Interesting Little Tidbit About Faux News

MontyB said:
Tell me you haven't sat through a Glen Beck patriotic sob-fest where the "Nazi's" haven't made an appearance or a Hannity show where the term "liberal" hasn't been followed by a "want you to be afraid of blah blah blah" line.

Lets not try and and invoke Godwin's law in this argument as it is in this case a valid example.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a valid example. Of Godwin's law.:bravo:
MontyB said:
CNN and MSNBC may be just as biased as FOX I wont argue that but the difference is that FOX actively try and direct your opinion through managed story manipulation.
Click to expand...

There is only one reason for biased reporting no matter who does it. That is to manipulate the reader.


Rob Henderson said:
So now you're admitting that Fox News is no more a "news" organization than Rolling Stone magazine? Okay. Thanks. That clears a lot up. Now that I know Fox News isn't ACTUALLY news, it's okay for them to be biased.
Real news services? Now, that term doesn't include Fox anymore, does it? Because just up there you compared Fox News to Rolling Stone magazine, and Rolling Stone does NOT consider itself a news source.
Click to expand...

Please supply some definitive source proving that Rolling Stone does not consider itself a news source.

You really have NO CLUE what constitutes news do you? Out of the mouths of babies:roll:

I know your attention span is exceedingly short. But try and recall what news media had a embedded reporter break the news of General McCrystal's staff comments on the Obama administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/

Rolling Stone was reporting news long before you were born.

Please think before you write. You just destroyed any credibility you might have had about news reporting.

How can you judge the amount of bias that FOX NEWS exhibits when you do not know what constitutes news? Or what is a valid news source!
 
Last edited:
Rolling Stone magazine is a music magazine BEFORE it is a political magazine. According to the WEBSITE OF ROLLING STONE "Rolling Stone Magazine features music, album and artist news, movie reviews, political, economic and pop culture commentary, videos, photos, and more."

Notice that they say "political commentary." They do NOT say "political information." They offer COMMENTARY (not impartial) on the current political happenings. Their aim is not to present political information to its readers, their aim is to offer their writers' opinions on the political information given to them.
HOWEVER, this is all irrelevant, as we are discussing how Fox News is a biased news station. Not whether or not Rolling Stone magazine is (primarily) a news magazine.

So again I ask you, please TRY to stick to the topic at hand. I realize it is EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL to not get rises out of the people you are attempting to troll, but you might as well accept it. We all know you are a troll, your sheep skin has been permanently cast off, and you will no longer successfully bait me into one of your off topic rants.
ONCE AGAIN, THE TOPIC IS FOX NEWS BEING A BIASED NEWS ORGANIZATION.
 
Chukpike said:
There is only one reason for biased reporting no matter who does it. That is to manipulate the reader.
Click to expand...

In part true however I would suggest that most media outlets are far more subtle than FOX, most organisations impart information FOX imparts its point of view.

I also have a very strong belief you know what I mean and are attempting to dance around the issue of the way information is passed on determining the message sent aka spin:
For example:
Positive: We still have 100 rounds left.
Neutral: We have 100 rounds left.
Negative: We are down to 100 rounds.

Each statement is accurate but each imparts a different message.

Now then on to Godwin's law, Godwin's law does not apply if the use of "Hitler" is required to explain a case in a genuine manner so without further ado I give you Glen Beck of FOX News...

Godwin's Law


Now I am not going to say Obama wants eugenics but now I will prattle on and draw as many comparisons as I can to Obama and eugenics, this is not the art of passing on information this is straight out scaremongering.

Personally I like this more...
Lewis Black


Sorry I find Lewis Black funny but I couldn't find the Comedy Channel version so you will have a few seconds of MSNBC on the front.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Now then on to Godwin's law, Godwin's law does not apply if the use of "Hitler" is required to explain a case in a genuine manner so without further ado I give you Glen Beck of FOX News...
Click to expand...

The use of "Hitler" was not required, therefore Godwin's law applies. I doubt Beck's show is always about Hitler, therefore you picked a Hitler segment to connect Hitler, not that it was required.:bored:


The Lewis Black segment was funny, I couldn't watch the whole Beck segment as it was boring and pointless.

Let me get this straight. You actually watch these Fox News commentaries? Just to comment on how FOX NEWS channel programing is biased? Don't you have anything better to do?
 
Chukpike said:
The use of "Hitler" was not required, therefore Godwin's law applies. I doubt Beck's show is always about Hitler, therefore you picked a Hitler segment to connect Hitler, not that it was required.:bored:
Click to expand...

If with Beck Hitler comparisons were a one off I could over look it but it is almost every second show with him and if he isn't crying Nazi he crying "Stalinist", "Socialist" or "Maoist" the sad thing for FOX is that he is becoming the face of FOX and most people regard him as a nutjob.



Let me get this straight. You actually watch these Fox News commentaries? Just to comment on how FOX NEWS channel programing is biased? Don't you have anything better to do?
Click to expand...

I watch all news and generally don't care who's organisation it is or what their perceived bias is however I admit I only ever watch Beck when I want a laugh.


mmarsh said:
Lewis Black RULES!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah he is funny, I loved the Al Gore is no Hitler comments.
 
Last edited:
MontyB

I actually saw this skit on comedy central a few weeks ago, but its still funny.
There were two real gems, the Al Gore is no Hitler and the suggestion that Beck find an Attic.

Both comments were hilarious and TRUE.
 
I think that O'Reilly was pointing out that the 11 hijackers were all muslim extremists. As soon as you state that FACT you are labelled as a hate monger etc. McVeigh and Nichols were white christian extremists. O'Reillys point about the moderate muslim community standing against extremeism rings true. IMHO, moderate muslims are afraid of the extremists and do not want to incur their wrath.

Rob,
So there is absolutely NO WAY one can generalize all Muslims as the individuals responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with muslims celebrating the attack on the towers. I have a problem with muslims trying to impose sharia in the US.

You are correct Rob. We cannot hold all muslims accountable for the actions of a few of them. However, the fact remains that all of the 9/11 hijackers were muslim. Do you think that there would be this kind of outrage or consideration if the hijackers were christian?
 
HokieMSG said:
I think that O'Reilly was pointing out that the 11 hijackers were all muslim extremists. As soon as you state that FACT you are labelled as a hate monger etc. McVeigh and Nichols were white christian extremists. O'Reillys point about the moderate muslim community standing against extremeism rings true. IMHO, moderate muslims are afraid of the extremists and do not want to incur their wrath.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he conveniently leaves out the 2nd word of that phrase. There is a huge difference between "the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim Extremists" and "the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim."
HokieMSG said:
Rob,


I have a problem with muslims celebrating the attack on the towers. I have a problem with muslims trying to impose sharia in the US.

You are correct Rob. We cannot hold all muslims accountable for the actions of a few of them. However, the fact remains that all of the 9/11 hijackers were muslim. Do you think that there would be this kind of outrage or consideration if the hijackers were christian?
Click to expand...
The thing is you cannot lump all Muslims together. Just like you cannot lump all Christians together, or all Jews together, or all whites together, or all blacks together, etc.

Just because some Muslims (in other countries, mind you) celebrate the attack doesn't mean all Muslims celebrate it. I have a problem with the few Muslims who celebrate the attack too, but I do not hate all of Islam because of them.

As far as sharia law being imposed in the United States.... SOURCES PLEASE?

In answer to your question, absolutely not. I think if they were Christian, it would've been completely swept under the rug. Just like the Tea Party suicide into the IRS building was on the news for about.... A DAY.
 
Rob Henderson said:
The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he conveniently leaves out the 2nd word of that phrase. There is a huge difference between "the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim Extremists" and "the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslim."
The thing is you cannot lump all Muslims together. Just like you cannot lump all Christians together, or all Jews together, or all whites together, or all blacks together, etc.

Just because some Muslims (in other countries, mind you) celebrate the attack doesn't mean all Muslims celebrate it. I have a problem with the few Muslims who celebrate the attack too, but I do not hate all of Islam because of them.

As far as sharia law being imposed in the United States.... SOURCES PLEASE?

In answer to your question, absolutely not. I think if they were Christian, it would've been completely swept under the rug. Just like the Tea Party suicide into the IRS building was on the news for about.... A DAY.
Click to expand...

Rob Henderson said:
HOWEVER, this is all irrelevant, as we are discussing how Fox News is a biased news station..

So again I ask you, please TRY to stick to the topic at hand.
ONCE AGAIN, THE TOPIC IS FOX NEWS BEING A BIASED NEWS ORGANIZATION.
Click to expand...

Might try following your own suggestion.

The Topic is not Bill O'Riley on a different network.
 
How tight a corsett is appropriate? We should try for a little looser titles less we have "bias on Fox" thread "Bias on all the other channels" Thread....ect, ect.
 
Rob,
Came across this interesting opinion piece (yes on Fox News) that made some interesting points about NPR bias.

Nina Totenberg
Other NPR journalists are free to spew their liberal views on other cable networks without presenting a problem, however. Nina Totenberg certainly didn’t get fired when she said on air in 2003 about Gen. William Boykin “I hope he's not long for this world,” because he talked about a Christian crusade.
But then again, this is the same Totenberg who in 1995 had this horrific thing to say about Sen. Jesse Helms, “If there’s retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
Click to expand...
Never hear a Foxnews correspondant wish aids on someone they interviewed.

Scott Simon
And Scott Simon also still has his job after saying of Mother Theresa, the day after she died:
"She accepted millions for her missions from the dictatorial Duvalier family in Haiti, and from convicted savings and loan executive Charles Keating in the United States."
Click to expand...
Criticizing someone the day after they died. That's pretty low.


Peter Overby
And this is the same NPR that hired Peter Overby from the very leftist group Common Cause to arbiter which Party sins the most in its funding. Overby has been doing overtime lately carrying the White House’s water on a funding “scandal” most other news outlets have declared hogwash.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...fired-nina-totenberg-oreilly-heritage-schorr/

This is an example of another news station being biased. If you think that Foxnews is the only station with bias you are sorely mistaken.

Here is another article outlining bias by NPR.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/brief-history-nprs-intolerance-imbalance/
 
Last edited:
Wow Rob, knee jerk mutch. Notice my comment says
If you think that Foxnews is the only station with bias you are sorely mistaken.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to make sure that you were aware of bias on a station that was NOT Foxnews.
 
I've stated several times in my argument that I realize Fox News is not the only station with bias. However, Fox News' bias is disgustingly consistent.
 
Consistent was a bad term...


Thorough is a better word.

Fox News is at LEAST 90% Republican biased, but at least NPR gives some semblance of a conservative voice to their liberal programming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top