Oh fuck this ethical media shit... ATTACK!

[ogibillm]

people can claim that news part of fox news (for the five minutes it's on a day) has no agenda just as soon as they stop using the term 'homicide bomber'

What is wrong with the term, ass-monkey????

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

 

[FuelRod]

that terrorists are murderers? How DARE they!?

 

[ogibillm]

that terrorists are murderers? How DARE they!?

it's not descriptive. timothy mcveigh was a 'homicide bomber'
the unibomber was a homicide bomber - but they weren't suicide bombers.

and what do you call a suicide bomber that fails to kill anyone else? are they still a homicide bomber?

it's an inaccurate term invented to play to a base - nothing else.

 

[hortysir]

people can claim that news part of fox news (for the five minutes it's on a day) has no agenda just as soon as they stop using the term 'homicide bomber'

What is wrong with the term, ass-monkey????

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

So is your name, pillow-biter....

But the act, itself, doesn't advance an agenda?


The people I meet here...

 

[FuelRod]

that terrorists are murderers? How DARE they!?

it's not descriptive. timothy mcveigh was a 'homicide bomber'
the unibomber was a homicide bomber - but they weren't suicide bombers.

and what do you call a suicide bomber that fails to kill anyone else? are they still a homicide bomber?

it's an inaccurate term invented to play to a base - nothing else.

It puts the focus on the criminal not the victim(s).

 

[ogibillm]

What is wrong with the term, ass-monkey????

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

So is your name, pillow-biter....

But the act, itself, doesn't advance an agenda?


The people I meet here...

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

 

[FuelRod]

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

So is your name, pillow-biter....

But the act, itself, doesn't advance an agenda?


The people I meet here...

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

The description is factual. What's wrong with an agenda of taking the focus away from the criminal and putting it on the victim?

 

[peach174]

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

So is your name, pillow-biter....

But the act, itself, doesn't advance an agenda?


The people I meet here...

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

That is exactly what the mainstream media has done. That is why Fox News has come into being. People were getting sick and tired of just the left wing agenda.

 

[ogibillm]

So is your name, pillow-biter....

But the act, itself, doesn't advance an agenda?


The people I meet here...

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

The description is factual. What's wrong with an agenda of taking the focus away from the criminal and putting it on the victim?

it's a term without meaning.

i assume when we talk about a bomber that there was an intent to kill. i further assume that when they report the number of people killed that they were killed in a homicide.

homicide bomber as a term gives me no new information. it's redundant.

truck bomber. mail bomber. suicide bomber. those tell me something. homicide bomber... all that tells me is someone died - a piece of news guaranteed to be elsewhere in the article.

and you need to ask yourself - if the term is all that great why is it that fox news is the only outlet that uses 'homicide bomber?' the answer is simple - they're pushing an agenda and playing to a base.

 

[mudwhistle]

who on cnn do you consider hard left?

Doesn't client #9 have his own show?

Or is that CBS?

I'm not sure, they're all the same.

 

[FuelRod]

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

The description is factual. What's wrong with an agenda of taking the focus away from the criminal and putting it on the victim?

it's a term without meaning.

i assume when we talk about a bomber that there was an intent to kill. i further assume that when they report the number of people killed that they were killed in a homicide.

homicide bomber as a term gives me no new information. it's redundant.

truck bomber. mail bomber. suicide bomber. those tell me something. homicide bomber... all that tells me is someone died - a piece of news guaranteed to be elsewhere in the article.

and you need to ask yourself - if the term is all that great why is it that fox news is the only outlet that uses 'homicide bomber?' the answer is simple - they're pushing an agenda and playing to a base.

Ultimately your issue is the "base" outnumbers you and yours....greatly.
Move along..nothing to see here.

 

[peach174]

Playing to a base? Why do they have such a diverse audience then?
Their viewer's consist of Repubs, Independents and Dem's.

 

[mudwhistle]

people can claim that news part of fox news (for the five minutes it's on a day) has no agenda just as soon as they stop using the term 'homicide bomber'

What is wrong with the term, ass-monkey????

it's non-descriptive and redundant.

it was also invented to placate the right wing. in other words it was invented to push an agenda.

I don't believe Ass-Monkey has any political meaning to it.

It just means you're a clown, an abortion, a cluster-fuck, a loser.

In other words a complete zero.

 

[peach174]

You lefties have such a problem with Fox. What would you all do if there was 3 or 4 more News outlets like Fox?
Fox would not exist if the mainstream news had changed their programs and reporting to fit what the viewers had said that they wanted. They all just ignored the complaints that they were getting. Sooooo
up popped Fox.
And now the left is having a hissy fit about it.

 

[Big Fitz]

that terrorists are murderers? How DARE they!?

it's not descriptive. timothy mcveigh was a 'homicide bomber'
the unibomber was a homicide bomber - but they weren't suicide bombers.

and what do you call a suicide bomber that fails to kill anyone else? are they still a homicide bomber?

it's an inaccurate term invented to play to a base - nothing else.

It puts the focus on the criminal not the victim(s).

for once.

 

[Big Fitz]

your quick on the insults and slow on the uptake.

i have said nothing about the act - just that changing the term to something less descriptive but more acceptable to your base shows a clear agenda.

when a reporter reports they should at least have the integrity not to be so blatant in their agenda.

The description is factual. What's wrong with an agenda of taking the focus away from the criminal and putting it on the victim?

it's a term without meaning.

i assume when we talk about a bomber that there was an intent to kill. i further assume that when they report the number of people killed that they were killed in a homicide.

homicide bomber as a term gives me no new information. it's redundant.

truck bomber. mail bomber. suicide bomber. those tell me something. homicide bomber... all that tells me is someone died - a piece of news guaranteed to be elsewhere in the article.

and you need to ask yourself - if the term is all that great why is it that fox news is the only outlet that uses 'homicide bomber?' the answer is simple - they're pushing an agenda and playing to a base.

You're looking for a way to make the act less damning.

A truck bomber. What does that tell us? A truck blew up.
A car bomber. A car blew up.
A homicide bomber. People died in an explosion.
A suicide bomber. Someone blew themselves up on purpose.

I think that's a rather distinct point that needs to be made. What purpose is served by not calling a murderer what they are? Is there a good reason you do not want to label those who kill in the name of their psychotic twisted apostasy of a faith what they are? Who do you desire to protect by hiding the accurate label?

 

[MaggieMae]

I do believe I can laugh at every 'media matters' link from now on with much more authority.

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

What's the old adage? It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

 

[Big Fitz]

who on cnn do you consider hard left?

Doesn't client #9 have his own show?

Or is that CBS?

I'm not sure, they're all the same.

He does. The 'balance' they gave him quit in disgust or was fired in disgust. Either way, it's still disgusting. Anderscum Pooper's marginally better.

 

[Big Fitz]

I do believe I can laugh at every 'media matters' link from now on with much more authority.

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

What's the old adage? It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

didn't realize 'defamer of character' and 'libeler' was a career choice.

 

[MaggieMae]

who on cnn do you consider hard left?

CNN has an honest mix. I enjoy John King's 7PM program where his political panel is consistently even with contributors like Bill Bennett, Eric Erickson, Mary Matalin from the right, and James Carville (her husband), John Avlon and Roland Martin from the left, among others from both "sides." Everyone has a chance to speak his/her mind, there's no talking over one another or yelling, so you can get a clear assessment of wide-ranging opinions on issues of the day.

The "test slot" at 8PM is still not working, though, with Elliott Spitzer as provacateur, so without Kathleen Parker as his counter-person, I no longer watch it.