Why Is FOXNEWS Giving The Trayvon Martin Story Little To No Coverage?

[California Girl]

Interesting, since you just used WIKI as a source, but just a few months ago said this about WIKI:



I love busting you with your own words.

Not 'busting' at all. I don't rate wiki, for the reasons I cited previously... it is too easy to abuse the editing system.

However, they are right... it is a 7% share. And, I know that other people find wiki acceptable... so I go with it.... you can wiggle and whine as much as you like but I proved the statement of 'the saudis run Fox News' to be utter bullshit. That is why you're pissed.

But... I am entertained that you trawled the site in a desperate need to 'prove' something that I would happily have conceded - had you just asked. idiot.

The reason it's a big deal is because with his 7%, he protects Rupert Murdoch from a hostile take over. Everyone knows that. What it does is give this man's seemingly small percentage huge power because Rupert wants to keep him happy. Everyone knows this. It's no secret.

How, precisely, does 'everyone know that'?

You create your own reality if that makes your life easier. I shall remain in the real one, where I cope exceptionally well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting, since you just used WIKI as a source, but just a few months ago said this about WIKI:



I love busting you with your own words.

Not 'busting' at all. I don't rate wiki, for the reasons I cited previously... it is too easy to abuse the editing system.

However, they are right... it is a 7% share. And, I know that other people find wiki acceptable... so I go with it.... you can wiggle and whine as much as you like but I proved the statement of 'the saudis run Fox News' to be utter bullshit. That is why you're pissed.

But... I am entertained that you trawled the site in a desperate need to 'prove' something that I would happily have conceded - had you just asked. idiot.

The reason it's a big deal is because with his 7%, he protects Rupert Murdoch from a hostile take over. Everyone knows that. What it does is give this man's seemingly small percentage huge power because Rupert wants to keep him happy. Everyone knows this. It's no secret.

Thank you for decreasing the net intelligence of the planet.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Synthaholic]

You're quoting a left wing propaganda site as a legitimate source?

7% shareholder..... and you're seriously gonna continue to pretend he 'runs' FNC? Even an idiot can see the numbers don't add up.

I despise willful stupidity. Pathetic spinning and whining instead of using basic logic... you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Interesting, since you just used WIKI as a source, but just a few months ago said this about WIKI:

Seriously, you're citing 'wiki' as the absolute authority?

You do know that it's not a source for unbiased, strictly fact based information, right?

I love busting you with your own words.

Not 'busting' at all. I don't rate wiki, for the reasons I cited previously... it is too easy to abuse the editing system.

Yet you run to wiki when it's conveniet. As I already stated.

However, they are right... it is a 7% share.

How do you know this, if Wiki is unreliable, as you claim?

And, I know that other people find wiki acceptable... so I go with it....

"other people" find MediaMatters, DailyKos and Moveon.org acceptable - do you use those, also? If you ever have, then link up!

You haven't. You won't. You can't.

you can wiggle and whine as much as you like but I proved the statement of 'the saudis run Fox News' to be utter bullshit. That is why you're pissed.

You're confusing me with another poster. Because you're confused. AND busted!

But... I am entertained that you trawled the site in a desperate need to 'prove' something that I would happily have conceded - had you just asked. idiot.

No need - I save definitive statements from wingnuts for just these situations.

 

[old navy]

Oh snap. The Ed Show has stopped covering the Trayvon story. He is now back to Obama ball licking.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't value wiki that highly as a source.... simply because it is open to biased editing and has, on many occasions, been factually inaccurate.​

Yet you are quick to use it when it backs up your contention, right? That's dishonest.

I am independent.... in that I have no allegiance to any political party... I am certainly a fiscal conservative... socially, not so much. That's being independent. Twit.

You are? But you just claimed that you were a conservative. Not "I am fiscally conservative", or "I have some things in common with conservatives" - you said "I'm a conservative". That's also dishonest.

Busted!

You're beginning to sound like a 3 year old, Sythia. If you find me so hard to handle, don't deal with me. You're limited intellect must struggle with anyone who is open minded and rational.... I know those concepts are alien to you.

Stupid boy.

You're the gift that keeps on giving!

 

[Si modo]

Interesting, since you just used WIKI as a source, but just a few months ago said this about WIKI:



I love busting you with your own words.

Not 'busting' at all. I don't rate wiki, for the reasons I cited previously... it is too easy to abuse the editing system.

Yet you run to wiki when it's conveniet. As I already stated.



How do you know this, if Wiki is unreliable, as you claim?



"other people" find MediaMatters, DailyKos and Moveon.org acceptable - do you use those, also? If you ever have, then link up!

You haven't. You won't. You can't.

you can wiggle and whine as much as you like but I proved the statement of 'the saudis run Fox News' to be utter bullshit. That is why you're pissed.

You're confusing me with another poster. Because you're confused. AND busted!

But... I am entertained that you trawled the site in a desperate need to 'prove' something that I would happily have conceded - had you just asked. idiot.

No need - I save definitive statements from wingnuts for just these situations.

Synthia, here is an easy rule of thumb for anyone with respect to using Wiki as a source:

Sure, go to wikipedia, that's fine. If you find the info there that you need, check to see if it's cited to a separate source. If it is, check the source. If that is good, use it.

Easy.

And the 7% is cited, thrice:

35. Murdoch's son sees pay doubled ahead of exit, Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2005.
36. Charlie Rose interview with Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, video.google.com
37. Li, Kenneth (22 January 2010). "Alwaleed backs James Murdoch". Financial Times (Pearson PLC). Retrieved 23 January 2010.

Seems solid to me.

 

[MarcATL]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!!

I got some sweet quotes from Megyn Kelly

This stinks to high heaven, and the way the police handled this, stinks to high heaven...This looks like a terrible situation...As far as second-degree murder, that charge looks very promising for the D.A...The Stand your ground law, that's not what this case is about. Even the guy who authored the law has said, "My law doesn't apply here..." That does not apply when I go over to you, I create the circumstances of a confrontation, then you start using force against me, I can't then use that law to use deadly force against you. It's written right into the law that you can't use that law in those circumstances.

Exactly what myself, and others, have been saying about the matter from the very beginning.

Zimmerman's toast...TOAST I say.

 

[code1211]

It's the biggest, hottest news story in media.

Are they not a media company interesting in keeping the populate updated on the latest and greatest and hottest news?

Any of you wager to guess why such little coverage for the biggest, most powerful media organization on the world?

I worked kind a long day today. It was on Fox and friends as I scooped cat poop and on Shepherd Smith when I got home.

How much coverage is appropriate?

 

[Synthaholic]

Not 'busting' at all. I don't rate wiki, for the reasons I cited previously... it is too easy to abuse the editing system.

Yet you run to wiki when it's conveniet. As I already stated.



How do you know this, if Wiki is unreliable, as you claim?



"other people" find MediaMatters, DailyKos and Moveon.org acceptable - do you use those, also? If you ever have, then link up!

You haven't. You won't. You can't.



You're confusing me with another poster. Because you're confused. AND busted!

But... I am entertained that you trawled the site in a desperate need to 'prove' something that I would happily have conceded - had you just asked. idiot.

No need - I save definitive statements from wingnuts for just these situations.

Synthia, here is an easy rule of thumb for anyone with respect to using Wiki as a source:

Sure, go to wikipedia, that's fine. If you find the info there that you need, check to see if it's cited to a separate source. If it is, check the source. If that is good, use it.

Easy.

And the 7% is cited, thrice:

35. Murdoch's son sees pay doubled ahead of exit, Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2005.
36. Charlie Rose interview with Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, video.google.com
37. Li, Kenneth (22 January 2010). "Alwaleed backs James Murdoch". Financial Times (Pearson PLC). Retrieved 23 January 2010.

Seems solid to me.

I'm not knocking Wiki - I use and trust wiki, for the reasons Sandy mentioned.

I am pointing out that Sandy laughed at wiki as a source back in January. But now she is using it as a source.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!!

I got some sweet quotes from Megyn Kelly

This stinks to high heaven, and the way the police handled this, stinks to high heaven...This looks like a terrible situation...As far as second-degree murder, that charge looks very promising for the D.A...The Stand your ground law, that's not what this case is about. Even the guy who authored the law has said, "My law doesn't apply here..." That does not apply when I go over to you, I create the circumstances of a confrontation, then you start using force against me, I can't then use that law to use deadly force against you. It's written right into the law that you can't use that law in those circumstances.

Exactly what myself, and others, have been saying about the matter from the very beginning.

Zimmerman's toast...TOAST I say.

Good for Ms. Kelly!

 

[Intense]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!!

I got some sweet quotes from Megyn Kelly

This stinks to high heaven, and the way the police handled this, stinks to high heaven...This looks like a terrible situation...As far as second-degree murder, that charge looks very promising for the D.A...The Stand your ground law, that's not what this case is about. Even the guy who authored the law has said, "My law doesn't apply here..." That does not apply when I go over to you, I create the circumstances of a confrontation, then you start using force against me, I can't then use that law to use deadly force against you. It's written right into the law that you can't use that law in those circumstances.

Exactly what myself, and others, have been saying about the matter from the very beginning.

Zimmerman's toast...TOAST I say.

Agreed, it does appear that way. Still, what is important here is building the Case. Tracking down Evidence, Facts, Witness Statements. Everyone is entitled to a fair Trial. From another perspective, we don't want to see Justice denied because of Missteps by the Prosecution. The Incident does have and should have National Attention, because the ball was dropped. Nobody should be obstructing or interfering with the Investigations at this point. We have Interest because we want to see Justice done.

 

[MarcATL]

Now I'm watching the leech Hannity.

Uggghh!!!

 

[MarcATL]

The beady eyed leech, Sean 'I Lost My Sanity' Hannity, is starting off with 'The Muslim Brotherhood'
That's the lead story, aka the biggest story for him today.

 

[Intense]

The beady eyed leech, Sean 'I Lost My Sanity' Hannity, is starting off with 'The Muslim Brotherhood'
That's the lead story, aka the biggest story for him today.

Well, at least you both Love Atlanta.

 

[MarcATL]

The beady eyed one is a good lister. The homosapien, barely, has a knack for listing off things that bash Obama and his Administration. I'm sure the lapdogs and lemmings just lick it up, off the ground and all. He just prattled off a list of things/people that Obama blames for the gas prices. I've seen him do lists of all sorts of things like this. What a putz.

 

[MarcATL]

The beady eyed leech, Sean 'I Lost My Sanity' Hannity, is starting off with 'The Muslim Brotherhood'
That's the lead story, aka the biggest story for him today.

Well, at least you both Love Atlanta.

Actually, I love NY. Although this is my 4th year here since leaving NYC, I'm still in a NY state of mind.

 

[MarcATL]

Hannity's question on the Trayvon case is "with no eyewitnesses, how do we get to the bottom of this?" He's covering it now.

 

[whitehall]

What does the left expect to gain out of this post? They must know it's a lie. Hannity devoted the better part of the last couple of his TV programs and radio show to the situation. Shep Smith had a story about a protest regarding the tragedy today. Clearly Fox has covered the story as well if not better than the liberal alphabet networks so what's the problem? Does the radical left believe what they are posting or is it wishful thinking or mental incompetence caused by intense hatred for fair and balanced news?

 

[MarcATL]

We just don't know if this was an accident or something unintentional. We just don't know.

See the direction that palooka's going?

LoL!!! So transparent.

*SMH*

 

[Intense]

The beady eyed leech, Sean 'I Lost My Sanity' Hannity, is starting off with 'The Muslim Brotherhood'
That's the lead story, aka the biggest story for him today.

Well, at least you both Love Atlanta.

Actually, I love NY. Although this is my 4th year here since leaving NYC, I'm still in a NY state of mind.

New Yorker's Never Leave it behind, at least in Our Minds.