Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 96

Thread: Finally, Fox News becomes fair and balanced

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    576
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Does conservative Math come as a surprise to you? These are the same people who think cutting taxes = deficit reduction. Or that Mitt Romney paying 13% in taxes is fair b/c he's a millionaire meanwhile I make $80K per year and pay 33% in fed income tax.

    I'm getting the feeling Rove started to distance himself from the Romney campaign when he saw some of the early voting numbers - which is why he was the only prominent republican figure to be prominent on Fox News that night after it became obvious Obama won reelection. Rove had the air about him of "See I tolja so". Romney was never a good candidate he had a record of job destruction not job creation as the real-life Gordon Gecko, he had flip flopped on every major issue and he even had 4 draft deferments to boot.

    Rick Perry was a better candidate with an actual record of creating jobs and he never flip flopped from moderate to far-right on social issues he was always far-right. Perry had a shot to win the election Romney never stood a chance.
    Perry's views on immigration would of helped with the Hispanic vote, but the short-lived campaign he ran was a train wreck. I swear I think he was hammered during this speech.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJnsZeKz47o

  2. #62
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I wish you guys could grasp how hilarious these last five posts have been

    Maybe when you're older
    The 'trust me I know better then you" routine only works for so long. Especially when its backed up by the equally hollow "someday you'll understand...when you get older".

    At some point there needs to be some substance behind the statements.

  3. #63
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by acepepe View Post
    The attack lasted 7 hrs. Nixon didn't break any laws, HE LIED! sound familiar??
    Watergate is not an apples to apples comparison, no matter how much the far-right yearns to turn benghazi into another watergate. Obama's deceit came after the incident occurred as he tried to spin the narrative; Nixon's deceit, and actual criminal actions, caused the incident to occur. It may seem like semantics but there is an enormous difference, and to be clear, I am not excusing the deceitful spin job by the administration. But the bottom line is not all actions are equal.

  4. #64
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Watergate is not an apples to apples comparison, no matter how much the far-right yearns to turn benghazi into another watergate. Obama's deceit came after the incident occurred as he tried to spin the narrative; Nixon's deceit, and actual criminal actions, caused the incident to occur. It may seem like semantics but there is an enormous difference, and to be clear, I am not excusing the deceitful spin job by the administration. But the bottom line is not all actions are equal.
    But you are. It may seem like semantics, but you are.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Big Apple, USA
    Posts
    22,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    OMG

    The teabaggers party and their mouthpiece Fakes News are still desperately trying to run with their 15 minutes Libya story

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised...they are the same jackasses who spent nearly four years and probably billions investigating a blowjob

    Their irresponsibility can never be overstated


    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

  6. #66
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
    But you are. It may seem like semantics, but you are.
    No, Ernie, I am not.

    My response was to a poster who tried to compare Watergate with Benghazi. I am sorry but it is not the same.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I wish you guys could grasp how hilarious these last five posts have been

    Maybe when you're older
    getting older doesn't increase IQ - you gotta have something to work with initially.

  8. #68
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sg3 View Post
    OMG

    The teabaggers party and their mouthpiece Fakes News are still desperately trying to run with their 15 minutes Libya story

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised...they are the same jackasses who spent nearly four years and probably billions investigating a blowjob

    Their irresponsibility can never be overstated


    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    I liked you better when you were making an ass of yourself on the Strip. Now you just come off as an angry drunk at Thanksgiving dinner.

  9. #69
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    The 'trust me I know better then you" routine only works for so long. Especially when its backed up by the equally hollow "someday you'll understand...when you get older".

    At some point there needs to be some substance behind the statements.
    The substance is there for all but the clueless. Because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not there.

    What's your definition of "substance "? Threads on "FoxNews is biased"? LOL.

    Seriously, the only thing funnier in the world of politics than FoxNewd is the people that can't shut up about it. And miss the irony of their own clear bias on the matter.

  10. #70
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    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.
    We will have to agree to disagree on the notion that I wish to stop free speech.

    These shows are successful from a business point of view and its a free market economy. There is demand for their product and as long as they do not trample on the rights of others they have the right to continue to produce and be successful.

    But any product that is produced for consumption by the public must be held accountable for its content. Is it fair to the public if a company advertises a product that offers a benefit(s) but willfully understands that it is deceiving the public? The entities that are producing the product should be held accountable for what they produce; think about the reprecussions if this is not so.

    As it relates to the corporations in the business of producing news content the standards that should be adheared to are as simple as what is learned in Journalism 101 classes. If they want to argue that adhearing to these simple standards compromises the entertainment value of their shows (which Limbaugh argues) and want to keep the content as is, then that is their right. Just don't attempt to deceive the public about your product.

    News Entertainment instead of News.

    I doubt very seriously that the lemmings from either idealogy will stop watching and in fact, it may even free the producers to produce content that is even more appealing to their loyal viewers.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 11-29-2012 at 09:28 AM.

  11. #71
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    The substance is there for all but the clueless. Because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not there.

    What's your definition of "substance "? Threads on "FoxNews is biased"? LOL.

    Seriously, the only thing funnier in the world of politics than FoxNewd is the people that can't shut up about it. And miss the irony of their own clear bias on the matter.
    Lets cut through the crap; everyone is biased (yourself included) to one degree or another. If you have a strong point of view about anything then you harbor some degree of bias.

    If you find the content of this thread uninteresting and without substance, then you can ignore it. But I assure you that a lot of people found the topic news worthy. How can I be so sure? It was the number one trending story for most of yesterday on Yahoo.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 11-29-2012 at 09:40 AM.

  12. #72
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    We will have to agree to disagree on the notion that I wish to stop free speech.
    I don;t think you want to "stop free speech", not yet at least.

    What you want (as I interprit it), and what I tried to make clear, is a State-Based or Industry-based "Board of News" that would (per your description) de-legitimize right-leaning news sources and opinion. That would label them (against their will) as "entertainment only", while supporting left-leaning news as State or Industry supported "legitimate news".

    You're not in fact against dishonesty or media manipulation, because if you were, ALL of our mass media would be labeled "entertainment" as such, as they all lie, misrepresent, willfully omit and selectively cover the news of the day.

    I choose to allow the consumer, the individual, to decide what content to partake of, and how to feel about that content. Unless something criminal has occured, I see no role for the State, and less for a left-leaning industry board, to have the power of legitimizing or delegitimizing forms of media.

    Just don't attempt to deceive the public about your product.

    News Entertainment instead of News.
    Well, lets get right to it.

    Would you label ABC, CBS and NBC News as "News Entertainment"?

    Would you label the Washington Post and New York Times as "News Entertainment"?

    If yes, at least you're consistent in your (IMO) incorrect view.

    If not, you are doing exactly what I said above, simply working to delegitimize right-wing news (which the left consistently calls lies even when they're not), and implement a formal legitimacy to your own sides biased news agents.

    You know when I'll be REALLY impressed......when you support holding POLITICIANS IN ELECTED OFFICE to this kind of scrutiny. Lie while in office, and you are immediately kicked out, and a new election held. How about that? THAT I could support, given how deeply ingrained lieing is in our politicians, left and right.

  13. #73
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Watergate is not an apples to apples comparison, no matter how much the far-right yearns to turn benghazi into another watergate. Obama's deceit came after the incident occurred as he tried to spin the narrative; Nixon's deceit, and actual criminal actions, caused the incident to occur. It may seem like semantics but there is an enormous difference, and to be clear, I am not excusing the deceitful spin job by the administration. But the bottom line is not all actions are equal.
    Agreed but the real problem here which neither party seems to get is the President used the US military without Congressional approval to install the government and when that government was incapable of protecting our diplomats put our diplomats in a dangerous situation to make it look like what he did in Libya without Congressional approval was brilliant. He has blood on his hands over politics and the fact is Republicans and Democrats support the basic policy which should be under investigation by Congress.

    Not exactly criminal like Nixon but not exactly no blood on his hands either. The blaming of this on a film was at best a lame attempt to deflect the basic policy or if you will a lame attempt to cover up his policy which has been successful because the opposition party supports his policy.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-29-2012 at 10:23 AM.

  14. #74
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    meh - its not like this would have affected the election - most people just don't give a **** about what happened in Libya. If they did, Romney would be Pres-elect.

  15. #75
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I don;t think you want to "stop free speech", not yet at least.

    What you want (as I interprit it), and what I tried to make clear, is a State-Based or Industry-based "Board of News" that would (per your description) de-legitimize right-leaning news sources and opinion. That would label them (against their will) as "entertainment only", while supporting left-leaning news as State or Industry supported "legitimate news".

    You're not in fact against dishonesty or media manipulation, because if you were, ALL of our mass media would be labeled "entertainment" as such, as they all lie, misrepresent, willfully omit and selectively cover the news of the day.

    I choose to allow the consumer, the individual, to decide what content to partake of, and how to feel about that content. Unless something criminal has occured, I see no role for the State, and less for a left-leaning industry board, to have the power of legitimizing or delegitimizing forms of media.



    Well, lets get right to it.

    Would you label ABC, CBS and NBC News as "News Entertainment"?

    Would you label the Washington Post and New York Times as "News Entertainment"?

    If yes, at least you're consistent in your (IMO) incorrect view.

    If not, you are doing exactly what I said above, simply working to delegitimize right-wing news (which the left consistently calls lies even when they're not), and implement a formal legitimacy to your own sides biased news agents.

    You know when I'll be REALLY impressed......when you support holding POLITICIANS IN ELECTED OFFICE to this kind of scrutiny. Lie while in office, and you are immediately kicked out, and a new election held. How about that? THAT I could support, given how deeply ingrained lieing is in our politicians, left and right.
    The disconnect here is that I am making this argument from the point of view of consumer advocacy. The public is being offered a product, a very important product, that is fraudulent. And the deleterious affects on the public is obvious and should concern everyone.

    And to answer your question; all of the main stream media is culpable to one degree or another so yes, they all would fall into the category of 'News Entertainment'. Give them a probationary period to raise their standards so they can stop letting down the citizens or continue to offer their product in the manner that they have been. Those that want to adhere to those simple journalistic standards learned in basic college classes can keep their status as 'news', the others will be categorized as 'news entertainment' and can continue producing what has been successful. And do you really think that they loyal followers who faithfully tune into Hannity or Maddow every evening will stop because it has a "news entertainment' logo on the bottom?

    Its the job of the media to hold the politicians to scrutiny. The public only knows what it is given as information, for the most part. It is a partnership between the media and the public that allows us to have a free democracy or not. If our supposed free media is not working, neither will the democracy.

  16. #76
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,355
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Watergate is not an apples to apples comparison, no matter how much the far-right yearns to turn benghazi into another watergate. Obama's deceit came after the incident occurred as he tried to spin the narrative; Nixon's deceit, and actual criminal actions, caused the incident to occur. It may seem like semantics but there is an enormous difference, and to be clear, I am not excusing the deceitful spin job by the administration. But the bottom line is not all actions are equal.
    Actually it was the coverup that ultimately brought down Nixon, not the crime.

  17. #77
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Lets cut through the crap; everyone is biased (yourself included) to one degree or another. If you have a strong point of view about anything then you harbor some degree of bias.

    If you find the content of this thread uninteresting and without substance, then you can ignore it. But I assure you that a lot of people found the topic news worthy. How can I be so sure? It was the number one trending story for most of yesterday on Yahoo.
    What does this have to do with my post?

    I find it entertaining. That was what I posted. I find lack of self awareness extremely amusing, so I've enjoyed much of this thread. The fact that it "trends on Yahoo" means about as much as the fact that Honey Boo Boo gets enormous cable TV ratings, and only expands the scope of that comedy.

    I particularly enjoy your lecture on me avoiding this form of media if I don't like it, as you continue to tell us how Fox News should be reformed.

    Feel free to keep it coming. You know, all this "substance", Mr. Intelligent.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 11-29-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  18. #78
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Agreed but the real problem here which neither party seems to get is the President used the US military without Congressional approval to install the government and when that government was incapable of protecting our diplomats put our diplomats in a dangerous situation to make it look like what he did in Libya without Congressional approval was brilliant. He has blood on his hands over politics and the fact is Republicans and Democrats support the basic policy which should be under investigation by Congress.

    Not exactly criminal like Nixon but not exactly no blood on his hands either. The blaming of this on a film was at best a lame attempt to deflect the basic policy or if you will a lame attempt to cover up his policy which has been successful because the opposition party supports his policy.
    Excellent point. And the media got it wrong as well, willfully or not.

  19. #79
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    What does this have to do with my post?

    I find it entertaining. That was what I posted. I find lack of self awareness extremely amusing, so I've enjoyed much of this thread. The fact that it "trends on Yahoo" means about as much as the fact that Honey Boo Boo gets enormous cable TV ratings, and only expands the scope of that comedy.

    I particularly enjoy your lecture on me avoiding this form of media if I don't like it, as you continue to tell us how Fox News should be reformed.

    Feel free to keep it coming. You know, all this "substance", Mr. Intelligent.
    I see your point.

    I don't know why I would assume that media bias is a relevant topic in America today?

  20. #80
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Lets cut through the crap; everyone is biased (yourself included) to one degree or another. If you have a strong point of view about anything then you harbor some degree of bias.
    Doesn't this torpedo your entire point though?

    Everyone is biased.

    Thus every journalist is biased.

    Thus all news is biased.

    Thus labeling biased news coverage as "news entertainment" is useless.


    This doesn't mean news outlets shouldn't be held accountable for outright false information. When something is objectively provably false, news media will issue a retraction. However bias, spin and the all the other forms of obscurement used by every news station in existence cannot be improved by regulation. As Warfish pointed out, any such regulatory body, be it government run, or private will be susceptible to exactly the same bias your trying to prevent in the media.


    So what's the solution?

    Understand that everyone has an agenda, and check facts for yourself.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us