Interesting Little Tidbit About Faux News

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


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.
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. :)
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.
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?


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.
 
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.:bang: 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.
 
Fox News has no Republican candidates under contract.:bang: 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.
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."
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I would rather spend my time being productive than to indulge you.
Awh... You hwut my wittwe feewings. Sad Wobbie gonna cwy now. :(
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.
 
Which remarks specifically? Did I offend you, Hokie? Did I somehow insult your intelligence?

News services are a business, yes. HOWEVER, they are not a traditional business. They are in the business of information, which must be as accurate and objective as possible, lest they transform from a news station to a gossip column. I consider TMZ a news service, but they are nowhere close to the same league as Fox or CNN. Not only does Fox have a wider audience, but they also have a more important "mission", if you will. They cannot deliver their opinions. They must remain as factual as possible. They must assume nothing and infer nothing in their reports. There is a reason why news stations use words like "alleged," and "suspected" instead of going out and saying "The shooter was this person." Integrity in a news broadcast station is the single highest responsibility of that station.

Fox News, by having such intimate contact with prominent Republican figures, shows unnecessary bias towards the Republican Party. It gets me extremely upset, because conservative voters who watch Fox News and only Fox News get ONLY the Fox News version of news. An extreme (but rather common) scenario:

A white, middle aged male (let's call him John) who lives in Ardmore, Alabama, watches Fox News every day to follow what's happening in the world. Glenn Beck's segment comes on. Glenn Beck is covering Obama's health care reform today. Beck focuses solely on the cost of this health care, and how it should be up to each individual American citizen as to what kind of health care they deem necessary for themselves. Now John believes that Obama's health care is bad because all Glenn Beck listed were negative qualities.

John's problem is not that he disagrees with Obama's health care; John's problem is that he disagrees with Obama's health care based on what another man tells him about it. John doesn't get the whole picture, because all John watches is Fox News.

Does this make sense? Do you see why I have such a gripe with Fox News now? I admit that there is bias in every news station, liberal or conservative. But what I refuse to admit is that Fox News is only as biased as every other station. That is not true. Fox News has abundantly more bias than other stations.

This more or less encompasses how I feel about most things conservative. I do not like the selfishness of most conservatives (despite Jesus telling them otherwise), I do not like the closed-mindedness of most conservatives, I do not like the pushy, "my way or the highway" attitude of most conservatives. I do not like the thought process that "because some will abuse the benefits, we should have no benefits" that most conservatives support.

I am a compassionate human being. I feel for my fellow man. When he is in trouble, I want to help him any way I can. When he is hurting, I want to comfort him. When he is angry, I want to resolve the conflict peacefully. When he is happy, I want him to realize that he can help others be happy as well.

We are all in this together. Not only as citizens of the same country, but on the basic level of humankind. Instead of warring with each other over every little thing, why not try and help each other? Instead of thinking, "I'm right and you're wrong", why not think "You might have a different feeling about this issue, but there's no reason it has to come between us on every other level of higher cognitive function"?
 
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.

Don't let it be said that I let a challenge go by...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4003531/entire-jon-stewart-interview/
 
Well be clear about what you ask for and you will get what you want but don't throw out an ambiguous challenge and then get snotty when the question is answered but the answer is not to your satisfaction, in this case you asked for a "Liberal guest" and like it or not Jon Stewart is a liberal.

If you want candidates then what about Hillary Clinton on the same show in 2008?
 
Which remarks specifically? Did I offend you, Hokie? Did I somehow insult your intelligence?

News services are a business, yes. HOWEVER,
.. snip ..
no reason it has to come between us on every other level of higher cognitive function"?
Rob, I am not easily offended. No you did not do either.

Ok Rob. The scenario you just described is completely possible. You are upset with this "John" for not listening to more than one news source. It is Johns right to listen to whatever he wishes and he is also allowed to make is decisions based on that only. It seems to me that your problem is mis directed. Don't hate Fox news for what they do, hate "John" for not doing what YOU consider prudent.
I'm not sure why John had to be White, Middle aged and Male. What about all of the other groups who do pretty much the same thing? Or even worse, people that vote without listening to ANY news or information?

You said that you hate the selfishness of the "Conservatives". Most conservatives, who have worked very hard to get to where they are, resent some bureaucrat far away taking more and more of their hard earned money and wasting it on Pork. 19% of my gross pay goes to taxes (State and Federal), and another 19% of my gross pay goes to providing insurance for my family. 19%x2 = 38% of my paycheck is spent before I even see it. I think a lot of Americans would pay closer attention if they actually had to write a check to the government every month.

Bottom line is that Americans will only get involved when it affects them directly. Otherwise it is someone elses problem, let them handle it.
 
Rob, I am not easily offended. No you did not do either.
Glad to hear it.
Ok Rob. The scenario you just described is completely possible. You are upset with this "John" for not listening to more than one news source. It is Johns right to listen to whatever he wishes and he is also allowed to make is decisions based on that only. It seems to me that your problem is mis directed. Don't hate Fox news for what they do, hate "John" for not doing what YOU consider prudent.
Oh, I know it's possible. I live in Alabama. I see it every single friggin' day. Now, I realize John has the right to watch/listen to whatever he chooses. So, the reason I place blame on Fox is that if Fox News actually put both sides of an argument on their station, maybe, JUUUST maybe, the bug might be put in John's ear. The problem I have with Fox is not that they are biased, it is that they are completely biased. Other liberal news networks put conservative political figures on their shows. Fox News doesn't give them the time of day.

I'm not sure why John had to be White, Middle aged and Male. What about all of the other groups who do pretty much the same thing? Or even worse, people that vote without listening to ANY news or information?
John was white, middle aged, and male because that's the most common type of Fox News redneck gung ho crazy man I see where I live. My boss is one of them. Watches nothing but Fox News all day long and is convinced that Barack Obama is the antichrist. LOL

Now, the groups who only watch CNN I don't have a problem with because CNN conveys a more objective opinion on their station. While I advocate watching as much as possible on EVERY station (as well as online sources), if someone was only going to watch one news station for all of their information, I'd much rather them watch CNN or ABC News than Faux.
You said that you hate the selfishness of the "Conservatives". Most conservatives, who have worked very hard to get to where they are, resent some bureaucrat far away taking more and more of their hard earned money and wasting it on Pork. 19% of my gross pay goes to taxes (State and Federal), and another 19% of my gross pay goes to providing insurance for my family. 19%x2 = 38% of my paycheck is spent before I even see it. I think a lot of Americans would pay closer attention if they actually had to write a check to the government every month.
Exactly. The United States has the lowest taxes of any 1st world country by at LEAST 15%. And yet we still hear that Americans are being overtaxed. Blah blah blah. Move to Belgium, pay a 55% income tax, and then come talk to me about overtaxation. By the way, what you and I consider pork is probably very different.
Bottom line is that Americans will only get involved when it affects them directly. Otherwise it is someone elses problem, let them handle it.
And THAT, my friend, is SELFISHNESS at its finest. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Complete, 100% lack of compassion for any other human being aside from immediate family. (And even them sometimes, too.)
 
Exactly. The United States has the lowest taxes of any 1st world country by at LEAST 15%. And yet we still hear that Americans are being overtaxed. Blah blah blah. Move to Belgium, pay a 55% income tax, and then come talk to me about overtaxation. By the way, what you and I consider pork is probably very different.

Blah blah Blah! Rob, why don't you come back and talk to us when you actually pay taxes.

You claim Belgium citizens pay 55% income tax. Please supply a source.

You obviously don't follow international events or you would be aware of what is happening in Europe.

Look at the strikes in France and the problems with Greece. These are highly taxed countries overburdened with socialists programs. In other words they are going broke. Why? Because the politicians promised and delivered pie in the sky social programs that future generations have to pay for. Unfortunately, they did it several generations ago and now they can't pay the piper.

Your argument for more taxes is; "Europeans pay more". Who is the dumb one? Europeans for allowing outlandish taxes or Americans for refusing to be taxed at outlandish rates? I hope the Europeans are getting kissed while they are being screwed.;)

You want to see what "progressive" social programs get you. Look at California, 95 days past due for a budget and counting. Can't balance a budget. California is in debt.

In away, our views should be reversed. As I will soon be collecting on promises that you and your children will have to pay for. Thank you for that at least. (I hope it does not upset you that I will be kicking back on a southern California beach while you are paying my way:D ).
 
Glad to hear it.
Oh, I know it's possible. I live in Alabama. I see it every single friggin' day. Now, I realize John has the right to watch/listen to whatever he chooses. So, the reason I place blame on Fox is that if Fox News actually put both sides of an argument on their station, maybe, JUUUST maybe, the bug might be put in John's ear. The problem I have with Fox is not that they are biased, it is that they are completely biased. Other liberal news networks put conservative political figures on their shows. Fox News doesn't give them the time of day.

John was white, middle aged, and male because that's the most common type of Fox News redneck gung ho crazy man I see where I live. My boss is one of them. Watches nothing but Fox News all day long and is convinced that Barack Obama is the antichrist. LOL

Now, the groups who only watch CNN I don't have a problem with because CNN conveys a more objective opinion on their station. While I advocate watching as much as possible on EVERY station (as well as online sources), if someone was only going to watch one news station for all of their information, I'd much rather them watch CNN or ABC News than Faux.
Exactly. The United States has the lowest taxes of any 1st world country by at LEAST 15%. And yet we still hear that Americans are being overtaxed. Blah blah blah. Move to Belgium, pay a 55% income tax, and then come talk to me about overtaxation. By the way, what you and I consider pork is probably very different.

And THAT, my friend, is SELFISHNESS at its finest. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Complete, 100% lack of compassion for any other human being aside from immediate family. (And even them sometimes, too.)

Agree with Chuckpike here. 55% taxes is why I don't live in Belgium. They do have excellent beer BTW. :drink: I do not care one whit about how much europeans are taxed. That is their problem to take up with their politicians. Not mine. Rob, you seem to have skipped over my question about the group that votes without learning about the issues. BTW you may not like Foxnews, but guess what, Me, Your boss and the rest of the white middle aged males can base our votes on Foxnews info, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just like the other groups who listen only to the likes of Ariana Huffington, Barney ("I created the housing crisis") Frank, Nancy (Gimme my $45million plane") Pelosi and Al (I failed at talk radio and now I'm a senator) Franken and base their votes only on liberal views. And there is nothing I can do about it either.

A final question, Didn't MontyB provide an interview of a liberal on Foxnews?
 
Back
Top