Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i just know you've posted more than once about their 'news'. how else would you know how they did they job unless you had viewed it?

ZIG, they have their lies n' mistakes covered on the other networks. Riot's correct about this. It's an unprofessional network. If you only counted Gretchen Carlson's mistakes, then it'd still be one of the most unprofessional sources of news ever. It's a joke. They're not fair n' balanced. People dismiss that lie so quickly, and say other networks aren't balanced. O.K., FINE, BUT WHY DO THEY KEEP REPEATING THIS LIE ON THERE? Rupert, there is no way any other network could be as unbalanced as Fox is. Even MSNBC has 3.5 hours of Scarborough n' friends' mainly Conservative talk every week day morning. That's hardly a Liberal's Morning Danish.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

ZIG, they have their lies n' mistakes covered on the other networks. Riot's correct about this. It's an unprofessional network. If you only counted Gretchen Carlson's mistakes, then it'd still be one of the most unprofessional sources of news ever. It's a joke. They're not fair n' balanced. People dismiss that lie so quickly, and say other networks aren't balanced. O.K., FINE, BUT WHY DO THEY KEEP REPEATING THIS LIE ON THERE? Rupert, there is no way any other network could be as unbalanced as Fox is. Even MSNBC has 3.5 hours of Scarborough n' friends' mainly Conservative talk every week day morning. That's hardly a Liberal's Morning Danish.

I don't think a guy like Sean Hannity claims to be "fair and balanced". But if you watch their actual news (like with Shepherd Smith), I think it is very good. I'd rather watch that than the politically correct nonsense on the networks. As much as you hate political correctness, I would think you would like Fox's news.

[clyde]

We can learn from the insane;they have no inhibitions whatsoever.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think a guy like Sean Hannity claims to be "fair and balanced". But if you watch their actual news (like with Shepherd Smith), I think it is very good. I'd rather watch that than the politically correct nonsense on the networks. As much as you hate political correctness, I would think you would like Fox's news.

No, I don't like it. I've listened to it a lot. Like I said, the part I hate the most is that each day they start it out with an obvious lie (fair n' balanced.) I've never heard a good reason for doing that, and don't know why anyone would so easily just accept a network doing that b.s. The 2nd thing I don't like is that they are wrong on the facts way too often. After a while, it becomes obvious that these couldn't all just be innocent mistakes.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, I don't like it. I've listened to it a lot. Like I said, the part I hate the most is that each day they start it out with an obvious lie (fair n' balanced.) I've never heard a good reason for doing that, and don't know why anyone would so easily just accept a network doing that b.s. The 2nd thing I don't like is that they are wrong on the facts way too often. After a while, it becomes obvious that these couldn't all just be innocent mistakes.

see fox learns from cnn and cbs , back during the 2000 election , dan , yes dan rather , we have confirmed that al gore , yes we have declared al gore the winner in the state of florida

..........only problem dan , not all the state is in the eastern time zone , mr hooves here and his pals still had an hour to go out and vote , now how many people in the western panhandle heard mr rather and decided to stay home????

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

ZIG, they have their lies n' mistakes covered on the other networks. Riot's correct about this. It's an unprofessional network. If you only counted Gretchen Carlson's mistakes, then it'd still be one of the most unprofessional sources of news ever. It's a joke. They're not fair n' balanced. People dismiss that lie so quickly, and say other networks aren't balanced. O.K., FINE, BUT WHY DO THEY KEEP REPEATING THIS LIE ON THERE? Rupert, there is no way any other network could be as unbalanced as Fox is. Even MSNBC has 3.5 hours of Scarborough n' friends' mainly Conservative talk every week day morning. That's hardly a Liberal's Morning Danish.

i don't even know who gretchen carlson is. but yeah, i remember reading from another news source about fox making up news. that's just crazy-why would they be surprised if some don't watch or take them seriously? but i also remember (was it cbs?) a made up investigation into truck gas tanks back years ago. each news source should have an office that keeps them straight, and calls out anyone who crosses a line-hell, espn has one!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't even know who gretchen carlson is. but yeah, i remember reading from another news source about fox making up news. that's just crazy-why would they be surprised if some don't watch or take them seriously? but i also remember (was it cbs?) a made up investigation into truck gas tanks back years ago. each news source should have an office that keeps them straight, and calls out anyone who crosses a line-hell, espn has one!

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

The thread is about news organizations and the extent of their involvement in politics.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story? This article goes beyond anything that Fox News would do.

I still can't get over it. We all know that many politicians are not honest about their true beliefs. They're not got going to tell you their true beliefs if they think it will cost them votes. Obama claims he's a Christian. He may in fact be a Christian. But some Americans are skeptical. About 20% of Americans suspect that Obama may be a Muslim. I'm sure that plenty of politicians (both Republican and Democrats) are atheists but claim to be Christians just to get votes.

There is no way to truly know what any of these politicians really believe. Does Bill Clinton have a deep belief in God? Who knows. But just because he says he does, it doesn't mean that people have to believe it.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian. That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/franklin-gr...ry?id=11446462

[Riot]

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story?

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian.

Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.

That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.



Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.



Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist? I don't. I think they should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

They shouldn't make an assesment of whether the people are right or wrong because the truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't.

[Riot]

I'm going to give you a hypothetical. I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.

That's simply not true, but hey, truth, falsehood, there's no "real" line, is there?

I'll make the hypothetical about a Republican. Let's say a poll was done tomorrow and 10% of people say they think that Rudy Giuliani is probably an atheist. If an article was written about this, do you think that the journalist should write that 10% of people "incorrectly" and "wrongly" believe that Giuliani is an atheist?.

No, what the media should do is the usual: check the facts. Ask Giuliani if he is atheist. If he says no, then look to see if there is any evidence he is atheist (that he is lying).

If there is not, then you bet, "10% incorrectly-wrongly believe" is exactly how the story should be written. Giuliani isn't an atheist. He's a Catholic. People that think otherwise are incorrect, and wrong.

They should report the results of the poll and that should be it. They should say that Giuliani is a professed Catholic but 10% of the respondents think he's an atheist.

Why should the media give people that express a view contrary to proven reality equal creedance with the proven reality? That's silly. Opinion and fact are not the same. Opinion contrary to or ignoring presented fact is worth even less.

And that is one of the things that is harming our country right now - the delusion that anything expressed or written (especially on the internet), no matter how crazy, is taken as true without question. We used to have distance and time and responsibility to protect us from rampant rumour - now, nothing.

The truth of the matter is we don't what Rudy Giuliani truly believes. Politicians will often pretend to be religious even if they aren't

So what?

The WTC was brought down by Bush & Cheney.
Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.
Contrails in the sky are secretly poison put out by the government to rain down upon us.
Communists are present throughout our government, and the President is secretly a communist working for Russia.
Those are not valid "opinions" that deserve "equal time". They are the musings of the deranged who ignore reality.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm sure you won't answer it because you never answer questions that hurt your argument.
.

OOOOOOOOOO



fine work, sir