Discussion: FOX News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, I can understand wanting to hold both parties feet to the fire, but to act like the republicans haven't done more to destroy this economy is dishonest. "But, but, Maddow/MSNBC is JUST AS BAD!!!" I know Clinton has a hand in this too, so does H.W. Bush, and Reagan. But somehow Obama is the anti-christ.
 
TimBisley said:
Look, I can understand wanting to hold both parties feet to the fire, but to act like the republicans haven't done more to destroy this economy is dishonest. "But, but, Maddow/MSNBC is JUST AS BAD!!!" I know Clinton has a hand in this too, so does H.W. Bush, and Reagan. But somehow Obama is the anti-christ.
Click to expand...
I was arguing with a guy I work with who tried to put all the blame on the Republicans. The best way to trash that argument is to simply put the blame on everyone :awesome:
 
I think both sides are to blame. A lot of financial deregulation was passed under Clinton. I do not ever assign blame to one person or party. But that doesn't excuse Fox and the fact that it markets itself to bigots and ignorant old people. Complain all you want about Maddow and Olbermann, but they pale in comparison to Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity.
 
Clinton and the Republican Congress deserve blame for the housing crisis that was the result of the financial deregulation.

The Bush Administration deserves the blame for the mess at Wall Street that allowed rampant speculation.
 
Every president and congress for the past hundred years deserve the blame for turning over control of our country to corporations that have no allegiance to America at all.
 
There are conservative news sources, which cant be trusted because they are biased.
There are liberal news sources, which cant be trusted because they are biased.
There are news sources that are against both parties, which cant be trusted because they are conspiracy sites.
Even the unbiased news sources have been accused of bias (both ways) over the years with decent evidence, so they can't be trusted.
 
Matt Mortem said:
Didn't anyone see Jon Stewarts follow the money report last night? Apparently the super evil Arab funding the so called "terror mosque" in NY is the same guy that owns the second largest share of FOX news. I'm gonna do some digging to verify it, but if it turns out to be true then FOX news is a bigger bunch of creeps than I thought. They've been accusing one of their shareholders of terrorism. HAHA
Click to expand...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18800630&postcount=4715

:cwink::woot:
 
Superman said:
:lmao::applaud I've heard that alot around here from people on the Right. :awesome:
Click to expand...

well there's conservative and liberal slanted sites. and then there's nutjob crazy sites with a huge agenda.

in this case newsbusters and Breitbart.

now here's an article that begins it's critique of Maddow's bias with the false statement : "Rachel Maddow has to get it right eventually"

This is as far as I got. The author is implying that she is always wrong. A statement that is on it's face false.

tip 1: if you're going to question someone's bias it's best not to lead with your own in an untruthful manner. it tends to make people like me ignore anything else that follows.

and actually having the audacity to present Breitbart's site as a place for unbiased information on ACORN is like asking the KKK to tell us about Black People. or the people in Code Pink for an accurate assessment on the war. or Sarah Palin to explain the first amendment.

Okay I did it. I hate just shooting the messenger so I went and looked at what Newsbusters had to say and well. he had nothing. His assertion was to claim that Maddow said something she didn't. and it was all over the word "other".
He claimed that she said Stupak and his group were not supporting the bill based solely on the abortion language. but she never said that. she didn't infer it. She was only questioning the numbers in his group. the 15-20 he said he had opposing it. he was putting words in her mouth.

the Breitbart article was total crap. Anyone who does not believe that the O'Keefe ACORN videos were not heavily edited is delusional.
Their argument is so circular and illogical that it's like a snake eating it's own tail. But where they try to make hay is on the "unedited" videos that the Calif AG had.
The AG said that even what they gave him as "unedited" was still heavily edited. Maddow called these unedited in the context of comparing them to what Big Govt and Fox news presented to the public.
you have 2 versions of the tapes. the really ,really heavily edited stuff they fed the public. and the not so heavily edited but still edited tapes they gave the AG.
in her description she called the not so heavily edited one the "unedited" one as a reference to it in comparison to the other. and still I'm not sure if the Calif AG was referring to the tape that Fox and Breitbart shopped around or the one Breitbart submitted as evidence to him as the supposedly "unedited" one in his statement. Did anyone ever see a clarification from him on that?

Either way it's not exactly what I would call intentionally misleading. or a bold faced lie like he asserted. The accuser should probably be more concerned as to why O'Keefe didn't give up the full unedited versions of his tapes to the AG.
It's almost a case of evidence tampering but the editing probably occurred before charges were filed.

his 3rd link was the youtube video that used heavy editing. once it started splicing together phrases to form complete statements for Maddow I stopped watching it. and that was about 5 seconds in.


​
 
Last edited:
TimBisley said:
Look, I can understand wanting to hold both parties feet to the fire, but to act like the republicans haven't done more to destroy this economy is dishonest. "But, but, Maddow/MSNBC is JUST AS BAD!!!" I know Clinton has a hand in this too, so does H.W. Bush, and Reagan. But somehow Obama is the anti-christ.
Click to expand...

MSNBC just reports the news and offers commentary. Are you trying to say that they were just as bad as Fox News? BTW the sensation of MSNBC only happened in the last two years. Before that they were terrible as far ratings and viewership. That is hardly any indication that they had anything to do with the economy.
 
Hobodeluxe said:
Oh Look. Here's "conservative journalist" John Stossel. Fox's new star displaying the journalistic integrity and passion that caught Murdoch's eye.
Click to expand...

You can't say one source is biased/propaganda when you post links to sites that are biased and push propaganda. This is the exact same thing with MSNBC/Fox comparison. I find it shockingly mind numbing that some of you consistently bash Fox News for bias but watch MSNBC every night.

People then point to the amount of news compared to commentary shows that Fox has when compared to MSNBC. Look at MSNBCs primetime lineup and look at Fox's. They are both filled with commentary shows. Nobody watches MSNBC at 2 in the afternoon just like nobody watches Fox News at 2 in the afternoon. Why is that? Why does MSNBC and Fox put their biggest commentary players on when they have the most viewership? Shocking:dry:
 
The difference is that after watching MSNBC, I don't feel like they are trying to take over DA VORLD!!!


:doom: :doom: :doom:
 
Bwahahaha! Yes... <wrings hands> yes....


Tell us what to do Slick Willy. We will follow your orders. Send Agent Gore and Agent Moore to Wall Street tomorrow.


Bwahahaha!!!


:doom: :doom: :doom:
 
chaseter said:
You can't say one source is biased/propaganda when you post links to sites that are biased and push propaganda. This is the exact same thing with MSNBC/Fox comparison. I find it shockingly mind numbing that some of you consistently bash Fox News for bias but watch MSNBC every night.

People then point to the amount of news compared to commentary shows that Fox has when compared to MSNBC. Look at MSNBCs primetime lineup and look at Fox's. They are both filled with commentary shows. Nobody watches MSNBC at 2 in the afternoon just like nobody watches Fox News at 2 in the afternoon. Why is that? Why does MSNBC and Fox put their biggest commentary players on when they have the most viewership? Shocking:dry:
Click to expand...

if you can't tell the difference between a straight up AP article and what you presented then it's your problem not mine.
 
Hobodeluxe said:
Is that what they teach you at "Real American" school?
Click to expand...

Let's take it down a notch Hobo. Norm might be a right-leaning poster, but he's not a right-wing nutjob like the 'real american' tea party crowd.
 
Hobodeluxe said:
if you can't tell the difference between a straight up AP article and what you presented then it's your problem not mine.
Click to expand...

You called Hippie's links propaganda/bias and that you do not recognize them as a news source yet you post links to the Huffington post and other left leaning news organizations...that is my analogy of hypocrisy. If you immediately are going to discount what he posted then do not post links to sites that are biased but share your point of view...because a new site with bias is propaganda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sinewave
  • Poll Poll
Bush (merge x4)
35 36 37
Replies
923
Views
49K
Tag279
Tag279
Marx
The 2012 FOX News/Google Republican Presidential Debate
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
Marx
Marx
terry78
Bombshell- The Fox News Movie
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
13K
Kane52630
Kane52630
Marx
The 2008 US Presidential Election thread
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
StorminNorman
StorminNorman
Memphis Slim
Don Imus Is Back
2 3
Replies
69
Views
5K
Spider-X
Spider-X

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,001 (members: 22, guests: 2,979)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,287
Messages
22,079,478
Members
45,881
Latest member
semicharmedlife

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"