CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You think ABC, CNN, etc will ever admit to being bias?
CkG
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
For those of you who do not understand how deeply FOX, and its owner-empire controller Rupert Murdoch are involed Read about it
He has made his empire by entangling his influence in every country where his media network operates by cattering to the Political Leadership, pandering in fact.
Whatever the Chinese Government wanted - he delivered for political favors.
England - he's the King of Sensation & Tabloids, drivel for the uneducated masses.
Australia - Jump ? How high & what color.
An indication of the depth of his colusion in the U.S. is the involvement of the Weekly Standard which has creepy William Kristol advising on U.S. Foriegn Policy.
The Republican Party and Bush Administration even has written and passed FCC laws for the benifit of Murdoch alone - and nobody else.
The pay-back for this favoritism is the Conservitive press and media coverage that is "U.S.A. All The Way" promote the Patriotic message.
The mindless will follow without questioning, as the fervor and 'Posse Mentality' makes them fall in line.
He has made his empire by entangling his influence in every country where his media network operates by cattering to the Political Leadership, pandering in fact.
Whatever the Chinese Government wanted - he delivered for political favors.
England - he's the King of Sensation & Tabloids, drivel for the uneducated masses.
Australia - Jump ? How high & what color.
An indication of the depth of his colusion in the U.S. is the involvement of the Weekly Standard which has creepy William Kristol advising on U.S. Foriegn Policy.
The Republican Party and Bush Administration even has written and passed FCC laws for the benifit of Murdoch alone - and nobody else.
The pay-back for this favoritism is the Conservitive press and media coverage that is "U.S.A. All The Way" promote the Patriotic message.
The mindless will follow without questioning, as the fervor and 'Posse Mentality' makes them fall in line.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
I don't have cable so I had never seen Fox news although I had heard people talking about it many times. So then I went to the Fox news site and view a clip from them. Oh my God they were sooo biased! It was unbelievable! They were so unprofessional it was disgusting. I do believe that regular media in the US had a liberal bias but the bias on Fox news is absurd!
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Yes, but CNN says they are the most trusted network too.. they all tend to puff and blow smoke dont they?
- Jun 25, 2000
- 9,079
- 10
- 81
I watch Fox. I like Fox. IMHO, it is as close to "Fair and balanced" as it gets.
That's the beauty of America. You can chose who you like and bitch about what you don't like. And I can counter bitch what you bitch about. Pure beauty.
Still living at home? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Oh yeah, Rupert Murdoch is the head of the TriLateral Commission & The Illuminati.
Flame on.
That's the beauty of America. You can chose who you like and bitch about what you don't like. And I can counter bitch what you bitch about. Pure beauty.
Still living at home? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Oh yeah, Rupert Murdoch is the head of the TriLateral Commission & The Illuminati.
Flame on.
I like FOX because they are not so far left as to make my country (USA) as the bad guy on every issue. I don't know about being forced to watch FOX news, my TV remote has a button on it that can change channels or even turn it off. But I guess some people would just rather bitch and complain about it.
The issue is not FOX news but television sensationalism as a whole. Turn off the TV, go pick up a newspaper (a British, Eurasian or African one) to get a real sense of not only the truth, but also the world's perspective and not the perspective of sheltered American news outlets.
Link?
The thing that bothers me about claiming to be "fair and balanced" is that there is no claim to be honest and accurate. It's really a fluff slogan that drips of ambiguity. FOX can be entertaining, though.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
sure enough, i believe it is 6.6billion for DirectTV; and last i heard he has it raped up to the point that if it does fall though he still gets 300million as a consolation. this war sure big for him, and he is bringing the concept of a media whore to a whole new level.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
You want FCC Regulation & Murdoch Links ? You got FCC & Murdoch links
And another and Still another !
Come on peeps ! Your fingers aren't broken - Click on Rupert Murdoch in Google and pick any article you want - his history is there if you want to find out.
And YES, under Dubya there's Colin Powell, whos son was appointed to run the FCC and push through anything that benifited the GOP and Murdoch's investment.
He bought (at a discount) DirectTV - after the FCC screwed the pooch on the deal that was set up to sell it elsewhere.
It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for a citizen of a foriegn countey to own Radio and Television stations in the U.S. because of the possibility of Political Influence.
And another and Still another !
Come on peeps ! Your fingers aren't broken - Click on Rupert Murdoch in Google and pick any article you want - his history is there if you want to find out.
And YES, under Dubya there's Colin Powell, whos son was appointed to run the FCC and push through anything that benifited the GOP and Murdoch's investment.
He bought (at a discount) DirectTV - after the FCC screwed the pooch on the deal that was set up to sell it elsewhere.
It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for a citizen of a foriegn countey to own Radio and Television stations in the U.S. because of the possibility of Political Influence.
Even if there are terrorist groups operating out of Syria, how are they a direct threat to the US? As far as I know, all the terrorists groups that have somehow hurt the US came out of Saudi Arabia. Secondly. And what makes you say the ME is the slum of the world? And even if it was, what right do we have to "modernize" it as you put is? Why are we not modernizing Africa? As far as I know, they are a lot more behind than the ME is. Oh, and stranglehold of the arab govs, what about China? You see, you obviusly don't know all the facts. We cannot help everyone, and we know it, so we "help" those who have things that we need, ie. oil, neutralizing threats to Israel, etc.
As for Fox, they are about as fair and balanced as some of the conservatives in this forum. Oh wait, Fox is run by conservatives, so never mind.
Judgement
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2001
- 3,815
- 0
- 0
Ok, maybe we shouldn't run any homeless shelters, because you and I know we can't help everyone in the US... why bother helping anyone, what a fncking waste of time! Those drug abuse clinics should all be shut down, its a well known fact some people will just refuse to let themselves be helped, and even worse there are some people we won't even be able to try and help because, as you and I know, there are just too many and its too difficult!
To denie the people we can help of aid because we can't help everyone is just fncking retarted. Can you blame the US for helping those who aren't supressed by a government with nuclear capabilities or have something to build off of to get a jump start first? And God forbid the U.S. has anything they might be getting out of their efforts in the ME, that would mean all of their policies and everything they did are the devil's work... the root of all evil, that is the US!
We should have just left everyone under Saddam, yes... that would have been the humanitarian thing to do; because if the US gets anything out of it then the Iraqi people would have been better off surpressed under Saddam... what was I thinking!
Originally posted by: Judgement
Ok, maybe we shouldn't run any homeless shelters, because you and I know we can't help everyone in the US... why bother helping anyone, what a fncking waste of time! Those drug abuse clinics should all be shut down, its a well known fact some people will just refuse to let themselves be helped, and even worse there are some people we won't even be able to try and help because, as you and I know, there are just too many and its too difficult!
To denie the people we can help of aid because we can't help everyone is just fncking retarted. Can you blame the US for helping those who aren't supressed by a government with nuclear capabilities or have something to build off of to get a jump start first? And God forbid the U.S. has anything they might be getting out of their efforts in the ME, that would mean all of their policies and everything they did are the devil's work... the root of all evil, that is the US!
We should have just left everyone under Saddam, yes... that would have been the humanitarian thing to do; because if the US gets anything out of it then the Iraqi people would have been better off surpressed under Saddam... what was I thinking!
Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US? How about helping inner city schools? Why don't we help the Palestinians get a state and free them from Israeli occupation? I think that would help our national security infinetly more than "liberating" Iraq, who has NO proven nuclear capability and where we have yet to find ANY WMD. Why is it so hard for you to understand that helping the Iraqi people was probably the last consideration of the people planning this war? If like you said we decided to help Iraq out of altruistic reasons, that would just support my assertation that then we could have helped any one of the many countries whose population lives under brutal dictators. This war was political. We as Americans are compassionate people, our gov. is about politics first, compassion second.
Foreign journalists have no greater propensity for the truth than American ones, a simple glance at Al Jazeera can tell you that. I regularly read press reports from around the world, and the journalistic ideal of "just the facts" is rarely followed. If you think that because something is written overseas that it's the "truth", then you have much to learn about the world. Certainly, foreign news outlets offer a different perspective on a given situation, but there's no reason to trust their authenticity simply because they aren't American. Non-Americans have their own axes to grind, just different ones.
Why don't we take the 100 billion dollars and buy everyone a pony...
C'mon man, if we don't protect our homeland, there won't be a future for us to worry about. Forget inner city schools and drug rehabs for human trash... The big threat of the day now is terror. A couple decades ago it was nuclear war, so we beef up our arsenal and worked on extremely expensive countermeasures. Sure terror might just be in our heads, but how different is that from the nuclear threat. Now we beef up security domestically while hunting down terrorists abroad. It's for peace of mind as much as it is objective.
The liberation of Iraq has everything to do with rebuilding new ties with the Middle East, slowly but surely in the hopes that 1) we stop proliferation of WMD to the hands of independent terrorists groups 2) we stop compensational funding to suicide bomber families 3) we distrupt an anti-American construct that was fostered by isolation and brainwashing that led to more and more extremists followers. Obviously we picked Iraq since it was, for all intents and purposes, an easy target and one with which we had a history. It's imperative we successfully get them on their feet so that they can look favorably on our help. Investing our money internationally to deliver aid is not a new concept, and we continue to do so in the billions all over the world concurrently with Iraq. If we don't commit to stabilizing certain areas, who will? Of couse it's political, the world would be that much worse off and it'd be something we'd have to revisit 10x fold later.
Actually, all the terrorist attacks directed towards the US were organized and financed by Saudi's not Iraqi's, so I don't buy that invading Iraq neutralizes the terrorist threat to this country. As for the WMD's, that will be an issue once they are found, until then, their existence is up for debate. Anti-American conduct is forstered as much by extremists as it is by our actions, and I do not see how invading a Muslim country is going to make Muslims like us anymore. They don't like us because they don't trust us, and we have given them a plethora of good reasons not to. We unilaterally support Israel regardless of that countries actions. We put in power many of the dictators we now have to worry about. We arm and support despotic regimes in Saudi, Egypt and elsewhere. We have abandoned them in their moments of need, and now we invade a Muslim country that has the second largest oil fields in the world and we expect them to beleive that we did it out of compassion? Come on man.
I agree.
The problem is that any form of news reporting carries some degree of bias and "sensationalism." And bias is not necessarily a bad thing since it could lead to deep analysis from one narrow point of view. Sometimes a reporter or an analyst could try to be "too unbiased" that end up with nothing much substantial but scratching the surface. The problem is the viewer who does not realize this and is too lazy to acquire knowledge from different perspectives. Unfortunately, people are lazy so they have their "preferred" media and bash others who does not watch the same news source.
To quote the Globe and Mail ads: "Perspective is everything."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter