Unfair&Unbalanced Fox News

Jay

Jay

CAG Ultra Noob
I never hated a single network in my life like i hate fox news their journalist are so damn bias they should just change their logo to fox new home of the rich republican.What really pisses me off about them is they choose to ignore major stories like the fat cop beating the female bartender or the jena 6 case but yet can put on stories about joe francise the girls gone wild loser or dog the jobless bounty hunter who they tried to make look like a angel.

Another thing is there obvious alliance to the republican party how many times can they praise rudy "look what i did for new york"giuliani hell they even praise some guy from televesion who doesn't seem to know shit(just watch him in any debate)but praise him anyway because he is a good ole republican.I've seem so many anti obama and clinton stories you would think that channel is devoted to bashing those two candidates.

Fair and Balanced My Ass!


I've never wanted to punch these people more the anyone else in the world,

1.Bill Oreilly
2.Sean Hannity
3.Dick Morris
4.Neil Cavuto
5.Ann Coulter
6.Michelle Malkin
 
Well, the rest of the media has such a liberal slant so Republicans deserve at least one conservative media outlet, no?
 
Really? My personal least favorite is deliberately-cast-for-the-role Alan Colmes. Weak, effete, Skeletor-lookin' liberal who really only contributes to H&C when he fails to defend Hannity's nonsensical attacks against Democrats.

"Yeah, Sean, I hate it when the Dems do that too."

Motherfucker is all like Charlie McCarthy to Hannity's Edgar Bergen.

The rest of the channel is pure comedy. 24 hour news needed to develop a dramatic hook to keep you watching - CNN started it, but FOX perfected it.

Let me be clear: 24 hour news channels are fake, and if you didn't know that, I got some other, unfortunate news for you.
so is professional wrestling
.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Let me be clear: 24 hour news channels are fake, and if you didn't know that, I got some other, unfortunate news for you.
so is professional wrestling
.[/quote]

Nice.

It does seem like that poor bastard Colmes was deliberately picked because he looks so weak and wierd and is simply a whipping boy for Fox's rightist pundits.

O'Reily is entertaining, but doesn't he remind you of that Orwellian media guy from V for Vendetta? Does anybody know who I'm talking about? My old boss was on his show when we represented a girl whose teacher wouldn't let her go to the bathroom so she crapped her pants. Good stuff.

As to the media being liberally biased, I really don't see it and have never seen it. They are all owned and run by rich white people. If it is, maybe its because the networks are based and run out of locations on the coasts, aka blue states, aka civilization. Is it liberally biased because it doesn't represent the red-neck racists hicks in middle america?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Well, the rest of the media has such a liberal slant so Republicans deserve at least one conservative media outlet, no?[/quote]

As Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
 
[quote name='pittpizza']O'Reily is entertaining, but doesn't he remind you of that Orwellian media guy from V for Vendetta? Does anybody know who I'm talking about? My old boss was on his show when we represented a girl whose teacher wouldn't let her go to the bathroom so she crapped her pants. Good stuff.

As to the media being liberally biased, I really don't see it and have never seen it. They are all owned and run by rich white people. If it is, maybe its because the networks are based and run out of locations on the coasts, aka blue states, aka civilization. Is it liberally biased because it doesn't represent the red-neck racists hicks in middle america?[/quote]
I'm sure they modelled that guy after O'Reilly. The resemblance is keen, to be sure.

As an ex-conservative (Myke can attest to what a facist fucktard I used to be- I'll never forget, back in '04 I made a thread called 'who would you chose for president out of anyone in the nation', and I chose that psychotic douche Michael Savage, and Myke's post was simply "fuckin' Savage? You want us to become Nazi germany?"), I can safely say, when something doesn't conform exactly to neocon standards, it's automatically a socialist rag. Ironically enough something that would, to a normal person, appear to be right-wing may appear liberal to a number of conservatives, which just shows how backwards that particular part of the spectrum is. For example, I remember talking with fellow neocons in highschool (gag) and taling about what a flaming liberal George Bush was because he wasn't erecting rivers of fire across the mexican-american border or rounding up homosexuals to be put to death.

Eeeyup. I said that.

Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, et al. had nothing on me.

So, essentially, yes: unless it panders to the laughable concept of hardcore conserative values, it's a socialist liberal hate-mongering beatnick commie rag!
 
To be fair, Greta van Susteren on Fox News is quite good IMO. She's the anti-Nancy Grace. Greta is intelligent and doesn't sensationalize like Grace. Also, she doesn't react to a story for the sake of the camera.

Every news station is fine until people see political views they disagree with. Take the political stories out and they all are generally the same.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Every news station is fine until people see political views they disagree with. Take the political stories out and they all are generally the same.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. I don't like Keith Olbermann, despite agreeing with the majority of what he says. I enjoy his show, but I also don't consider it to be a "news" show, like I don't consider O'Reilly/Hannity/Lou Dobbs/sometimes Chris Matthews "news" shows. Jon Stewart may have killed off "Crossfire" single-handedly, but the format/idea of bringing pro-wrestling style showmanship and conflict and marrying it with political ideology hasn't gone anywhere.

The stuff is good entertainment, but it isn't news. To me. I do realize that many people are informed by these sources, and that's what troubles me. Also, when you have folks like Brit Hume and Shepard Smith presenting "news" shows with far more subtle and covert commentary.

O'Reilly is dangerous to idiots - but not to you. You know better (the royal "you," not just you, Guile). You can watch his show with a healthy dose of skepticism and recognize where he may be misinformed, where he may be biasing his statements, and recognize where little more than mere opinion may be. But seeing Neil Cavuto present a story that seeks to discuss the idea of Democrats want to lose the war in Iraq, and put that off as genuine news - or Charles Gibson talking about his fabricated War on Christmas? That's much more dangerous, IMO. O'Reilly's just annoying.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Maybe. I don't like Keith Olbermann, despite agreeing with the majority of what he says. I enjoy his show, but I also don't consider it to be a "news" show, like I don't consider O'Reilly/Hannity/Lou Dobbs/sometimes Chris Matthews "news" shows. Jon Stewart may have killed off "Crossfire" single-handedly, but the format/idea of bringing pro-wrestling style showmanship and conflict and marrying it with political ideology hasn't gone anywhere.[/quote]

I think throwing Keith Olbermann in with the likes of O'Reilly and Matthews is wrong. While he does have a point of view, he's not annoying, he is factual and fair, he gets relatively in depth with his stories, and he covers stories from angles that a lot of the MSM won't. He's also willing to admit when he's made a mistake, and he doesn't take himself too seriously.

His show also bears no resemblence to O'Reilly, Hardball, etc. in that there really is no pro-wrestling-level fighting or other such bullshit.
 
[quote name='Trenchalicious']I'm suprised they haven't put Rush Limbaugh on the network yet.[/quote]

Fox News is too liberal for Rush.
 
Have you guys ever thought about maybe not watching the channel? I'm sure you can find something more "entertaining" on Lifetime or Spike.
 
im just glad tony snow isnt on there anymore, he was my least favorite.

i never watch fox news, sometimes i peek in on oreilly, but i usually turn it off unless he has a guest i want to see.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im just glad tony snow isnt on there anymore, he was my least favorite.[/QUOTE]

No way, Shepard Smith, Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy are far, far more annoying than Snow ever was.

But I was really posting to laugh at evanft's description of Olbermann as "factual and fair." I'm sure he agrees with the derision directed at Fox News people though, how fair.
 
Fox so called news today seemed to make up another story dealing with Mrs. Clinton killing some woman's cats.

Remember they made up some bullshit months ago saying that Obama is a Muslim (oh noes!), and when that turned out to be a ly they came out and said CLinton told them that. Clinton then came out and said they are liars.

At least Olberman doesn't make up important news stories.
 
[quote name='Mugen']I never hated a single network in my life like i hate fox news their journalist are so damn bias they should just change their logo to fox new home of the rich republican.What really pisses me off about them is they choose to ignore major stories like the fat cop beating the female bartender or the jena 6 case but yet can put on stories about joe francise the girls gone wild loser or dog the jobless bounty hunter who they tried to make look like a angel.

Another thing is there obvious alliance to the republican party how many times can they praise rudy "look what i did for new york"giuliani hell they even praise some guy from televesion who doesn't seem to know shit(just watch him in any debate)but praise him anyway because he is a good ole republican.I've seem so many anti obama and clinton stories you would think that channel is devoted to bashing those two candidates.

Fair and Balanced My Ass!


I've never wanted to punch these people more the anyone else in the world,

1.Bill Oreilly
2.Sean Hannity
3.Dick Morris
4.Neil Cavuto
5.Ann Coulter
6.Michelle Malkin[/QUOTE]
Periods aren't just for women.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Well, the rest of the media has such a liberal slant so Republicans deserve at least one conservative media outlet, no?[/QUOTE]

I think other new networks seem to be fair to both parties,when was the last time you saw a negative republican story on fox news.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I'm challenging Ann Coulter to a Bra & Panties match at Wrestlemania 30

Man I hate her.[/QUOTE]

You might have to challenge someone else ann coulter is a tranny.
 
[quote name='Brak']Periods aren't just for women.[/QUOTE]

Really,thanks professor brak that was quite educational.
 
[quote name='Mugen']I think other new networks seem to be fair to both parties,when was the last time you saw a negative republican story on fox news.[/QUOTE]

Academic research would prove you wrong. Nearly every media scholar (as in people who look at this professionally), have found that there is equitable biased reporting on all networks, it's just that Fox News leans to the right and the rest of the networks lean to the left.
 
[quote name='Mugen']Really,thanks professor brak that was quite educational.[/QUOTE]
It must have been, as you're now harnessing the power of punctuation.
 
[quote name='lordwow']Academic research would prove you wrong. Nearly every media scholar (as in people who look at this professionally), have found that there is equitable biased reporting on all networks, it's just that Fox News leans to the right and the rest of the networks lean to the left.[/QUOTE]

Put up or shut up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Maybe. I don't like Keith Olbermann, despite agreeing with the majority of what he says. I enjoy his show, but I also don't consider it to be a "news" show, like I don't consider O'Reilly/Hannity/Lou Dobbs/sometimes Chris Matthews "news" shows. Jon Stewart may have killed off "Crossfire" single-handedly, but the format/idea of bringing pro-wrestling style showmanship and conflict and marrying it with political ideology hasn't gone anywhere.

The stuff is good entertainment, but it isn't news. To me. I do realize that many people are informed by these sources, and that's what troubles me. Also, when you have folks like Brit Hume and Shepard Smith presenting "news" shows with far more subtle and covert commentary.

O'Reilly is dangerous to idiots - but not to you. You know better (the royal "you," not just you, Guile). You can watch his show with a healthy dose of skepticism and recognize where he may be misinformed, where he may be biasing his statements, and recognize where little more than mere opinion may be. But seeing Neil Cavuto present a story that seeks to discuss the idea of Democrats want to lose the war in Iraq, and put that off as genuine news - or Charles Gibson talking about his fabricated War on Christmas? That's much more dangerous, IMO. O'Reilly's just annoying.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, I enjoy Olbermann and think he's off-base (by being to sensationalistic) much of the time.

FNC isn't even entertainment to me. The morning show makes me want to punch babies with the aforementioned abortions the male hosts are. Oh Really? is Limbaugh for Prime Time. You ever try to watch the Saturday money shows? Holy shit is that good entertainment, though. If by what you find entertaining is people trying to make themselves look as dumb as possible.

I think the only halfway credible guy on there is Cavuto, mainly because he is an accomplished journalist and not someone they picked off of America's Next Top Model to come in and pretend to read the news.

While CNN is by no means a stellar news reporting organization, I tend to not want to turn off the TV after watching for ten minutes. Glenn Beck usually gets about 5 seconds.
 
I can try to tell you this without sounding too arrogant and conceited, but having a college, and then professional legal education really affects the way one looks at information. Not necessarily in a "I'm much more cynical" context, but moreso in a way that I am more cognizant of the source and the source's interests. A good citizen in a democracy should approach news media with these questions in mind: Who is this information coming from, why, and how are their interests served by their message? In what way does this information affect me and does that mesh with how the media wants it to affect me/make me feel? It is with this critical approach that one can "cut through the shit" and still stay informed and knowledgable.

News media, after all, is a business. They are not, on the other hand, not-for-profit organizations. They make money by getting viewers and the best way to get viewers is by ENTERTAINING, not unfortunately, by INFORMING. Considering the vast differences in those two things--that is entertaining and informing--it stands to reason that subsequent to our parent's (My parent's anyway) news generation where people actually did believe what they heard in the news because the networks still had credibility, the news has become more closely akin to professional wrestling than the unbiased presentation of information.

This is why it is absolutely crucial to diversify your sources of information. I listen to National Public Radio for about an hour every day while commuting and it never ceases to impress me. Not only is the reporting truly unbiased (it's no coincidence that NPR is a non-profit organization) but the types of stories that they choose to cover is refreshing and worldly because they cover different cultures, art forms, etc... I spend about the same amount of time getting news from www.bbc.com which is another great news source if you're interested.

Thats all for now.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Fox so called news today seemed to make up another story dealing with Mrs. Clinton killing some woman's cats.[/QUOTE]

I thought you were full of it.

COLMES: And he also says that what's claimed to be a cat, an FBI forensic team actually got that and found out it was a raccoon, not a cat.

WILLEY: Wait a second now. Wait one second. Two days after my deposition in the Paula Jones case, I opened my front door. I live out in the country. There was an animal skull sitting on my porch. That was put there by somebody.

I have never seen before that — never saw any kind of an animal part. I have dogs and cats. It was sitting on my porch, facing the door when I opened it.

COLMES: Do you have any evidence of anybody purposely putting it there and who that might have been?

WILLEY: Did I see anybody do it? No. But — I would not see anybody do that.

COLMES: Do you think the Clintons would be involved?

WILLEY: Yes, I think Bill and Hillary Clinton tip-toed up on my porch.

COLMES: They themselves, a president of United States would be involved in putting an animal on your porch?

WILLEY: I think Hillary — I know that Hillary and Bill Clinton participated in hiring people like Jack Palladino, like Terry Lenzner, like Palatano out in California to intimidate me, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly (INAUDIBLE) and others that I can't name.

HANNITY: Dick — Dick Morris called them the secret police.

WILLEY: Secret police.

HANNITY: And he went into great detail. But this was the strategy to stop the bimbo eruptions, et cetera, here.

I want to go back to this. On the eve of your testimony in the Paula Jones case, there was — you lost your cat. And there was somebody came up to you, a stranger, and mentioned...

WILLEY: He had run away, or he had — just turned up missing.

HANNITY: Your cat did. But you ran into a stranger who mentioned the loss of your cat, and your cat's name, and your children by name.

WILLEY: I didn't run into him. He approached me one morning. He alluded to the fact. He alluded to my cat by name in the past tense. He said, "How is that — how is — he was a nice cat." He said, "That Bullseye was a nice cat."
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309556,00.html

Cochese, Cavuto isn't bad, but I think that his bias is certainly there when, while interviewig Toby Keith about the current market conditions (!?!?!?!), began to inquire about him being a "Democrat." This was neatly followed up by a voluntary Keith testimonial on how he is pro-Iraq War, the current Democrats are all misguided pussies, and how Bush is doing a good job. I kid you not.

My biggest problem with Cavuto is that I can't picture him without imaging him at his desk surounded by Hooters girls, as he interviewed them too.

Toby Keith and Hooters girls on the money show. That speaks voiumes.

[quote name='lordwow']Academic research would prove you wrong. Nearly every media scholar (as in people who look at this professionally), have found that there is equitable biased reporting on all networks, it's just that Fox News leans to the right and the rest of the networks lean to the left.[/QUOTE]

It's equitable all around, even though only one network leans right? That's rather contradictory, no?
 
I think that's a product of the network, though. As I said, check out the Saturday shows.

"Kids denied Christmas Pageant: Will Stocks Plunge?"

I kid you not.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I can try to tell you this without sounding too arrogant and conceited, but having a college, and then professional legal education really affects the way one looks at information. Not necessarily in a "I'm much more cynical" context, but moreso in a way that I am more cognizant of the source and the source's interests. A good citizen in a democracy should approach news media with these questions in mind: Who is this information coming from, why, and how are their interests served by their message? In what way does this information affect me and does that mesh with how the media wants it to affect me/make me feel? It is with this critical approach that one can "cut through the shit" and still stay informed and knowledgable.

News media, after all, is a business. They are not, on the other hand, not-for-profit organizations. They make money by getting viewers and the best way to get viewers is by ENTERTAINING, not unfortunately, by INFORMING. Considering the vast differences in those two things--that is entertaining and informing--it stands to reason that subsequent to our parent's (My parent's anyway) news generation where people actually did believe what they heard in the news because the networks still had credibility, the news has become more closely akin to professional wrestling than the unbiased presentation of information.

This is why it is absolutely crucial to diversify your sources of information. I listen to National Public Radio for about an hour every day while commuting and it never ceases to impress me. Not only is the reporting truly unbiased (it's no coincidence that NPR is a non-profit organization) but the types of stories that they choose to cover is refreshing and worldly because they cover different cultures, art forms, etc... I spend about the same amount of time getting news from www.bbc.com which is another great news source if you're interested.

Thats all for now.[/quote]

I enjoy NPR, although I haven't listened to it in a long time. All Things Considered is a good program.
 
I absolutely abhor FNC. It's the National Inquirer for the eyes. Though it's out of the normal 24hr news format, I'd take CNBC any day of the week. At least their newswomen are good looking AND intelligent.
 
I dislike all 24hour news althought I do watch it for brief seconds if something big happens. I tend to my get information from newspapers.
There are far to many cases when I have watched the news only to get angre with there depictions of scenes. One such occasion in which they were talking about some problems in the middle east they showed film of a women wearing a Niqab, a veil which islamic women must wear which covers there face, coming out of a super market. How did this depict middle eastern disputes? Was the women even middle eastern? Another incident was during the Hurricane Katrina in which they showed some african american people taking food from a broken down store in which the news women states how some people had begun to loot and steal. Then another clip showed a white women and child taking food from another such store while stating how they were fighting to survive.
 
Say what you will about Fox News -- its actual news staff, ala Brit Hume, are less biased in their reporting than you'd expect. The problem I've always had with Fox News is that the line between when they have a news show and when they have an editorial program are so blurred that it's barely worth the time to watch.

All their editorial shows have a right-lean to them and with blurry lines between their editorial programs and news programs...it's bad news...pun intended.
 
Brit Hume was a former editor for The Weekly Standard, and not to be trusted.

I trust Bill O'Reilly's background with "A Current Affair" more than TWS.
 
Fair enough, I can understand where you're coming from. I've just found from watching him on TV that his bias isn't as bad as people make it out to be...

It's also hard to defend FoxNews' bias when people like Tony Snow jump from Fox correspondent to the President's PR guy.
 
Fox Host Says Dissenters Should Be Tased
201107kilmead.jpg


Kilmead laments that people who confront politicians aren't "beaten to a pulp," as establishment continues to sell war on anyone who disagrees with authority


During a discussion about a Code Pink member heckling Hillary Clinton at a recent event, Fox News host Brian Kilmead said that people who confront politicians are "threatening" and should be Tased or "beaten to a pulp," as the establishment media continues to sell the idea that anyone who disagrees with authority should be brutally punished.




A segment on the Fox and Friends morning show yesterday turned into an opportunity for Kilmead to share his dictatorial fetish that dissenters be dealt with in the proper manner, as footage aired of Clinton's heckler being removed from the event by security.
“They should Tase this guy,” Kilmead says. “At one point with security so high and tensions on edge, don’t you think they’re going to get at the very least Tased or beaten to a pulp by somebody? These people look threatening.”​





 
[quote name='t0llenz']It's also hard to defend FoxNews' bias when people like Tony Snow jump from Fox correspondent to the President's PR guy.[/QUOTE]

It's no worse than people like George Stephanopolous jumping from Clinton PR guy to "This Week" host.

For level1online = Kilmeade is a total idiot, and "Fox & Friends" is one of the worst shows on TV anywhere, anytime.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Put up or shut up.[/quote]

Here's one. Not quite what your quoted poster was saying, but...

Guys, telling everyone FOX news is slanted right is like telling us the sun's gonna rise in the east, OK? Ann Coulter, of all people, has acknowledged it in her book Slander. (The bias, not the rising of the sun. Still not sure of her position on that one.)For those of you saying CNN is more centrist, I'd wager that, much like people who watch FOX exclusively and truly believe them fair and balanced, you are not seeing CNN's biases because they more closely match your own.

In any case, Myke's got it right... in the end, it's all fake plastic news, and not to be relied upon as your sole source of anything. I don't trust any news organization completely, but that's mostly because I'm old and cynical.

On that note, I find CNN International to be the least offensive of any of them. :)
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm sure they modelled that guy after O'Reilly. The resemblance is keen, to be sure.

As an ex-conservative (Myke can attest to what a facist fucktard I used to be- I'll never forget, back in '04 I made a thread called 'who would you chose for president out of anyone in the nation', and I chose that psychotic douche Michael Savage, and Myke's post was simply "fuckin' Savage? You want us to become Nazi germany?"), I can safely say, when something doesn't conform exactly to neocon standards, it's automatically a socialist rag. Ironically enough something that would, to a normal person, appear to be right-wing may appear liberal to a number of conservatives, which just shows how backwards that particular part of the spectrum is. For example, I remember talking with fellow neocons in highschool (gag) and taling about what a flaming liberal George Bush was because he wasn't erecting rivers of fire across the mexican-american border or rounding up homosexuals to be put to death.

Eeeyup. I said that.

Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, et al. had nothing on me.

So, essentially, yes: unless it panders to the laughable concept of hardcore conserative values, it's a socialist liberal hate-mongering beatnick commie rag![/quote]
QFT, mostly because I, too, used to be conservative and saying many of the same things (I blame teenage stupidity), and anything that doesn't support the conservative view is immediately part of the conspiracy to silence The Truth by this collectivst Left I keep hearing so much about.

As for O'Reilly, what makes him such a threat to idiots is that he appears to be unbiased, and regularly claims as much, but often masks a bias with the qualifier "some people would say" before launching into a passionate spiel or volley of questions. For example, on a segment about a lesbian couple voted "Cutest Couple" by a high school, he said, "I respect these two girls, blah blah blah, but" before talking about how it was a big ploy to normalize homosexuality and shove it in people's faces, etc.
 
The biggest problem with any news station is that it's done mroe for the sake of entertainment then to inform anyone. Even network news shows are now part of the entertainment offered by network stations. Used to be that news programs opperated outside of the entertainment department, that isn't so anymore. They just want eyeballs fixed to the screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top