[Old School]

Maybe Old School cant handle the truth, he hasn't replied in days.

Never Fear Old School is here!... I've been working late this week, you know doing my part to keep the lights on. lol Just bear with me a few more days and I will respond to your amusing little post, hopefully I'll have something ready by Sunday.

Remember The Spin Stops Here

[Old School]

I don't think that any news media outlet, including TV or newpaper, tells you the whole story and doesn't give a biased opinion. It's according to who they are trying to sell the story to and what sells the best to audiences. It has been my experience that everytime I have interviewed by a news outlet, especially the newspaper, the story doesn't come out the way that it was supposed to. The reporter will write it in a biased manner simply because that sells more papers. I think you will watch either CNN or Fox based on how they portray the information, whether it is biased or not. It's based on what you think of the issue being discussed. Just my opinion though.

FW...I agree, there are some journalist who will embellish stories for various reason.

[jetpilot]

Since 90% of the media is extremely liberal, I sure hope Fox never becomes fair and balanced.

[Coach_Owens87]

Since 90% of the media is extremely liberal, I sure hope Fox never becomes fair and balanced.

And where do you get these facts from? Fox I guess. Most media outlets fall somewhere close to the middle, the only real biased you see is in the opiniated shows, unless you watch fox, thier little ticker at the bottom always uses slanted stories and lies.


I'm glad everyone, including the conservatives admit Fox is bias. The whole fair and balanced slogan they use is insane.

[Coach_Owens87]

Never Fear Old School is here!... I've been working late this week, you know doing my part to keep the lights on. lol Just bear with me a few more days and I will respond to your amusing little post, hopefully I'll have something ready by Sunday.

Remember The Spin Stops Here

Right, the only thing spinning is O'Reilly's head. I fount it very funny that you assume Billy boy is on some type of moral pedestal, the man is a compulsive liar, a drunk, and a sexual predator. Thats definitely the type of person I would want going after all us "immoral" liberals, lol.

[Coach_Owens87]

FW...I agree, there are some journalist who will embellish stories for various reason.

I agree with that also, and most of these people work at fox. The stories they embellish are handed down to them from the hierarchies at Fox. There's proof of this too, the anchors get memos on which conservative issues to push, I find that embarrassing and a disgrace to journalism.

[Coach_Owens87]

Since 90% of the media is extremely liberal, I sure hope Fox never becomes fair and balanced.

Heres a fact for you, 76% of the people who voted on this poll believe that Fox is extremely tilted toward the right.

[Old School]

Heres a fact for you, 76% of the people who voted on this poll believe that Fox is extremely tilted toward the right.

There you go again, I believe the question on the poll is "Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?" no where does it say, do you believe Fox News is extremely tilted to the right, but then I realized changing a word here and there is nothing new for you.

[Old School]

In response to Coach_Owens87 Post #20

In summarizing your earlier post you referred to Mr. O’Reilly as being a bigot, a sexual predator, liar, and an alcoholic, boy, those are some major allegations.

By calling to Mr. O’Reilly a bigot I’m assuming that you’re not referring to him being a prejudiced person of race, but rather a person who is indifferent of any different belief or opinion. If that is the case coach, you may not want to throw around the word hypocrite as often as you do, at least that’s the opinion I taken from you’re post during the last year.

Definition of Predator: One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for ones own gains.
Definition of Harassment: To disturb persistently: torment, as with troubles or cares.
In response to your accusation that Mr. O’Reilly is a sexual predator, which I presume is based solely on your report of him being accused of sexual harassment by an intern, we all remember what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team could this be some of the same.
I noticed that you referenced Wikipedia.org, personally I don’t like to use them, but since you did what the heck. According to Wikipedia a Producer not an Intern threatened to charge Mr. O’Reilly with sexual harassment unless he paid her $60 Million Dollars, while conversations were never explicitly denied by Mr. O’Reilly, he did deny engaging in any physical or sexual assaults or “offensive touching”. This matter was settled out of court although terms of the agreement are confidential. Hypothetically let’s say one day you were talking to a woman and the subject turned a little racy, and you were accused of sexual harassment, even though nothing actually happened, would you consider yourself a sexual predator or would you be upset if others called you by that name. Mr. O’Reilly was accused of sexual harassment and I believe a suit was filed against him, now we all know that anyone can charge another person with whatever they want to regardless if it’s true or not. Since the case never went to court we’ll never know the whole story and only two people know what really happened, and what ever happened to being presumed innocent until found guilty in today’s world to me anyways it seems when charges are filed a person is automatically presumed guilty and one has to prove their innocents. Personally I just don’t see where using the word predator could be justified.

Claiming that Mr. O’Reilly was an alcoholic and most likely still is….. I will only say this I’ve never heard him speak of alcoholism nor have I ever read anything pertaining to alcoholism on his part, maybe you know something I don’t, either way to even bring up someone’s alcoholism if they are a recovering alcoholic or to accuse them of being an alcoholic when their not, is very immature and just flat out bush league.

You mentioned that he claimed to have won a Peabody Award, I don’t know if he won a Peabody or not, but according to Wikipedia he has won two local Emmy’s and other journalistic Awards, by the way this was also mentioned on his site.

In all honestly I’m not familiar with the Malmedy Massacre, nor am I familiar with his comments on the subject, but I will say this if he was wrong then he should admit his mistake and move on. However I find it a little odd that you call his comments on Malmedy a lie, assuming you are correct, why would one lie about historical facts, one would have to know they would be caught up in the story such as this, this is why I would state say he was misinformed on the facts. This brings me to another point during this thread you’ve consistently referred to Fox News Network and Mr. O’Reilly as a liars, yet as I mentioned earlier you reported that an intern had charged harassment when it was actually a producer who charged harassment, which got me thinking about other threads where you and I had discussed coal mining and if I remember correctly I found several misquotes and a lot false information that was provided by you. Now let’s go back to your way of thinking, should you be considered a liar or were you just misinformed….Since I’m such a nice guy….I’ll let you decide.

I’m still baffled on why you call him a sexual predator, Mr. O’Reilly has been and still is an advocate of Jessica’s Law, which I’m sure you’ve heard of, she was a 9 year old girl who was abducted by a sexual predator a man who had been previously convicted of crimes against children. This law was passed first in Florida mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years to a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders. Mr. O’Reilly and the Factor have been staunch supporters of this law and constantly attacking the remaining states that refuse to pass this law. Below is a talking points memo from one of Mr. O’Reilly’s shows.

Named in memory of Jessica Lunsford, who was abducted and sexually assaulted before being brutally murdered, "Jessica's Law" refers to the Jessica Lunsford Act passed in Florida which mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life in prison for first-time child sex offenders.

If you've been watching The Factor, you know we are engaged in a battle to protect young children from sexual predators. Many states don't protect children from sexual predators and allow these criminals back on the street to commit these crimes again. There have been despicable cases all across America in which girls and boys have been raped, abused, and even murdered - often by serial sex offenders who had been released by authorities after serving short prison sentences.

Here are just a few of the more egregious examples:

• In Rhode Island, 18-year-old Josh Maciorski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl, but sentenced to probation. Two years later he molested a 14-year-old girl and served just one year. Then, when he got out, Maciorski raped a 16-year-old girl. His sentence after this third strike - an unbelievable three years in prison.
  
• In Missouri, 19-year old Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl, beginning she was just eight. But when Jackson came up for sentencing, a soft judge gave him four months in prison and five years probation.
  
• In Minnesota, Joseph Duncan stood in front of a judge, accused of molesting a young boy. Despite the fact that Duncan had previously served 16 years for raping another young boy at gunpoint, the judge released him on just $15,000 bail. Duncan promptly skipped bail and headed for Idaho, where he allegedly kidnapped, raped, and killed a 9-year old boy, molested his sister, and killed their family.

These outrageous crimes could have been prevented, which is why I am calling on every state in the union to pass a version of "Jessica's Law." The legislation is named after little Jessica Lunsford, who was just nine when her life was brutally ended by a sexual predator who had previously been convicted of sex crimes against a child. The crime forced Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature to mandate stiff minimum sentences for child abusers, who had all too often been slapped on the wrist by lenient judges.

There is simply no question that Jessica's Law will save lives, and similar laws need to be instituted in every state. Which is why we at The Factor have been putting pressure on Governors. Now it's your turn. We have investigated all 50 states to determine which ones are tough on sexual predators and which ones treat these criminals with kid gloves. You can find out where your state ranks elsewhere on this web site. If your state is soft or noncommittal, I urge you to write your Governor, who is paid by YOU. Simply click on your state on the map below and you will be taken to a form that will enable you to send a direct message to your state's chief executive. Please tell him or her, in your own words, how important this issue is to you - and remind the Governor that all politicians are ultimately accountable to you and your fellow voters.

This is literally a life-and-death battle to save our youngest and most vulnerable citizens from abuse, torture, and murder. I hope you'll do your part.



I think it’s comical that you base your opinion of his support of the troops on one questionable comment. While Mr. O’Reilly is one of the few media personalities to visit the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has also tried to encourage the USO to plan more trips with celebrities to perform for the troops, this is one thing you very seldom see the liberal press doing. IMO I thank that Fox News does report information from the war better that any of the other major news networks, for one thing Fox News will report both the good and the bad while other networks are mainly concerned with negative news. One example is when the surge started working Fox reported on it, most of the other networks one or two months before confirming that the surge is working. Another thing that bothers me is why don’t these other networks show little or no support for the troops, I mean come on these men and women are over there fighting for us, even if you don’t support the war you can still support the troops.

[Old School]

Since 90% of the media is extremely liberal, I sure hope Fox never becomes fair and balanced.

Here's some infomation from MRC (Media Reserch Center) in which more journalist and media professionals consider themselves to be liberal than conservative.

In 2001, 4 times as many "media professionals" told polisters they considered themselves "liberal" than called themselves "conservative" and in 2004 Pew Research Center for the People of The Press Survey found that 5 times more journalist identified themselves as "liberal" than "conservative".


All three networks spent more time covering the Democrats’ nomination race than the contest for the GOP nomination. Overall, 431 out of the total 797 campaign segments (54%) focused on the Democrats, compared to 247 (31%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining 119 stories (15%) either dealt with both parties about equally, or dealt with a nonpartisan campaign topic, such as the growing use of YouTube by all candidates.
Of the three morning shows, ABC’s Good Morning America was the most tilted, airing 167 Democratic stories (59%), vs. 83 about the Republicans (29%). CBS’s Early Show and NBC’s Today were nearly identical in emphasizing Democrats in just over half of all campaign stories (51% on NBC, 52% on CBS), with the GOP featured in less than one-third of stories (32%) on each show. (See chart.)
The reason for the disparity: ABC, CBS and NBC have chosen to cover the top Democrats as celebrities, elevating them above the ranks of ordinary candidates. Back in January, the networks excitedly jumped on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s official announcements with heavier coverage than any Republican received. Since then, the morning shows have covered the Democratic duo as “rock stars,” providing national TV coverage for otherwise trivial campaign events.
Beyond the day-to-day coverage, TV’s morning shows offer candidates a generally friendly forum to speak to millions of viewers. Once again, the networks have given the Democrats an advantage. Since January 1, MRC analysts counted 102 morning show appearances by an announced or prospective presidential candidate or one of their representatives. Of these, nearly two-thirds (64) featured Democrats, compared to just 36 for the Republicans and two for potential independent candidate Michael Bloomberg.
When it came to airtime, the Democratic advantage was even more pronounced. Interviews with the various Democratic campaigns totalled 6 hours 24 minutes, compared to just over three hours (184 minutes) for the GOP, a greater than two-to-one disparity. Top Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all received more interview airtime than any Republican candidate. For the GOP, John McCain was granted the most airtime, but his 62 minutes amounted to less than half of the 2 hours 12 minutes received by Clinton’s campaign. Info. compiled by MRC

Then there was this jewel from back in 2000.

“Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as, quote, ‘two Texas oilmen’ because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney’s voting record in Congress as, again quote, ‘outside the American mainstream’ because of Cheney’s votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman’s right to choose abortion — against abortion as Cheney prefers to put it — and Cheney’s votes against gun control.”
— Reporting on Bush’s selection of **** Cheney as his running mate, July 25, 2000 CBS Evening News.

vs.

“Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced his history-making running mate today, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut....In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman fight-back, comeback strategy. Their message: They represent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral standards most in tune with real mainstream America.”
— Reporting on Lieberman’s selection exactly two weeks later, August 8, 2000 CBS Evening News.


News People "Should Be Liberal"
Caller: "You've been quoted as saying that you felt that most journalists were liberal, in fact that a good journalist was by nature a liberal."
Walter Cronkite: "I define liberal as a person who is not doctrinaire. That is a dictionary definition of liberal. That's opposed to 'liberal' as part of the political spectrum....open to change, constantly, not committed to any particular creed or doctrine, or whatnot, and in that respect I think that news people should be liberal."
— Exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, September 11, 1995.

[Coach_Owens87]

^^^^^

You should rephrase that opening sentence to say "Here is something from the conservative think tank the Media Research center, who is out to prove the liberal bias in media." That would be more suiting.

The first thing to bust your little air time bubble is that the MRC included airtime that was giving to John Edwards wife, who is recovering from cancer. I don't know how much airtime was giving to this, but im sure that while Edwards was still in the race that this issue was brought up often. I believe this would be the case with any candidate. Not quite a political story like the MRC would have you believe.

Also I believe a lot of the of the difference in air time is due to the historic election we are having, we could have the first black, or the first woman as a president. I don't think you could really blame any news organization for covering that.

The today show reported last spring that they were going to have all major candidates in this election appear on their show. GOP Candidates Guilanni and Thompson were invited to appear on the today show, Thompson refused to appear on his former network, and guillani never accepted his invitation, all they can do is ask them to appear. Im sure this had a lot to due with the difference also, if conservatives dont appear, it's hard to give them coverage.

Your last sentence there is quite funny, I agree with Walter Cronkite that the media should follow the literal definition of liberal, and I believe everyone would. Liberal means free, and someone who is not doctrinaire, and he even stated that, he also stated that it shouldn't slant toward a political spectrum, but I guess the MRC only seen the word "liberal" and automatically assumed it was a biased statement. And couldn't you have used several sites to get your information and not just cut and paste something from the MRC.

Here is a study done by fair (a left oriented group) that shows fox is more biased than all of the so called "liberal" media.

FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation. Only two ideological categories were used: conservative and non-conservative. Guests affiliated with openly conservative think tanks, magazines or advocacy groups, or who promote openly conservative views, were labeled as such. All other guests were grouped together in the non-conservative category, including centrists, liberals and progressives; non-political guests (e.g., Cheney's heart doctor); and "objective" journalists who do not avow any ideology. Republicans were not automatically counted as conservatives: Moderate Republicans like Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman and David Gergen, for example, were classified as non-conservatives.

Sixty-one percent of guests were current or former Democratic or Republican government officials, political candidates, staffers or advisors. These guests were classified as either Democrats or Republicans. All others -- including conservatives with no official party connection, such as Jerry Falwell or David Horowitz -- were classified as non-partisan for the purposes of the study, along with bipartisan officials such as career diplomats.

The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).

As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports over the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found on Special Report.

Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.

it seems that MRC only counts shows and airtime that prove thier point.

Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (On Wolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)

lol, now thats being biased.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/cablen...ights.html

The link above is a study done by PBS, in which it concludes that fox is an opinion network that gives confrontational, partisan interviews in all of it's programming, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.


If you want me to I can provide thousands of links to prove the fox news bias, but this statement from Scott Norvell the London bureau chief for Fox News pretty much sums it up. This was on May 20, 2005, in an interview with The Wall street journal.

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

After this the wall street journal printed a story that stated that fox is "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." They later ran an apology and correction to that story. I feel there is no need to apologize for the truth.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/dail...knowledge/

Above is a link to a pew research study that showed people who watch fox are some of the least informed citizens in this country. lol, The colbert report and daily show viewers ranked near the top. It's ironic that comedy viewers have more knowledge than fox viewers.

Here is some excerps from the memos given to fox anchors instructing them on what to say.

# On Bush judicial nominees: “Let's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which the President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are qualified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views on one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in the days to come.” (5/9/03).
# On the 9-11 Commission: “The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting… this is not ‘what did he know and when did he know it’ stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that.” (3/23/04).
# On Bush tax cuts: “The tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush originally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. The DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally -- your wallet.” (5/22/03)

here is my favorite.

After Democratic victory in 2006: “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress” (11/9/06) Fox reporter Martha MacCallum then claimed on-air that terrorists were dancing in the streets over Democratic congressional victory, with no proof. (11/9/06)

How much more bias could they be?

another example of bias.

“In the 2004 election, according to Mark Mellman, Fox viewers preferred President Bush over John Kerry by an astonishing 88 percent to 7 percent. Bush’s backing among Fox viewers was more solid than his support among white evangelicals, gun owners or supporters of the Iraq war.”

Wow, thats just crazy.

Also fox news tried to edit their wikipedia page by taking out critical stories on them, and emphasizing positive ones. lol, thats just sad.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/16...wikipedia/


I think it's just way to obvious that fox is a slanted network. They go way beyond the bounds of being tilted in one direction, IMO their in the bed of the republican party.

[Coach_Owens87]

You left out a valuable piece of information old school. The study you reported from MRC only included AM programs, like the today show, and Good morning America. They didn't take into account prime time programming, like the study I provided about Fox.

So all you proved is that morning shows have more democrats on the air, while fox is biased all day long.

[Old School]

[quote=Coach_Owens87]^^^^^

You should rephrase that opening sentence to say "Here is something from the conservative think tank the Media Research center, who is out to prove the liberal bias in media." That would be more suiting.

The first thing to bust your little air time bubble is that the MRC included airtime that was giving to John Edwards wife, who is recovering from cancer. I don't know how much airtime was giving to this, but im sure that while Edwards was still in the race that this issue was brought up often. I believe this would be the case with any candidate. Not quite a political story like the MRC would have you believe.

Also I believe a lot of the of the difference in air time is due to the historic election we are having, we could have the first black, or the first woman as a president. I don't think you could really blame any news organization for covering that.

The today show reported last spring that they were going to have all major candidates in this election appear on their show. GOP Candidates Guilanni and Thompson were invited to appear on the today show, Thompson refused to appear on his former network, and guillani never accepted his invitation, all they can do is ask them to appear. Im sure this had a lot to due with the difference also, if conservatives dont appear, it's hard to give them coverage.

Your last sentence there is quite funny, I agree with Walter Cronkite that the media should follow the literal definition of liberal, and I believe everyone would. Liberal means free, and someone who is not doctrinaire, and he even stated that, he also stated that it shouldn't slant toward a political spectrum, but I guess the MRC only seen the word "liberal" and automatically assumed it was a biased statement. And couldn't you have used several sites to get your information and not just cut and paste something from the MRC.

Here is a study done by fair (a left oriented group) that shows fox is more biased than all of the so called "liberal" media.

FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation. Only two ideological categories were used: conservative and non-conservative. Guests affiliated with openly conservative think tanks, magazines or advocacy groups, or who promote openly conservative views, were labeled as such. All other guests were grouped together in the non-conservative category, including centrists, liberals and progressives; non-political guests (e.g., Cheney's heart doctor); and "objective" journalists who do not avow any ideology. Republicans were not automatically counted as conservatives: Moderate Republicans like Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman and David Gergen, for example, were classified as non-conservatives.

Sixty-one percent of guests were current or former Democratic or Republican government officials, political candidates, staffers or advisors. These guests were classified as either Democrats or Republicans. All others -- including conservatives with no official party connection, such as Jerry Falwell or David Horowitz -- were classified as non-partisan for the purposes of the study, along with bipartisan officials such as career diplomats.

The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).


*****************************************************************************


I don't think MRC tries to hide the fact they are out to prove Liberal bias in the media, just look at the top of their web page, it pretty well says everything "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Bias". MRC monitors other networks daily and reports any bias that they find.

I'm not sure if Mrs. Edwards time was included or not, but did you ever see her during an interview where she did not campaign or discuss her husband's plans for the Presidency. Do you really think NBC would have interviewed her if her husband wasn't running for President? I don't, so yes I would consider it a political story.

I don't think it's as much about one being black, and one being a woman, as much as it is Democrat vs Republican. Do you really think they would receive this much attention if they were Republicans.

Since you brought up Thompson and Guilanni refusing to appear on NBC, while I don't know how true that is because they appeared on a couple of debates on MSNBC with Mathews it doesn't seem like they would have any trouble appearing on NBC unless it was after the last debate. Let me ask you why wouldn't the Democrats debate on Fox like you said if Democrats don't appear it's hard to give them coverage. lol

Do you actually think the news anchors, and reporters decide what they report on, every news agency has at least one person who is responsible for what is aired and what is not, this includes your beloved liberal networks. The comment about Mark Mellman is great, for those who don't know Mark he has been a Democratic pollster for over 20 years and during the 2004 elections he happened to be Kerry's pollster.
To listen to you, Liberals never watch Fox News, which must mean that all the viewers must either be Republicans or Independents, so my question is how in the world did Kerry get 7%, it should have been 99% to 1% or better 100% to 0%. lol

From 1964 to 2004 several studies were conducted where journalist or editors were polled on who they voted for President, some of these studies were scientific with one having over 2,700 journalist questioned, while one had only 28 correspondants polled. During the period of 1964 to 1976 over 240 journalist from NBC, ABC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Timeswere polled and this was their results.
1964 81% of the journalist voted for Johnson-D, in 1968 86% voted for Humphrey-D, in 1972 81% voted for McGovern-D, in 1976 81% voted for Carter. During the period between 1964 and 1976 the Republician never received more than 20% of the media's vote. In 1980 a study of reporters from the 50 largest newspapers found that 51% voted for Carter-D, 25% voted for Reagan-R and 24% voted for Anderson-I,
in 1984 58% voted for Mondale-D, while only 26% voted for Reagan, in 1988 76% of the journalist voted for Dukakis-D, in 1992 89% of the Washington based journalist voted for Clinton-D, then in 1996 57% of the editors voted to re-elect Clinton. In 2004 52% of the journalist voted for Kerry while only 19% voted for Bush. Every year from 1964 to 2004 journalist, voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat for President, even during the years when the Republicans won easily, these are the same people that are supposed to keep us informed on what's happening in Washington D.C and around the world. Do you really think when the media is so one sided that it can also be balanced?

Speaking of balanced, my opinion of balanced is when network news or newspapers report the news fairly and evenly 50-50, of all the networks and newspapers who do you think report the news 50-50?

[Coach_Owens87]

The reason the democratic party decided to not have a debate on Fox is pretty simple, why would they want to go on a news station that consantly lies and twist stories to make thier party look bad? Fox is not a well respected news organazation on the left, very few liberals and democrats watch the channel. Fox would have taken every chance to make the candidates look bad. I dont blame them for not debating on Fox. And since fox viewers are the least informed of all network news viewers, why would you want to have a debate in which the candidates positions would just be twisted and manipulated. You mentioned that you feel viewers of the "liberal networks" arent informed, but the facts just dont back that. Viewers of the daily show, and the colbert report are more informed on issues than fox viewers, which is pretty sad to me.

To answer your question about the air time of Hillary and Obama, I do think that if they where republican they would get the same air time. It's a historic and exciting time to have both a woman, and biracial candidate running for president. But the majority of republicans are white males, so I doubt this would ever occur in that party.

Republicans dont like fox
Even republicans are starting to hate fox news, the New Hampshire Republican party dropped its support of a debate on the channel after they shun ron Paul from the debate. Which is a good example of why fox viewers are so misinformed, fox chooses for them everything they need to hear, while also excluding everything they dont need to hear.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7744.html


I agree with you that the majority of news anchors vote democrat, it's a well known fact, (It's also proven that the more education you have, the better chance you have of being liberal, which may explain why fox anchors like Sean hannity, who doesnt have a degree, are so conservative) but I believe opinion should for the most part stay out of the news coverage, and most networks do a decent job at this. Just becuase news anchors voted democrat in elections that republicans won, has nothing to do with thier journalistic ability. Im a die-hard UK fan, but I can tell you whats going on in sports around the country, my affiliation with UK has no impact on my knowledge of the game, I feel the same goes for politics.

I still havent seen you mention one single shread of evidence which proves fox news is not a biased channel, yes I agree that all news networks are guilty in some degree of leaning toward one side, but at least netoworks like CNN offer views from all sides, they do have the nut case Glen Beck on there. Fox doesnt even attempt to offer any view besides what they feel is correct.

[Old School]

The reason the democratic party decided to not have a debate on Fox is pretty simple, why would they want to go on a news station that consantly lies and twist stories to make thier party look bad? Fox is not a well respected news organazation on the left, very few liberals and democrats watch the channel. Fox would have taken every chance to make the candidates look bad. I dont blame them for not debating on Fox. And since fox viewers are the least informed of all network news viewers, why would you want to have a debate in which the candidates positions would just be twisted and manipulated. You mentioned that you feel viewers of the "liberal networks" arent informed, but the facts just dont back that. Viewers of the daily show, and the colbert report are more informed on issues than fox viewers, which is pretty sad to me.

To answer your question about the air time of Hillary and Obama, I do think that if they where republican they would get the same air time. It's a historic and exciting time to have both a woman, and biracial candidate running for president. But the majority of republicans are white males, so I doubt this would ever occur in that party.

Republicans dont like fox
Even republicans are starting to hate fox news, the New Hampshire Republican party dropped its support of a debate on the channel after they shun ron Paul from the debate. Which is a good example of why fox viewers are so misinformed, fox chooses for them everything they need to hear, while also excluding everything they dont need to hear.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7744.html


I agree with you that the majority of news anchors vote democrat, it's a well known fact, (It's also proven that the more education you have, the better chance you have of being liberal, which may explain why fox anchors like Sean hannity, who doesnt have a degree, are so conservative) but I believe opinion should for the most part stay out of the news coverage, and most networks do a decent job at this. Just becuase news anchors voted democrat in elections that republicans won, has nothing to do with thier journalistic ability. Im a die-hard UK fan, but I can tell you whats going on in sports around the country, my affiliation with UK has no impact on my knowledge of the game, I feel the same goes for politics.

I still havent seen you mention one single shread of evidence which proves fox news is not a biased channel, yes I agree that all news networks are guilty in some degree of leaning toward one side, but at least netoworks like CNN offer views from all sides, they do have the nut case Glen Beck on there. Fox doesnt even attempt to offer any view besides what they feel is correct.

If you really believe that was the reason the Democrats didn't debate on Fox then I know of some ocean front property here in Eastern Ky. that you may be interested in buying . The Republicans were big enough to debate on MSNBC a couple of times and we all know how liberal they are with Abrams and Olberman. You seem to love the little nugget you found about the daily show and colbert, which I think is funny also, but if that little report is actually true I believe I would have to question the source of the study.

So are you saying that the uneducated people are more likely to be Republicans than educated folk, sorry but I don't buy that for one second, just look at Eastern Ky. one of the poorest regions in the country, with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country and Eastern Ky is predominatly Democratic, sorry but I just don't buy your proven fact on this one.

If you were a journalist and a strong liberal (like you are) do you really think you could be objective enough so that your writings would be balanced 50-50 on the conservatives point of view, I know for a fact if I were a journalist with my views that I could not report objectively and I doubt many journalist can today. You may be a diehard UK fan but when you are talking to you buddy's about sports, I bet you talk about UK more than you do the other schools.

You've not seen me post any evidence against of Fox News leaning to the right because I've not posted any, you may want to go back and re-read post # 8.


I can't resist, posting this but even Hillary admits that Fox News Channel has been fairer to her campain than liberal MSNBC. In another report MSNBC ececutives said Shusters comments were wholly inappropriate and suspended him indefinitely, in the meantime I watched Olbermann almost come to tears while he apologize to the Clintons for MSNBC. Why wasn't Olbermann suspended or at least apologize when on November 28, 2006 he suggested that President Bushs daughter's were engaged in lewed behavior in Argentina, or when he called President Bush a dictator or when he said he was "pimping out General Petraeus" or thousands of other comments against President Bush, it's just bias reporting plain and simple.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hilla...72050.html


I would like to thank the Liberal Media for bringing us the Fox New Network, think about it if the liberal media would have been balanced to begin with, conservatives would have been content and would have never started Fox News or other conservative news programs.

[Coach_Owens87]

If you really believe that was the reason the Democrats didn't debate on Fox then I know of some ocean front property here in Eastern Ky. that you may be interested in buying . The Republicans were big enough to debate on MSNBC a couple of times and we all know how liberal they are with Abrams and Olberman. You seem to love the little nugget you found about the daily show and colbert, which I think is funny also, but if that little report is actually true I believe I would have to question the source of the study.

So are you saying that the uneducated people are more likely to be Republicans than educated folk, sorry but I don't buy that for one second, just look at Eastern Ky. one of the poorest regions in the country, with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country and Eastern Ky is predominatly Democratic, sorry but I just don't buy your proven fact on this one.

If you were a journalist and a strong liberal (like you are) do you really think you could be objective enough so that your writings would be balanced 50-50 on the conservatives point of view, I know for a fact if I were a journalist with my views that I could not report objectively and I doubt many journalist can today. You may be a diehard UK fan but when you are talking to you buddy's about sports, I bet you talk about UK more than you do the other schools.

You've not seen me post any evidence against of Fox News leaning to the right because I've not posted any, you may want to go back and re-read post # 8.


I can't resist, posting this but even Hillary admits that Fox News Channel has been fairer to her campain than liberal MSNBC. In another report MSNBC ececutives said Shusters comments were wholly inappropriate and suspended him indefinitely, in the meantime I watched Olbermann almost come to tears while he apologize to the Clintons for MSNBC. Why wasn't Olbermann suspended or at least apologize when on November 28, 2006 he suggested that President Bushs daughter's were engaged in lewed behavior in Argentina, or when he called President Bush a dictator or when he said he was "pimping out General Petraeus" or thousands of other comments against President Bush, it's just bias reporting plain and simple.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hilla...72050.html


I would like to thank the Liberal Media for bringing us the Fox New Network, think about it if the liberal media would have been balanced to begin with, conservatives would have been content and would have never started Fox News or other conservative news programs.

Just like a typical conservative, when confronted with facts, you just shun them and use opinion as truth.

The study that showed fox viewers as the most uniformed was based on 7 polls taken during january - september of 2003. All Networks has some mis perceptions with their viewers, but fox had the most.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...2&lb=brusc

Educated people vote democrat
The democratic party used to made up of the working and lower class, but things have changed since the 1940's. Academia, professionals, and economists all vote in large majorities of the democratic party. In the last election George bush had a slim advantage among college graduates with 52%, but Kerry got the majority of votes from people with post graduate study. And the same has held true in most elections in the last 20 years. Also people in the medical field (inlcuding me), are far more likely to be liberal.

You said that people here, who are likely not to have a college degree vote democrat, which is true, but I don't think that has anything to do with education, most people just vote the way their parents did. And did you not forget that Kentucky has voted republican in the last 2 elections? Also Democrats dont hold up well in the south anymore, most of thier votes come from major cities, which have a higher number of educated people.


I re-read post 8 and all you said was that most networks have a tenancy to be biased, which I agreed with. What was the purpose of you pointing that out?

I dont watch Olberman, and im not a fan, so he doesnt represent my views. He for the most part, is wild and outlandish, and makes some crazy remarks. But IMO his comments pale in comparision to the things O'rielly and Hannity say.

[Old School]

Just like a typical conservative, when confronted with facts, you just shun them and use opinion as truth.

The study that showed fox viewers as the most uniformed was based on 7 polls taken during january - september of 2003. All Networks has some mis perceptions with their viewers, but fox had the most.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...2&lb=brusc

Educated people vote democrat
The democratic party used to made up of the working and lower class, but things have changed since the 1940's. Academia, professionals, and economists all vote in large majorities of the democratic party. In the last election George bush had a slim advantage among college graduates with 52%, but Kerry got the majority of votes from people with post graduate study. And the same has held true in most elections in the last 20 years. Also people in the medical field (inlcuding me), are far more likely to be liberal.

You said that people here, who are likely not to have a college degree vote democrat, which is true, but I don't think that has anything to do with education, most people just vote the way their parents did. And did you not forget that Kentucky has voted republican in the last 2 elections? Also Democrats dont hold up well in the south anymore, most of thier votes come from major cities, which have a higher number of educated people.


I re-read post 8 and all you said was that most networks have a tenancy to be biased, which I agreed with. What was the purpose of you pointing that out?

I dont watch Olberman, and im not a fan, so he doesnt represent my views. He for the most part, is wild and outlandish, and makes some crazy remarks. But IMO his comments pale in comparision to the things O'rielly and Hannity say.

After doing a little research (very little I might add) I found the site where you obtained your Colbert/Daily information where you said "It's ironic that comedy viewers have more knowledge than Fox viewers" you also failed to report the rest of the story which is that Colbert/Daily outscored everyone else including ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Network Morning Shows, Major Newspapers Web Sites etc. but for some reason you conveniently left out that important piece of the story, so that means you're guility of the same thing that you condemning Fox News of, now that's ironic.

Well, well, well....here we go again in post #46 you said "The study showed Fox viewers as the most uninformed was based on 7 polls taken from Jan. 03 thru Sept. 03", which was true there was 7 polls and it was taken from Jan. thru Sept., but you tried to led everyone to believe that it was about Fox News as a whole, (again after a little research) and when in fact that wasn't the case at all, you inadvertently lol omitted the fact that the study was based on "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War".

Let's talk about credibility or lack there of in the Media, these same studies have also determined that there has been a downward trend in credibility among the various news groups, for instance from 1996 to 2004 CNN credibility dropped 6% among it's viewers, C-Span dropped 5%, NBC dropped 5%, ABC dropped 7%, CBS dropped 8% and from 2000 thru 2004 MSNBC credibility dropped 6%, NPR dropped 2% and guess what Fox News dropped the least at 1%. Could it be that all the other networks are having more trouble with their credibility than Fox News is having with theirs.

I believe it was in post #44 you said that "I feel that viewere of the liberal networks aren't informed"....would you show me where I said that?

You mis quoted post #8 I did not say "most networks", nor did I say "have a tendency to be biased" I said "regardless if it's Fox, CNN, CHN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or any other news network on TV or Radio even the newspapers will not give fair and balanced reporting. which means in a nutshell they are all biased, show me where I ever said that Fox wasn't bias.

Would you clarify the meaning of your comment "Just like a typical conservative.." I would really hate to misinterpret your statement.

[Coach_Owens87]

After doing a little research (very little I might add) I found the site where you obtained your Colbert/Daily information where you said "It's ironic that comedy viewers have more knowledge than Fox viewers" you also failed to report the rest of the story which is that Colbert/Daily outscored everyone else including ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Network Morning Shows, Major Newspapers Web Sites etc. but for some reason you conveniently left out that important piece of the story, so that means you're guility of the same thing that you condemning Fox News of, now that's ironic.

Well, well, well....here we go again in post #46 you said "The study showed Fox viewers as the most uninformed was based on 7 polls taken from Jan. 03 thru Sept. 03", which was true there was 7 polls and it was taken from Jan. thru Sept., but you tried to led everyone to believe that it was about Fox News as a whole, (again after a little research) and when in fact that wasn't the case at all, you inadvertently lol omitted the fact that the study was based on "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War".

Let's talk about credibility or lack there of in the Media, these same studies have also determined that there has been a downward trend in credibility among the various news groups, for instance from 1996 to 2004 CNN credibility dropped 6% among it's viewers, C-Span dropped 5%, NBC dropped 5%, ABC dropped 7%, CBS dropped 8% and from 2000 thru 2004 MSNBC credibility dropped 6%, NPR dropped 2% and guess what Fox News dropped the least at 1%. Could it be that all the other networks are having more trouble with their credibility than Fox News is having with theirs.

I believe it was in post #44 you said that "I feel that viewers of the liberal networks aren't informed"....would you show me where I said that?

You mis quoted post #8 I did not say "most networks", nor did I say "have a tendency to be biased" I said "regardless if it's Fox, CNN, CHN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or any other news network on TV or Radio even the newspapers will not give fair and balanced reporting. which means in a nutshell they are all biased, show me where I ever said that Fox wasn't bias.

Would you clarify the meaning of your comment "Just like a typical conservative.." I would really hate to misinterpret your statement.

I never left anything out, fox news viewers are less informed than colbert/daily show viewers. That was my point, and I thought I made it. This post is about fox news, not other media sources. I thought I had posted that the study was based on the Iraq war, but I guess not, I will take blame for not posting that. I rarely re-read my post, because most of the time I get on here between classes to post something quick and pass time.

You have posted several times that fox does a better job reporting the war, when actually they had the most uniformed viewers in regards to the war. Thats hilarious.

And I never responded to your defense of Mr. O'rielly, I really don't feel that I have to show his ignorance, or lack of journalistic ability, most informed people know that.
Yes networks news sources are losing credibility, I believe because the internet has opened up more sources for people to obtain the truth. We no longer have to rely on network news sources for our information.

IMO fox only losing 1% of their credibility is due to the fact that most conservatives are authoritative and will believe what they're told. And since fox news is the only "conservative" news network, I guess they feel obligated to believe what they say.

I guess my paraphrasing of Post #8 from you was a little wrong. You did say fox is biased, but you also said they have the most balance in their guests, which lead me to believe you really don't see fox as being biased, but as the most balanced news network on tv. Fox is not even close to having the most balance in their guests, and I showed that.

My post about that response being typically conservative is based on my encounters with conservatives, and die-hard fox fans. I know of several, 15 or more, conservatives who I talk to regularly. Anytime I try to state my opinion with facts about the war, economy, or other issues, they always just yell, call me names, and then spit out far right opinions as facts.

But again this post is going no where, nether of us is going to budge. I believe fox is the most biased name in news, while you believe the 'liberal' networks have this honor. But the majority of people on this poll agree with me that fox news is not fair or balanced, so I don't feel alone in my opinion.

[RavenBoy]

Fox isnt fair and CNN isnt either.

[EKY Sportster]

In my opinion to even ask if any media outlet is fair and balanced is laughable regardless if it's Fox, CNN, CHN MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or any other News network on TV or Radio even the newspapers will not give fair and balanced reporting. I normally watch the news networks between 8 and 10 pm. which usually consist of channel surfing equally between Fox, CNN, MSNBC and CHN and IMO from what I see in that time period Fox has more balance in their guests and reporting than any of the other networks.

I agree with you 100%. Not a single media outlet that I know of is fair and unbiased. Everyone is spoon fed exactly what the media wants you to hear. Not only about local or domestic issues but about foreign issues as well. Go to a foreign country and watch the news (also not fair and unbiased), but at least you can see how ridiculous the media is period!! If you want fair and unbiased facts, you have to check it all out and do your homework instead of relying on a TV set or a newpaper to tell you.

[Junk Yard Dog]

IMO fox news is still much worse than the rest. JMO

[Old School]

I agree with you 100%. Not a single media outlet that I know of is fair and unbiased. Everyone is spoon fed exactly what the media wants you to hear. Not only about local or domestic issues but about foreign issues as well. Go to a foreign country and watch the news (also not fair and unbiased), but at least you can see how ridiculous the media is period!! If you want fair and unbiased facts, you have to check it all out and do your homework instead of relying on a TV set or a newpaper to tell you.

I really didn't start watching the news on a regular bases until 1990 at the begining of Desert Storm and I admit, I believed just about everything they said without question, then as time went on I noticed that networks were reporting on the same stories with different point of view. From time to time the networks would report on stories that I had some familiarity with and I just didn't agree with their reporting, but it hit home with the QueCreek Mining accident, which was hard enough to watch but I just couldn't turn the channel, and to watch these reporters try to explain the mining process and what was happening (I'm sure they were doing their best) but they didn't have a clue of what was happening, while trying to explain the process to others that didn't understand mining either, and I started wondering exacty how much bull had I listened to over the years.

[launchpad4]

Nope, but neither is CNN, or the rest of them.