|
|
A credible news source doesn't show "The horrible actions of demonstrators in Wisconsin" and the video has palm trees in the background. It's like they don't even try to hide that they're lying.....
|
|
|
|
|
milo-xml wrote: A credible news source doesn't show "The horrible actions of demonstrators in Wisconsin" and the video has palm trees in the background. It's like they don't even try to hide that they're lying.....
How do you know that there are no palm trees in Wisconsin? 
What if the actions were horrible? Is that somehow more offensive than someone on, for instance, MSNB-hee-haw calling Donald Trump names?
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Wisconsin and for that matter lived in our capital Madison where the demonstrations were taking place
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you actually watch Fox? I watch that and the others (and a few lesser channels). Fox is no better or worse than any of the others. Unless you have a balanced view to the contrary?
|
|
|
|
|
If you really want balanced, watch Reuters or BBC news. The bonus of that is it shows the impact we have on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
I've watched BBC back-to-back with DW. Both reported the same story. The difference was that BBC left out items that quite substantially changed the opinion one would get of the adversaries in the conflict.
BBC is resting on it's laurels of days-gone-by while promoting an agenda that (judging by the makeup of an unusually high proportion of the news readers I see) is pushing continuous bias.
Softly. Gently. So it lasts.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
If you really want balanced, watch Reuters or BBC news. The bonus of that is it shows the impact we have on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
milo-xml wrote: If you really want balanced, watch Reuters or BBC news.
Not sure about the BBC - they do have a leftist bias (although that may change if Cameron gets his way and rewrites how they exist). Sky news in the UK can also be pretty good if you ignore the editorials.
Ha: so good you posted it twice!
|
|
|
|
|
Oops. Not that good, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me, but Faux "News" is nowhere near fair and balanced. Yeah, all the news channels are crap, but it's well-known that Faux is the mouth piece of the Republican Party, heavily biased toward conservatives, VERY pro-Christian/anti-anything else, and lies constantly about science to the point of bringing in "experts" on all science topics that have no expertise at all in the topic.
I'm not saying that everyone else is better at being balanced, just not as blatant about it.
|
|
|
|
|
And it's well known, for instance, that MSNB-heee-haw is the mouthpiece of the democrats. So what? Happy to admit they're all terrible and have bias one way or another. But everyone seems to be fox bashing without being willing to admit that other media outlets are also biased which is hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: And it's well known, for instance, that MSNB-heee-haw is the mouthpiece of the democrats. So what?
So what? I wasn't comparing Faux News to anyone.
You made the claim that "Fox News is fair and balanced". Well, do your homework on them and their so called "experts". You'll find that they are FAR from it, not compared to other news outlets but to just any layman definitions of "fair" and "balanced"!
They also don't get to call themselves a news program, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION in an appeal in a 2003 lawsuit that they lost:
Quote: During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You are one angry man! Too much MSNB-hee-haw, I would imagine. I took the side of Fox because everyone else was having a go at them and because their straight news reporting is as good as anyone else. They also tend to do less editorial and opinion pieces than some of the others though I admit I try to avoid those on any channel.
Not sure why you're being a bit of a dick about this; try to relax; if you want to carry iton, let's talk in the Soapbox. have a nice day and RELAX
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: You are one angry man! Too much MSNB-hee-haw, I would imagine.
You don't know how to read apparently. I said I don't watch any of the news programs.
Karel Čapek wrote: Not sure why you're being a bit of a dick about this;
Because "fair and balanced" is about the absurd thing you could use to describe Faux News, or any other organization for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I said I don't watch any of the news programs.
And yet my statement stands. You would have to watch to figure it out.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Because "fair and balanced" is about the absurd thing you could use to describe Faux News, or any other organization for that matter.
How would you know if you don't watch? That's just ignorance in action.
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: How would you know if you don't watch? That's just ignorance in action.
No, that's just ignorance on your part. I already told you I have watched and I have done my homework on these shows, their people and their so-called experts.
Perhaps you forgot to read what I actually posted.
I suggest you stop with the ad hominem attacks. They're saying more about you then they are about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No, that's just ignorance on your part. I already told you I have watched and I have done my homework on these shows, their people and their so-called experts.
You said: "I said I don't watch any of the news programs." a couple of posts back.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Perhaps you forgot to read what I actually posted.
Perhaps you forgot to remember what you had written.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I suggest you stop with the ad hominem attacks. They're saying more about you then they are about me.
Doubtful: they're observations based on your behavior which I'm not the only to spot. I admire you for trying to attack me when you have been caught out in a, hmm, let's be generous and call it a senior moment, but the truth stands.
You can't say "I don't watch" with one breath and then "I already told you I have watched". Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you need to read it again:
Quote: I seldom watch any news programs at all. I usually get the title of a story and start doing my own research into it.
I did not say "I don't watch any of the news programs". What this meant, and I should have been more clear, I don't watch any of them on any regular basis. I usually get the title set of their story and fist couple of lines and then go research it myself. They sure as sh*t won't do it to any degree of respectable journalism.
So I don't watch every news program on every story. I pick out the few I'm interested in and go do my own homework.
Every so often, I may watch an entire news story, take notes, and then go do my homework on who was on it, both sides of the story, credentials and play "follow the money", just to exercise my research skills. It's amazing what you'll find when you do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
I did not say "I don't watch any of the news programs".
Yes you did. I quoted you. You said exactly that!
I said I don't watch any of the news programs. [^]
Your words! I think you need to see a doctor. Fox has a couple they recommend.
You are clearly contradicting yourself which is tragically funny. If you won't come clean and admit you made a boo-boo, we're done; no point in going on. Over to you, Davey boy.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Yes you did. I quoted you. You said exactly that!
I said I don't watch any of the news programs. [^]
Your words! I think you need to see a doctor. Fox has a couple they recommend.
Apparently, I did. I also expounded on what I meant so it's rather a moot point now.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
