Fair and balanced? Um ... no

Danzig · #1 08-22-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. That's a long way to go. Well done.

i could say the same. you sure jumped to conclusions and semantics, when in fact no one suggested you had a channel tuned to them 24-7.

Riot · #2 08-22-2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i could say the same. you sure jumped to conclusions and semantics, when in fact no one suggested you had a channel tuned to them 24-7.

Not really. I was talking about the minutes of coverage Faux News gave to particular stories, especially final combat troop withdrawal, and you decided it was more important to change that topic to exactly how much time and in what manner I viewed Faux.

As I said, long way to go just to reach your end goal

Danzig · #3 08-22-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Not really. I was talking about the minutes of coverage Faux News gave to particular stories, especially final combat troop withdrawal, and you decided it was more important to change that topic to exactly how much time and in what manner I viewed Faux.

As I said, long way to go just to reach your end goal

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

#4 08-22-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

Rileyoriley · #5 08-22-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

Danzig · #6 08-22-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

i know...i'm so ashamed. i mean, when she mentioned some stories she'd seen, i automatically assumed that meant she had watched it. but no, she'd only viewed it. i feel so silly. i need to work on my reading comprehension so as not to confuse the two.

edit~well...holy crap. i went back to the beginning of this thread to see where i got derailed, and found this....now maybe i found where i made my mistake, and dared accuse riot of 'watching' fox news. how did i err so badly?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Dan Rather is no longer an anchor.

On Wednesday, I was watching Shepherd Smith complain that the material creating disposable Sun Chip bags was noisy.

Shep, anyone would hire you. Run away, run away .... !

riot, i am so sorry i mistook what you wrote.

Rupert Pupkin · #7 08-22-2010, 04:12 PM

Here is a perfect example of media-bias. It is not a journalist's job to take sides. They are simply supposed to report the story. If I was writing a story about the "Truthers", I would report on how many of them there are and what they believe. I would not report my opinion as fact. I would not say, "The Truthers incorrcectly believe that Pres Bush had something to do with 9/11". I would say, "The Truthers believe that Pres Bush had something to with 9/11". I would not speculate on the accuracy of the belief.

Yet in this article from ABC News about Obama, this is exactly what ABC News does. It is totally inappropriate and it shows their obvious bias. They report people's beliefs as "wrong" and "incorrect".

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

Danzig · #8 08-22-2010, 04:18 PM

by the same token, i don't know why any news organization would discuss birthers or truthers at all. news is based on fact, opinion is not fact-so why would they bother with it? the news should report things of importance that happen, not whether people have an opinion of something. that would be better left to non-news shows that discuss happenings.

Riot · #9 08-22-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is a perfect example of media-bias. It is not a journalist's job to take sides. They are simply supposed to report the story. If I was writing a story about the "Truthers", I would report on how many of them there are and what they believe. I would not report my opinion as fact. I would not say, "The Truthers incorrcectly believe that Pres Bush had something to do with 9/11". I would say, "The Truthers believe that Pres Bush had something to with 9/11". I would not speculate on the accuracy of the belief.

But when there is no credible evidence, don't you think it's the media's job to report that, too? Why do you think 20% of Americans falsely - yes, falsely - believe Obama is Muslim when he's beyond obviously Christian?

clyde · #10 08-22-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

That was beautiful.

Riot · #11 08-22-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

Yeah, 'Zig, that's exactly what I said. Right.

Yes, it truely must be too hard for you guys to understand: that there is plenty of info about Fox, and the minutes they devote (or not) to particular stories, in the news watchdog orgs (which is what I was talking about when 'Zig decided to introduce "this tangent"); and plenty of short videos of the Faux talking heads all over the political blogs - so no, nobody has to watch Faux News at all to see what they are putting out there - but it's easier for you just to be disingenuous, then insult me. Got it.

Antitrust32 · #12 08-23-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

- but it's easier for you just to be disingenuous, then insult me. Got it.

very true. GFY

clyde · #13 08-23-2010, 11:40 AM

!!!!OOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Now bi.tch slap her!!

timmgirvan · #14 08-22-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

you really are living in your own little world,Riot!

Riot · #15 08-22-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

you really are living in your own little world,Riot!

Better mine than yours, thanks

timmgirvan · #16 08-22-2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Better mine than yours, thanks

You remind me of the guy in "Princess Bride" who claimed to be the worlds smartest person. He'd blather on about something and then say "Inconceivable".

Riot · #17 08-22-2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

You remind me of the guy in "Princess Bride" who claimed to be the worlds smartest person. He'd blather on about something and then say "Inconceivable".

Except I would never claim I was the worlds smartest person, I think very little is inconceivable, and I would definitely not read/watch "Princess Bride".