Topic: Fox News - Tucker's Fucked.

[AndyP]

Sky news doesn't offer good footy coverage though

Yeah but Sky News don't have that fat Robot Wars c*nt either!

Anyway who asked you for an opinion, sure yer only a thick Paddy or Mick or Seamus, get back to yer turf fire! oh hang on.....

[fudge]

You can lump Five Live in with that rubbish.

If you're having a pop at Peter Allan you and me are going to have words.

[Alan_X]

Read Al Franken's excellent book:  Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. He does a great job on O'Reilly and Fox.

Fox is appalling and disturbing in equal measure. Even Sky news presenters and journalists are shocked by some of the blatant political spin (that's lies to you and me) in favour of the right that Fox get's away with. I've only seen bits of O'Reilly but it's fair and balanced to say that he's a lying obnoxious arsehole.

[WillieBob]

Thought i'd post this comment piece from today's Observer, lest we get a little too triumphal as we sneer at the Fox news channel.

The BBC - where facts are expensive and comment runs far too free

Nick Cohen
Sunday October 8, 2006
The Observer

Clive Anderson recently hosted a private viewing of his Hypotheticals show, in which the experts reacting to a rolling crisis were BBC senior managers. The corporation's governors had gathered them at the Institute of Physics, near Broadcasting House, to see how their impartiality stood up to the pressures of religious passion and psychopathic terror.

The scenario they faced began pleasantly enough. Anderson told them that the BBC had found a new presenter who was able to read an autocue with the right combination of prettiness and authority television requires. To make matters better, she was a British Muslim and her presence on screen emphasised the managers' commitment to diversity.

One day, she arrived at work wearing a hijab. Would it be religious discrimination to force her to remove it before she went on air? Or was she trying to make a political statement? While the executives agonised, she invited them to her wedding in a village in the badlands on the Pakistan-Afghan border. After a long flight and dusty car ride, they were enjoying the ceremony when in walks Osama bin Laden. On being told BBC managers were in the room, bin Laden offered an exclusive interview.

They decided to take it and summoned Justin Webb, one of the BBC's best reporters. Confronted for the first time by a Western journalist who asked hard questions, bin Laden flipped and kidnapped the luckless Webb.

And so it went on. Media grandees who were in the audience told me that the executives were very impressive. They dealt with each dilemma by referring to coherent moral principles and professional standards. Yet they didn't convince everyone that the BBC was a beacon of journalistic integrity. Jeff Randall, the BBC's former business editor, described how he was surrounded by intellectuals of the type who 'would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during "God Save the King" than of stealing from a poor box', as George Orwell put it.

While Randall was at the BBC, two producers tried to stop him wearing his hijab: a pair of Union Jack cufflinks. 'They said they were a symbol of the BNP and I couldn't wear them,' he recalled. He had to explain with some force why they were mistaken.

As you might expect, Janet Daley, a columnist for the Telegraph, denounced the BBC for its bias against conservatives, but then Sue Lawley unexpectedly said the consensus of the meeting was that the BBC had a liberal bias. The BBC managers must have felt unloved. They will have felt more so last week when they heard rumours that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown want to peg the licence fee to inflation. If Alastair Campbell's attacks on the corporation are a guide, I would guess that a belief in its bias has turned them against the BBC.

Although it is impossible to generalise about such a vast organisation, the bias charge has enough truth in it to stick. If you doubt me, research one opinion outside the liberal consensus. Read up on the arguments for making Britain a fairer country by giving trade unionists more rights, for instance, or saying that abortion is murder or that Tony Blair's foreign policy is correct in its essentials.

You don't have to believe it, you just have to convince yourself that serious people can hold it for good reasons. You will then notice something disconcerting about most BBC presenters. Although they subject opponents of, say, abortion to rigorous cross-examination, their lust for ferocious questioning deserts them when supporters of abortion come on air. Far from being tested, they treat upholders of the liberal consensus as purveyors of an incontestable truth.

The way out for the BBC is not to swing to the right - it is not an advance to replace soft interviews for Menzies Campbell with soft interviews for John Reid - but make a tactical withdrawal from the opinion business. Less airtime should be given to talking heads and celebrity interviewers in London studios and more to reporters who leave Television Centre to find out what is happening in the world.

Indeed, the speed with which newspapers and commercial TV companies are declining may mean that the BBC will soon be the only institution with the resources to send large numbers of reporters into the world. Yet for all its advantages, the fashion in the media world its executives inhabit is against journalism.

Producers know that comment is free, but facts are expensive. As well as being cheap, fervent opinions can increase market share because their very vehemence can hold the attention of the channel-hopping audience for a few more minutes.

You can see this Michael Mooronification of journalism everywhere from the success of Fox News to the Independent's embrace of agitprop. At the BBC's Hypotheticals meeting, Adam Bolton of Sky praised Fox and Dorothy Byrne of C4 declared that reporting should be 'passionate'. No it shouldn't; reporting should be true.

If the BBC governors abandon that principle, they will end up with a corporation which isn't so much left-wing or right-wing, but irrelevant.

The Link

[Alan_X]

Fudge got it in one there. The amount of viewers both Fox News and to a lesser extent Sky News have says more about the state of society today than the quality of the output on offer. They are both a television version of the S*n, news for people who dont want to tax their brain too much for fear of it overheating.

It's also about reinforcing prejudices... Fox reassures the ignorant that America is perfect, blessed by God and that the rest of the world (when they recognise that it exists) is forsaken, full of terrorists, fags, liberals, who are jealous of America's "freedom". It's the media wing of the GOP.

[nyctex]

I agree Murdoch (both of them) use idiots on their stations to scare the sheep that watch.  They will uses any liar/opportunist to promote their biased views   

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/de691d8a-552e-11db-acba-0000779e2340.html


Gore and Murdoch join forces in TV deal

By Emiko Terazono, Media Correspondent

Published: October 6 2006 13:28 | Last updated: October 6 2006 13:28

Al Gore, the former US vice-president, is bringing his user-generated content television channel to the UK, courtesy of James Murdoch’s British Sky Broadcasting.

Mr Gore launched Current TV, the US channel made of clips created by viewers and producers, in August last year, and said that the channel was “democratising television.”


Mr Murdoch, who has claimed that BSkyB was the first media company in the world to go carbon neutral, and Mr Gore share their passion for the environment. Mr Murdoch invited Mr Gore to the gathering of News Corp’s executives at Pebble Beach, California, this summer.

At Pebble Beach Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive, urged News Corp officials to follow his son James’ lead and to try and tackle climate change issues.

The pair have now come together to promote user generated content in the UK and Ireland. Current TV’s agreement for the channel to be carried on BSkyB’s satellite platform is its first international move outside the US.

Mr Gore said that the channel was one of the few on the cable network to break even in the first year and was looking to make profits in the second year. He rejected suggestions that viewer created clips was about gaining cheap content.

The deal with BSkyB brings Current TV to some 8m households. In the US, it is available in nearly 30m homes through cable and satellite television. With Current TV, viewers and producers upload their clips on to the channel’s website, where content which gets the most votes is broadcast on its television channel.

Mr Gore compared Current TV to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century, which led to enlightenment. He said: “The television medium for 50 years has had the depressing effect on the conversation of democracy by excluding individuals. But the new affordable digital tools of both cameras and digital video cameras and laptop editing systems now make it completely feasible for individuals with accessible training to participate in the conversation.”

Mr Murdoch said that Mr Gore’s channel TV was “an elegant way” to marry user-generated content on the web to the broadcast medium. He said: “Current TV is bringing the web’s sense of empowerment to television for the first time.”

[Alan_X]

Thought i'd post this comment piece from today's Observer, lest we get a little too triumphal as we sneer at the Fox news channel.

The Link

There is no comparison whatsoever between the two. A "news" network that shouts down any opposing opinion, that has been shown to lie and distort the truth on the one hand and on the other, a coprporation valued worldwide for it's balanced reporting whose presenters, in the opinion of some, perhaps show a liberal bias. The comment about abortion is strange, the right to legal abortion is not "the liberal concensus" but the law of the land supported by the majority of people. Yes the BBC should always ensure it is balanced and it is monitored and commented on ad infinitum. Who vets the output of Fox News Willie Bob? No one.

You must be a fan of Fox. It's typical Fox behaviour, don't defend or disprove the allegations, just throw a bit of shit at someone else and hope it sticks. Sad and pathetic.

[SMD]

If you're having a pop at Peter Allan you and me are going to have words.

I was this close to a threesome with Jane Garvey and Victoria Derbyshire and he went and ruined it.

[WillieBob]

You must be a fan of Fox.

Never had you down as somebody who would jump to a conclusion.

Sad and pathetic.

[4pool]

I know it sucks when you're one of the last rats on a sinking ship.
Your whole response reeks of psychosis...who's twisted mentally?

Well you tried to defend Saddam Hussein's actions in the 1980's on another thread, so defending Foley ought to be no problem, oh exalted one!

It takes one to know one.

So you are calling me sick as well..after I said Foley was a sick individual.

You really are one fucked up individual. And I don't use curse words very often.

When you admit to your hundreds of misleading and obfuscating lies on this board maybe I'll be nice.  But until then, no dice.


So you can't do as I asked and point out where I was defending Foley, so you change the attack. Well done. You can't prove your truth. You lied full stop.

There is a difference between you and I. Yet as with most people that you run around with you are at the ready to put words in other peoples mouth and when caught out can't even admit your falsehood. And you sleep at night? Of course you do. Because it is more imnportant for you to be some great attack dog. Regardless if you have to lie and make things up along the way.

I really don't hate you.  I pity you.  I pity what you have become.  Once you were a young idealist who loved a great man (JFK) and now you're trying to cover for child predators, far right-wing propaganda machines, unnecessary war in the Middle East, untold corruption, etc.  Shakespeare would have a field day writing a tragedy about you.

After these exchanges in this thread. Pity is not something you need to worry about. Telling the truth might be #1 on your list when you talk about others. And learning how to discuss things without personal attacks.

And that's what you'll get until you start telling the truth to other posters.  I know you hate it when your shit is thrown back in your face.  You're a bully who likes to have his way with other people.  Well you've run into the kid in the sandlot who will pull your shirt over your head and break your face for being a bully.

You don't know jack. I don't mind a debate. There are two or more ways to look at things. It is you who doesn't like to be challenged on things and the long winded bunch of personal bullshit you type directed at me only proves the point. I don't take any debate personal. Forums are for sharing. Not "winning" anything. But that's the only way you look at it. And when YOU can't win any debate you take to personal attacks, as you have in this thread. Well done. I know you're proud of yourself. But it must be ugly being you. I would want it.


Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me three times? No chance in hell.  It was intended to deliberately distort the truth.

Why should I read the FOX transcripts when it's been reported that FOX changes its transcripts?  Should I trust a network which says American GIs committed war crimes against the Nazis at Malmedy when it was actually the other way around?  When FOX was called on that front, it was forced to scrub part of that O'Reilly transcript.

Once is an honest mistake, but three times?  That's a pattern of malfeasance.

Big deal. Enjoy your victory. Anyone watching, and I did watch for a bit when I saw that graffic--knows damn well they were talking about Republican Foley. If getting an on-screen graffic wrong is the best you can do..good luck to you.

They might say he's a Republican, but he's one of those icky gay Republicans.  To FOX, it's got less to do with him being an R and soliciting sex with minors than it does with being gay.  And as long as he's gay, screw the commentary because in this visual society, we can get off with a graphic showing him as a Democrat three times and some people will actually believe it!

And I hope you get yourself off when Nancy Pelosi gets the drapes ready in the Speaker's office, when John Conyers calls the entire Bush Administration into his office as Chairman of Judicial Affairs, when Henry Waxman chairs the Oversight Committee and exposes all those billions lost in war profiteering, etc. etc. etc.

It was Clinton's first term, when Gingrich lied to the country about term limits, fiscal responsibility, and basically everything else in his Contract for America.  Gingrich left the Speakership disgraced, as did his successor Livingston, as will Hastert, as did Delay from his Majority Leader post, as did Ney, as did the jailed Cunningham, and the sex predator Foley.  Who knows how many more Republicans will leave Washington in cowardly fashion?

One house is virtually gone to you (the House).  George Will said this morning he feels 75 of Foley's colleagues will hit the unemployment line.  Now he's an R, playing the expectations game, but I think he's roughly doubling the actual number of seats which will fall.

We'll find out in November won't we.

More FOX media spin.  Now you whine constantly about a "liberal media".  If that were actually the case, why are three-quarters of the invited guests on all these media outlets Republicans?  Answer that, oh Lord our God, King of the Universe...

You do know Reagan removed the fair media clause from the FCC to suit his evangelical masters, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson?

And as a Republican, I suspect you will be walking alone to the voting booth, while ten Democrats proudly show up to the polling center.  You'll wonder what that foul stench is, coming from the Repulican ballot line.  Because you'll be landslided worse than AC Milan was in that second half in Istanbul.

And by the way, don't talk to me until you actually remember how to write a sentence correctly, or spell correctly.  I don't like to engage in discourse with juveniles often.

And you didn't dissapoint with more personal attacks. Again I bet your real proud of yourself.  But then again personal attacks are what you do best--"I defend Foley" and that ain't true--i'm as "sick" as Foley and that ain't true-- and now i'm juvenile--- if there is any "pity" in all this, it is your lack of class  in the way you go about things.  Like I said before, you probably won't apologize for the untruths you have called me.

However,  I do want you to know that I won't be responding to any post of yours in the future until you do apologize for the personal untruths that you said about me---that I defended Foley--and especially that I am "sick" like Foley which was bang out of order.

4pool

[NewHampshire_Exile]

Mel - you have some good points which you are right to bring up and to defend yourself.


However you are still a right wing -  fox apologist who  incorectlly defends the likes of Nestle! 

[NY-AmericanRed]

I know it sucks when you're one of the last rats on a sinking ship.
Your whole response reeks of psychosis...who's twisted mentally?

Well you tried to defend Saddam Hussein's actions in the 1980's on another thread, so defending Foley ought to be no problem, oh exalted one!

It takes one to know one.

So you are calling me sick as well..after I said Foley was a sick individual.

You really are one fucked up individual. And I don't use curse words very often.

When you admit to your hundreds of misleading and obfuscating lies on this board maybe I'll be nice.  But until then, no dice.


So you can't do as I asked and point out where I was defending Foley, so you change the attack. Well done. You can't prove your truth. You lied full stop.

There is a difference between you and I. Yet as with most people that you run around with you are at the ready to put words in other peoples mouth and when caught out can't even admit your falsehood. And you sleep at night? Of course you do. Because it is more imnportant for you to be some great attack dog. Regardless if you have to lie and make things up along the way.

I really don't hate you.  I pity you.  I pity what you have become.  Once you were a young idealist who loved a great man (JFK) and now you're trying to cover for child predators, far right-wing propaganda machines, unnecessary war in the Middle East, untold corruption, etc.  Shakespeare would have a field day writing a tragedy about you.

After these exchanges in this thread. Pity is not something you need to worry about. Telling the truth might be #1 on your list when you talk about others. And learning how to discuss things without personal attacks.

And that's what you'll get until you start telling the truth to other posters.  I know you hate it when your shit is thrown back in your face.  You're a bully who likes to have his way with other people.  Well you've run into the kid in the sandlot who will pull your shirt over your head and break your face for being a bully.

You don't know jack. I don't mind a debate. There are two or more ways to look at things. It is you who doesn't like to be challenged on things and the long winded bunch of personal bullshit you type directed at me only proves the point. I don't take any debate personal. Forums are for sharing. Not "winning" anything. But that's the only way you look at it. And when YOU can't win any debate you take to personal attacks, as you have in this thread. Well done. I know you're proud of yourself. But it must be ugly being you. I would want it.


Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me three times? No chance in hell.  It was intended to deliberately distort the truth.

Why should I read the FOX transcripts when it's been reported that FOX changes its transcripts?  Should I trust a network which says American GIs committed war crimes against the Nazis at Malmedy when it was actually the other way around?  When FOX was called on that front, it was forced to scrub part of that O'Reilly transcript.

Once is an honest mistake, but three times?  That's a pattern of malfeasance.

Big deal. Enjoy your victory. Anyone watching, and I did watch for a bit when I saw that graffic--knows damn well they were talking about Republican Foley. If getting an on-screen graffic wrong is the best you can do..good luck to you.

They might say he's a Republican, but he's one of those icky gay Republicans.  To FOX, it's got less to do with him being an R and soliciting sex with minors than it does with being gay.  And as long as he's gay, screw the commentary because in this visual society, we can get off with a graphic showing him as a Democrat three times and some people will actually believe it!

And I hope you get yourself off when Nancy Pelosi gets the drapes ready in the Speaker's office, when John Conyers calls the entire Bush Administration into his office as Chairman of Judicial Affairs, when Henry Waxman chairs the Oversight Committee and exposes all those billions lost in war profiteering, etc. etc. etc.

It was Clinton's first term, when Gingrich lied to the country about term limits, fiscal responsibility, and basically everything else in his Contract for America.  Gingrich left the Speakership disgraced, as did his successor Livingston, as will Hastert, as did Delay from his Majority Leader post, as did Ney, as did the jailed Cunningham, and the sex predator Foley.  Who knows how many more Republicans will leave Washington in cowardly fashion?

One house is virtually gone to you (the House).  George Will said this morning he feels 75 of Foley's colleagues will hit the unemployment line.  Now he's an R, playing the expectations game, but I think he's roughly doubling the actual number of seats which will fall.

We'll find out in November won't we.

More FOX media spin.  Now you whine constantly about a "liberal media".  If that were actually the case, why are three-quarters of the invited guests on all these media outlets Republicans?  Answer that, oh Lord our God, King of the Universe...

You do know Reagan removed the fair media clause from the FCC to suit his evangelical masters, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson?

And as a Republican, I suspect you will be walking alone to the voting booth, while ten Democrats proudly show up to the polling center.  You'll wonder what that foul stench is, coming from the Repulican ballot line.  Because you'll be landslided worse than AC Milan was in that second half in Istanbul.

And by the way, don't talk to me until you actually remember how to write a sentence correctly, or spell correctly.  I don't like to engage in discourse with juveniles often.

And you didn't dissapoint with more personal attacks. Again I bet your real proud of yourself.  But then again personal attacks are what you do best--"I defend Foley" and that ain't true--i'm as "sick" as Foley and that ain't true-- and now i'm juvenile--- if there is any "pity" in all this, it is your lack of class  in the way you go about things.  Like I said before, you probably won't apologize for the untruths you have called me.

However,  I do want you to know that I won't be responding to any post of yours in the future until you do apologize for the personal untruths that you said about me---that I defended Foley--and especially that I am "sick" like Foley which was bang out of order.

4pool

Personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks.  You're supposed to be a big boy.  Grow up.  Stop crying to mommy every time you think someone "attacks" you.  No wonder everyone who argues with you thinks you're pathetic.

Why don't you refute my points for once?  Because you've got NOTHING and you KNOW IT.  You had nothing on that other thread when I factually brought up JFK's reluctance to send the 200,000 troops to Vietnam vis-a-vis Bush's warmongering in Iraq.  You have nothing now when I brought up how they had to scrub a segment of the O'Reilly transcript where your hero tells the honorable General Clark how our 82nd Airborne massacred the Nazis at Malmedy when the reverse happened. 

When you cry "personal attacks", I know you've gotten the short end of the stick.  Do you even know what a real personal attack actually looks like?  Your other hero during the 2000 Republican primary literally assaulted John McCain (who I respect greatly for his wartime service) in South Carolina with a brutal negative campaign talking about a supposed "interracial relationship", turning off the largely Caucasian electorate to McCain.  THAT'S a personal attack for you.

As for an apology, you won't receive an apology until you stop spreading your gross lies and propaganda as some kind of holy gospel.  Dismissed.

[Ole Gunnar]

4Pool what's your view on fox, you think it's a decent news channel?

[4pool]

Mel - you have some good points which you are right to bring up and to defend yourself.


However you are still a right wing -  fox apologist who  incorectlly defends the likes of Nestle! 

Well at least one person noticed what personal attacks are..

As to the old Nestle debate....well it was a good one with some passionate commentary but at least it didn't stoop to the lows of personal attacks.

[4pool]

Personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks.  You're supposed to be a big boy.  Grow up.  Stop crying to mommy every time you think someone "attacks" you.  No wonder everyone who argues with you thinks you're pathetic.

Why don't you refute my points for once?  Because you've got NOTHING and you KNOW IT.  You had nothing on that other thread when I factually brought up JFK's reluctance to send the 200,000 troops to Vietnam vis-a-vis Bush's warmongering in Iraq.  You have nothing now when I brought up how they had to scrub a segment of the O'Reilly transcript where your hero tells the honorable General Clark how our 82nd Airborne massacred the Nazis at Malmedy when the reverse happened. 

When you cry "personal attacks", I know you've gotten the short end of the stick.  Do you even know what a real personal attack actually looks like?  Your other hero during the 2000 Republican primary literally assaulted John McCain (who I respect greatly for his wartime service) in South Carolina with a brutal negative campaign talking about a supposed "interracial relationship", turning off the largely Caucasian electorate to McCain.  THAT'S a personal attack for you.

As for an apology, you won't receive an apology until you stop spreading your gross lies and propaganda as some kind of holy gospel.  Dismissed.

Your right--you've been dismissed from any commentary answers from me.

I gave you a chance.

There is one other poster in this forum who is in the same boat as you. I don't respond to his posts either. So you'll never get any debate out of me.

As opposed to others you may have encountered...I am honest. You may not like my views but when I say something as stern as I won't respond..I mean it.

After all, personal integrity is something one should always have regardless of their viewpoints. You obviously don't have it. I wouldn't be without it.

Good bye.

[4pool]

4Pool what's your view on fox, you think it's a decent news channel?

i'll answer you later..gotta get ready for work. As I think you expect a decent reply.

[Ole Gunnar]

i'll answer you later..gotta get ready for work. As I think you expect a decent reply.

Always better than those one liners

[Scottish-Don]

I don't even mind the lies so much as repeating the same items every 5 minutes. It really is utter shite.

That's Sky Sports News your thinking about

[Corkboy]

Oh Lord, protect me please from posturing paddies obsessed with the evils of the USA. And guide them, please, to first take the beam out of their eye.

Thanks a bundle.

A simple question: why does it matter to you and your equally obsessed Irish mates that a bunch of right-wing idiots in a completely different county watch a news channel that's been designed to cater to them?

And why do you all feel the need to complain about it on an interweb football site?

My guess is you're just posturing for each other in a circle jerk of mutual appreciation.

"See Paddy over there, he's really switched on and he's got a really huge knob, 'cos he hates America even more than Seamus does. You shoulda seen his last post on Red And White Kop! Hold on, I think I'm coming."

My, you have a lot of anger. Also, most of your attacks (and they are attacks) eventually take a sexual turn, sooner or later.

Have you ever done any ink blot tests? Tell me, Clarice, what did you see?

Don't stop, by the way (no, no, don't stop!), it's very entertaining. I even nominated you as replacement God in another thread.

[fudge]

A simple question: why does it matter to you and your equally obsessed Irish mates that a bunch of right-wing idiots in a completely different county watch a news channel that's been designed to cater to them?

Mainly because its a country thats pretty good at being centre of world affairs for all the right and wrong reasons, so it affects us directly how policy and opinion is being manufactured.

And why do you all feel the need to complain about it on an interweb football site?

Because its in the news and current affairs section and i'm banned from www.elasticatedpants.com, www.itsourplanetsofucktherest.com and www.bushisacunt.com

[Fiend]

Because its in the news and current affairs section and i'm banned from www.elasticatedpants.com, www.itsourplanetsofucktherest.com and www.bushisacunt.com

Ha! I actually clicked on them The only one that works is www.bushisacunt.com

[fudge]

Ha! I actually clicked on them The only one that works is www.bushisacunt.com

fuck didn't know that...must be more careful...
and less predictable.

[NY-AmericanRed]

Your right--you've been dismissed from any commentary answers from me.

I gave you a chance.

There is one other poster in this forum who is in the same boat as you. I don't respond to his posts either. So you'll never get any debate out of me.

As opposed to others you may have encountered...I am honest. You may not like my views but when I say something as stern as I won't respond..I mean it.

After all, personal integrity is something one should always have regardless of their viewpoints. You obviously don't have it. I wouldn't be without it.

Good bye.

Well if you were so honest, you would have never responded to my last post with this one, huh?  You would have just gone home, like you said you would.  But no, you're too damn proud and arrogant to admit getting beaten from pillar to post on your viewpoints.  You've got to play that sympathy card for all it's worth. 

"Bad, bad NY-AmericanRed, he attacks me personally? Wah, wah."  Well sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.  A very important lesson to be learned here.  If you actually had the goods you wouldn't have given a shit about the "personal attacks", but since you've got nothing, that's all you can hang your hat on.

One last thing:

How 'bout dem Cowboys!

[Gnurglan]

I'm no fan of Fox News. Ever since I saw a couple of reporters shout together with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I just don't trust Fox. It was some of the most biased reporting I have ever seen. I believe Fox is popular because it reinforces people's opinions on strong issues. People think they want balanced news, so they can make up their own mind, but I don't think it works like that. People like it when someone agrees with their own opinions.

But perhaps it's not just Fox that are biased? Perhaps Fox have actually done us all a favour because we're now questioning the news being reported.

[4pool]

4Pool what's your view on fox, you think it's a decent news channel?

I posted this Time Magazine article about Fox News on page 1 of this thread:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1543610,00.html

I think that would be a good start.

As some people may want to say, one looks for something closer to one's own beliefs when you listen to the news. ( Or read the papers..just look at the interesting posts about various English papers and which means what.)

But I think when people outside the USA look at Fox News there is definately a skewed opinion. To claim that "dumb and dumber' watch Fox News is blatantly wrong. It does seem that staunch socialists or even those leaning communist claim this. I would say that more "average" Americans watch FN.

Once you understand who Americans are, then it's not so hard to figure out who watches Fox. Americans are more religious than Europeans. Americans are more Married than Europeans and less "this is my partner". Americans I think are more Patriotic than Europeans. ( anyone driving around will see American flags on homes and back of cars. Not to mention the various "ribbons" on the back of cars for the Military. Doubt you see that in Europe. People are not afraid to show their support and  not just when the national team is playing  ) These are just some things that add up and confuse Europeans why citizens of the USA aren't like them. This leads to more conservatism amoung citizens. Liberal when young and single..conservative when married or older. Now I am generalizing a bunch. But remember the old "who will soccer moms vote for?" questions during the last few elections. That is because Moms ( and some Dads) tend to be more conservative  as married folks than when single, especially when there are kids . Doesn't mean Republican--don't confuse the two.

Conservative, to me,  includes Right leaning Democrats not just Republicans, which is why I say don't confuse the two.

So that is where Fox News comes from and who they target as their audience. And why it is more successful. It may slightly lean conservative with their news--as Time magazine states. And there more Right leaning hosts on a few shows. But that is "entertainment and discussion" type programs , not the reporting of news. Anyone watching those shows know they are opinion shows and not the "news".


When those conservative Democrats and Republicans watch the other news networks it becomes more obvious to them why they like Fox. I personally watch CNN as well. Sometimes because my motel doesn't have FN. Sometimes at home to get their impression or slant of the same "big" story. I rarely watch the "network" evening news--ABC, CBS, or NBC--because it comes on when Sky Sports News is on here and quiet frankly I don't like their presentations. Because all three networks have lost so much market share they have gotten into mixing entertainment and news instead of staying with just news.


That's it in an overview.

[PortlandRed]

Fox News reminds me of that scene in "Airplane" when the Russian news presenter is talking about the plane being in peril and you see a mans arm holding a gun to the head of the newscaster. 

I don't know why.

[NewHampshire_Exile]

But I think when people outside the USA look at Fox News there is definately a skewed opinion. To claim that "dumb and dumber' watch Fox News is blatantly wrong. It does seem that staunch socialists or even those leaning communist claim this. I would say that more "average" Americans watch FN.

Once you understand who Americans are, then it's not so hard to figure out who watches Fox. Americans are more religious than Europeans. Americans are more Married than Europeans and less "this is my partner". Americans I think are more Patriotic than Europeans. ( anyone driving around will see American flags on homes and back of cars. Not to mention the various "ribbons" on the back of cars for the Military. Doubt you see that in Europe. People are not afraid to show their support and  not just when the national team is playing  ) These are just some things that add up and confuse Europeans why citizens of the USA aren't like them. This leads to more conservatism amoung citizens. Liberal when young and single..conservative when married or older. Now I am generalizing a bunch. But remember the old "who will soccer moms vote for?" questions during the last few elections. That is because Moms ( and some Dads) tend to be more conservative  as married folks than when single, especially when there are kids . Doesn't mean Republican--don't confuse the two.

sounds like Texans, not Americans.

The Americans I meet are more likely to go to church and just accept whats put in front of them, using the church life as a excuse for community - and therefore excluding those from outside that church from their community. That doesn;lt make them more religious - it makes them more sheep like - truly are a flock.

More Americans are moarried - yet more are quite happy to have a "starter marriage" because its the done thing. School, college, career, starter marriage, divorce, promotion, 2nd marriage, kids, church, 401K, fuck the community.

More patrotic - yes definatley. Its just a shame that patritic means me, me ,me and fuck anyone else. hate canadians, hate mexicans and anyone who isn;t connected to them by land. Put that flag up baby and pledge to the USA first because thats what your neighbours and that wonderful church community is looking for from you. Happy and proud to have a European heritage and can tall you who many countires they are linked to  -yet with absolutley no understanding of what a cultural heritage means*** and no way will they ever attempt to find out what one means.

who do these people vote for - whoever brainwashes them to vote - be that Fox or the voice from thier church - and as most of those perveted money hungry fuckers have aligned themselves with the Right wingers then you can guess who that is...

generalizations work both ways Mel..


Its too easy just to protect what you have and make sure that nobody can threaten it - thats all the church has ever done here and all the republicans have done for years. The republicans are more than happy to have fox as their mouthpiece because it makes people feel good about being republican - all by attacking everyone else. The Foley thing is a perfect example - lie about what party the wanna be kiddie fiddler belonged to because it'd be a conflict with the church to have him as an (R). not once, not twice but three times in a pre recorded section - and when it was pointed it they just totally removed the graphic instead of getting it right. they use every underhand trick they can think of to attack everyone else - never ever do they attempt to have a fair and balanced view and pretending they do is self delusional.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion  check it out. they are fucking nuts and not only should they be banned from voting - they should be banned from showing any news whatsoever. Stick to stories and falsehood and declare it such.





*** example - I work in a town that was the center of the textile industry in the North East - if not the USA - due to a lack of workers they imported as many people as they possibly could - particuarly from Ireland and French Canada (Montreal is only a 4 hour drive these days). however even though French is still spoken in many houses on the west side of town there isn;t a single french place to eat - its all fast food rubbish - theres no desire to keep any of the culture. Same with the irsh - the only decent Irish bar in town was opened last year by a member of the chieftens of all people.


 

[NewHampshire_Exile]

Fox News reminds me of that scene in "Airplane" when the Russian news presenter is talking about the plane being in peril and you see a mans arm holding a gun to the head of the newscaster. 

I don't know why.

maybe because you have seen that sort of falsehood in your past ;d


PS have a beer for me when you are over!!

[PortlandRed]

It's a done deal

"One for me, one for my homies" - Dr. Evil

[nyctex]

The republicans are more than happy to have fox as their mouthpiece because it makes people feel good about being republican - all by attacking everyone else. The Foley thing is a perfect example - lie about what party the wanna be kiddie fiddler belonged to because it'd be a conflict with the church to have him as an (R). not once, not twice but three times in a pre recorded section - and when it was pointed it they just totally removed the graphic instead of getting it right. they use every underhand trick they can think of to attack everyone else - never ever do they attempt to have a fair and balanced view and pretending they do is self delusional.   

I'm sure the Republicans are happy to get ONE network that actually asks tough questions of both parties.  ONE network that doesn't treat the Democrats and their leftist allies as the only game in town.

You are right about the graphic F-up though.  Fox is really going to have to learn from CBS "News" and Dan Rather how to lie and deceive.  If FOX wanted to do it CBS style they should have come up with a counterfeit Foley voter registration card that claimed he was actually a Democrat.  And maybe do it right before an election.  Now that is how you present the "news."  FOX has a lot to learn to catch up to the big boys.

Oh and I find FOX News refreshing.  Brit Hume is one of the best reporters out there.  "Special Report W/ Brit Hume" is the best hour news show w/o a doubt.

Have you every thought about opening a french restaurant?  Sounds like a market waiting to be served, no pun intended 

[NewHampshire_Exile]

fox news refreshing - yeah - like rolling naked in snow is refreshing. stay in the snow and you'll go numb though...




if an English fry up was fench then I'd be changing career...

[Fiend]

Oh and I find FOX News refreshing.  Brit Hume is one of the best reporters out there.  "Special Report W/ Brit Hume" is the best hour news show w/o a doubt.

Arch scumbag high lizard with lies crawling from his mouth like maggots from a corpse but other than that he's okay.



Am I the only one who can see a forked lizard tongue coming from his mouth? Anyone remember V - the tv series from the 80's? Scary stuff...

[Eric]

Once you understand who Americans are, then it's not so hard to figure out who watches Fox. Americans are more religious than Europeans. Americans are more Married than Europeans and less "this is my partner". Americans I think are more Patriotic than Europeans. ( anyone driving around will see American flags on homes and back of cars. Not to mention the various "ribbons" on the back of cars for the Military. Doubt you see that in Europe. People are not afraid to show their support and  not just when the national team is playing  ) These are just some things that add up and confuse Europeans why citizens of the USA aren't like them.

It's unfair to compare a country to a continent, but as a whole Americans are less educated than Europeans, leading to less wages, and more blind nationalism, or religion.

When you have a lot of blue collar workers getting raped by big business, you end up with desperate people looking for meaning in their lives.  And like footy hooligans they attach themselves to something passionately (USA! USA!).

I also read somewhere that the leading employer in all of the red states was Wal-mart, which is ironic because this is where most of patriotic/religious America lives, yet none of the products are American made, and Wal-mart has a reputation for being anti-union, pro-foreign labor.

It's not just FOX, or the Republicans that lies, it's all of them.

[Ole Gunnar]

I posted this Time Magazine article about Fox News on page 1 of this thread:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1543610,00.html

I think that would be a good start.

As some people may want to say, one looks for something closer to one's own beliefs when you listen to the news. ( Or read the papers..just look at the interesting posts about various English papers and which means what.)

But I think when people outside the USA look at Fox News there is definately a skewed opinion. To claim that "dumb and dumber' watch Fox News is blatantly wrong. It does seem that staunch socialists or even those leaning communist claim this. I would say that more "average" Americans watch FN.

Once you understand who Americans are, then it's not so hard to figure out who watches Fox. Americans are more religious than Europeans. Americans are more Married than Europeans and less "this is my partner". Americans I think are more Patriotic than Europeans. ( anyone driving around will see American flags on homes and back of cars. Not to mention the various "ribbons" on the back of cars for the Military. Doubt you see that in Europe. People are not afraid to show their support and  not just when the national team is playing  ) These are just some things that add up and confuse Europeans why citizens of the USA aren't like them. This leads to more conservatism amoung citizens. Liberal when young and single..conservative when married or older. Now I am generalizing a bunch. But remember the old "who will soccer moms vote for?" questions during the last few elections. That is because Moms ( and some Dads) tend to be more conservative  as married folks than when single, especially when there are kids . Doesn't mean Republican--don't confuse the two.

Conservative, to me,  includes Right leaning Democrats not just Republicans, which is why I say don't confuse the two.

So that is where Fox News comes from and who they target as their audience. And why it is more successful. It may slightly lean conservative with their news--as Time magazine states. And there more Right leaning hosts on a few shows. But that is "entertainment and discussion" type programs , not the reporting of news. Anyone watching those shows know they are opinion shows and not the "news".


When those conservative Democrats and Republicans watch the other news networks it becomes more obvious to them why they like Fox. I personally watch CNN as well. Sometimes because my motel doesn't have FN. Sometimes at home to get their impression or slant of the same "big" story. I rarely watch the "network" evening news--ABC, CBS, or NBC--because it comes on when Sky Sports News is on here and quiet frankly I don't like their presentations. Because all three networks have lost so much market share they have gotten into mixing entertainment and news instead of staying with just news.


That's it in an overview.

I have been in America on numerous occasions, as I used to work on a cruise ship, and I have been on oil and chemical tankers as well, so I have experienced that difference you are talking about first hand.
And I know what kind of  people are watching it, but that was not really my question.

What I want to know is whats your view on the channel, as a news channel. Do you think it's OK for a news channel to lie, even if it's O'reilly or Hannity(think thats his name)?
To deliberately missinform people, and to always have a spin on their stories?

I first watched fox news after 9/11, as it was broadcaster on Norwegian TV at night time. At the time I didn't know anything about fox, and what kind newschannel it was, but it took about ten minutes before I got the picture. I still watched it, as it was intresting to see a such blatantly obvious propaganda from an American news channel, and a I soon realized it was pretty far from fair and balanced.

And thats key word for me, "fair and balanced", because they simply are not. The fact that they put so much energy into calling themself fair and balanced, "we report you decide", or whatever their slogan is, makes it hard for me to understand how intelligent people can watch this crap. As they are so far from fair and balanced as you can be, and everybody with half a brain can see that.

But like Gnurglan said, one good thing might come off this, people might start questioning the news more now after fox news are becoming such a big channel. I just hopes it doesn't lead into newchannels being either right or left wing media, that would really be a bad thing.

By the way, have you seen outfoxed?

[smithng]

One last thing:

How 'bout dem Cowboys!

Philadelphia   38-24 Dallas

[4pool]

I have been in America on numerous occasions, as I used to work on a cruise ship, and I have been on oil and chemical tankers as well, so I have experienced that difference you are talking about first hand.
And I know what kind of  people are watching it, but that was not really my question.

What I want to know is whats your view on the channel, as a news channel. Do you think it's OK for a news channel to lie, even if it's O'reilly or Hannity(think thats his name)?
To deliberately missinform people, and to always have a spin on their stories?

I first watched fox news after 9/11, as it was broadcaster on Norwegian TV at night time. At the time I didn't know anything about fox, and what kind newschannel it was, but it took about ten minutes before I got the picture. I still watched it, as it was intresting to see a such blatantly obvious propaganda from an American news channel, and a I soon realized it was pretty far from fair and balanced.

And thats key word for me, "fair and balanced", because they simply are not. The fact that they put so much energy into calling themself fair and balanced, "we report you decide", or whatever their slogan is, makes it hard for me to understand how intelligent people can watch this crap. As they are so far from fair and balanced as you can be, and everybody with half a brain can see that.

But like Gnurglan said, one good thing might come off this, people might start questioning the news more now after fox news are becoming such a big channel. I just hopes it doesn't lead into newchannels being either right or left wing media, that would really be a bad thing.

By the way, have you seen outfoxed?

Nope..

I too have travelled. 48 of the 50 states ( Maryland and Delware to go). All of the Southern Provinces from BC to Quebec in Canada. Mexico and Central America. A few Carribean Islands. South America. Asia from South Korea to Singapore, along with New Zealand. And of course a few places in Europe.

I have watched tv outside the USA as well. It is interesting to see "government" controlled media in other countries and how they frame the news as it relates to the USA. Anyone from the USA who spends any amount of time outside the USA and watches the news or buys a paper finds it very interesting, even more so if you are somewhat conservative.

So I am not surprised that most Europeans and those from other part of the world along with Ex-pats have the reaction to Fox News that they do.

But that never is the point is it? As with some of the replies so far it just becomes another rant about the USA.

The USA isn't perfect. Never will be.

However, it does seem as though some would just as soon eliminate the news source so that the minds of Americans can go back to being controlled by the other media outlets and further indoctrination can take place.

But you can't put genie back in the bottle. If the other media outlets would have played news stories straight and not impose their Liberal agenda, Fox News would have never happened. Would have never become as big as they are.

All the whinging about it isn't going to change a thing.

As for O'Reilly and Hannity...those are not news programs. Those are opinion programs. Much as CNN, MSNBC have. They don't hide who they are are what they are about. I do find it interesting when O'Reilly gets into his letters at the end of the program he sometimes reads two different letters..one claiming he is to the far left--then the other claiming he is to the far right..as they talk about the exact same segment that was aired the night before.

Can't get much more "fair and balanced" than that. It's what the viewer brings to the show..now so much what the host is saying...don't ya' think? And those in here whinging about Fox News help prove that little axiom.

However, to me it is a little self serving to say that because someone watches a news channel like Fox News it means those who do will vote Republican.  My question to those who think that is: Before Fox News 10 yeara ago, how did Republicans ever win any races? How did they win the Presidency or the Senate or the House? Because the Republicans had control of one or more of the 3 before Fox News ever came about. Strange fact that eh...

[4pool]

Philadelphia   38-24 Dallas

Doesn't bother me..i'm a Jets fan. Have been since they switched from being called the New York Titans, which I doubt many in here would know. Nor would they know that the New York Titans wore Blue and Yellow. But becuase the Los Angeles Chargers also wore Blue and Yellow the American Football League wanted each team to have different colors. In steps Leon Hess who buys the Titans. Hess oil colors are Green and White..he changes the name to the New York Jets and changes their colors to Green and White.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[Baraka]

hmmm.


Trevor Mcdonald, best newsreader of all time.


Long live Trev!!

[Ole Gunnar]

But you can't put genie back in the bottle. If the other media outlets would have played news stories straight and not impose their Liberal agenda, Fox News would have never happened. Would have never become as big as they are.

All the whinging about it isn't going to change a thing.

As for O'Reilly and Hannity...those are not news programs. Those are opinion programs. Much as CNN, MSNBC have. They don't hide who they are are what they are about. I do find it interesting when O'Reilly gets into his letters at the end of the program he sometimes reads two different letters..one claiming he is to the far left--then the other claiming he is to the far right..as they talk about the exact same segment that was aired the night before.

Can't get much more "fair and balanced" than that. It's what the viewer brings to the show..now so much what the host is saying...don't ya' think? And those in here whinging about Fox News help prove that little axiom.

However, to me it is a little self serving to say that because someone watches a news channel like Fox News it means those who do will vote Republican.  My question to those who think that is: Before Fox News 10 yeara ago, how did Republicans ever win any races? How did they win the Presidency or the Senate or the House? Because the Republicans had control of one or more of the 3 before Fox News ever came about. Strange fact that eh...

When a channel named "Fox News", have programs where the hosts tell lies, you are OK with that because its not news, it's opinion programs? I know CNN and MSNBC have opinion programs, but as far as I know the don't tell lies like O'reilly and Hannity does. 

And you say the O'reilly show is fair and balanced because they read out letters from viewers at the end of the show? What about all the people he tells to shut up, or threathens to beat up because they don't share his views?

And I would recommend you to download, or buy, the movie outfoxed, I think you would find it intresting.

[nyctex]

When a channel named "Fox News", have programs where the hosts tell lies, you are OK with that because its not news, it's opinion programs? I know CNN and MSNBC have opinion programs, but as far as I know the don't tell lies like O'reilly and Hannity does. 

And you say the O'reilly show is fair and balanced because they read out letters from viewers at the end of the show? What about all the people he tells to shut up, or threathens to beat up because they don't share his views?

And I would recommend you to download, or buy, the movie outfoxed, I think you would find it intresting.

I saw Outfoxed - silly polemic in a Michael Moore fashion.
Might I suggest "Bias" a book by Bernie Goldberg.  He was a reporter for many years for CBS and points out the bias that the major networks have - like NBC, CBS, the BBC etc.  He doesn't treat it like a hit job, but a serious sounding of the left-of-center bias by most, but not all, reporters, and more importantly, producers.  He doesn't accuse them of being shills for the left-of-center parties, but they naturally gravitate that way and it shows in their reporting and the stories the decide to run with.

Once you understand that then you will see why FOX is so successful.  It is one voice vs every other news outlet.