How do you hayseeds like FOX News now? [Archive]

lithium65

11-17-2006, 02:21 AM

FOX News, the supposed conservative voice of the people, that is all high and mighty is the driving force ( i.e. money ) behind the upcoming O.J. Simpson interview! The DRUDGE report, another piece of garbage, along w/ other sources ( CNN, USA Today ) has found FOX News and it's owner, Ruppert Murdock, the driving force and money source behind the interview.Oh how the Republicans have lost their way:Bribery - corruptionHomosexual congressmen coming out da closet in pink tutusKid touchers w/ adolescent cocks in their mouthsAnd now O.J.Simpson telling how he murdered, oops, could've murdered,his ex and her young lover. Way to go Republicans and FOX News and - keep up the good work!!

yomudder21

11-17-2006, 02:22 AM

and who is surprised by any of this?

hereintheUK

11-17-2006, 02:44 AM

Dave has been great lately.

Yerdaddy

11-17-2006, 03:52 AM

yomudder21 wrote: and who is surprised by any of this? Bingo. No rational person can still believe that Fox News is in any way "news". It's a for-profit activist organization posing as a cable news channel. It's purpose is to advocate conservate ideology and make money. This is part of the making money.

jimmyNYC

11-17-2006, 04:02 AM

FOX NEws is a subsidiary of FOX Broadcasting. The real blame should be layed at the parent company since FOX News couldn't make this decision on their own.

booster11373

11-17-2006, 04:41 AM

Corporations choose money no matter what

Death Metal Moe

11-17-2006, 04:51 AM

I do love to see the Conservatives fall, but both sides are fucking scumbags.Regular people aren't represented in our government anymore, and people don't seem like they want to help an actual 3rd party blossom at all.Business as usual.But as for O.J., I'm not surprised people still want to see him on TV, but I hope he gets shot in the fucking face real soon.

sailor

11-17-2006, 04:55 AM

OR they're doing a great job by getting OJ to confess, no matter what spin he puts on it.  plus, i hope they are paying him a ton of money so it will go to the victims families.

UnknownPD

11-17-2006, 05:29 AM

I'm more shocked that someone from Columbus Ohio is calling people hayseeds than I am about anything Fox does

CofyCrakCocaine

11-17-2006, 05:37 AM

Fox is the Al-Jazeer of conservativism.

BYOBKenobi

11-17-2006, 08:17 AM

I'm shocked that the creator of this thread only has 9 posts.

johnniewalker

11-17-2006, 08:25 AM

lithium65 wrote: FOX News, the supposed conservative voice of the people, that is all high and mighty is the driving force ( i.e. money ) behind the upcoming O.J. Simpson interview! The DRUDGE report, another piece of garbage, along w/ other sources ( CNN, USA Today ) has found FOX News and it's owner, Ruppert Murdock, the driving force and money source behind the interview.Oh how the Republicans have lost their way:Bribery - corruptionHomosexual congressmen coming out da closet in pink tutusKid touchers w/ adolescent cocks in their mouthsAnd now O.J.Simpson telling how he murdered, oops, could've murdered,his ex and her young lover. Way to go Republicans and FOX News and - keep up the good work!!  So what is a good news source?  The drudge report isn't a news source for you who don't get it your linked to independent news sources.  If you don't like being told what the news is from a source then different sides and rationally think it out your self, or you can think it out for yourself and distinguish being biased opinions among the news.  We do all the time as human beings, it's not asking too much a person to think and form an opinion rather than take something for granted.   Don't let your cyniscism blind you to the point of this ignorant line of thought. At some level we have to trust the news and to start this cynical rant pushes the blame onto the news organizations for our inability to think.    There is a distinct difference between being rationally cynical and blindingly cynical and this goes way beyond the line.

JimBeam

11-17-2006, 09:42 AM

Its clearly a corporate decision which goes with making money regardless of presumed ideoogy.I do hope that people boycott, in a very strong manner, both the book and the show.That's the only way to show that a corporate decison was wrong. ON the bottom line.

led37zep

11-17-2006, 12:00 PM

Its been really interesting watching O'reilly talk about this.  You can tell he's pissed but he's not going so far as to call for a flat out boycott.  He's said he's not watching it but you can tell he's holding back.  Its pretty funny.

Servo

11-17-2006, 12:24 PM

For what it's worth, the OJ interview won't be on Fox News.  It will be on the Fox Network, like channel 5 here in New York.  Hardly the voice of conservativism.

keithy_19

11-17-2006, 12:33 PM

Nordberg couldn't hurt a flea.

BenInArkansas

11-17-2006, 01:20 PM

If Fox did not air the show, somebody else would have. It's all about the money. As far as corruption goes what about Bill Clinton and the Lincoln bedroom at the whitehouse? It's easy to point out all the faults of opposing views. Point is.. Who the hell cares what Fox does? They, like any other news outlet, are out for money. Put a football great who was found not guilty of murder on and let him talk, people will watch.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wacko.gif" border="0" />

Yerdaddy

11-18-2006, 02:08 AM

BenInArkansas wrote: If Fox did not air the show, somebody else would have. It's all about the money. As far as corruption goes what about Bill Clinton and the Lincoln bedroom at the whitehouse? It's easy to point out all the faults of opposing views. Point is.. Who the hell cares what Fox does? They, like any other news outlet, are out for money. Put a football great who was found not guilty of murder on and let him talk, people will watch.<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wacko.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />  If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?!That's what my mom used to say when I used that excuse. When I was eight. And yet that logical fallacy comes up in politics as a last-ditch defense all the time. Senators would use it in hearings when asked why they support selling weapons to a country like Indonesia when they knew those weapons were immediately going to be used to massacre their own people. Colin Powell used it in his confermation hearing for Sec O State. It's pathetic. It's literally the excuse our mothers learn to shoot down first. Yet nobody ever called Powell on it, or anyone else I've seen, for that matter. Ah Washington.BTW, Ben, I'm ranting about Washington more than you. In this case it's not exactly an important issue and I wouldn't put it past the other networks to air this thing if you gave them just a little more political cover. Katie Couric interviewed this retard a couple years ago anyway, and there was a public pissing and moaning session and then everyone watched the fucking thing. Same thing here.However, in this case it just happens to be factually wrong. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/books/17ojbook.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin" target="_blank">The interview was done independently</a> by the book's publisher, (the company just happens to be owned by Rupert Murdock, by the way), who offered up the video to the highest bidder. CBS declined. No word on the others, but Fox bought the tape. And even <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700533.html" target="_blank">some of Fox's affiliates are considering not airing it</a>, to their credit.Honestly though, I don't think this issue is important at all. The only reason I bitch about it is that it's a part of a trend of people allowing themselves to be duped into paying attention to fake news and thinking they'e getting real news. It's part of my obsession with that whole "informed populous" and "democracy" bullshit. I'm stil one of those jackasses who still thinks that Jefferson was worth listening to. Hopefully I'll grow out of it.I hope I can watch this thing on Saudi satellite!

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 03:47 AM

For those of you that dismiss Fox as biased, I'd argue that ALL news is biased. And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. Fox was a reaction by the Right to not being able to get their side of the story out often enough through the media. So they started their own network, and everyone to the left politically has been trying to discredit them ever since. How "liberal" is that? Why not embrace many voices, many points of view? I think Fox is one of the only outlets thats upfront about who they are. Everyone knows they're Conservative. All the other outlets pretend to be down the middle, and they're not.

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 03:52 AM

For those of you that dismiss Fox as biased, I'd argue that ALL news is biased. And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. Fox was a reaction by the Right to not being able to get their side of the story out often enough through the media. So they started their own network, and everyone to the left politically has been trying to discredit them ever since. How "liberal" is that? Why not embrace many voices, many points of view? I think Fox is one of the only outlets thats upfront about who they are. Everyone knows they're Conservative. All the other outlets pretend to be down the middle, and they're not even close.

TheMojoPin

11-18-2006, 04:37 AM

And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public.How does that work?  Barely half of less than half the people in the country voting in the current president isn't some huge mandate.And since when does Fox boast of its conservatisim?  Their news network's motto is "fair and balanced," for Christ's sake.  Their centerpiece, Bill O'Reilly, can't shut up about how he thinks he's "right in the middle."

Jujubees2

11-18-2006, 05:54 AM

Captain Rooster

11-18-2006, 06:01 AM

I am disgusted. I do enjoy Hannity--at times--and some of the perspectives, but the polarized political landscape has taken over the media.  If the air it (did they?) I will send letters to all advertisers ... and never buy those products again. I don't care who they are.  OJ should burn ... fucking burn

furie

11-18-2006, 06:09 AM

hayseeds? you're from ohio!

Yerdaddy

11-18-2006, 07:08 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: For those of you that dismiss Fox as biased, I'd argue that ALL news is biased. And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. Fox was a reaction by the Right to not being able to get their side of the story out often enough through the media. So they started their own network, and everyone to the left politically has been trying to discredit them ever since. How "liberal" is that? Why not embrace many voices, many points of view? I think Fox is one of the only outlets thats upfront about who they are. Everyone knows they're Conservative. All the other outlets pretend to be down the middle, and they're not even close. This brings me back to my years-long challenge to make a logically sound evidence-based case that the mainstream news is a liberal version of Fox News. I've been putting this challenge out there long enough for me to state with confidence that it can't be done. The "mainstream" news is not "liberal".  And, of course, I'll put out another argument that the two - Fox "News" and what it classifies as the "mainstream media" or "MSM" - are not two sides of the same coin. You only have to look at the most basic feature of the two: the narrative style of their dominant formats, (the dominant format of Fox News being the opinion/talk show features of Hannity, O'Riely, etc. and the dominant format of the MSM being news broadcasts). The narrative style of Fox's features is persuasive essays; they take a point of view and they organize their information in the best way to pursuade the viewer of the rightness of that argument. The main differenece between this and other styles is usually that nformation is necessarily used selectively - they will ignore or deemphasize information that is evidence against their position.The dominant format of the MSM, (let's assume print media, since the NYT is the one source most attacked by Fox), is news reporting, which utilizes expository or illustrative or analytical essay styles. In this format information is presented from "both sides" of an issue, (to a fault, in my opinion), with a neutral tone, and with sources either mentioned or available. (I know you conservatives are going apeshit with the mere suggestion that the MSM holds to these principles. So I have to say this: either put up or shut up. If you really believe that the MSM doesn't do this then it should be really easy for you to go to the NYT website and find a news article that presents its information in a demonstrably biased way, and then show a consistant pattern of this kind of "bias". If you can't do that, then your claims of MSM being as biased as Fox is false. You can't just scream "DAN RATHER!!!!1! at me, insult me personally, then shut up and think you've won. Sorry. [And this is not directed at BDC at all. He's never done that. This is for the others who I know will be dying to bring the crazy at me if they read this.])Within these essay styles that the MSM primarily use, you can't reach the level of bias that you can with Fox's persuasive style, which they don't hide in any way. I'm not linking to the numerous examples on YouTube because we all know what the Fox shows' are like. With the expository and illustrative styles you would really have to have a thousand evil geniuses working around the clock on the language of the articles to make Fox style of bias so subtle that you can't pick an article at random and point to what "point of view" is being pushed, or what information has been excluded that would give a "fair and ballanced" perspective if the the journalist, editors, publishers, corpor

Yerdaddy

11-18-2006, 07:12 AM

furie wrote: hayseeds? you're from ohio! I know! That's hysterical! And why are the newbies throwing that word around all of a sudden? Is "Hee Haw" back in syndication? Because, if so, that would be a good place to air an interview with OJ. Then, at the end of the interview the plank in the fence behind him could swing up but instead of hitting him in the ass it would have a noose at the end of it, and...

johnniewalker

11-18-2006, 08:35 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: For those of you that dismiss Fox as biased, I'd argue that ALL news is biased. And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. Fox was a reaction by the Right to not being able to get their side of the story out often enough through the media. So they started their own network, and everyone to the left politically has been trying to discredit them ever since. How "liberal" is that? Why not embrace many voices, many points of view? I think Fox is one of the only outlets thats upfront about who they are. Everyone knows they're Conservative. All the other outlets pretend to be down the middle, and they're not even close. The narrative style of Fox's features is persuasive essays; they take a point of view and they organize their information in the best way to pursuade the viewer of the rightness of that argument. The main differenece between this and other styles is usually that nformation is necessarily used selectively - they will ignore or deemphasize information that is evidence against their positionWithin these essay styles that the MSM primarily use, you can't reach the level of bias that you can with Fox's persuasive style, which they don't hide in any way. I'm not linking to the numerous examples on YouTube because we all know what the Fox shows' are like. With the expository and illustrative styles you would really have to have a thousand evil geniuses working around the clock on the language of the articles to make Fox style of bias so subtle that you can't pick an article at random and point to what "point of view" is being pushed, or what information has been excluded that would give a "fair and ballanced" perspective if the the journalist, editors, publishers, corporate managers and stockholders weren't all smoking their hemp underwear at Starbucks. Right before burning said Starbucks to the ground. Just the way Fox is described by it's supporters is an admission of the nature of Fox news being an advocacy organization and not news. "Point of view", "perspective"? Those ARE the qualities of advocacy organizations. Thus, that's what Fox is.  I'm happy people are at least more informed.  At what level of "bias" would you throw out the article.  How about persuasive headlines, or headlines that focus on one detail?   I read the ruling on the guantanamo supreme court case from major outlets and had to go to the actual opinion to find the government's rationale.   I think its the responsibility of the person to actively read something and finding holes in it and having questions by the end.   We all know buzzwords that can hide something persuasively.  Say a study reports 51% of people want this and 49% of people want that.  You can use the percentage or you could say majority.  It should be a flag that sets off your thinking.   I can't see how more press is a bad thing.   Fox can't ignore the other news agencies stories.  They have to report the same news.  With the bias factored in, would you be happy if they got 75% pure news, 20% bias, and 5% omissions?  Its still a rush for the newest powerful news, but with one more.  You act as if this is so inherently dangerous that a portion of the population can't handle hearing a certain opinion.  Do you think that people should never be strongly opinionated?  What if people see these facts and order them like Fox does pushing some to be less important and others to be more important?  Believe it or not there are still people out there that truly have opinions and believe one form of thinking is justified and don't try to

Crispy123

11-18-2006, 08:47 AM

furie wrote: hayseeds? you're from ohio!  What's your point? ESD is from Cali and now lives in NY. I've never heard a bigger retard hayseed in my life and I've lived in Texas and North Carolina.

Gvac

11-18-2006, 08:53 AM

I'm assuming most of you have never been to Columbus, Ohio.  It's like a mini Detroit.  Lots of automobile factories (most Hondas are built there) and a pretty seedy downtown.

sailor

11-18-2006, 09:08 AM

CPW3 wrote:  furie wrote: hayseeds? you're from ohio!  What's your point? ESD is from Cali and now lives in NY. I've never heard a bigger retard hayseed in my life and I've lived in Texas and North Carolina.  not really helping yourself there, are ya?

FezPaul

11-18-2006, 09:21 AM

<a href="http://fullblownaids.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13770">Hayseeds unite!</a>

This message was edited by FezPaul on 11-18-06 @ 1:21 PM

spoon

11-18-2006, 09:25 AM

johnniewalker wrote: I'm happy people are at least more informed.  At what level of "bias" would you throw out the article.  How about persuasive headlines, or headlines that focus on one detail?   I read the ruling on the guantanamo supreme court case from major outlets and had to go to the actual opinion to find the government's rationale.   I think its the responsibility of the person to actively read something and finding holes in it and having questions by the end.   We all know buzzwords that can hide something persuasively.  Say a study reports 51% of people want this and 49% of people want that.  You can use the percentage or you could say majority.  It should be a flag that sets off your thinking.   I can't see how more press is a bad thing.   Fox can't ignore the other news agencies stories.  They have to report the same news.  With the bias factored in, would you be happy if they got 75% pure news, 20% bias, and 5% omissions?  Its still a rush for the newest powerful news, but with one more.  You act as if this is so inherently dangerous that a portion of the population can't handle hearing a certain opinion.  Do you think that people should never be strongly opinionated?  What if people see these facts and order them like Fox does pushing some to be less important and others to be more important?  Believe it or not there are still people out there that truly have opinions and believe one form of thinking is justified and don't try to mix equally logics of thinking that don't mix.   I think what you're arguing is that like the word of the day the other day, people will become idealogues.   Doesn't that require that we know how to translate the conservative ideology to every issue? Its an abstract idea of thinking not a concrete plan for every real world issue.   So are you saying that a Fox News ideology is the one you're afraid of? I would still say that I think its a tid bit arrogant to say people are unthinking sheep, and I think that with more and more news outlets you are seeing a proper amount of cynical thought especially with how these elections went.  This type of news reporting is still in its infancy and we haven't truly seen how it affects how people think through many election cycles. Unfortuanately I do think a lot of people are still shills and do follow the views of the majority of those around them.  I won't go too deep, but just look at the south on any racial, religious, or homosexual issue down there.  Now that's not saying there aren't both sides being represented bc that would just be plain idiotic to say.  However, I do believe a lot of people fall on the conservative side of the fence bc it's always been the group-think mentality, it's all they're really exposed to and they seem to pigeonhole themselves over and over again.  There was a line on a new comedy central show recently that cracked me up so much.  Now the show is hugely liberal-based and it surely isn't hiding it, but then again it isn't claiming to be the news or "fair and balanced".  The southerner was faced with going to NYC and he didn't like it.  He said, "I don't like NY bc it has too many choices and that scares me."  Then a kid of a southern family said he would like to go there someday and his dad promptly grabbed his face and yelled at him, "Don't ever say that!"

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 04:24 PM

Jujubees2 wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: For those of you that dismiss Fox as biased, I'd argue that ALL news is biased. And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. Fox was a reaction by the Right to not being able to get their side of the story out often enough through the media. So they started their own network, and everyone to the left politically has been trying to discredit them ever since. How "liberal" is that? Why not embrace many voices, many points of view? I think Fox is one of the only outlets thats upfront about who they are. Everyone knows they're Conservative. All the other outlets pretend to be down the middle, and they're not even close. Wow, Bulldog, you've really bought in to the Fox company line. But don't drink the Kool-Aid! Maybe thats the voices in your head talking. If you actually read my entire post, instead of just having a knee jerk reaction to the parts you dont like, you'd see I was arguing for A DIVERSE set of news sources since THEY'RE ALL biased. Including Fox.

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 04:35 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:  And if you never watch Fox, you're missing a point of view that represents a huge part (if not majority, judging by presidential elections) of the American public. How does that work? Barely half of less than half the people in the country voting in the current president isn't some huge mandate.And since when does Fox boast of its conservatisim? Their news network's motto is "fair and balanced," for Christ's sake. Their centerpiece, Bill O'Reilly, can't shut up about how he thinks he's "right in the middle." Fine Mr Nitpicker, to clarify they represent half of the only people who matter politically. And thats people who vote. You know, if I have to qualify everything you say for every possible response and/or contingency, my posts will start looking like Yerdaddys. And my widdle bitty fingers hurt when I type too much.  Nobody believes that "Fair and Balanced" crap. Its just a little more transparent when they do it as opposed to . . . say the NY Times. But its crap in both cases. I have known and met many reporters for the Times, and every last one of them was slightly to the left of Fidel Castro.  Dont get me started on Bill O'Rielly. I personally cant take the guy for more than a few seconds without being a combination of befuddled/furious/exasperated. He's a blowhard and not worth commenting on.

NortonRules

11-18-2006, 04:37 PM

Why do the 'open minded' liberals get so angry when ONE news source of many has a different point of view from their own narrow one?  I guess they're sooooo used to being lied to that when they hear the truth they get rabidly angry.  Every single person I've met that bashes Fox News NEVER watches it and just assumes things about it, then talks about it as if it's fact.  I guess they learned that from the liberal mass media - do no research and then make accusations.  What would the liberals say if OJ was being interviewed with softball questions from Larry King?  They'd say that Larry is just providing people with information and there's no reason to get mad.  These are the same people that defended the leader of Iran being portrayed as a wonderful human being by the liberal mass media a few months ago (this was while he was saying he'd remove Isreal from the face of the Earth).  I don't understand the double standard.  Maybe the liberals are mad that someone they've defended for years (because a minority could CERTAINLY never EVER commit a crime), is going to admit he did.  They were wrong again.  Also, Fox 5 affiliate in NYC is certainly NOT the same thing as FOX News.  Anyone who says it is has never watched either one.

docgoblin

11-18-2006, 04:44 PM

It doesn't matter who airs this pathetic drivel. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. I guess it's just the way our society is going.  Anyone who sponsors this crap should never make another dime. Imagine his kids watching him tell how he killed their mother. It's disgusting! I just hope the Goldman's get every cent he is due to make off of this travesty. Unfortunately, some stupid court will probably find some way for him to keep all the cash, just like he is able to keep all his pension money and his mansion in Florida, even though he owes the family 50 million dollars. This asshole has benefited by our failed judicial system more than any other person in history, except maybe for Robert Blake.

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 04:50 PM

You know, what would really be refreshing in a discussion like this would be for someone to say "Yeah, sure Fox is biased. But its a bias I happen to agree with more often than not." That would show a level of self awareness thats lacking here. If you think most major news outlets (ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN) report things pretty fairly (minor complaints), and you consider yourself to the left politically, then you've just proved my point. If it appeals to your sense of what is fair and what is true, then it is by definition biased. And everyone, on the right and left, has a sense of what is and isn't important. It is therefore impossible to remove bias from reporting, which is why I argue you should get a diverse set of news sources. And it should include voices from all sides.      

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-18-06 @ 8:52 PM

TheMojoPin

11-18-2006, 05:04 PM

NortonRules wrote: Why do the 'open minded' liberals get so angry when ONE news source of many has a different point of view from their own narrow one?  I guess they're sooooo used to being lied to that when they hear the truth they get rabidly angry.  Every single person I've met that bashes Fox News NEVER watches it and just assumes things about it, then talks about it as if it's fact.  I guess they learned that from the liberal mass media - do no research and then make accusations. My main gripe with Fox is that they present pundits and editorializing as the bastion of fairness and journalistic accuracy, and that's simply not true for anyone or any network.  Saying Hannity or O'Reilly present "news" is like saying The Daily Show does.  They don't.  Presenting emotionally driven opinions is not news and it's not balanced or somehow more accurate than any other news network.  What would the liberals say if OJ was being interviewed with softball questions from Larry King?  They'd say that Larry is just providing people with information and there's no reason to get mad. This is a ridiculous comparison, and you should be embarassed for making it.  Nobody looks at Larry King as anything except a fluff interviewer.  The guy isn't out there doing what Hannity et al do and you know it.  He interviews celebrities and public personalities with the most softball questions possible...he's basically Regis.  And he's not presented by CNN or anyone else as being a legitimate source for "real" news. [quote]These are the same people that defended the leader of Iran being portrayed as a wonderful human being by the liberal mass media a few months ago (this was while he was saying he'd remove Isreal from the face of the Earth). Please quote/link to where he was "portrayed as a wonderful human being."  I know exactly what interview you're talking about, so I know you won't be able to.  This actually underscores one of the problems with Fox brand of sensationalism...people now expect reporters and journalists to emotional editorialize about everything.  A genuine interview is letting the subject answer the questions asked and present themselves to the viewer.  The viewers then decide their own opinions of what was said.  Just because the interviewer doesn't insult or mock the interviewee as some seem to want doesn't make it what you described it as.  I don't understand the double standard.  Maybe the liberals are mad that someone they've defended for years (because a minority could CERTAINLY never EVER commit a crime), is going to admit he did.  They were wrong again.  This is just asinine.  I hope to God you're not serious.Also, Fox 5 affiliate in NYC is certainly NOT the same thing as FOX News.  Anyone who says it is has never watched either one. It's an affiliate of the Fox News organization.  The larger point was that it's the Fox Network, run by the same people that run Fox News, have decided to pay for and broadcast this special while running a news service that clearly skews to what it calls "the heartland" with supposed "traditional values."  It's always been a ridiculous double standard between what Rupert Murdoch wants people to think and what he wants them to watch, and this is simply the epitome of it.  No news organization out there is perfect...Fox is just frustrating because they seem to think they are.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 11-18-06 @ 9:06 PM

Yerdaddy

11-18-2006, 05:49 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: This brings me back to my years-long challenge to make a logically sound evidence-based case that the mainstream news is a liberal version of Fox News. I've been putting this challenge out there long enough for me to state with confidence that it can't be done. The "mainstream" news is not "liberal".  (I know you conservatives are going apeshit with the mere suggestion that the MSM holds to these principles. So I have to say this: either put up or shut up. If you really believe that the MSM doesn't do this then it should be really easy for you to go to the NYT website and find a news article that presents its information in a demonstrably biased way, and then show a consistant pattern of this kind of "bias". If you can't do that, then your claims of MSM being as biased as Fox is false. You can't just scream "DAN RATHER!!!!1! at me, insult me personally, then shut up and think you've won. Sorry. [And this is not directed at BDC at all. He's never done that. This is for the others who I know will be dying to bring the crazy at me if they read this.])And the gauntlet lays, as always, untouched. I rest my case.

johnniewalker

11-18-2006, 06:30 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: This brings me back to my years-long challenge to make a logically sound evidence-based case that the mainstream news is a liberal version of Fox News. I've been putting this challenge out there long enough for me to state with confidence that it can't be done. The "mainstream" news is not "liberal". (I know you conservatives are going apeshit with the mere suggestion that the MSM holds to these principles. So I have to say this: either put up or shut up. If you really believe that the MSM doesn't do this then it should be really easy for you to go to the NYT website and find a news article that presents its information in a demonstrably biased way, and then show a consistant pattern of this kind of "bias". If you can't do that, then your claims of MSM being as biased as Fox is false. You can't just scream "DAN RATHER!!!!1! at me, insult me personally, then shut up and think you've won. Sorry. [And this is not directed at BDC at all. He's never done that. This is for the others who I know will be dying to bring the crazy at me if they read this.])And the gauntlet lays, as always, untouched. I rest my case. I don't get what your point is.

Bulldogcakes

11-18-2006, 06:31 PM

epo

11-18-2006, 06:52 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Fine, have fun reading <a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/" title="good ol Brent Bozell">good ol Brent Bozell</a>. Beats sleeping pills. He actually chronicles all the little jabs that achors and reporters take at conservatives. Which I guess means he doesn't get out much.   Did you just use Brent Bozell as a positive source?  I hope you are joking as that man is batshit crazy.

epo

11-18-2006, 06:58 PM

Shouldn't the title of this discussion be about "Rubes" rather than "hayseeds"? 

Justice4all

11-18-2006, 08:30 PM

It's official, Spoon is a joke.  Done and done.

This message was edited by Justice4all on 11-22-06 @ 3:26 AM

Yerdaddy

11-19-2006, 02:11 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: This brings me back to my years-long challenge to make a logically sound evidence-based case that the mainstream news is a liberal version of Fox News. I've been putting this challenge out there long enough for me to state with confidence that it can't be done. The "mainstream" news is not "liberal". (I know you conservatives are going apeshit with the mere suggestion that the MSM holds to these principles. So I have to say this: either put up or shut up. If you really believe that the MSM doesn't do this then it should be really easy for you to go to the NYT website and find a news article that presents its information in a demonstrably biased way, and then show a consistant pattern of this kind of "bias". If you can't do that, then your claims of MSM being as biased as Fox is false. You can't just scream "DAN RATHER!!!!1! at me, insult me personally, then shut up and think you've won. Sorry. [And this is not directed at BDC at all. He's never done that. This is for the others who I know will be dying to bring the crazy at me if they read this.])And the gauntlet lays, as always, untouched. I rest my case.Fine, have fun reading <a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/" title="good ol Brent Bozell">good ol Brent Bozell</a>. Beats sleeping pills. He actually chronicles all the little jabs that achors and reporters take at conservatives. Which I guess means he doesn't get out much.  You linked to this clown before and I ripped apart the logical fallacies in his articles already. You should have challenged my reponse at that time if you thought it was flawed. If you want to dig it up and do it now, fine. But I think there's a reason you let it go then, and that reason is that this Bozell guy is the exact same thing as Fox - a conservative activist writiing persuasive essays - only he's WORSE! His logic is even more flawed and transparently so than even an O'Rielly or Hannity.And a link to a guy who did the thing that I'm saying you could do if your claims were true is a cop-out. You're arguing that there is equivalency in the bias between the two - the "MSM" and Fox. If there's equivalency, then you, or anyone else tenaciously holding onto that myth, then you should easily find something with the kind of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4pUAm_RY0" target="_blank">flagrant hypocracy that's in this piece</a> I found with a simple YouTube search. The piece starts off with "Well is the last time you heard about good news in Iraq, like in Krkuk, where another two schools just reopened (show still photo of kids in a class), or in the farming town of Emwalla (still photo of a tractor),, an area once known has a safe haven for terrorists, now just a safe haven for money-making farmers. Things you probably did not know because the media does not cover them. It is a sore spot for many of our men and women fighting bravely overseas, and my next guest knows it all too well..." The guest is a radio talk show host who goes on telling stories about a few soldiers who told him "the media" isn't covering the good stuff... there is some bad stuff... Bush is doing a terrible job telling us about the good stuff... soldiers love Fox News... blah blah blah. AND MEANWHILE THE STILL PHOTOS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY VIDEO OF THE AFTERMATH OF AN IED BLOWING UP A MILITARY VEHICLE COMPLETE WITH AN AMERICAN SOLDIER BEING LOADED INTO AN AMBULANCE! Isn't that why they label Al-Jazeera terrorists? The rest of the tape reel is shit blowing up, soldiers shooting, burned out cars and buildings... complete with sound! Shameless hypocricy, plain and simple. Show me the equivalent in the MSM. N

Bulldogcakes

11-19-2006, 06:40 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:You linked to this clown before and I ripped apart the logical fallacies in his articles already. You should have challenged my reponse at that time if you thought it was flawed. If you want to dig it up and do it now, fine. But I think there's a reason you let it go then, and that reason is that this Bozell guy is the exact same thing as Fox - a conservative activist writiing persuasive essays - only he's WORSE! His logic is even more flawed and transparently so than even an O'Rielly or Hannity.And a link to a guy who did the thing that I'm saying you could do if your claims were true is a cop-out. You're arguing that there is equivalency in the bias between the two - the "MSM" and Fox. If there's equivalency, then you, or anyone else tenaciously holding onto that myth, then you should easily find something with the kind of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4pUAm_RY0" target="_blank">flagrant hypocracy that's in this piece</a> I found with a simple YouTube search.Flagrant hypocrisy? One piece out of the thousands of bad Iraq news stories we see daily which simply states that there are some good things happening that go ureported. Its an "under reported" segment which attempts to give people a more full picture of the total story. Do you think that nothing good ever happens in Iraq? You would by watching the news. But thats the nature of the News Biz. If it bleeds, it leads. You're going to need to show me some better examples of Fox hypocrisy. There's nothing wrong with that piece whatsoever. The piece starts off with "Well is the last time you heard about good news in Iraq, like in Krkuk, where another two schools just reopened (show still photo of kids in a class), or in the farming town of Emwalla (still photo of a tractor),, an area once known has a safe haven for terrorists, now just a safe haven for money-making farmers. Things you probably did not know because the media does not cover them. It is a sore spot for many of our men and women fighting bravely overseas, and my next guest knows it all too well..." The guest is a radio talk show host who goes on telling stories about a few soldiers who told him "the media" isn't covering the good stuff... there is some bad stuff... Bush is doing a terrible job telling us about the good stuff... soldiers love Fox News... blah blah blah. AND MEANWHILE THE STILL PHOTOS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY VIDEO OF THE AFTERMATH OF AN IED BLOWING UP A MILITARY VEHICLE COMPLETE WITH AN AMERICAN SOLDIER BEING LOADED INTO AN AMBULANCE! Isn't that why they label Al-Jazeera terrorists? The rest of the tape reel is shit blowing up, soldiers shooting, burned out cars and buildings... complete with sound! Shameless hypocricy, plain and simple. Show me the equivalent in the MSM. Wait a minute. If they do a puff piece on Iraq, people will say they're shills. If they mix in some war footage, now they're being manipulative? Practically EVERY image we see about Iraq on every channel is some piece of war footage of some kind. I think it just illustrates your own bias, that whatever they do, you'll have a problem with it. And again, I think Fox comes at you from a clear point of view, a bias of their own. Unlike you, I have no problem with it.   [quote]I'll give an equivalant in the MSM. The puff piece the "hard hitting" ultra credible journalists at 60 minutes did on Nancy Pelosi THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. I haven't seen them do anything that soft since they interviewed Tiger Woods. They kept referring to her a "a grandmother", said how she has a tough side (a good thing for a female politician) Not a word on her record, not a word on how far to the left she is from the political mainstr

Yerdaddy

11-19-2006, 07:36 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: You linked to this clown before and I ripped apart the logical fallacies in his articles already. You should have challenged my reponse at that time if you thought it was flawed. If you want to dig it up and do it now, fine. But I think there's a reason you let it go then, and that reason is that this Bozell guy is the exact same thing as Fox - a conservative activist writiing persuasive essays - only he's WORSE! His logic is even more flawed and transparently so than even an O'Rielly or Hannity.And a link to a guy who did the thing that I'm saying you could do if your claims were true is a cop-out. You're arguing that there is equivalency in the bias between the two - the "MSM" and Fox. If there's equivalency, then you, or anyone else tenaciously holding onto that myth, then you should easily find something with the kind of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4pUAm_RY0" target="_blank">flagrant hypocracy that's in this piece</a> I found with a simple YouTube search.Flagrant hypocrisy? One piece out of the thousands of bad Iraq news stories we see daily which simply states that there are some good things happening that go ureported. Its an "under reported" segment which attempts to give people a more full picture of the total story. Do you think that nothing good ever happens in Iraq? You would by watching the news. But thats the nature of the News Biz. If it bleeds, it leads. You're going to need to show me some better examples of Fox hypocrisy. There's nothing wrong with that piece whatsoever.I was still waiting for a sample of the MSM bias, so, yeah, I only posted one. It took me two minutes to find it - and I found it thanks to a guy who supported the thing as a source of his agenda. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykMXlx4QWtk" target="_blank">Here's another just like it.</a> There's a limitless supply of examples on YouTube that I can link to, (when i've found a computer that doesn't still use vaccuum tubes).Why is it hypocracy? IT'S SIMULTANEOUSLY DOING THE THING IT'S CLAIMING IS WRONG FOR THE MSM TO DO. In fact it does this probably more than any other news outlet because every time i see an interview pice on Fox they split the screen and run non-stop clips of violence in Iraq. It's simply presenting the opinion of a right-wing talk radio host who went to Iraq, (and presumably couldn't get any footage of all the positive stories he saw that weren't being reported.) Why not air a herpes sore's opinion about topical cremes? It is the very definition of hypocracy. Add to that there isn't any real evidence presented that the MSM overstates the negative in Iraq. The second link I just posted is even worse. [quote][quote]The piece starts off with "Well is the last time you heard about good news in Iraq, like in Krkuk, where another two schools just reopened (show still photo of kids in a class), or in the farming town of Emwalla (still photo of a tractor),, an area once known has a safe haven for terrorists, now just a safe haven for money-making farmers. Things you probably did not know because the media does not cover them. It is a sore spot for many of our men and women fighting bravely overseas, and my next guest knows it all too well..." The guest is a radio talk show host who goes on telling stories about a few soldiers who told him "the media" isn't covering the good stuff... there is some bad stuff... Bush is doing a terrible job telling us about the good stuff... soldiers love Fox News... blah blah blah. AND MEANWHILE THE STILL PHOTOS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY VIDEO OF THE AFTERMATH OF AN IED BLOWING UP A M

Yerdaddy

11-19-2006, 02:59 PM

I'll give an equivalant in the MSM. The puff piece the "hard hitting" ultra credible journalists at 60 minutes did on Nancy Pelosi THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. I haven't seen them do anything that soft since they interviewed Tiger Woods. Here's the video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO1SRk0mvfk" target="_blank">part 1</a> : <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7raFblj-0A" target="_blank">part 2</a>They kept referring to her a "a grandmother" They said it in the bio piece in the middle and maybe once or twice. But, really, it's not an important point.said how she has a tough side (a good thing for a female politician) First of all, that's her reputation on the Hill, so you can't say it's bias to say it. But which she also proved by not backing down on when they confronted her with the harsh things she's said about Bush and republicans. Again, a minor point. Not a word on her record, not a word on how far to the left she is from the political mainstream. First point about her record is that she's leader of the party that's been out of power for 14 years. There's not much of a record from that position. They said she's voted consistently against the war. That puts her in a minority in her party, and helps the accusation that she's liberal, a pacifist, weak on defense and terror and all the other attacks by her critics. They point out her switch away from liberal issues, (they list them), to moderate issues, which gives ammunition for her liberal SF base to call her a sell-out and not liberal enough, which is a big risk for Pelosi as a national party leader from a fringe-liberal district. They also quote republicans pointing out how liberal she is.Never mentioned she's the wealthiest person in the House.   No. They mentioned she was the eighth wealthiest. -----------------------------------------Here's the rest of my notes:End of the lead-in: "She keeps promising that if she becomes Speaker, she'll bring civility back to Washington, just not now"First question: "You have called your republican colleagues 'immoral', 'corrupt', you said they're running a  criminal enterprise. I mean you're one of the reasons we have to restore civility in the first place."Question #2: "If you're Speaker, I'm wondering how you'll work with [bush]? Here are only some of the things you've called him:" list of mean things follwed by "It even stings to hear it now..." Pelosi says "...this isn't peronsal." The inteviewer interjects "It sounds personal." "How does this raise the level of civility?"I know someone's going to want to start throwing in what Pelosi is saying as answers and her smiles as she defends herself. That is not the issue being debated, so don't bring it up. The point is these questions are not softball. Saying your "guest", a leader in a political party, is uncivil is a serious question that some polititians will embrace and others will deny. Either way the raising of the question is going to give her political opponents, (especially Fox News), lots of ammunition to fill up speeches and air time with. Especially just before an election with the potential to change the leadership of Congress.Before anyone says this is just an excuse to parrot her attacks on Bush, they run tape of, and the interviewer quotes, (through the  whole piece), the political attacks republicans have made against her - "...including the President go after her saying, if she's speaker it will mean a weaker military, pampering of terrorists, and higher taxes." It also gives conservatives ammo to say

CuzBum

11-19-2006, 03:12 PM

This thread reeks of bipartisanship and civility.

Ogre

11-19-2006, 03:39 PM

NortonRules wrote: What would the liberals say if OJ was being interviewed with softball questions from Larry King?  They'd say that Larry is just providing people with information and there's no reason to get mad.  These are the same people that defended the leader of Iran being portrayed as a wonderful human being by the liberal mass media a few months ago (this was while he was saying he'd remove Isreal from the face of the Earth).  Man I thought I was the only one who got his ass in a knot over that...Thnx NR

Bulldogcakes

11-19-2006, 04:51 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:Your description of this interview, and all of your specific criticizms of it were false. I know this interview isn't what you would have wanted it to be. It's not what I would have wanted it to be either. I would have liked to have hammered her on her position on Iraq. But that's my bias: I'm more interested in Iraq than anything else. But that doesn't make this interview biased towards her, or the left. It certainly didn't treat Pelosi any different than in September when they were asking Condi Rice questions about <a href="http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/3/condi_rice" target="_blank">dating and marriage, fantasy football, becoming president, working out and playing Beethoven on the piano.</a> Holy shit! Liberals are right! The MSM is biased to the right!Jesus! I wish I had found that last link earlier. It would have saved me alot of work! They talked about her fucking boots, for fuck's sake! My description of the interview was half right, half wrong. The first part they did a good job of questioning her about positions on various issues. The second part was practically a campaign commercial, and since it was so positive for the entire 2nd half of the piece that was the impression I was left with (and yes, that says something about my own bias as well). But in the highly politicized atmosphere of the campaign, I thought the timing was hideously unfair, and still do. You're right about the Condi interview, that was a soft piece as well. But she's not running for anything.But getting into individual pieces misses the point anyway when you're talking about an overall leanings, slant and bias one way or another.   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States" title="Explain this for me.">Explain this for me.</a> In a survey conducted by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Newspaper_Editors" title="American Society of Newspaper Editors">American Society of Newspaper Editors</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997" title="1997">1997</a>, 61% of reporters claimed to be or lean toward being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic" title="Democratic">Democratic</a> or liberal. Only 15% claimed to be or lean toward being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29" title="Republican Party (United States)">Republican</a> or conservative. A survey by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center" title="Pew Research Center">Pew Research Center</a> and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and only 7% as conservative. <a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664" title=" Or this study, from that Right wing bastion UCLA"> Or this study, from that Right wing bastion UCLA</a>

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-19-06 @ 9:18 PM

TheMojoPin

11-19-2006, 07:13 PM

Ogre wrote: NortonRules wrote: What would the liberals say if OJ was being interviewed with softball questions from Larry King?  They'd say that Larry is just providing people with information and there's no reason to get mad.  These are the same people that defended the leader of Iran being portrayed as a wonderful human being by the liberal mass media a few months ago (this was while he was saying he'd remove Isreal from the face of the Earth).  Man I thought I was the only one who got his ass in a knot over that...Thnx NRIT DIDN'T HAPPEN.Jesus Christ...I'm sorry, but that's one of the most downright insane things I've seen tossed out in this "liberal media" argument.  What do you want people to do when they're interviewing someone you don't like?  Insult them?  Make fun of them?  Leap across and beat the hell out of them?Here's my challenge to both of you...quote and/or link for us all to see the parts of that interview that "portrayed him as a wonderful human being."  If it's so obvious and driving you both so nuts, it should be incredibly easy.  It was a major interview done by a major news outlet, so it'll be easy to find.  Please, back up your accusations with actual quotes and facts.  I'll wait here patiently.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 11-19-06 @ 11:15 PM

A.J.

11-20-2006, 03:35 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: furie wrote: hayseeds? you're from ohio! I know! That's hysterical! And why are the newbies throwing that word around all of a sudden? Is "Hee Haw" back in syndication? Because, if so, that would be a good place to air an interview with OJ. Then, at the end of the interview the plank in the fence behind him could swing up but instead of hitting him in the ass it would have a noose at the end of it, and...I don't want O.J. on the set of "Hee Haw".  He might butcher one of the girls in a jealous rage.<img src="http://tvphotogalleries.com/data/603/1Hhcast.jpg" border="0" width="448" height="327" />

Furtherman

11-20-2006, 10:13 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Ogre wrote: NortonRules wrote: What would the liberals say if OJ was being interviewed with softball questions from Larry King?  They'd say that Larry is just providing people with information and there's no reason to get mad.  These are the same people that defended the leader of Iran being portrayed as a wonderful human being by the liberal mass media a few months ago (this was while he was saying he'd remove Isreal from the face of the Earth).  Man I thought I was the only one who got his ass in a knot over that...Thnx NRIT DIDN'T HAPPEN.Jesus Christ...I'm sorry, but that's one of the most downright insane things I've seen tossed out in this "liberal media" argument.  What do you want people to do when they're interviewing someone you don't like?  Insult them?  Make fun of them?  Leap across and beat the hell out of them?Here's my challenge to both of you...quote and/or link for us all to see the parts of that interview that "portrayed him as a wonderful human being."  If it's so obvious and driving you both so nuts, it should be incredibly easy.  It was a major interview done by a major news outlet, so it'll be easy to find.  Please, back up your accusations with actual quotes and facts.  I'll wait here patiently.This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 11-19-06 @ 11:15 PM You'll wait forever Mojo, because they will not be able to.  You're right how insane that argument is.  Oh, I can't believe they're interviewing him!  Oh no!  He's smiling!  He's human!And I'd bet those who make that argument haven't even seen the 60 Minutes interview.  Because if they did, honestly, they would never make that connection.