Finally, Fox News becomes fair and balanced

[parafly]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

If anybody thinks Hannity is nuts, just watch The Ed Show and get back to me.

Neither man is nuts. They just know what sells and how to target an audience.

Fox News is most certainly a mouthpiece of the GOP. Plain as day.

[PatriotReign]

Originally Posted by parafly

Neither man is nuts. They just know what sells and how to target an audience.

Fox is most certainly a mouthpiece of the GOP. Plain as day.

Agreed and Ed, Maddow, Sharpton, O'Donnell are mouthpieces for the Dems, equally plain as day. Fox and MSNBC are one the the same when it comes to biasly spouting the lines of their respective pol party.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

Agreed and Ed, Maddow, Sharpton, O'Donnell are mouthpieces for the Dems, equally plain as day. Fox and MSNBC are one the the same when it comes to biasly spouting the lines of their respective pol party.

Agreed, the difference is Fox News has a much bigger audience.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

Only person I watch on MSNBC is Maddow. I sometimes watch O'Reilly on FNC. I do like watching the election coverage of all 3 cable networks. FNC on election night was hilarious after they called Ohio and thus the presidency for President Obama.

Can't stand her. She's so smarmy and condescending and sarcastic -- as if society doesn't have enough of that already.

I actually thought that Rove thing was pretty interesting on election night, because we got to hear how the "experts" in the war room call elections before all votes are counted. It was fascinating.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by parafly

Neither man is nuts. They just know what sells and how to target an audience.

Fox News is most certainly a mouthpiece of the GOP. Plain as day.

Agreed that one of them are nuts, with the exception of Chris Matthews. He might seriously be unhinged.

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Agreed that one of them are nuts, with the exception of Chris Matthews. He might seriously be unhinged.

Mathews along with many in politics have been in the Beltway way way way too long. His "gaffe" when he said the service members at West Point are "the enemy" and more recently with how he was glad for Hurricane Sandy are just two examples on why he needs to find something else to do with with his life. I use to enjoy his show, his love for politics was contagious, but he's become more and more about himself. Not sure if you noticed but he frequently appears in political films.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

Mathews along with many in politics have been in the Beltway way way way too long. His "gaffe" when he said the service members at West Point are "the enemy" and more recently with how he was glad for Hurricane Sandy are just two examples on why he needs to find something else to do with with his life. I use to enjoy his show, his love for politics was contagious, but he's become more and more about himself. Not sure if you noticed but he frequently appears in political films.

Is he? Wolf Blitzer was in Skyfall, I thought that was kind of lame.

[21st Amendment]

On the top of my head, he's been in: Ides of March, The Campaign, Man of the Year, State of Play. I was even watching this crapy low budget film called Below the Beltway, and he's got a cameo in that.

[PatriotReign]

Originally Posted by parafly

Agreed, the difference is Fox News has a much bigger audience.

Surely you're not implying that lower ratings absolves MSNBC of hypocrisy. The audience size observation is irrelevant. Fox and MSNBC are one in the same, no "yeah but..." arguments mitigate their respective biases.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Overly wordy deflection with no actual on-topic content.



A massive teacher fraud ring is news.

What you posted (FOX is biased) is not. It's common knowledge, same as MSNBC being biased.



Blah Blah blah, bias is ok. Got it.



As determined by who? The Government? A consensus of media entities (the majority of whom are liberal)?



Again, as determined by who? Free speech and a free and independant media comes with the "drawback" of the USER having the power and responsabillity to decide bias and legitimacy, not the STATE or some cabal of media enforcing their ideas on all media.



Listed by who? Enforced by who? At what point did you decide you should have power over the freedoms of others, and hence the right to limit their freedom via State-based deligimization?



TLDR: So FOX can be labeled entertainment, and the Washington Post, ABC, CNN et al. can be labeled as "News" thus invalidating the opposing viewpoint, and bulwarking the leftiest viewpoint as the "only real news", all (to be sure) enforced by the State.

Big fan of free speech I see.



That is because the events were scripted and predetermined. This is irrelevant to the expression of the freedom of speech and media.



I don;t need to create anything, you provide more than enough ammo withyour own words.

What you've asked for here in real world terms is a State-Run Baord (or Consensus Media Board) that will pass judgement on News sources, and provide either legitimacy or a total deligigimization as they see fit. In our system of Government, such a Board would be appointed, not elected, and could easily sway things with their actions, in effect silencing one viewpoint whilst promoting another. If a media board, it would be dominated by the majority viewpoint of medai agents, in the U.S. thats generally left-leaning, with FOX the only right-leaning major news body.

What you want is exactly what I'd expect you to want, a system that promotes mainstream liberal news, and does all it can to crush FOX and Rush and other right-leaning news as dishonest "entertainment" on par with the WWE. As I said, control of the message and proapganda is a hallmark of those who stand against freedom of speech, not with it. You want US Media to look like it did in 1970, when the message was almost universal and universally liberal-baised with few to no conservative outlets.

There is an ol saying. let the buyer beware. On almost all issues of the expression of free speech, including news and media, that is the only rule that matters. You choose to watch it, you choose to decide if you believe it. The States "help" in labeling news as valid or not is not required, nor appropriate.

Whoa man, ease up.

I mean, don't you have any sympathy for people that have absolutely no self-awareness? That is such a bummer.

[21st Amendment]

Maybe it's because I was gone for so long, but is Warfish more to the right than he's ever been before? Just an observation.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Can't stand her. She's so smarmy and condescending and sarcastic -- as if society doesn't have enough of that already.

I actually thought that Rove thing was pretty interesting on election night, because we got to hear how the "experts" in the war room call elections before all votes are counted. It was fascinating.

Spot on. Very condescending. And those two guys that fill in for her that try to sound like her and mimic her delivery are even worse.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

Maybe it's because I was gone for so long, but is Warfish more to the right than he's ever been before? Just an observation.

Actually, my observation is that he's been one of the most consistent posters on here, and as much as anyone is as far from right as he is left.

But with how far extremely left most liberals here are moving these days, I can see why you would perceive a lot of people as increasingly conservative. Probably lumping Bill Clinton in as a Reaganite as we sit here.

[Frequent Flyer]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, we're certainly not going to see him (or any serious answer from him) in the Teacher Fraud Ring thread.

It's typical socialist/leftist/unionist tactics to run what is effectively endless propaganda demonizing your opponents. I assure you, if guys like IJF controlled the State more fully, things like FOXNews would be banned, and people who supported such things arrested under some pretext. History if full of examples of leftist intolerence for political disagreement of any kind, or any movement that would stand against their utopian ideas of collectivism. IJF is just a typical leftist IMO on this count. If it does not agree with him, it's evil, lying and should be silenced by any means needed.

If it agrees with him, all sins are forgiven and ignroed, despite being exactly the same as what he's critical of.

IJF would have made a succesful block snitch in East Germany.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...tasi&FORM=IGRE

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Actually, my observation is that he's been one of the most consistent posters on here, and as much as anyone is as far from right as he is left.

But with how far extremely left most liberals here are moving these days, I can see why you would perceive a lot of people as increasingly conservative. Probably lumping Bill Clinton in as a Reaganite as we sit here.

Just imagine if FDR, an actual liberal, was president.

[Soberphobia]

TBH I don't think through mass media history there has ever been "fair and balanced" reporting....Fox News is no different. Through history mass media has been either a megaphone for media barons, governments, elites of various sorts - right and left - middle and upper class etc etc. Decrying any media outlet for being biased is like criticising a bird for having feathers.

Fair enough when it happens its interesting to note it, but its not really huge news to anyone.

[marano]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, we're certainly not going to see him (or any serious answer from him) in the Teacher Fraud Ring thread.

It's typical socialist/leftist/unionist tactics to run what is effectively endless propaganda demonizing your opponents. I assure you, if guys like IJF controlled the State more fully, things like FOXNews would be banned, and people who supported such things arrested under some pretext. History if full of examples of leftist intolerence for political disagreement of any kind, or any movement that would stand against their utopian ideas of collectivism. IJF is just a typical leftist IMO on this count. If it does not agree with him, it's evil, lying and should be silenced by any means needed.

If it agrees with him, all sins are forgiven and ignroed, despite being exactly the same as what he's critical of.

Why don't you see if you can get him banned for putting down fox news? Your post above seems to condem such things but I seem to remember being banned about a week ago for posting things you guys don't like.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by marano

Why don't you see if you can get him banned for putting down fox news? Your post above seems to condem such things but I seem to remember being banned about a week ago for posting things you guys don't like.

You got banned for calling out a mod (who don't really get much out of the job apart from criticism) for no real reason and because you were trolling the politics forum. Everyone in this forum has written something some other poster doesn't like at one stage or another, the portion that get banned is small. I suggest perhaps you were banned for other reasons than for "posting things you guys don't like."

[quantum]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

Maybe it's because I was gone for so long, but is Warfish more to the right than he's ever been before? Just an observation.

is and always has been libertarian. Maybe he now sees the dangers that Dems/libs pose to his way of life....

[acepepe]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

At least for a few minutes anyway.....

Fox News interview ends abruptly after author accuses channel of 'operating as GOP wing'

NEW YORK - A Fox News Channel interview ended abruptly Monday after an author accused the network of hyping the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and "operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

The charges were made by Thomas Ricks, a veteran newspaper reporter and author of "The Generals," who was brought on for an interview with anchor Jon Scott about GOP criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's comments about the attacks.

Ricks said he thought the story of the Benghazi attacks was "hyped, by this network especially."

Scott asked why Ricks would call it hype when four Americans were killed, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years.

Ricks responded that few people knew how many U.S. security contractors were killed in Iraq and compared that to the attention paid to "what was essentially a small firefight" in Libya.

"I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party," Ricks said.

With that, Scott thanked him and turned to a co-anchor, who introduced a commercial.

"When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor's question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself and his book," Fox News executive Michael Clemente said.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/fox-news-in...054402321.html

An ambassador was murdered, the administration flat out lied about the events and it's " nothing to see here?"
IGF, You're a man of history, (albeit shaded) Answer this, what was Watergate about and what was Nixon's role in the break-in?
There are 3 major issues here; Stupidity, lying, or incompetence.
Which is it or what combination???