Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by XRanger, Nov 3, 2004.
nevermind, they edited the picture
Doesn't surprise me, the Communist News Network thinly veils their agenda to promote the liberal cause. I love watching them eat crow.
It says georgelaura or something what are you talking about?
It's amazing, I used to hate CNN, but now i can't get enough
Their over the top bashing of the President and anything moral is ridiculous. The back-lash from CNN probably helped Bush push Bush over 50%
nevermind, they changed the name... the guy who did that probably got fired.
Amen, Gatsby. For some reason I can't quit watching it now!
Why do you think FOX just trounces CNN and the rest of the cable news companies?
Let me break it down for you David,
Fox is the only moderate net-work on TV. It seems like they lean a little to the right, but it's just becuase CNN CBS Etc are just mouth pieces for the far, far left. I wish fox would become an out right conservative newtwork. I think that would only be fair don't you? It is far and away the most watched news newtork if you judge it by ratings so i would imagine there are tons of Dems who watch routinely when they want an objective point of view instead of that olg haggard Judy Woodruf
Who has now become my favorite news anchor. I just can't stop watching her!
Did you see Wood Ruff yesterday afternoon with Wolf Blitzer? She slipped up and refered to the dems as "us" and republicans as "them." It was so funny, because Wolfie cut her off in mid sentence and the cam went close up to Wolfie. She has always been one of my favorites. I record her and use her as an example of bias. Me and one of the guys I work with watch her and laugh our a55es off. Who did she know anyway?
Bill O'Reilly had a former CBS correspondent on his show last night, and they talked about the media elites. It was great. Not that we haven't all heard it before. Before that, Bill went head to head with Al Sharpton, who I think is one of the worst public figures for the Democrats, considering he has been linked to drugs, and is pretty much a joke of a reverend.
I can't get enough of the bad @ss girls on Fox. The shiny lip gloss, the high skirts, tight shirts, and I think I saw a couple of tatoos. Now that's a reason to get excited about the news!
There aren't many serious (non-redneck) allegations about CNN and that alleged bias they have. Every reputable news network will always have a little bias, after all: these people are humans.
But the level of 'journalism' at Fox News is just dispicable. Fox News calling everyone else 'liberal media' is such a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
There are hundreds of stories of Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox) spreading his agenda across the whole world. There are also many documentaries citing many current and former Fox News employees of the shame they feel as journalists.
One noteworthy documentary is 'Outfoxed.' Unfortunately, it is slanted radically left, but the facts in there are undeniable.
Yea, i'm not sure what you guys are talking about, since Fox news has had many more allegations of being to the right than cnn has been to the left. And CNN actually has more people tune in every day than Fox news, it's just the ratings set up makes the ratings higher for Fox.
Them documentaries sucked. Try siting just a few examples. I've heard Tony Snow host the Limbaugh show before, but as far as hard news Fox is clearly the best. How can you call a chanel that almost always has debates from both sides biased as you do. More people tune in, if that is true, because euroweanies need validation.
"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive. I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
-Pat Buchanan on CNN
Fox's versions of "political debates" are laughing jokes. I can't think of a single out and out liberal to counter all of the far-right loonies on that network. Most of the "liberals" on that network are moderate at best, right of center, or "former liberals."
On Hannidy and Colmes, Colmes can hardly be considered a leftist as he consistently agrees with most of Hannidy's far-right ideology. He said it himself: he considers his ideology more as a moderate than anything else (such as liberal).
That is, one debator sits on one side and the other debator sits on the other side facing his opponent. That's what you meant by FOX having "both sides", isn't it?
I think the big deal with Fox is that the majority of the views expressed on that channel are more traditional, not conservative or liberal. I am the biggest Bush supporter out there and i don't agree with a lot of the stuff that I hear on varioius FNC shows. The ratings don't lie as FSN regularly cleans up in just about every catagory. To get the kind of ratings that they enjoy there has to be more than just conservatives tuning in on a regular basis.
Do you HONESTLY think Fox's ratings are the result of "quality" or "balanced" news and informational programming? You can't be that STUPID. First of all, a Murdoch enterprise does not DO quality or balanced. Secondly, topless newscasts, reality programs or whatever they put on the screen, brings up the ratings. Real news is boring-SLANTED news is great for attracting viewers.
We are talking about the Fox News Channel, I assume that you can understand that. I did put the initials FNC and FSN(by mistake) in my original post, but my last statements involving the traditional views of the American people and the FNC ratings are legit, In my humble, but acurate opinion.
If "traditional" means Bible thumping, then I think you overestimate that segment of the population. If by traditional, you mean cheerleading, distorted, Bush administration butt kissing, then I guess FNC certainly does draw those types in. It also draws in the more moderate population who just like the hair pulling contests ("discussions") and other MTV-type entertainment that the "News" channel airs. Rupert Murdoch is not concerned about traditionalism-he lives for ratings points and this is how he achieves it. It's a business-your opinion is anything BUT "accurate". Take a look at his rags in the UK-nude women, etc. He doesn't actually CARE about the views of born agains-he just knows what buttons need to be pushed so that they will tune into the junk news fare offered by Fox.
You are certainly entitled to your views, but let me break-down the term "traditional" in context.. again, this is not really a left or right thing. Traditionalist are against partial birth abortion, taking "God" out of the American lexicon, gay-marriage etc. I have noticed that you get real offensive when anything about Christianity is mentioned. Aren't you tolerant towards Christians? Of course, there are Christian nut-balls, as their are with any religious group, but one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.
Fox doesn't subscribe to the extreme sides of either party. I watch Fox because I get fair political analysis and not just my ears tickled. There are a lot of things said on various FNC programs that I don't agree with, on the other hand I find it hard to agree with much of anyhting on CNN. Just to see what we are dealing with here, how do you feel about CNN's coverage? Would you suggest a fairly even toned news organization/paper for me (la, ny times,)?
One last thing.. You mentioned that FNC attracts the moderate population. Is that a bad thing? Would you consider yourself moderate, or are you into the whole Bush blew up the pentagon and stuff like that. That is not a loaded question, and I will not call you an idiot or jack-ass if your answer does not agree with my beleifs. Just an honest question.
Jonas - I'm a moderate. Slightly conservative on foreign and fiscal policies, slightly liberal on domestic policy and social issues. And, I feel, very patriotic-not just a flag-waving sunshine patriot-someone who believes in the US. I am a "traditionalist" but to me, obviously, this means something different. It isn't about shoving the religious beliefs of a minority of the population ("Christians" are STILL a minority, albeit a large one) down the throats of the other 250 million Americans. Hey, just like the McCanins and Guvinators of the world-Republicans who, if truth be told, must absolutely despise the Bush-Cheney axis.
I do not believe Bush blew up the pentagon-If, as you claim, that's not a loaded question, it is condescending and even insulting; like me asking you if you routinely burn crosses on people's lawns or blow up abortion clinics (being a "pro-lifer" and all...). But I also do not believe that in retaliation for 9/11, he should have gone and attacked a country that wasn't even involved in it-resulting in a 10-year (probably) deadly occupation-and I don't mean Afghanistan.
I don't think CNN is much better than FNC. I DO think the NYT is the best daily in the world, warts and all (along with the Financial Times and WSJ minus its editorial section). As news sources they will ALWAYS be biased for SOMEONE, but in the end, you have to pick and choose, and then sort out the b.s. on your own. FCN is NOT what I would choose for "balanced" news. If I had to recommend a TV newscast for you, it would be BBC-without a DOUBT the best feature stories and specials in the English language.
Fox DOES subscribe to the extreme sides of the Republican party; it is the White House's organ-its coverage of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has been disgraceful cheerleading at best. Do you REALLY believe Fox's talking heads-Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al. are "balanced"? Again, I say-you are not that STUPID-you can't be...
I'd prefer my news without the cheerleading bleach blond bimbos-give me the facts and I'll make my own judgements-but then again, most people are not CAPABLE of doing that and need to be spoon fed-that's where Fox News comes in...
As far as being tolerant toward Christians-I am. What I am NOT tolerant toward are people who try to force their version of "morality" down MY throat. People who want to destroy our principle of separation of church and state and form some kind of Western ayatollah-run theocracy are bad, bad news in my book. It just seems that the people currently trying to do that-who feel they have a monopoly on "morality"-happen to be "Christians" (i.e. the "pro-lifers" who advocate the death penalty-kind of a contradiction, don't you think?). If the people trying to do this were of another faith, I would despise them just the same for trying to make our country something it wasn't meant to be. And I don't think all this is being orchestrated by "nut balls", just as I don't think Osama bin Laden receives his support exclusively from jihad-crazy Islamo-fascists and rogue regimes.
Phil your views of seperation of church and state are based on a myth. The modern seperation goes back to 1950's justice Hugo Black, a kkk, anti-catholic, consiracy nut.
I don't have the time soThis is a little oversimplified: The original intent was to keep a churches from collecting taxes. The founders didn't like the idea of a church collecting taxes from people of a different denomination. The Church of England was collecting taxes from everybody.
We are guaranteed freedom OF not "from" religion. If I'm not mistaken, some of the states had state religions. Didn't Louisiana have a state religion when it joined the Union?
Your lucky I have dial-up at home and can't stand the wait time.
I think one of the reason's that Fox seems so republican oriented to you is becuase they are the only network that has any conservative voice at all (makes sense if you think about it) I disagree with your assesment of the NY Times. I have read a few of the cloumns by a Mr. Paul Krugman and have found him to be right in line with Michael Moore. I believe he actually wrote about Bush blowing up the pentagon. Any newspaper that would have him writing for them is suspect in my opinion. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the direction that the country is headed in. America is in a tough spot right now, but I am optimistic and could not be any prouder of our leader.
Jerk - Separation of church & state was established LONG before the 1950's. You must have be operating in concert with the poster who said that slavery existed in the (19) 50's. Read the Federalist Papers-particularly James Madison. The Founding Fathers did not intend this country to be a theocracy. Are you advocating that it should?
Jonas - You list a single op/ed columnist as the reason why the NYT-to you-is no good. Fine. Read what you want, but for STRAIGHT NEWS it's the best. You won't find that level of international coverage in the Daily Star or Baton Rouge Times-but you will find views that conform to your own, which is, I suppose, how you choose what to read, if anything. I read the WSJ despite the fact that its editorial page is slightly to the right of Mussolini. Because for NEWS it's very good. I have the ability to separate NEWS and EDITORIAL.
BTW, Krugman, IMO, is usually RIGHT ON in his comments, and so are Frank Rich and Thomas Friendman-these guys, though politically to the left (except for Friedman), are not die-hard administration butt kissers-they tell a different story and it doesn't adhere to anyone's policy.
Are you serious?
Fox has you for a sucker if you actually believe in that 'liberal media, anti-conservative' myth.
CNN has a show called 'Crossfire' that has consistently brought in MANY hardcore Republicans throughout the years from Buchanan to Carlson. I quoted Pat Buchanan's opinion on CNN (this guy is as right-winged as you can get) and it's pretty much on the spot. There have been many conservative elites on CNN (i.e Coulter is constantly invited as a guest to chew out liberalism), you can't say the opposite about Fox's show.
I challenge you to name even ONE liberal (who can actually hold his ground) that ever gets invited to a Fox News show, let alone actually work on Fox.
That's the difference between Fox and everyone else.
The NY times has a very leftist editorial board. So what? In case you didn't know, they're EDITORIALS (read: opinionated articles). The Washington Post has a very conservative staff and I don't hear anybody b!tching about them.
Despite both papers being on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they're both high up there in prestige because mainly: they keep their opinions where it belongs: on the editorial page.
since we're talking about frank rich and the media in this thread, just thought I'd provide a link to his latest vignette into media commentary. say what you will about the man, he possesses a singular ability to construct some of the most withering critiques in the history of the english language. they are simply swiftian in their intensity, wit, vision, and effectiveness. he consistently cuts through the pollution coming from both right and left-leaning establishments and exposes what's really at the heart of our society.
yes, this site requires a free registration. no, registering with the Times won't turn your wannabe army tank 4x4 into a volvo, or your schlitz light into a latte. (not that there's anything wrong with that...)
Phil, again we differ, that's fine.
Unless you've been out of town for a few months there have been many independant studies completed that have shown that Kery got almost twice as much favorable coverage as the President in the media
I watch CNN all the time and have never seen Ann Coulter.
Now let me take on your "challenge". Liberals that either work at Fox News, or have been invited on the show.
Let's start with workers. Alan Combs, Mort Kondracke, Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustrren's husband worked on the Kerry Campaign team and many others
Invitees and liberals appearing on Fox news broadcasts:
Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Terry Mcauliffe, Tad Devine, Paul Begalla, James Careville, Joe Liberman, Ben Affleck (and other celebs.) Every Kerrry spokeman, and spokeswoman, donna Brazil,
John Kerry was begged to come on, but ducked because he would not have been given a free pass on his ridiculous record. P-Diddy, Russell Simmons, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al sharpton (frequently) Barrack Obama, Kweisi Mfume, and the list goes on.
There was a term floating around during the election in these threads called getting "b i t c h slapped", I think it's fair to say your challenge has been met.
MLEE2, also if you think Pat Buchanan is "as right winged as it gets" maybe you should not be getting involved in these political conversations.
I just saw a nice peice with congressman Ford on FNC a little while ago(the lib. senator from Tennessee) I enjoy listening to his view-points. Now wo
Ty - I agree with you on Frank Rich-one of the best columnists I've ever read.
Mlee2, I challenge you to name a liberal that can hold his ground. Have any of you heard about mark rich's involvement in the Oil for Food scandals? I have, I don't rely on your media. Just the name Oil for Food, as a christian, is offensive to me. Is this the first forum that you have ever heard a decenting opinion? That question was for you Mlee2
Phil, I love you, Man! You sound like a right winger who is trying to trick us all into thinking. I love you. Man!
O.k maybe I am just a happy dru88.
Don't say gulp! That puts this all into different dimension.
Just to follow up on Mlee2's so called challenge, I enjoyed listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the O'reilly factor last night. He was on a 20 minute segment and last time i check he was "fairly liberal"
MLEE2 wins the award for most ignorant post in this whole election thread cycle! Congrats!
The only reason that FOX News is so popular is because there is now a majority of right-wing sheople in the country. They are of course, being the sheople they are, going to prefer watching the news that's congruous with the leadership they're blindly following.
Wrong, the reason Fox News is so popular is because they give both sides a chance to speak. They have libs and republicans working for the network (even having their own shows), and they also routinely have equal representation from both sides on these shows. That cannot be said about any other network, like it or not!
You're obviously deluded, Jonas, and have no idea what "Fair and Balanced" really means. Amazing that so many Republicans lack the ability to be impartial and self-critical. This is the kind of butt-kissing toadyism that I suppose we can expect for the next 4 years...
I beg to differ with you on the fair and balanced issue. Would you like to name another news channel that is more has more voices from both sides employed and as guests?
Also, expect the "butt-kissing toadyism" for the next 8 and maybe 12 years
No, I don't think so. As for naming another news channel more "Fair and Balanced" I would venture to say ALL of the rest of them, CNN included. Fox is shiat-it is what it is: a Rupert Murdoch vehicle.
I challenge you to name even ONE liberal (who can actually hold his ground) that ever gets invited to a Fox News show, let alone actually work on Fox.
Hehe. I knew I'd get ganged on like a cheap hooker as soon as I typed this out. Of course, I know "liberals" get invited to some of FNews shows. The exaggeration was used to point out that guys leaning on the radical left rarely get airtime as opposed to the radical right. Michael Moore and Carville was an exception you cited (though I find that really surprising).
As I've said before, the so called "liberals" who work on Fox hardly represent anything that is stereotypically socialist/radical left. Colmes must laugh at himself if he ever called himself 'liberal.'
Not that I approve of anything extreme-liberally slanted, but if you have race-baiting Limbaugh on Fox News: the least you could do is give some liberal of the same caliber, an opportunity.
Hey, I'll retract all my statements about Fox if Moore, Franken, or even one of the sellouts from the Kennedy Family get their own show on Fox.
I do watch Fox occasionally, and I'm actually ashamed to agree with O'Reilly every now and then but agreeing/disagreeing with these guys is not the point.
Political debates between (i.e: Former Repub Secretary of State vs. celebrity liberal) is hardly what I call fair debates.
Media bias is clear on Fox, I don't see how anyone else can't see that.
Why would anyone give Michael Moore his own show? If he can lie in a documentary, he can lie on tv. Most liberals don't even respect him...Do you consider Al Sharpton a liberal? He was on Fox & Friends recently and was treated respectfully and allowed to share his views. He was also on the O'Reilly factor in the last month...I guess I met your challenge...
You are absolutely delusional, Jonas. Have you ever listened to any shows on F- News? Case in point: O'Reilly. He's the epitome of not giving the other side a chance to speak. "Shut up! SHUT UP! Cut his mic!". Hannity? Not much better--cuts Colmes off mid-point. I can take about 2-3 minutes before my head hurts from the shouting. Thank god for NPR. Maybe not completely centrist, but at least they run a civil discussion.
give it up, craig and mlee. take it from me, it's the only way to stay sane. no sense in killing yourself trying to wake a dog that prefers to slumber in its own filth
Look guys, You are all missing the point here. I have named you several democrats (far, far left and moderates) that REGULARLY appear on Fox programs. Liberals even have thier own shows on Fox. Cnn does not even come close to competing in this area. Please point me out some examples of conservatives that have a voice on CNN besides on "Crossfire" for 1 hour a day.
Bill O'reilly is not just rude to liberals, he is rude to everyone, that argument does not hold water. I just saw an interview he did with Donald Rumsfeld and he grilled him quite heavily just like he did with President Bush in October (which i didn't really appreciate)
You guys keep drinking the Kool-Aid and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!
Separate names with a comma.