OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism...

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: kage69
In case some of you trolls haven't gotten it yet, this thread was created for discussion of Outfoxed. Spare me the party-to-party analysis and blanket generalizations. If you haven't seen it, by default you have nothing to contribute so take your thread crapping elsewhere.

oh I am sorry, so only Fox bashing and "Outfoxed" pole smoking is allowed in here...my bad.

EDIT for Patboy...

CNN tonight, watching Lou Dobbs, piece on stock market started discussing how an outsourcing company in India on their first day out started off very very well, then went on to say that some businesses over there had to shut down for some reason (linked to the market) and Dobbs said to the correspondant "Woah wonder how dell will feel about that? won't they be worried?" to which the correspondant replied "But think of all the savings, the one day of shutdown is worth it don't you think?" and Dobbs replied "No, not at all and neither do Americans across the country"....

now while that is mild, to me it is seemingly interjected to make a point and one which assists the lefts cause, also I find it funny that he speaks on behalf of "America" the same america that bitches about outsourcing and walmart but also buys stuff for the cheapest they can...

1.yeah, youre right. that seems very unprofessional. i would like to see a full-on context of it. and was it during a "news" segment or was it the analysis bits? just curious.
2.ive actually read that while the majority of reports tend to be liberal on most social issues they tend to fall the other way on economic policy for the simple fact that they are pretty secure and necessary (the reporters we see on CNN, FOX, etc anyway)
but thats sort of irrelevant right now. for what we are discussing, i mean.
3.about moveon.org. i saw them mentioned in the credits. i can check again to see under what heading. i think they were just "thanked" but dont hold me to that. members who worked on the doc could also be part of that organization. i can try and look it up when i have the time.
4.about o'reilly, here is the link i was talking about.
some may have qualms with the source but...i dont know. he hasnt denied it or responded to this or any other charges that he basically manipulates and makes stuff up all the time. and the sources tend to be legit. im guessing he just ignores the info. but i have read so much that are just compilations of direct quotes (in full transcripts) that he says that contradicts himself from day to day. i think the reason the "credible" sources dont pick up on it is because no one takes him seriously. i could be wrong though.


edited for adding numbers to make it easier for me to follow myself and to respond to older things Bo said that i missed.

i think you are right. im generally comparing it to network news and print. most of my news i get from written sources. i live near ny so, you can see where i get the news from physically. but i read too many sources to even begin to remember online throughout the day.
i dont think fox should be the only station to throw up red flags and i dont blame them for being popular. i just think they are just super-sneaky about some things and they seem to be very aware of it. i think their rise in popularity as set the tone for cable news, sadly. remember when msnbc changed their format to compete? oy! ever since then i cant watch cable news for too long without getting ill.

i also agree that people should do their own research and not have to be spoon-fed stuff. but damn, we both know the majority of people arnt. and i just wish a little icon to say "EDITORIAL!" would pop up. obviously, my desire has nothing to do with what does and will happen ever. im young, i still have hope for some stuff.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: kage69
I wanted an exchange of ideas and opinions from those who are familiar with the subject. Feel free to watch it, and argument the material and merits of the piece. If you're looking for a partisan circle, please direct your attention to any number of threads by Rip.


Grow up.

Again you display the very behavior many have a problem with, that anything against neocon dogma is somehow bashing the right. Oh look, even a homosexual ad hominem! You guys are quite the debaters I see. I'll say it one more time: go watch the movie, after which feel free to come in here and argue till you're blue in the face. I'd be interested in seeing if you can actually confront the facts and numbers involved without resorting to the normal neocon BS.

What a bunch of crap, sorry but this is such a load that I have to laugh....

I wanted an exchange of ideas and opinions from those who are familiar with the subject. Feel free to watch it, and argument the material and merits of the piece. If you're looking for a partisan circle, please direct your attention to any number of threads by Rip.

Why should watching this biased piece of trash be a prerequisite to discussing the nature of Fox and other news stations, can one not use their own personal observations as a basis of comparison or does one need to be spoon fed analysis as you seem to? please.

Also the "neocon dogma" get your head out of your ass for like five seconds...and always love how "pole smoking" is solely related to a "homosexual" remark, lol keep living in fantasy land.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
1.yeah, youre right. that seems very unprofessional. i would like to see a full-on context of it. and was it during a "news" segment or was it the analysis bits? just curious.
2.ive actually read that while the majority of reports tend to be liberal on most social issues they tend to fall the other way on economic policy for the simple fact that they are pretty secure and necessary (the reporters we see on CNN, FOX, etc anyway)
but thats sort of irrelevant right now. for what we are discussing, i mean.
3.about moveon.org. i saw them mentioned in the credits. i can check again to see under what heading. i think they were just "thanked" but dont hold me to that. members who worked on the doc could also be part of that organization. i can try and look it up when i have the time.
4.about o'reilly, here is the link i was talking about.
some may have qualms with the source but...i dont know. he hasnt denied it or responded to this or any other charges that he basically manipulates and makes stuff up all the time. and the sources tend to be legit. im guessing he just ignores the info. but i have read so much that are just compilations of direct quotes (in full transcripts) that he says that contradicts himself from day to day. i think the reason the "credible" sources dont pick up on it is because no one takes him seriously. i could be wrong though.


edited for adding numbers to make it easier for me to follow myself and to respond to older things Bo said that i missed.

i think you are right. im generally comparing it to network news and print. most of my news i get from written sources. i live near ny so, you can see where i get the news from physically. but i read too many sources to even begin to remember online throughout the day.
i dont think fox should be the only station to throw up red flags and i dont blame them for being popular. i just think they are just super-sneaky about some things and they seem to be very aware of it. i think their rise in popularity as set the tone for cable news, sadly. remember when msnbc changed their format to compete? oy! ever since then i cant watch cable news for too long without getting ill.

i also agree that people should do their own research and not have to be spoon-fed stuff. but damn, we both know the majority of people arnt. and i just wish a little icon to say "EDITORIAL!" would pop up. obviously, my desire has nothing to do with what does and will happen ever. im young, i still have hope for some stuff.

I agree with most of your post however I must say I don't think I would put too much weight into that nation site as a reference point...maybe if there were other independant reports which all said the same thing?

As far as the Dobbs issue, it came up right after a discussion/segment on the global markets and the lead story was that of India's stock market newcommer, an outsourcing firm....so not in the body of the story but immediately afterwards when they were discussing the content...

 

[kage69]

What a bunch of crap, sorry but this is such a load that I have to laugh...

You're the load of crap, listen to yourself! You're actually trying to defend utter ignorance! You haven't seen the movie, but want to sound off like it doesn't matter...IN A THREAD ABOUT THE MOVIE! And somehow that's comical to you? I haven't read Hannity's book, and you don't see me on the forums denouncing it as trash. Get the picture yet? Laugh away, everyone else is laughing at you for attempting to sound informed when all you bring to the table is partisan bullsh!t based in ignorance.

Why should watching this biased piece of trash be a prerequisite to discussing the nature of Fox and other news stations, can one not use their own personal observations as a basis of comparison or does one need to be spoon fed analysis as you seem to? please.

READ THE FVCKIN THREAD TITLE ASSHEAD! That's the topic. Is it sinking into that vacuum between your ears yet? Your 'personal observations' bear a strikingly similar flavor to the issue this movie is hitting at. Circular reasoning is all fine and dandy for idiots like you, but if you feel the need to keep spewing it go and make your own damn thread. :|:lips

Also the "neocon dogma" get your head out of your ass for like five seconds...and always love how "pole smoking" is solely related to a "homosexual" remark, lol keep living in fantasy land.

Oh come now, let's just call a spade a spade. You've been following the standard neocon arguing/trolling M.O. Let's see, character attacks, generalizations, ignorance of numerical facts, ignorance to subject, slandering, strawmen, cherry-picking....
There's a difference between us ballsack. You argue your position (never without at least a feeble attempt it seems) from a screened, self-approved collection of input. 'I'm not going to waste my time talking about that trash as it comes from moveon.org and I just KNOW that's it's standard liberal spin.'
This is an infantile stance you should have grown out of when you ended your idealistic high-school days (assuming of course you actually graduated - it's hard to tell from here).
Once you've grown a little longer in the tooth, and hopefully wiser, you'll then realize the importance of gathering said input from all angles. Not to steal a sig, but to quote LunarRay - 'You limit the scope you limit the findings.' This sage little tidbit applies directly to the neocon agenda. You, FOX News, and the Bush Admin all seem to share a lot in common it seems. And then there's me: I don't like Bill O'Reilly one bit, but at least I watch him to know where he stands. I have a problem with FOX News, which began long before I watched OutFoxed, yet the channel itself isn't blocked on my cable box.
You can't argue this movie, as you don't know it's contents. So why bother? Until you step up to the material like an adult, you will continue to annoy the rest of us here with your pathetic trolling, and no doubt your conservative friends as well. I'm sure more than a few of them might feel damned by association, before you know it people will be calling you BabyRip.


But it's a free world, you'll do what you want. Continue to be an assh0le, no skin off my back. Feh. Expecting a thread to generate posts from those familiar with it's topic, what was I thinking...

 

[PatboyX]

I agree with most of your post however I must say I don't think I would put too much weight into that nation site as a reference point...maybe if there were other independant reports which all said the same thing?

As far as the Dobbs issue, it came up right after a discussion/segment on the global markets and the lead story was that of India's stock market newcommer, an outsourcing firm....so not in the body of the story but immediately afterwards when they were discussing the content...

yeah, i realize most of the o'reilly stories tend to come from personal experience tales which are, of course, not the best source for info. but i dont really see what most people would have to gain from pointing out these odd inconsitancies.
personally, i think o'reilly is a bit off, so i am very willing to believe this sort of thing when someone comes out with it.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: kage69

You're the load of crap, listen to yourself! You're actually trying to defend utter ignorance! You haven't seen the movie, but want to sound off like it doesn't matter...IN A THREAD ABOUT THE MOVIE! And somehow that's comical to you? I haven't read Hannity's book, and you don't see me on the forums denouncing it as trash. Get the picture yet? Laugh away, everyone else is laughing at you for attempting to sound informed when all you bring to the table is partisan bullsh!t based in ignorance.

You might want to edit your title, or at least add a subtitle which specifies that only people who have watched this piece of tripe are "allowed" to chime in. Also if you look at my initial reply you will see I make virtually no reference to the movie itself except to say that I feel it was "motivated" and also that unless it were free to watch, as Fox news is for me then I would rather save my money and wait for a TV release. as for the rest of this part...blah blah blah.

READ THE FVCKIN THREAD TITLE ASSHEAD! That's the topic. Is it sinking into that vacuum between your ears yet? Your 'personal observations' bear a strikingly similar flavor to the issue this movie is hitting at. Circular reasoning is all fine and dandy for idiots like you, but if you feel the need to keep spewing it go and make your own damn thread. :|:lips

You comment below about my use of personal attacks and such yet it seems that you cannot help but resort to pseudo swears and aggression. Again, possibly a subtitle saying that you only want people who have watched, and most likely agreed with the "documentary" to have responded it might have detered my responding.

Oh come now, let's just call a spade a spade. You've been following the standard neocon arguing/trolling M.O. Let's see, character attacks, generalizations, ignorance of numerical facts, ignorance to subject, slandering, strawmen, cherry-picking....

You seem to be doing quite the job of it yourself you know...also if I have been trolling then by god the mods have let me get away with it forever it seems.

There's a difference between us ballsack. You argue your position (never without at least a feeble attempt it seems) from a screened, self-approved collection of input. 'I'm not going to waste my time talking about that trash as it comes from moveon.org and I just KNOW that's it's standard liberal spin.'
This is an infantile stance you should have grown out of when you ended your idealistic high-school days (assuming of course you actually graduated - it's hard to tell from here).

My my how you seem high on yourself....I am so reminded of charley browns parents when reading this drivel, I mean really "a screened, self approved collection of input"...do you even know what you're talking about?

Once you've grown a little longer in the tooth, and hopefully wiser, you'll then realize the importance of gathering said input from all angles. Not to steal a sig, but to quote LunarRay - 'You limit the scope you limit the findings.' This sage little tidbit applies directly to the neocon agenda.

Do you even know my age? from reading your posts and certainly this reply I would be willing to bet I have at least a few years on you...and hopefully I never grow to be as "wise" as you where I need a pseuduo editoral guised as a documentary to spoon feed me my talking points.

You, FOX News, and the Bush Admin all seem to share a lot in common it seems. And then there's me: I don't like Bill O'Reilly one bit, but at least I watch him to know where he stands. I have a problem with FOX News, which began long before I watched OutFoxed, yet the channel itself isn't blocked on my cable box. You can't argue this movie, as you don't know it's contents. So why bother? Until you step up to the material like an adult, you will continue to annoy the rest of us here with your pathetic trolling, and no doubt your conservative friends as well. I'm sure more than a few of them might feel damned by association, before you know it people will be calling you BabyRip.

Again, a complete load of crap...never thought I would see as much as I do in this thread but by golly there it is. So your watching and disapproving of O'Reilly is different from my Watching Lou Dobbs and disapproving of him how? I openly said above that I do not limit myself to one venue for newsworthy material, overall I would say I maybe watch 10% Fox, 70% NBC and 20% CNN...yet because I disagree with your garbage arguments then I MUST be a Fox news loyalist....please. Maybe it is you who needs to think about what you are saying and then actually practice what you preach...honestly if you came into these forums having forumlated this "opinion" on your own I might, just might respect it...but as it stands you needed this lame ass movie to motivate this post and affirm your suspicions...weak man, weak. And last I checked I had no conservative friends, unfortunately most of them are loony liberals.

But it's a free world, you'll do what you want. Continue to be an assh0le, no skin off my back. Feh. Expecting a thread to generate posts from those familiar with it's topic, what was I thinking...

can you respond once without using a profane reference? you made note of my "homosexual ad hominem" ...maybe I should ask you how old you are?

 

[kage69]

You might want to edit your title, or at least add a subtitle which specifies that only people who have watched this piece of tripe are "allowed" to chime in. Also if you look at my initial reply you will see I make virtually no reference to the movie itself except to say that I feel it was "motivated" and also that unless it were free to watch, as Fox news is for me then I would rather save my money and wait for a TV release. as for the rest of this part...blah blah blah.

You came in here for a reason, drop the act. You've taken time out of your day to bash something you haven't even seen. Your continued tap-dancing around it isn't going to make it go away.

You comment below about my use of personal attacks and such yet it seems that you cannot help but resort to pseudo swears and aggression. Again, possibly a subtitle saying that you only want people who have watched, and most likely agreed with the "documentary" to have responded it might have detered my responding.

As I requested before you even chimed in,

Please watch the movie before trying to invalidate it.

Good to see your paying attention.

You seem to be doing quite the job of it yourself you know...also if I have been trolling then by god the mods have let me get away with it forever it seems.

Yeouch! Now that's a scathing yet sad self-critique! In case you haven't noticed, the mods realize that the majority here are adults, and afford us all a bit of leniency when it comes to the rules. Unless it gets ugly, like for instance Arsynic getting out of line last week, I've found they don't mind an environment that warrants a certain degree of thick skin. Even your likening my request to an act of fellatio goes without comment. Look on the bright side, you're still miles away from Rip.

My my how you seem high on yourself....I am so reminded of charley browns parents when reading this drivel, I mean really "a screened, self approved collection of input"...do you even know what you're talking about?

C'mon now, you can't be that cheap. I wasted money to see both Bowling for Columbine and The Passion because they were both current subjects in the media, both inciting a storm of debate. You're complaining over something that can be bought in the $5 to $10 range, or even *whispers* found on the net? :Q This is surprising behavior indeed from one who claims to be so wise, prosperous, and well-informed. It's funny how the topic isn't worth the effort with you, but somehow speaking against it is.

Do you even know my age? from reading your posts and certainly this reply I would be willing to bet I have at least a few years on you...and hopefully I never grow to be as "wise" as you where I need a pseuduo editoral guised as a documentary to spoon feed me my talking points.

No, I don't. Again, it's hard to tell from here. Sometimes you say mature things that have merit, and other times you sound like an ultra-nationalistic 10th grader. I'm opting on the low side due to your overall approach to this thread, but also for all the assumptions you've made along the way. You somehow assume I consider this piece devoid of fluff and comprised of 100% objective reporting. You spouting off about talking points, now that's funny. I really am surprised you haven't seen it, there is just a ton of FOX footage on it. Please ponder this.

Again, a complete load of crap...never thought I would see as much as I do in this thread but by golly there it is. So your watching and disapproving of O'Reilly is different from my Watching Lou Dobbs and disapproving of him how? I openly said above that I do not limit myself to one venue for newsworthy material, overall I would say I maybe watch 10% Fox, 70% NBC and 20% CNN...yet because I disagree with your garbage arguments then I MUST be a Fox news loyalist....please. Maybe it is you who needs to think about what you are saying and then actually practice what you preach...honestly if you came into these forums having forumlated this "opinion" on your own I might, just might respect it...but as it stands you needed this lame ass movie to motivate this post and affirm your suspicions...weak man, weak. And last I checked I had no conservative friends, unfortunately most of them are loony liberals.

"Please see the movie before attempting to invalidate it" and "Watch the movie" are bullsh!t arguments? Grats on your news intake guestimations, unfortunetly even if that were relevent I doubt I'd buy it. I said you operate under similiar tactics, nothing about you being a loyalist. It's a fact that FOX cherrypicks it's stories and sources, and you admit to doing the same. If that part really escapes you, well than I guess here's the part where I try to act surprised...
Why is it you seem to think my mind was suddenly changed after seeing this movie? You just took exception with my opening statement for this thread and decided to spout, nevermind you have no idea what's in the movie. Weak man, weak.

can you respond once without using a profane reference? you made note of my "homosexual ad hominem" ...maybe I should ask you how old you are?

I don't know, if I don't will you go and crap in someone else's thread?

 

[Format C:]

*sniff* Poor wittle shang. Bwess him wittle heart. Dem big bad mean ole 'con-men jus' won't wisten -n- pway like him wants dem to.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Format C:
*sniff* Poor wittle shang. Bwess him wittle heart. Dem big bad mean ole 'con-men jus' won't wisten -n- pway like him wants dem to.

Wow, look Format is back, you didn't learn, did you.

You are so completely obnoxious that it isn't even humorous.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Format C:
*sniff* Poor wittle shang. Bwess him wittle heart. Dem big bad mean ole 'con-men jus' won't wisten -n- pway like him wants dem to.

Heh, well, ok, you got a smile, a chuckle maybe.