get sadder than that. And it's well known that much of the American media does a poor job of reporting period, taking bias into account or not. I'm talking about just plain old investigative journalism and intellectual honesty in reporting, and not this rush to be the first to report news or the first to report unimportant news (Anna Nicole Smith). But Fox News? There hasn't been a worse news network in all of U.S. history, dating back to the 1940's, and I dare any of the cognitively challenged Fox-supporters here to refute that with logical argumentation. I bet I'll hear crickets.
Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with the poor state of reporting in general.
But the bias of Fox is overstated. Read carefully, I'm not saying that their editoral op/ed shows aren't biased with opinion - they're supposed to be.
But their only 2 straight news (Hume at 6 & Sheppard at 7) are farily good. Seriously, there are only about 45 minutes of news (minus commercials) in an hour show, and only a small portion of that is politics/war where bias can even enter. Like all other staright news shows there are stories on fires, plane wrecks, murders etc.
And again, I recomend the last 20 minutes or so of the 6 oclock show. The panel, Charles Kraithammer, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Mort Kondrake etc is a mix of conservative & liberals - where there is no yelling - and is often pretty interesting
So, I think you overstate the case against Fox. Moreover, many in here keep talking about the bias on the (Sunday) op/ed shows. Folks, that's what an op/ed show is all about - people's opnion, A.K.A. bias. If you don't have an opinion, you don't belong on an op/ed show. If you don't want opinion, you shouldn't be watching an op/ed show.
This apparent lack of distinction in many peoples' minds here is troubling to me. If you people who are the viewing audience (consumer) don't recognize the distiction, eventually the media will not either.
Fern
Let's be real . . . does anyone seriously think Faux has a record of asking direct, simple, tough questions of ANY Bush/GOP figure in the past 7 years?The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator.
"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"'
During his remarks, Ailes also took indirect swipes at both MoveOn.org and Edwards, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates to "only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."
Though he didn't refer to Edwards by name, Ailes said "any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."
Originally posted by: manowar821
The only reason fox news has a fairly large audience is because, dare I say it, their audience base generally isn't very intelligent.
Flame if you like, but it's true.
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the words "liberal" and "conservative". On one side, you've got the assholes. On the other, you have the complete nut-jobs.
This whole bias mess is pathetic. It shouldn't be difficult to find real news, and news stations and the government should DEFINITELY not take advantage of the less intelligent and trusting citizens. Fair and balanced my ass. The only fair and balanced news I can find these days is on less than popular news WEBSITES.
Of course, on the other hand, it's the citizens faults for being mindless nationalists/imperialists.
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: manowar821
The only reason fox news has a fairly large audience is because, dare I say it, their audience base generally isn't very intelligent.
Flame if you like, but it's true.
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the words "liberal" and "conservative". On one side, you've got the assholes. On the other, you have the complete nut-jobs.
This whole bias mess is pathetic. It shouldn't be difficult to find real news, and news stations and the government should DEFINITELY not take advantage of the less intelligent and trusting citizens. Fair and balanced my ass. The only fair and balanced news I can find these days is on less than popular news WEBSITES.
Of course, on the other hand, it's the citizens faults for being mindless nationalists/imperialists.
Well I'm glad my forefathers were nationalists/imperialists or I'd be living like the people in Africa do right now......the have not's will always greatly outnumber the haves......luckily I'm one of the latter........if you feel so ashamed at being a member of the have's AKA Imperialists...why not give up your possessions and live like the people of India/Africa/Nepal/China etc....
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: manowar821
The only reason fox news has a fairly large audience is because, dare I say it, their audience base generally isn't very intelligent.
Flame if you like, but it's true.
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing the words "liberal" and "conservative". On one side, you've got the assholes. On the other, you have the complete nut-jobs.
This whole bias mess is pathetic. It shouldn't be difficult to find real news, and news stations and the government should DEFINITELY not take advantage of the less intelligent and trusting citizens. Fair and balanced my ass. The only fair and balanced news I can find these days is on less than popular news WEBSITES.
Of course, on the other hand, it's the citizens faults for being mindless nationalists/imperialists.
Well I'm glad my forefathers were nationalists/imperialists or I'd be living like the people in Africa do right now......the have not's will always greatly outnumber the haves......luckily I'm one of the latter........if you feel so ashamed at being a member of the have's AKA Imperialists...why not give up your possessions and live like the people of India/Africa/Nepal/China etc....
We'd rather live like Cuba, after molding ourselves in its image. First step is to grow government into a massive socialist power. Then all it takes is 1 man to abuse his absolute control over the nation and communism is born. There?s a reason Karl Marx?s ideals are taught in our schools today.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Oh, its news because its an opportunity to call Fox a non-news site? Fox is as much about news as CNN or MSNBC are. I don't watch any of them for my news.
