Poll: Is fox news fair and balanced?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
No
* You voted for this item.
Thread Rating:
01-29-2008, 01:14 AM
I know there is a lot of fox news supporters on here, and a lot of people who really despise the network like I do. SO I thought I would create this poll to get a sense on everyones opinion.
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-29-2008, 02:24 AM
They can say whatever they want, but in no way is Fox News a fair and balanced perspective on anything.
Fox news is a conservative forum and everyone knows it.
Fair and balanced...yeah right.
Fox news is a conservative forum and everyone knows it.
Fair and balanced...yeah right.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-29-2008, 03:27 AM
I started trying to watch Fox some after Imus was subjected to be single-handedly crucified by Al Sharpton and kicked from MSNBC, but it is hideous, especially from like 5 till 9pm. I do still watch my Greta VanSustren on the re-run at like 1am tho. That's the only ratings they get from my household. I won't even turn it there if CNN is on a commercial. I would much rather learn more about the amazing "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead" or see what the Geico Gecko is into these days, than have to look at Sean Hannity or John Gibson.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-29-2008, 07:35 PM
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.
01-29-2008, 09:52 PM
Old School Wrote: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.
Your correct that most news networks don't give complete fair and balanced reporting, but none of them claim to be "Fair and Balanced", or use the slogan "We report you decide". And other networks dont blatantly lie to push one political agenda. 90% of fox programming does nothing but spread lies and push whatever conservative agenda Rupert Murdoch tells them too. IMO fox is just "Yellow journalism", and is the tabloids of network news.
01-30-2008, 04:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2008, 04:48 PM by Watchful Eye.)
Left = CNN, CBS, Combs
Middle = MSNBC, Tim Russert
Right = Fox, Oreily, Hannity and Matthews
Don't you love it when news networks tell you how you should thing. Especially when you were the one that chose their channel on the dial.
Middle = MSNBC, Tim Russert
Right = Fox, Oreily, Hannity and Matthews
Don't you love it when news networks tell you how you should thing. Especially when you were the one that chose their channel on the dial.
01-30-2008, 08:38 PM
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Your correct that most news networks don't give complete fair and balanced reporting, but none of them claim to be "Fair and Balanced", or use the slogan "We report you decide". And other networks dont blatantly lie to push one political agenda. 90% of fox programming does nothing but spread lies and push whatever conservative agenda Rupert Murdoch tells them too. IMO fox is just "Yellow journalism", and is the tabloids of network news.
In all honesty I like the slogan "We report you decide" the people should be the ones that decide which reports they believe and not have any single news source bombarding them with one sided storys. You always demean Fox News because they as you say "push a conservative agenda". Since your in favor of fair and balanced reporting, I have to ask you why don't you belittle other networks for pushing a liberal agenda? You can't say they don't lie nor can you say their reporting is fair and balanced.
01-31-2008, 02:00 PM
Old School Wrote:In all honesty I like the slogan "We report you decide" the people should be the ones that decide which reports they believe and not have any single news source bombarding them with one sided storys. You always demean Fox News because they as you say "push a conservative agenda". Since your in favor of fair and balanced reporting, I have to ask you why don't you belittle other networks for pushing a liberal agenda? You can't say they don't lie nor can you say their reporting is fair and balanced.
The reason I dont complain much about the so called "Liberal Bias" in media is becuase for the most part they dont make outlandish claims, and when they do they're not shouting it for the whole world to hear. When Dan Rather made couldnt back a report that he gave on GW Bush, he apologized, and retired from his job. When O'rielly makes false claims every night, nothing is done or said, thats why I dispise fox. They lie on a daily basis, demean anyone on thier show that disagrees with them, and then claims to have some higher morals than the rest of the country.
I dont really believe that there is a huge liberal bias in the media, I just think Fox, and the conservative think tanks have sold this idea so well, that people actually believe it.
I think there are some great examples of how this "Bias" claim has been so popular. Clinton was a popular president, and Bush has not had a really great following in this country. So if reporting, and agreeing with what most of the country thinks is being baised, then I guess the media is. While it is true that the majority of reporters in the media vote democrat, I dont believe they push a certian agenda. But Fox which is owned by a staunch conservative, and owner of a several tabliod magazines, really makes sure that conservative issues and stories far outweight any limelight they give to the opposite side.
here are some great articles on this "Media Bias".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_...ted_States
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...elNum=6664
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8T2FR1.DTL
01-31-2008, 02:03 PM
Here is a great story that really exposes the false claim of liberal media bias.
Conservatives have won six of the last 9 elections, they dominate the business world, and until recently they where in full control of the white house.
"If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. For CBS, the admission that it cannot verify the authenticity of documents used in a story about President Bush's National Guard service is a serious matter to be sure. People should probably be fired.
But the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology, particularly in relation to another recent case of grievous media error.
Just four months ago, lest we forget, the New York Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and the Bush administration's repeated assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of one story, the Times flat-out said it was duped, although it used the more decorous phrase "taken in."
The two media apologies have a lot in common. In both cases, the issues involved have major implications for the presidential campaign. In both cases, a well-known national news organization admitted sloppy reporting and acknowledged that critical information could not be verified. In both cases, reporters were overly credulous in dealing with sources who had a political interest at stake -- in the CBS case the former Guardsman who is a vehement Bush opponent, in the New York Times case the Bush administration officials defending the president's decision to attack Iraq.
The critical difference between the two stories is that the Times' mistake was actually the far more serious of the two. The suspect stories touched on a more substantive topic -- the reasons for sending American soldiers to fight and die rather than the service record of a single lieutenant three decades ago -- and the journalistic failures were more prolonged and repeated, involving multiple stories over a period of months rather than a single story on a single day.
Yet against all logic, the CBS mea culpa is getting much more ink and air time than the New York Times case. The Times itself is one example. The paper ran its own apology on Page 10, but, perhaps drunk on schadenfreude, played the CBS confession above the fold on the front page. Other papers showed similar judgment. The Los Angeles Times put the New York paper's goof on Page 10, the CBS one on the front page. Sad to say, The Chronicle did much the same thing: The Times story was reported on Page 2 in an unsigned note "to the readers;" the CBS gaffe merited two stories on Page 1.
Why? The answer lies in the political impact of each issue, and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The Times' apology, by acknowledging the flaws of the administration's claims, hurt President Bush. The CBS apology obviously helped him, casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to each of the two apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.
I do not suggest that conservative apparatchiks crashed news meetings around the country and demanded front-page play for the CBS story. But I do suggest that as the country's political spectrum has become ever more conservative -- dragged "to the right, to the right, farther to the right," as Tom Frank puts it in his brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' -- media organizations have shifted, too.
For one thing, mainstream media organizations are always in search of viewers and readers, and it's a solidly conservative country. Republicans have won six of the last nine presidential elections. They hold majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. They dominate the business establishment. Newspapers and television stations across the country are competing for the same viewers and readers that have pushed Fox News' audience past CNN's and made the Wall Street Journal one of the largest newspapers in the country.
Second, the conservative movement's hallelujah chorus among overtly partisan media outlets -- Fox News and talk radio are the prime examples -- has amplified the traditional right-wing charge that journalists are all participants in a grand liberal conspiracy. The ironic result is that journalism has become hyper-sensitized to conservative criticism, and, in the guise of trying to be fair, leans farther and farther to the right.
So when a major news organization admits it may have been duped by one source on one story that was critical of President Bush, it's front-page news across the country. But when another news organization admits it repeatedly botched a crucial story of national security, the apology that damages the president's credibility is little-noted and soon forgotten.
If that's liberal media bias, conservatives should want more of it.
Ethan Rarick, a visiting scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, is the author of "California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown," which will be published in January by the University of California Press. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8T2FR1.DTL
Conservatives have won six of the last 9 elections, they dominate the business world, and until recently they where in full control of the white house.
"If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. For CBS, the admission that it cannot verify the authenticity of documents used in a story about President Bush's National Guard service is a serious matter to be sure. People should probably be fired.
But the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology, particularly in relation to another recent case of grievous media error.
Just four months ago, lest we forget, the New York Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and the Bush administration's repeated assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of one story, the Times flat-out said it was duped, although it used the more decorous phrase "taken in."
The two media apologies have a lot in common. In both cases, the issues involved have major implications for the presidential campaign. In both cases, a well-known national news organization admitted sloppy reporting and acknowledged that critical information could not be verified. In both cases, reporters were overly credulous in dealing with sources who had a political interest at stake -- in the CBS case the former Guardsman who is a vehement Bush opponent, in the New York Times case the Bush administration officials defending the president's decision to attack Iraq.
The critical difference between the two stories is that the Times' mistake was actually the far more serious of the two. The suspect stories touched on a more substantive topic -- the reasons for sending American soldiers to fight and die rather than the service record of a single lieutenant three decades ago -- and the journalistic failures were more prolonged and repeated, involving multiple stories over a period of months rather than a single story on a single day.
Yet against all logic, the CBS mea culpa is getting much more ink and air time than the New York Times case. The Times itself is one example. The paper ran its own apology on Page 10, but, perhaps drunk on schadenfreude, played the CBS confession above the fold on the front page. Other papers showed similar judgment. The Los Angeles Times put the New York paper's goof on Page 10, the CBS one on the front page. Sad to say, The Chronicle did much the same thing: The Times story was reported on Page 2 in an unsigned note "to the readers;" the CBS gaffe merited two stories on Page 1.
Why? The answer lies in the political impact of each issue, and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The Times' apology, by acknowledging the flaws of the administration's claims, hurt President Bush. The CBS apology obviously helped him, casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to each of the two apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.
I do not suggest that conservative apparatchiks crashed news meetings around the country and demanded front-page play for the CBS story. But I do suggest that as the country's political spectrum has become ever more conservative -- dragged "to the right, to the right, farther to the right," as Tom Frank puts it in his brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' -- media organizations have shifted, too.
For one thing, mainstream media organizations are always in search of viewers and readers, and it's a solidly conservative country. Republicans have won six of the last nine presidential elections. They hold majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. They dominate the business establishment. Newspapers and television stations across the country are competing for the same viewers and readers that have pushed Fox News' audience past CNN's and made the Wall Street Journal one of the largest newspapers in the country.
Second, the conservative movement's hallelujah chorus among overtly partisan media outlets -- Fox News and talk radio are the prime examples -- has amplified the traditional right-wing charge that journalists are all participants in a grand liberal conspiracy. The ironic result is that journalism has become hyper-sensitized to conservative criticism, and, in the guise of trying to be fair, leans farther and farther to the right.
So when a major news organization admits it may have been duped by one source on one story that was critical of President Bush, it's front-page news across the country. But when another news organization admits it repeatedly botched a crucial story of national security, the apology that damages the president's credibility is little-noted and soon forgotten.
If that's liberal media bias, conservatives should want more of it.
Ethan Rarick, a visiting scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, is the author of "California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown," which will be published in January by the University of California Press. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8T2FR1.DTL
01-31-2008, 11:14 PM
I block FOX NEWS on any and every TV I have control over. It makes the world a better place 
02-01-2008, 10:44 AM
Watchful Eye Wrote:Left = CNN, CBS, Combs
Middle = MSNBC, Tim Russert
Right = Fox, Oreily, Hannity and Matthews
Don't you love it when news networks tell you how you should thing. Especially when you were the one that chose their channel on the dial.
I swear I mea nt to type the word "think' not "thing".
hh:
02-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Please tell me, both liberals and conservatives, that you REALIZE that NO media outlet tells the truth! All of them tell it the way they think their viewers want to hear it. Please, please don't be brainwashed into thinking that one side or network is more balanced and fair, even if they do claim it. Who was it said, Tell the truth, but tell it slant? Dickinson, I think. Folks, you get a lot of slanted truth from any media source. It sickens me when people blindly believe whatever they hear from "trusted" news sources. Take it with a grain of salt.
02-01-2008, 10:13 PM
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:The reason I dont complain much about the so called "Liberal Bias" in media is becuase for the most part they dont make outlandish claims, and when they do they're not shouting it for the whole world to hear. When Dan Rather made couldnt back a report that he gave on GW Bush, he apologized, and retired from his job. When O'rielly makes false claims every night, nothing is done or said, thats why I dispise fox. They lie on a daily basis, demean anyone on thier show that disagrees with them, and then claims to have some higher morals than the rest of the country.
I dont really believe that there is a huge liberal bias in the media, I just think Fox, and the conservative think tanks have sold this idea so well, that people actually believe it.
I think there are some great examples of how this "Bias" claim has been so popular. Clinton was a popular president, and Bush has not had a really great following in this country. So if reporting, and agreeing with what most of the country thinks is being baised, then I guess the media is. While it is true that the majority of reporters in the media vote democrat, I dont believe they push a certian agenda. But Fox which is owned by a staunch conservative, and owner of a several tabliod magazines, really makes sure that conservative issues and stories far outweight any limelight they give to the opposite side.
here are some great articles on this "Media Bias".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_...ted_States
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...elNum=6664
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8T2FR1.DTL
We can trade articles about both liberal and conservatives being bias from now to doomsday, the trouble is in today's media world 99% of them have an agenda and their reporting will reflect that agenda.
Did you know that during the April, 2005 rating period Fox News had 11 of the top 15 News programs, and during the April, 2007 rating period Fox News had 13 of the top 15 News programs. It's hard for me to believe that they lie 90% of the time and still maintain ratings that high. The best way for everyone to tell if a show or network is bias is to just simply watch and decide for yourself.
The 6 stories below are part of 101 stories that were found to be false reports either by lying, staged footage, or bias, I'm posting this to show why everyone shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read on the internet and newspapers.
2. ABC 20/20 "Exploding Fords" story (1978). Staged footage. Similar to the later NBC "exploding" GM trucks episode, ABC aired "grossly misleading crash videos and simulations, withheld the same sorts of material facts about the tests, and relied on the same dubious experts with the same ties to the plaintiffs bar... viewers were shown a crash fire and explosion without being told it had been started by an incendiary device."
- 4. AFP/Yahoo News (2007). Fell for hoax/lie. Ran a picture with the caption "An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." But the picture was of unfired cartridges, which could only have "hit her house" if they were thrown at it.
- 24. Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President, Nobel Peace Prize winner and author of Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. Lying, plagiarism, bias. His book was so full of errors, including doctored maps, that his chief collaborator, Kenneth Stein of Emory University, resigned his position with the Carter Center. Carter's book was condemned by Alan Dershowitz and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others.
- [SIZE=3]59. Mark Halperin, ABC News (2004). Admitted bias. He wrote a memo to news staff telling them to hold George Bush to a stricter standard than John Kerry: "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and makes] mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win. We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides âequally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
- [SIZE=3]78. NPR, CNN and others on the "Jenin massacre" (2002). Lying. CNN reported: "There's almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gun ships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime." However, the actual "death toll was 56 Palestinians, the majority of them combatants, and 23 Israeli soldiers."
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
02-04-2008, 09:49 AM
Old School Wrote:We can trade articles about both liberal and conservatives being bias from now to doomsday, the trouble is in today's media world 99% of them have an agenda and their reporting will reflect that agenda.
Did you know that during the April, 2005 rating period Fox News had 11 of the top 15 News programs, and during the April, 2007 rating period Fox News had 13 of the top 15 News programs. It's hard for me to believe that they lie 90% of the time and still maintain ratings that high. The best way for everyone to tell if a show or network is bias is to just simply watch and decide for yourself.
The 6 stories below are part of 101 stories that were found to be false reports either by lying, staged footage, or bias, I'm posting this to show why everyone shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read on the internet and newspapers.
2. ABC 20/20 "Exploding Fords" story (1978). Staged footage. Similar to the later NBC "exploding" GM trucks episode, ABC aired "grossly misleading crash videos and simulations, withheld the same sorts of material facts about the tests, and relied on the same dubious experts with the same ties to the plaintiffs bar... viewers were shown a crash fire and explosion without being told it had been started by an incendiary device."
- 4. AFP/Yahoo News (2007). Fell for hoax/lie. Ran a picture with the caption "An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City." But the picture was of unfired cartridges, which could only have "hit her house" if they were thrown at it.
- 24. Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President, Nobel Peace Prize winner and author of Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. Lying, plagiarism, bias. His book was so full of errors, including doctored maps, that his chief collaborator, Kenneth Stein of Emory University, resigned his position with the Carter Center. Carter's book was condemned by Alan Dershowitz and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others.
- [SIZE=3]59. Mark Halperin, ABC News (2004). Admitted bias. He wrote a memo to news staff telling them to hold George Bush to a stricter standard than John Kerry: "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and makes] mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win. We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides âequally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
· [SIZE=3]101. Micah Wright. Author and anti-war activist (2003). Lying. Claimed to be a former U.S. Ranger and combat veteran. His book, You Back the Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want!, was endorsed by novelist Kurt Vonnegut and historian Howard Zinn. He was never in the military.
- [SIZE=3]78. NPR, CNN and others on the "Jenin massacre" (2002). Lying. CNN reported: "There's almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gun ships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime." However, the actual "death toll was 56 Palestinians, the majority of them combatants, and 23 Israeli soldiers."
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
Just becuase fox had high ratings doesnt mean they are obligated to tell the truth, it just means alot of people believe, or are like me and occasionally watch for a good laugh. Hitler had a huge following, was he telling his people the truth, or being a good citizen? Im not comparing fox to hitler, but both lied to the masses and passed them selves off as having some type of higher morality than everyone else.
Like you said we can trade articles showing bias in network news forever, but thats not what im trying to accomplish. I constantly mention Fox becuase they lie on a daily basis without any apology, I have never witnessed any network news station, or any media for that matter that constantly lies and twist the truth like Rupert Murdoch fact killers at fox.
02-04-2008, 09:49 PM
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Just becuase fox had high ratings doesnt mean they are obligated to tell the truth, it just means alot of people believe, or are like me and occasionally watch for a good laugh. Hitler had a huge following, was he telling his people the truth, or being a good citizen? Im not comparing fox to hitler, but both lied to the masses and passed them selves off as having some type of higher morality than everyone else.
Like you said we can trade articles showing bias in network news forever, but thats not what im trying to accomplish. I constantly mention Fox becuase they lie on a daily basis without any apology, I have never witnessed any network news station, or any media for that matter that constantly lies and twist the truth like Rupert Murdoch fact killers at fox.
First things first, no News Network lies on a daily basis the only reason your beating this horse is because your a democrat and Fox News is a conservative network, you seem to berate anyone (in this case Fox News) who disagrees with you. One reason their ratings are so high could be due to the fact they report news the other networks refuse to such as any positive military news, and your old buddy Bill O' Reilly who confronts Judges that let child molesters, rapist and multiple DUI offenders off with just probation, or going after school systems (high schools) that bring in speakers that tell kids it's ok to take drugs and have unprotected sex, and teachers/professors who fell students who don't believe in their views. The real story here is that you can't stand the truth.
02-04-2008, 11:59 PM
Old School Wrote:[/B]
First things first, no News Network lies on a daily basis the only reason your beating this horse is because your a democrat and Fox News is a conservative network, you seem to berate anyone (in this case Fox News) who disagrees with you. One reason their ratings are so high could be due to the fact they report news the other networks refuse to such as any positive military news, and your old buddy Bill O' Reilly who confronts Judges that let child molesters, rapist and multiple DUI offenders off with just probation, or going after school systems (high schools) that bring in speakers that tell kids it's ok to take drugs and have unprotected sex, and teachers/professors who fell students who don't believe in their views. The real story here is that you can't stand the truth.
Wow, thats a hilarious little rant you went on there! You seem a little upset. I'm glad you finally admitted that fox news is a conservative network, which shows that you know they are biased. Im not mad becuase they are a conservative network, im just upset that they lie and twist stories constantly and no one calls them out on it. It's really crazy that you mention O'rielly as if he has some high moral ground. The man is a bigot, a sexual predator (an intern charged him with sexual harassment, and he was and most likely still is an alcoholic), I guess you have to be a drunk and a sexual predator to know one, which might explain why he has them on his show.
I think you are the one upset becuase your beloved conservative think tank is full of nothing but crap. O'Rielly has lied about so many things I cant even mention them here. The man is still claiming he won an Peabody award, but he never did, which I find hilarious. The biggest lie from him recently was when he repeatedly accused American soldiers of massacring German troops at Malmedy, even though he was giving photographic and written evidence that this wasn't true. In case you didn't know, and you probably don't since you watch fox, on December 17, 1944 approx. 120 American POW's were lined up in a field and shot.O'Rielly made his false claim on his show for several days, and when he lie was pointed out, he never apologized. Thats pretty low for a guy who claims to be such a strong supporter of our military. I think anyone who would spit out such vicious lies against our service men who lost their lives protecting this country shouldn't be allowed to have a tv show. Is this the positive military news you speak of? And other networks don't refuse to report positive military news, it's just that this war has gone so badly that the negative outweighs the positive. Which is just honest journalism, not a twisted truth.
It's also funny that you mention him pointing out teachers who fail students for having opposing views, when he tells anyone who don't agree with him to shutup, and then precedes to cut off their mic. Seems to me ole billy boy is nothing more than a lying hypocrite.
Links to this horrendous lie from O'Rielly
http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/003232.html
http://bimplebean.blogspot.com/2006/06/o...rmann.html
Old School I can handle the truth, I'm very open minded, and I'm always willing to learn, but nothing resembling truth comes out of fox noise. This includes their opinion shows like O'rielly and their headline news shows.
02-05-2008, 12:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
Here is a link to the real story of malmedy, maybe you should write in to your buddy and tell him to read up on it.
Here is a link to the real story of malmedy, maybe you should write in to your buddy and tell him to read up on it.
02-05-2008, 12:16 AM
Haha, wikipedia
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but you are aware that I...or even a 5 year old could get on wikipedia and write a "real story?"
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but you are aware that I...or even a 5 year old could get on wikipedia and write a "real story?"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-05-2008, 12:32 AM
ComfortEagle Wrote:Haha, wikipedia
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but you are aware that I...or even a 5 year old could get on wikipedia and write a "real story?"
Wikipedia was just the first link I got on my google search. But since you had a laugh at my link I will provide something better, and not written by a 5 year old.
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/worl...30591.html
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/history...21Jan.html
http://30thinfantry.org/malmedy.shtml
02-05-2008, 12:42 AM
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Wikipedia was just the first link I got on my google search. But since you had a laugh at my link I will provide something better, and not written by a 5 year old.
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/worl...30591.html
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/history...21Jan.html
http://30thinfantry.org/malmedy.shtml
Lol, okay. Not demeaning your position or anything, just saying that people will try to say your position isn't valid if you're referencing wikipedia.
But it is quite useful most of the time...too bad I can't use it on research papers.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-05-2008, 12:51 AM
ComfortEagle Wrote:Lol, okay. Not demeaning your position or anything, just saying that people will try to say your position isn't valid if you're referencing wikipedia.
But it is quite useful most of the time...too bad I can't use it on research papers.
lol, I know you werent, I was just too tired to really look for an in-depth link, so wikipedia worked just fine.
02-06-2008, 11:09 PM
Maybe Old School cant handle the truth, he hasn't replied in days.
02-07-2008, 12:38 AM
Fox news is anything but fair and balanced IMO
02-07-2008, 12:45 AM
Junk Yard Dog Wrote:Fox news is anything but fair and balanced IMO
According to this poll that vast majority of people feel the same way
02-07-2008, 01:14 AM
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:According to this poll that vast majority of people feel the same way
Well, You can't fool all the people all the time!!!
02-07-2008, 07:50 PM
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.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
