*&%$#$ Liberal media bias strikes again!

[glockmail]

...that wasnt your response. at least thats not what you said. but anyway, its a news channel. they are responsible for who they put on. do you think its ok for them to joke about assassination?

and i never said it was a certain show that did it. i said fox. but i guess since it didnt "appear" to be a news section of the station fox NEWS that makes it perfectly fine.

Wow you appear to be confused. Let me try to explain it to you as simply as possible.

FNC has news and commentary. The news shows try to be "fair and balanced". They've been very successful at that- the proof is that their ratings have eclipsed all other cable news shows.

FNC also has commentary shows. Think of them as "editorials". They don't have to be "fair and balanced", as they showcase people's opinions.

With regards to your childish insinuation that I think its OK for an FNC contributor to want Obama to be assassinated, I have never seen the woman who made that comment. In fact I was incorrect when I assumed that she wasn't a contributor. I suspect that she was quietly shit-canned as a contributor for making that remark, or at least, only rarely invited.

 

[glockmail]

That's not a reasonable request and you know it. Just like it would be unreasonable for me ask you to verify that the photoshop was done by the left.

But what I can do is offer some reasonably sound logic supporting the theory.

1. Whoever did it HAD to know it would eventually be proven a fake.

2. The lefty bloggers that creamed their drawers over this do in fact look like jackasses now.

3. Which side has benefitted in the end?

Its entirely reasonable to ask an accuser for proof, especially when that accuser now has theories that go along with the baseless allegation.

 

[Ravi]

That's not a reasonable request and you know it. Just like it would be unreasonable for me ask you to verify that the photoshop was done by the left.

But what I can do is offer some reasonably sound logic supporting the theory.

1. Whoever did it HAD to know it would eventually be proven a fake.

2. The lefty bloggers that creamed their drawers over this do in fact look like jackasses now.

3. Which side has benefitted in the end?

I knew you were a McCain plant.

btw, you're the only one in this thread that looks like a jackass.

 

[busara]

Wow you appear to be confused. Let me try to explain it to you as simply as possible.

FNC has news and commentary. The news shows try to be "fair and balanced". They've been very successful at that- the proof is that their ratings have eclipsed all other cable news shows.

FNC also has commentary shows. Think of them as "editorials". They don't have to be "fair and balanced", as they showcase people's opinions.

With regards to your childish insinuation that I think its OK for an FNC contributor to want Obama to be assassinated, I have never seen the woman who made that comment. In fact I was incorrect when I assumed that she wasn't a contributor. I suspect that she was quietly shit-canned as a contributor for making that remark, or at least, only rarely invited.

oh, really? i had no idea! thank you for clearing that up for me. that really shows that the fox news channel isnt biased!

this whole time ive been saying the channel was biased. you saying that their commentaries arent fair and balanced really disproves my position

 

[manifold]

Its entirely reasonable to ask an accuser for proof, especially when that accuser now has theories that go along with the baseless allegation.

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I merely advanced a theory.

 

[manifold]

I knew you were a McCain plant.

btw, you're the only one in this thread that looks like a jackass.

btw: this sig's for you!

 

[DiveCon]

btw: this sig's for you!

oh man, you are in SOOOOO much trouble for that sig

 

[AllieBaba]

oh, really? i had no idea! thank you for clearing that up for me. that really shows that the fox news channel isnt biased!

this whole time ive been saying the channel was biased. you saying that their commentaries arent fair and balanced really disproves my position

COMMENTARIES aren't expected to be non-biased. They're COMMENTARIES, i.e., somebody's own opinion of an event or events. They're like editorials. They aren't THE news, they're somebody's TAKE on the news. Do you understand?

Fox has been consistent in it's truthful portrayal of who is doing what. For example, Bill O'Reilly STATES he is giving opinions. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be anything than a conservative, whose aim is to expose and defeat the left and support the right.

Where BIAS is a problem is where you have networks/anchormen who do not admit to bias submitting reports which are biased, while claiming to be objective, and burying news which is contrary to their agenda...which they do not openly proclaim. Hence the problem with people like Dan Rather, blondie boy Cooper, and pretty much anyone on BBC or PBS. They have an agenda, but they deny it. They twist and tweak the news, they hold back information and present as TRUTH information they know to be faulty, unproven, or out and out lies.

YOu can't say, "Fox is biased because the guys doing the commentaries don't like the left". That doesn't prove their news is biased. It proves the commentators of those commentaries are biased...which is what they are paid to do. Editorialize. Comment. Give their own personal opinions. But it's done honestly.

 

[busara]

COMMENTARIES aren't expected to be non-biased. They're COMMENTARIES, i.e., somebody's own opinion of an event or events. They're like editorials. They aren't THE news, they're somebody's TAKE on the news. Do you understand?

Fox has been consistent in it's truthful portrayal of who is doing what. For example, Bill O'Reilly STATES he is giving opinions. Sean Hannity does not pretend to be anything than a conservative, whose aim is to expose and defeat the left and support the right.

Where BIAS is a problem is where you have networks/anchormen who do not admit to bias submitting reports which are biased, while claiming to be objective, and burying news which is contrary to their agenda...which they do not openly proclaim. Hence the problem with people like Dan Rather, blondie boy Cooper, and pretty much anyone on BBC or PBS. They have an agenda, but they deny it. They twist and tweak the news, they hold back information and present as TRUTH information they know to be faulty, unproven, or out and out lies.

YOu can't say, "Fox is biased because the guys doing the commentaries don't like the left". That doesn't prove their news is biased. It proves the commentators of those commentaries are biased...which is what they are paid to do. Editorialize. Comment. Give their own personal opinions. But it's done honestly.

for the last time, i said the channel. the channel. the channel. get it? the channel. their particular news shows are on the channel. so are the commentaries. that makes the channel biased. and the channel is called Fox News. is that clear enough?

 

[DiveCon]

for the last time, i said the channel. the channel. the channel. get it? the channel. their particular news shows are on the channel. so are the commentaries. that makes the channel biased. and the channel is called Fox News. is that clear enough?

yes, and they also have on people from the other side
also, Shep Smith is not conservative, neither is Greta
on the whole, i would say they present a far more balanced view than any of the others
now, granted, thats not saying much for the biased networks either

 

[busara]

yes, and they also have on people from the other side
also, Shep Smith is not conservative, neither is Greta
on the whole, i would say they present a far more balanced view than any of the others
now, granted, thats not saying much for the biased networks either

can you show that to be true? people on both sides always complain about bias on the stations. it would be nice to have some real evidence to show one is more than the others

 

[AllieBaba]

for the last time, i said the channel. the channel. the channel. get it? the channel. their particular news shows are on the channel. so are the commentaries. that makes the channel biased. and the channel is called Fox News. is that clear enough?

So long as you aren't implying that the news as they report it is biased based upon their commentaries.

Because generally, as far as I can see, it isn't.

But the channel itself, I see what you're saying. They don't air the left wing garbage many do, so I guess that makes them lean to the right.

 

[manifold]

Because generally, as far as I can see, it isn't.

That's not exactly a convincing argument since you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[DiveCon]

can you show that to be true? people on both sides always complain about bias on the stations. it would be nice to have some real evidence to show one is more than the others

oh, so only Fox News is biased?

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not exactly a convincing argument since you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

No, I know my own ass from a hole in the ground.

I can't, however, distinguish between your ass and a hole in the ground.

 

[AllieBaba]

Do you ever suffer fear of rodents climbing in and setting up house?

 

[manifold]

No, I know my own ass from a hole in the ground.

I can't, however, distinguish between your ass and a hole in the ground.

Then let me help you with that. The one you shit in is the hole in the ground you backwoods, redneck fuck!

 

[DiveCon]

Then let me help you with that. The one you shit in is the hole in the ground you backwoods, redneck fuck!

with that sig you are calling HER backwards?


kinda ironic

 

[manifold]

with that sig you are calling HER backwards?


kinda ironic

The difference is I'm joking...on both counts. She's totally fucking serious.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then let me help you with that. The one you shit in is the hole in the ground you backwoods, redneck fuck!

So you have no fear of ass rodents?

Somehow I didn't think you would...