Originally Posted by Chukpike

You're confuzzled? You are entering one of the most corrupt industries there is. Music industry where record producers shoot each other. Cheating on royalties is common place, and entertainment politics gets you work, or gets you black balled.
The music industry makes politicians look like (pardon the pun) choir boys.

You have no idea what I'm planning to do with my life. "Going into music" is such a broad term, it almost is TOO simplified. But whatever. If you think a producer is going to shoot someone else over a Brahms recording, you go right ahead. ROFLMAO

Originally Posted by Chukpike

The entertainment industry does look like a good fit for you, although it looks like comedy would be a better choice.

I almost always find your posts entertaining.

That's wonderful. And SO on the topic of Fox News being biased towards the GOP. Thank you, Chukpike.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Ever here of Franklin D Roosevelt? Theodore Roosevelt?

Nixon, born into wealth. no.
Reagan, born into wealth. no.

You need to learn to rely less on propaganda and more on verifiable information.

George W. Bush born into wealth? Yes. John McCain born into wealth? Yes.

Don't give me that bullsh*t.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Rob, That is the point I'm trying to make here. Elected officials ARE working for the government and should not run for another office while holding an elected office. The contributors for Fox are not yet part of the government. They are private citizens. Once they declare their contracts are terminated. This has all been gone over before. You have a complete lack of understanding of this distinction and I will not revisit this as I am having better luck talking to a brick wall.

Semantics. Sure, Sarah Palin isn't technically part of the government right now, but she used to be. And she sure as hell has a lot of pull with the people (which is what our government is all about anyway). But I'll give it to you. None of these people are "technically" running for President yet. But I guarantee you someone from that list will run. In any case, my point was not that Fox News shouldn't have contracts with people who might want to run for president in the future. MY POINT WAS:Fox News is a biased company because they ONLY have Republican candidates in that contract. They don't have any "deals" with Barack Obama. They don't have any "deals" with Hillary Rodham Clinton. They only have prominent figures from the Republican party. That is news bias. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

What about organized labor? What about Time Warner? They own CNN and Time magazine. You have no problem with them contributing to the Dems in greater amounts than News Corp did? So yes I do consider you naive because Time Warner gave greater than 80% of its contributions to Dems in both 2008 and 2010.

Well done, attempting to use the percentages instead of the actual amounts. I ALMOST had to concede. Until I looked closer and saw that, while percentage-wise Time Warner has given more, monetarily, News Corp still wins out. (That $1,000,000 donation doesn't show up on your source.) While I would prefer news organizations stay out of party donations altogether, that is simply not possible. So, for now, I will stick with the one who gives less than the other.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Ahhh. Here we go. Pretty soon you will be advocating wealth redistribution.

Not quite. I think more wealth should go to the government so it can put it to better use than sitting in a bank account collecting interest.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Rob, In the article you quoted, as I pointed out, the Dems got almost 3x as much money in the same period.

Not from insurance companies or "unbiased" news groups, they didn't. By the way, the Republicans overall HAVE out raised the Democrats. So "the Dems got almost 3x as much" doesn't exactly "hold water" either.

I think it says a lot not about how much groups are donating, but WHICH groups are donating. "Washington based labor groups" are donating to the Democrats, while a major insurance company is giving to the Republicans. Who's agenda is more worth trying to push?

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Rob you are obviously taking this a lot more personally than I am. I'm just trying to point out that your arguments don't hold water. I'll bet you watch foxnews more than I do.

I highly doubt that, friend.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

MY POINT WAS:Fox News is a biased company because they ONLY have Republican candidates in that contract. They don't have any "deals" with Barack Obama. They don't have any "deals" with Hillary Rodham Clinton. They only have prominent figures from the Republican party. That is news bias. Plain and simple.

Fox News has no Republican candidates under contract. Read your own article!

So you are saying FOX News should be contracting with Federal government employees, making "deals" with the President and Secretary of State?

But at the same time your article points out that as soon as any of the Republican private parties declare their intention to run they have to quit?

So you really don't have a problem with FOX being biased, only that it is baised toward the wrong party. shakes head.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Fox News has no Republican candidates under contract. Read your own article!

Chukpike, I will personally guarantee you that one of the candidates under contract with Fox News WILL be running for president. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of them actually won the primary. You are splitting hairs, and deliberately NOT comprehending my posts to (vainly) try to make my argument invalid.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

So you are saying FOX News should be contracting with Federal government employees, making "deals" with the President and Secretary of State?

The point is there are no prominent Democratic figures (in office or not) to put the "balance" in "Fox News: Fair, Balanced, Local."

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

But at the same time your article points out that as soon as any of the Republican private parties declare their intention to run they have to quit?

So you really don't have a problem with FOX being biased, only that it is baised toward the wrong party. shakes head.

No no. I have a problem with them being completely biased. Every news network is going to have its bias. What I have a problem with is Fox showing absolutely NO hint of tolerance towards anyone who wouldn't have an elephant next to his or her name on the screen.

Just out of interest isn't or wasn't the FOX News (hard to write with a straight face) logo "Fair and Balanced"?

If so would it not be considered misleading advertising given their obvious bias?

Now I am just interested in the mechanics of this argument more than the sentiment as I really don't care who FOX back in elections as all organisations support one side and in most cases both sides but if you are going to call yourself "fair and balanced" shouldn't you be?

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Chukpike, I will personally guarantee you that one of the candidates under contract with Fox News WILL be running for president. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of them actually won the primary. You are splitting hairs, and deliberately NOT comprehending my posts to (vainly) try to make my argument invalid.
The point is there are no prominent Democratic figures (in office or not) to put the "balance" in "Fox News: Fair, Balanced, Local."
No no. I have a problem with them being completely biased. Every news network is going to have its bias. What I have a problem with is Fox showing absolutely NO hint of tolerance towards anyone who wouldn't have an elephant next to his or her name on the screen.

Rob, I get it now. You just hate Foxnews because they are offering the polar opposite of your socialist agenda. Got it. Your issue appears to be with degrees of bias. What is the magic number of bias? I'm sure with a little research I could come up with a few news organizations that exhibit complete liberal bias. Would you have an issue with them? Or do you just hate conservatives. You continue to harp about Fox News and their conservative bias. Do us all a favor, sit in your ivory tower and pontificate to your hearts content. Bias exists, NO news organization will EVERY be without bias. You have said so yourself. Would you rather the government provided all of our news? Yes I guess you would. That way we could be sure of news completely without bias. Plenty of propaganda but no bias.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Rob, I get it now. You just hate Foxnews because they are offering the polar opposite of your socialist agenda. Got it. Your issue appears to be with degrees of bias. What is the magic number of bias? I'm sure with a little research I could come up with a few news organizations that exhibit complete liberal bias. Would you have an issue with them? Or do you just hate conservatives. You continue to harp about Fox News and their conservative bias. Do us all a favor, sit in your ivory tower and pontificate to your hearts content. Bias exists, NO news organization will EVERY be without bias. You have said so yourself. Would you rather the government provided all of our news? Yes I guess you would. That way we could be sure of news completely without bias. Plenty of propaganda but no bias.

I suppose you've run out of things to say... That's why this argument turned to frustration. But I shall indulge.

As a matter of fact, Hokie, I WOULD have a problem with complete liberal bias. But I bet I can find a liberal show that has had a conservative guest faster than I could find a conservative show with a liberal guest. It amuses me to a large extent that you say you could find one such show with "a little research," and yet, you have not shown me anything. LOL. Quite funny.

I realize no news organization will ever(y?) be without bias 100%, but you don't see ABC News bleating "Fair, Balanced, Local" every time their station ID comes up. Fox News would rather deny the existence of their bias than admit to it. (Just like the rest of conservative ideology. If it doesn't fit with your nice, neat, alternate reality, you simply deny its existence.

MontyB has made my point quite clear and concise. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

I suppose you've run out of things to say... That's why this argument turned to frustration. But I shall indulge.

As a matter of fact, Hokie, I WOULD have a problem with complete liberal bias. But I bet I can find a liberal show that has had a conservative guest faster than I could find a conservative show with a liberal guest. It amuses me to a large extent that you say you could find one such show with "a little research," and yet, you have not shown me anything. LOL. Quite funny.

I realize no news organization will ever(y?) be without bias 100%, but you don't see ABC News bleating "Fair, Balanced, Local" every time their station ID comes up. Fox News would rather deny the existence of their bias than admit to it. (Just like the rest of conservative ideology. If it doesn't fit with your nice, neat, alternate reality, you simply deny its existence.

MontyB has made my point quite clear and concise. Thank you.

I would rather spend my time being productive than to indulge you.

It seems an awful petty gripe you have here Rob. I guess you and I will NEVER agree. It seems you take immediate offense if someone challenges your assertions. I will remember to keep than in mind in the future. My frustration is that when I try to clearly explain things to you, you go off on some other minor tangent. Do us all a favor, admit you hate anything and everything conservative and be done with it.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

I would rather spend my time being productive than to indulge you.

Awh... You hwut my wittwe feewings. Sad Wobbie gonna cwy now.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

It seems an awful petty gripe you have here Rob. I guess you and I will NEVER agree. It seems you take immediate offense if someone challenges your assertions. I will remember to keep than in mind in the future. My frustration is that when I try to clearly explain things to you, you go off on some other minor tangent. Do us all a favor, admit you hate anything and everything conservative and be done with it.

A petty gripe that a news channel that prides itself on being "balanced" is in contracted deals with several prominent conservatives while at the same time denying or ignoring liberals requests to appear on that network?

Well, censorship prevails, I suppose. :\

By the way, just an example... I'm pro-gun.

Henderson, several of those remarks were uncalled for.
Your points, however, are valid.
Deliver it with just a little more maturity and you'll be finding a broader audience.

Yeah "Fair and Balanced" should be considered false advertising.

ACom. Thanks.

Rob, A question. Do you consider news services a buisness? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Yes. My point has been made. Fox News has found a niche and is tailoring its product to that niche.

No. Why then do they sell advertising? Why not go the way of NPR and have fundraisers every 6 months?

The point is, you obviously have a gripe with Fox News saying "Fair and Balanced". OK I get that. You seem to have gotten yourself really wrapped around the axle on this and I cannot understand why it is getting you so upset. I get the impression from this thread, and others we have sparred on, that you really hate anything and everything conservative. Just trying to understand why.