Bad Fox News! Bad!

Where are you RSR? You say that the MSM is Lib, and you also say that Fox is the most popular. Doesn't that mean that the MSM isn't Liberal if Fox News(leader of the MSM) is controlled by the Cons?

As I've said all along, both sides are slanted and both appeal to different types of viewers. Fox wants their viewers to vote Republican and CNN wants theirs to vote Democrat.
 
We're constantly showered with Liberal bias through newspapers, television, and the internet. I think it's funny how someone takes a handful of comments made on (shock) a commentary show, made by a fill in host to boot, and uses it as an example of "the goose and the gander".
 
We're constantly showered with Liberal bias through newspapers, television, and the internet. I think it's funny how someone takes a handful of comments made on (shock) a commentary show, made by a fill in host to boot, and uses it as an example of "the goose and the gander".

Give some examples. :rolleyes:
 
Give some examples. :rolleyes:

Go to Yahoo News at any given moment and you'll find plenty.

Katie Couric opening an interview about Iraq with the leading question, "Just how bad is it over there?"

The L.A. Times insisting on calling the president "Mr. Bush" and refusing the call him President Bush.

The story of the fake documents concerning President Bush's guard service being buried in the middle of an article with a headline that had nothing to do with what the story was about. (And the lame excuses given for why it wasn't a big deal that they were fake)

The Abu Ghaird prison story running on the front page of the NYT for.. what... a month? Ths being presented as "breaking news", then the fact of the matter is the story came out months earlier.

CBS. Nuff said.

The use of the term "undocumented workers" rather than calling them what they are: Illegal aliens.

Mel Gibson makes hateful comments when he's drunk: Rack him up.
Kayne West makes hateful comments while he's sober: Give him an award.

Just about every story in the New York Times. Just about every report from CBS and CNN.

That's off the top of my head. Go ahead, act as if it isn't there.

:smoke:
 
Pick up a NY Times newspaper, or tune into ABC nightly news, or the Communist News Network, or CBS, or.....you get the point


The fake Bush military records, every MSM outlet spewing Joseph Wilson's lies as though they were fact....do you really need examples?
 
Go to Yahoo News at any given moment and you'll find plenty.
I just see the same headlines that I see on other news sites. What makes Yahoo's stories "liberal?"http://news.yahoo.com/

Katie Couric opening an interview about Iraq with the leading question, "Just how bad is it over there?"
Uh, I'm pretty sure it is "bad" over there. This last month was the worst month for casualties in Iraq since OUR initial invasion. Should Couric have opened the interview with "Just how good is it over there?" If You and your ilk keep waiting for a sugar-coated rendition of the WAR, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

The L.A. Times insisting on calling the president "Mr. Bush" and refusing the call him President Bush.
The L.A. Times calls every president and leader "Mr." Why should "Mr. Bush" be any different? Is he a king? Is he a god who should be more revered than previous presidents?

The story of the fake documents concerning President Bush's guard service being buried in the middle of an article with a headline that had nothing to do with what the story was about. (And the lame excuses given for why it wasn't a big deal that they were fake)
Vague references to some "story" in an un-named publication don't sway me one way or the other. Can you provide a link to the "Nessie" of which you speak?

The Abu Ghaird prison story running on the front page of the NYT for.. what... a month? Ths being presented as "breaking news", then the fact of the matter is the story came out months earlier.
Do you mean Abu "Ghraib?" The Abu Ghraib story WAS and still IS big news. The realization that US troops were TORTURING human beings was and is a big deal no matter how much you try to trivialize it. It's bad for foreign relations. It's bad for Americans abroad. It's suggests to other nations that Americans are full of sh*t when we talk about "freedom" and "liberty" and "human rights." And it's awful for the troops you "support" with the yellow magnet you put on the back of your car. If the world knows that US troops torture their prisoners, what do you think will happen to US troops who get captured by enemy combatants? That's right! They'll be tortured.

CBS. Nuff said.
"Nuff said?" Bumpersticker mentality at its finest. Whoo! Howdy!

The use of the term "undocumented workers" rather than calling them what they are: Illegal aliens.
Many illegals (whatever nomenclature you prefer) come to the US to work seasonally or for a few years and then return to their home countries. And all illegals come here to work, so "undocumented worker" is actually a more narrowly taylored label and is, therefore, more accurate.

Mel Gibson makes hateful comments when he's drunk: Rack him up.
Kayne West makes hateful comments while he's sober: Give him an award.
"Kanye" West didn't make hateful comments. He pointed-out what he percieved as indifference toward a group he cares about, namely his own race. It was plain to everybody that the Bush Administration botched the Katrina relief efforts. Three years later, there are still hundreds homeless or awaiting relief funds to rebuild and thousands living in crime-ridden FEMA trailer parks. It seems like you get mad at the press when they report things you don't want to hear. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Don't hate the messenger, hate the message?" If you have a problem with what the news is, why don't you go out into the world and try to fix some of the problems instead of b*tching about the press because they report it?

Just about every story in the New York Times. Just about every report from CBS and CNN.
Again, vague bullsh*t and sweeping accusations based on nothing. The NYT is the best newspaper in the US barnone. Its reporting has not only won many awards and is respected by everyone in journalism, it has influenced the course of history on several occasions as has CNN and CBS. Your insinuation is ridiculous.

That's off the top of my head. Go ahead, act as if it isn't there.
Act as-if what isn't there? Your head? That's easy enough for me.
 
Al Gore is a typical "do as I say and not as I do" liberal

Of course, libs love that "objective" reporter Kieth Olbermann

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/136
MSNBC’s Olbermann: Terrorists and Governments Have Motives to ‘Keep People Afraid’
Posted by Scott Whitlock on August 23, 2006 - 15:01.
"Countdown" host Keith Olbermann has questioned the timing of terror arrests and alert levels before, but on the August 22 edition of the MSNBC show, he indicated that democratic governments are using the fear of terrorism, the same terrorists they are "supposedly" hunting:

"It is a fair question to be skeptical of the skeptics to ask why would the British police, why would anyone exaggerate the threat of violence fueling unwarranted fears? But theoretically, at least, it is clear that both terrorists and governments, supposedly hunting terrorists, have motives, both of them have motives, to keep people afraid."

Olbermann utilized the arraignment of British suspects in the plot to blow up U.K. airplanes as an opportunity to replay a ten minute long segment, entitled "The Nexus of Politics and Terror" from last October. In the piece, negative events for the Bush administration are linked to their proximity of terror warnings. The "Countdown" host prefaced the story, which aired at 8:35PM EDT, by questioning if the arrests in England have been hyped:

"Terrorists, after all, do not just want us or anybody dead. Fear is often an even better end result, and few administrations, in American political history, Democratic or Republican, conservative or liberal, can truly say they did not use fear, even exaggerate fear, to justify their actions. And that may or may not explain why the timing of the British arrests was determined not by the lead investigators there, but at the request of our government."

Olbermann also mentioned that "so many" members of his audience asked for the segment to be re-aired. (Perhaps those who clamored for a repeat viewing were the Daily Kos contingent of his viewers.) In closing the piece, the MSNBC anchor seemed to acknowledge that the connection between bad news for President Bush and terror alerts might be a little weak:

"We`ve noted this before, too. You could probably construct a similar time line equating terror events to supermarket openings around the country."

He then disregarded this caveat by stating that it was the seriousness of the charges that mattered, not necessarily their content:

"But if just a reasonable argument could be made that any one of those 11 events or including this latest curious business from London and Washington is more than mere coincidence, then it underscores the need for more questions to be asked in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is fear mongering."

One thing’s certain, the way the media reports bad news for the President, Olbermann will have many more chances to "link" those stories to the continuing terror threat.
 
Al Gore is a typical "do as I say and not as I do" liberal

Of course, libs love that "objective" reporter Kieth Olbermann

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/136
MSNBC’s Olbermann: Terrorists and Governments Have Motives to ‘Keep People Afraid’
Posted by Scott Whitlock on August 23, 2006 - 15:01.
"Countdown" host Keith Olbermann has questioned the timing of terror arrests and alert levels before, but on the August 22 edition of the MSNBC show, he indicated that democratic governments are using the fear of terrorism, the same terrorists they are "supposedly" hunting:

"It is a fair question to be skeptical of the skeptics to ask why would the British police, why would anyone exaggerate the threat of violence fueling unwarranted fears? But theoretically, at least, it is clear that both terrorists and governments, supposedly hunting terrorists, have motives, both of them have motives, to keep people afraid."

Olbermann utilized the arraignment of British suspects in the plot to blow up U.K. airplanes as an opportunity to replay a ten minute long segment, entitled "The Nexus of Politics and Terror" from last October. In the piece, negative events for the Bush administration are linked to their proximity of terror warnings. The "Countdown" host prefaced the story, which aired at 8:35PM EDT, by questioning if the arrests in England have been hyped:

"Terrorists, after all, do not just want us or anybody dead. Fear is often an even better end result, and few administrations, in American political history, Democratic or Republican, conservative or liberal, can truly say they did not use fear, even exaggerate fear, to justify their actions. And that may or may not explain why the timing of the British arrests was determined not by the lead investigators there, but at the request of our government."

Olbermann also mentioned that "so many" members of his audience asked for the segment to be re-aired. (Perhaps those who clamored for a repeat viewing were the Daily Kos contingent of his viewers.) In closing the piece, the MSNBC anchor seemed to acknowledge that the connection between bad news for President Bush and terror alerts might be a little weak:

"We`ve noted this before, too. You could probably construct a similar time line equating terror events to supermarket openings around the country."

He then disregarded this caveat by stating that it was the seriousness of the charges that mattered, not necessarily their content:

"But if just a reasonable argument could be made that any one of those 11 events or including this latest curious business from London and Washington is more than mere coincidence, then it underscores the need for more questions to be asked in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is fear mongering."

One thing’s certain, the way the media reports bad news for the President, Olbermann will have many more chances to "link" those stories to the continuing terror threat.

You don't fight fire with fire. If you had a legit response, you would have posted some article that praised Fox for being "Fair and Balanced", but you didn't take that high road. Instead, you take the same fucking road that all you neocons try to do nowadays, which is throw mud by the means of accusing others of trying to smear your party. It's such a fucking weak argument that I feel sad for you and anyone who actual buys into that train of thought. You say that you hate "libs" because they "hate america", well, that means that you also hate a huge portion of america and you also must hate the liberal troops(many of them being young black men and women, a demographic which tends to vote democrat). Hating another american because they aren't on your team is sickening and unpatriotic.
 
Oh yeah, don't you dare try to say that you don't "hate" libs and democrats, because almost every single one of your posts is about how those people are stupid, ignorant, wrong, or whatever other fetile minded bullshit comment that comes from your mind. You're a Liberphobe (new word). I'm guessing you're actually a closet liberal who tries to suppress those feelings with a hatred toward those who openly express the views that you fear from exposing to friends and family. What logical reason could there be that you waste so much time posting such non-sense about a group of people (liberals) who are very scarce on this forum. All of your buddies agree with you, libs are dumb. We get it. Some how a bunch of jackasses gave you that much rep points, which is sad because you got most of it for your comments about libs which just stroke the egos of fellow bush-lovers.
 
You don't fight fire with fire. If you had a legit response, you would have posted some article that praised Fox for being "Fair and Balanced", but you didn't take that high road. Instead, you take the same fucking road that all you neocons try to do nowadays, which is throw mud by the means of accusing others of trying to smear your party. It's such a fucking weak argument that I feel sad for you and anyone who actual buys into that train of thought. You say that you hate "libs" because they "hate America", well, that means that you also hate a huge portion of America and you also must hate the liberal troops(many of them being young black men and women, a demographic which tends to vote democrat). Hating another American because they aren't on your team is sickening and unpatriotic.

For one thing who are you talking to?????


For another thing, I have to interject here...
I didn't see anywhere in this thread, where anyone said they hated anyone?
And what gets your alls panties in a bunch these days,(speaking about throwing mud), is just that we're not, well, I can't speak for anyone else here on the board, at least I'm not(a Republican) sitting here idly by any longer and taking it thrown in our faces.....
How's it feel!
Not so good eh......
And if you want to talk about hating, if your a liberal, you need to talk to your own party about all that hating stuff.. My gosh, look what you're all doing to Joe Lieberman, one of your own......hateful, hate, vile.....
So see, that word "hate" can be thrown around so today, but it's just not going to stick any longer when it's tried to be thrown on, ooooooo....... the neo-CONssssssss, Rebublicans..............

I don't HATE hardly anybody, I wont say no one, cause I could think of a few, Hitler, the terrorist, the KKK, and so on....

But I do not agree with the liberal mentality and thought, and I have a right, remember that amendment, to say I don't......

But what tickles me is, this intense hatred for Fox news.....
Hey I don't like CNN or Msnbc....I think their bias...
But I don't sweat my poor little hiney over them.
I just watch Fox instead....:laugh:
 
I just see the same headlines that I see on other news sites. What makes Yahoo's stories "liberal?"http://news.yahoo.com/.

Yeah. My point exactly. They get news headlines from all over.


Uh, I'm pretty sure it is "bad" over there. This last month was the worst month for casualties in Iraq since OUR initial invasion. Should Couric have opened the interview with "Just how good is it over there?" If You and your ilk keep waiting for a sugar-coated rendition of the WAR, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

How things are going aside, a joarnalist would not start an interview with such a leading question. It should have been, "How are things going over there?" or "What is the situation in Iraq?", something along those lines. Saying "Just how bad is it over there?" is like setting the ball on a tee and handing someone a club. It's not even making a weak attempt to sound impartial.


The L.A. Times calls every president and leader "Mr." Why should "Mr. Bush" be any different? Is he a king? Is he a god who should be more revered than previous presidents?

Nice little spin. And you're wrong. I repeat: The LA Times REFUSED to call him President Bush. A story should start by calling him President Bush. Using the term Mr. Bush later in the story is fine. The LA Times would not do that. If the story should have started with "President Bush signed such-n-such bill", they would begin the story by calling him Mr. Bush and never refer to him as president.

Vague references to some "story" in an un-named publication don't sway me one way or the other. Can you provide a link to the "Nessie" of which you speak?

It was in a Chicago paper, and no I can't give you a link. The story was pulled off line when people complained about how blantetly biased, misleading, and unprofessional it was. I'm not trying to sway you. If you are so incredibly blind you can't see the bias in the MSM there is no swaying you. As I said, these were just what I pulled off the top of my head.


Do you mean Abu "Ghraib?" The Abu Ghraib story WAS and still IS big news. The realization that US troops were TORTURING human beings was and is a big deal no matter how much you try to trivialize it. It's bad for foreign relations. It's bad for Americans abroad. It's suggests to other nations that Americans are full of sh*t when we talk about "freedom" and "liberty" and "human rights." And it's awful for the troops you "support" with the yellow magnet you put on the back of your car. If the world knows that US troops torture their prisoners, what do you think will happen to US troops who get captured by enemy combatants? That's right! They'll be tortured.

Guess what, dimwit... THEY'LL BE TORTURED ANYWAY! We're dealing with terrorists! Do you think these murderers who fly planes into buildings and cut peoples heads off would serve them tea and cake if it weren't for someone putting underwear on some criminals head?

Nice how you avoided the actual point, though. I salute you. :321:

"Nuff said?" Bumpersticker mentality at its finest. Whoo! Howdy!

Sometimes that's all you need.


Many illegals (whatever nomenclature you prefer) come to the US to work seasonally or for a few years and then return to their home countries. And all illegals come here to work, so "undocumented worker" is actually a more narrowly taylored label and is, therefore, more accurate.

Bullshit. If you are in this country and you have entered it illegally, then you are an illegal alien, or illegal immigrant if you prefer. Justify careful phrasing all you want.


"Kanye" West didn't make hateful comments. He pointed-out what he percieved as indifference toward a group he cares about, namely his own race. It was plain to everybody that the Bush Administration botched the Katrina relief efforts. Three years later, there are still hundreds homeless or awaiting relief funds to rebuild and thousands living in crime-ridden FEMA trailer parks. It seems like you get mad at the press when they report things you don't want to hear. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Don't hate the messenger, hate the message?" If you have a problem with what the news is, why don't you go out into the world and try to fix some of the problems instead of b*tching about the press because they report it?

Once again, bullshit. If you want my opinion on Katrina, go find the threads. I'm not repeating myself on that subject AGAIN.

Again, vague bullsh*t and sweeping accusations based on nothing. The NYT is the best newspaper in the US barnone. Its reporting has not only won many awards and is respected by everyone in journalism, it has influenced the course of history on several occasions as has CNN and CBS. Your insinuation is ridiculous.

:teeth: The best newspaper in the US, huh... Guess thats why they had to lay so many people off and their sales are down.

Liberals giving Liberals awards is hardly an indication of superiority or fairness. Your justification is what's ridiculous.

Act as-if what isn't there? Your head? That's easy enough for me.

No, your momma on my lap. :banana:
 
Oh yeah, don't you dare try to say that you don't "hate" libs and democrats, because almost every single one of your posts is about how those people are stupid, ignorant, wrong, or whatever other fetile minded bullshit comment that comes from your mind. You're a Liberphobe (new word). I'm guessing you're actually a closet liberal who tries to suppress those feelings with a hatred toward those who openly express the views that you fear from exposing to friends and family. What logical reason could there be that you waste so much time posting such non-sense about a group of people (liberals) who are very scarce on this forum. All of your buddies agree with you, libs are dumb. We get it. Some how a bunch of jackasses gave you that much rep points, which is sad because you got most of it for your comments about libs which just stroke the egos of fellow bush-lovers.

:boohoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top