Fox News thread:3-8-07 Edwards passes on debate in Vegas because Fox News was to be mediator

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ But nice attempt at deflecting from the point of the thread Whoozyerdaddy.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
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?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
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?

No, not assuming you watch Fox at all. Reread the last sentence of my first post in this thread that reads "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." Your response: "Y'know... when you have to resort to calling people names... which seems to be all you can do to explain the success of Fox since only idiots would ever watch that channel...'All the dumb people watch Fox... and there are a lot of dumb people in this country... hyuk hyuk...' You sound like an idiot."

Like I said, you could try to explain away Fox News' unmatched incompetence, but you won't be able to. No one is refuting that CNN, MSNBC, etc. haven't made incompetence errors; what most (honest) people here are saying is that Fox News' level of incompetence i.e. their number of blunders, their consistency, and most viably their slanted presentation, is unmatched.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
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.

That would be the standard response of anyone who stands on their own little island of reality, convinced of their own superiority and the righteousness of their point, hell bent on winning an argument on the internet.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I state my opinion and you respond. Again and again. Fine. You win. I'm going to go play in OT.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
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.

page one, the videos I posted
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
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 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?
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.

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 there
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
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 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?
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.
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 there
Instead of a personal attack why don't you refute what I said.

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.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. Have there been ANY WMD finds in Iraq?

Non-operational weapons from before 1991 were found, but they were not WMDs. This is fact, that the Bush Administration has admitted. Btw, no nuclear facilities at all. Woops.

2. Where there ever any Saddam-al Qaeda connections, of any type?

Maybe 20+ years ago. But both CIA and MI6 said no link as of recent history, which is of course what the Bush Administration was referring to. In fact, when Cheney has been asked about it, he even claims he never made a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

The answer to both questions in yes.

Sorry, you're woefully misinformed. Like, in the extreme. No one is fooled.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
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 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?
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.
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 there
Instead of a personal attack why don't you refute what I said.

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.

heheh, it must be hard to try to bend reality to your own made up fantasy world, where have you been for the last few years?

you just dont go deep enough into the subject, you just seem to stop at whatever you want to belive and stick to that
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
You study that ?proves? Fox viewers are not as informed or as smart as viewers of other networks does nothing to prove your claims.
It is in fact a study of people?s perceptions about the war in Iraq.
Right from the report
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 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?
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.

Actually, what I said was, "There was a study that showed that FNC viewers were the least informed by a large margin when compared to watchers of the other major networks."

This study proves that on the topic of Iraq, FNC viewers were misinformed on some key issues. This is the study I was thinking of and I found it, if you know another study that proves how well FNC reports the news, then please post it. Otherwise you are trying to debate nothing and are mischaracterizing what I said.

These are not DNC talking points.

Fact:

1. There are no WMD in Iraq, not the ones we were looking for, not the ones we went to war for. You and Rick Santorum can cry in your soup all you want, doesn't change that. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Start accepting that and move on.

2. Saddam did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda, PERIOD. End of story.

On these two issues, FNC viewers were MISINFORMED by a huge margin compared to all major networks.

There aren't two separate realities a RNC and a DNC one, there is one truth, and in this instance, FNC viewers were given incorrect information.

This is the entire point of my post and is proven without a doubt by this study, which is the TRUTH. Deal with it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Man, ProfJohn... seriously. First of all, you did completely miss the point of that study. While there are idiots that are misinformed that watch every kind of news... the point was that people who watched Fox were misinformed at rates HUGELY higher then other networks. This means either the average viewer of Fox is stupider then normal, that Fox's reporting is just that abominably bad that viewers can't determine what is real, or that Fox has a partisan agenda.

About those tired... sad claims you just tried to make. Bush himself admitted there were no WMDs. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying there was no "strong hard evidence linking Saddam and Al-Qaeda."

Since you are inclined to believe Bush on everything else he has to say, why don't you believe him on this?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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.

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
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
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

I think you're looking at things the wrong way. First of all, the very blending of news and opinion is the biggest problem with Fox. The fact that the anchor of their primary news program moonlights as an ultra right wing talking head is a conflict of interest... period.

Furthermore, how do you explain the absolutely massive disparity between the amount of outright falsehoods believed by Fox viewers in that study as compared to the other networks? Apparently Fox's audience does NOT recognize this distinction to a far greater degree then other networks' audiences. Is this a failure on the part of the audience, or the network? I think that if you call yourself a news network... and have that large a percentage of your audience wrong on some of the most important issues of the day, you are a complete failure. This could be simply a result of exceptionally poor reporting, but I believe it is due to the fact that on Fox it is difficult to tell where the news stops and where opinion begins. Considering that close to 100% of the opinion given on Fox is from the extreme right wing, that amounts to an institutional bias... and it shows. (no, Alan Colmes doesn't count.. and if you've ever watched that show you know why.)
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,476
3,976
126
Didn't read the thread, but I'll throw out the truth in case it was missed in the thread.

The news portion of Fox News is fair, balanced, and unbiased (studies on the NEWS portion show this). However, most of what Fox airs isn't news, it is just propaganda mascarading as news. Everything else is some of the most biased, unfair, crap spewed onto the airwaves. Fox pretends that the rest of what they air is news and thus pretends that right-wing propaganda is news. A simple study can show that most of what Fox News airs is some of the most politically biased opinion TV.

So who was to mediate? The unbiased news portion of Fox News? Or the highly biased crap which represents the majority of what Fox airs?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Faux is NOT the WSJ.

You can read the WSJ for quality information in virtually every section . . . except the OpEd. WSJ OpEd is nearly total crap, but it's clearly marked OpEd and its a relatively small portion of the paper.

Faux News is primarily an entertainment portal. Their audience is intellectually lazy and Faux feeds them nearly 24 hours of pablum. The rare interstitials of unbiased, accurate information are not what keeps the eyeballs. So I don't understand why Faux (and their supporters) take such offense to being labeled a mouthpiece for an agenda when that's clearly what they are.

It would be like moveon.org claiming to be 'fair and balanced' b/c they take a couple of whacks at Hillary.

Dems cancel debate with Faux
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."
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?

Who was the pigeon that acted like a giddy schoolgirl when interviewing Bush in 2003 or 2004?
 

hysperion

Senior member
May 12, 2004
837
0
0
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....
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
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.
 

hysperion

Senior member
May 12, 2004
837
0
0
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.

:) No big deal....America has at least 50 years left until it's collapse and I'll be just about dead by then.....we'll see if our wonderful "diversity" and dependance on all these other countries products protect us against a unified power......the world wants what we have and with the rate of idiots we're producing in the US- liberal and conservative, vs. the educated individuals overseas it won't be long til the nation collapses..........

In reality isn't the fact that the US dollar is backed by oil enough reason to secure Iraq's oil fields? What is wrong with stealing their oil?- the rest of the world knows we're doing it already (not literally pumping shipping it to our shores but maintaining control of it) We didn't become the nation we were today by minding our own business.......I'm proud to be of the Nationalist mindset.....

The same people complaining that the war in Iraq is taking too long are the same people that are prolonging it in the first place and preventing the military from violence of action which is what the Iraqi people need. The American military could crush the resistance over their extremely swiftly if the American public hadn't gone soft....
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
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.

oh stfu... you've GOT to be kidding me...

cnn isn't nearly as biased as fox is... if you think cnn is propaganda, it's probably because your view of the world is so goddamn warped that you need a "news" channel to cater to it. news isn't supposed to be warped... it's supposed to just report events that occur without obviously slanted commentaries, unlike fox news.

oh, by the way, no news stations have a fvcking piece of shyt show like the 1/2 hour news hour... it's pure republican horseshit that's trying to pass off as being as funny as the daily show...