Just in case anyone had any remaining delusions about the credibility of Fox News:

c-OpIXfXKO8

HAHA, I love Rachel Maddow.

The complete lack of any ethical standard reeks of desperation on both parties.

Just in case anyone had any remaining delusions about the credibility of Fox News:


HAHAHA...Ha...ha...ha...h... You're serious?

This is pretty hilarious and sad at the same time...

HAHAHA...Ha...ha...ha...h... You're serious?My father swears by Fox. He gets angry that I get my news from other sources.

Genuine question: Does he think Iraq and/or Saddam were involved in 9/11?

It's depressing that they talk about "controlling the narrative" since everyone just accepts it's all effectively fiction, yet does not take the next obvious step and reject said fiction.

Genuine question: Does he think Iraq and/or Saddam were involved in 9/11?

Just as a point to your question, I have a client who is a pretty nice guy and I never realized until last week that he was so completely gullible. The conversation I had with him is amazing. He thinks Gulliani would have made the best president with most of his reasoning being that Guilliani was there leading the whole effort on 9/11 he said that he is very impressed that he was right out in the middle of things leading everyone, never mind the fact that he was outside because his command center was under the WTC debris.

He also said he could never vote for a black person, let alone one who is a muslim and named hussein. He also said that Ron Paul was a bit "out there" and that he will vote for McCain because McCain led the surge on the Iraqis that are trying to take our freedom and kill us.

This is completely true.

Just as a point to your question, I have a client who is a pretty nice guy and I never realized until last week that he was so completely gullible. The conversation I had with him is amazing. He thinks Gulliani would have made the best president with most of his reasoning being that Guilliani was there leading the whole effort on 9/11 he said that he is very impressed that he was right out in the middle of things leading everyone, never mind the fact that he was outside because his command center was under the WTC debris.

He also said he could never vote for a black person, let alone one who is a muslim and named hussein. He also said that Ron Paul was a bit "out there" and that he will vote for McCain because McCain led the surge on the Iraqis that are trying to take our freedom and kill us.

This is completely true.


LOL what a dolt

Genuine question: Does he think Iraq and/or Saddam were involved in 9/11?I don't know, that's a good question. I may have to find a way to try and ask, I'm curious now. My wife tries to guide the two of us away from talking politics - it isn't pretty.

We were out driving once, and some guy on a motorcycle passed us with a handwritten sign taped on the back which read, "Bush lied! People died!" My dad responded with, "Can you believe there are people who actually still believe Bush lied?"

Chris 'it runs up and down my leg' Matthews and the Obamaman's righteous indignation is beyond irony.

I'm not sure about Oreilly, but I'm quite certain Hannity has never said he was "fair and balanced." And neither have ever been in the tank for Bush or any GOP politician 2% as much as MSNBC has been for Barrack. Anyone only halfway paying attention would have their gut splitting open from the hilarity about 10 seconds into that clip.

I keep saying on this board to deaf ears: No media outlet is impartial, ever. The more they claim otherwise, the less you should trust them.

We have two break rooms at work. In one break room on the tv was Fox News, the other CNN.
CNN was talking about the dow being down like 217 points( don't remember the exact figure.)

Fox was broadcasting " LESBIANS! The number one song in the country is about LESBIANS. Is this ruining our country?"

I was seriously like " are you fucking kidding me right now?"

I keep saying on this board to deaf ears: No media outlet is impartial, ever. The more they claim otherwise, the less you should trust them.

The entire universe conceded that point years ago. Of course, the only network that has "impartial" in their slogan is .. Faux News, so your metric of distrust is 100% correct in this case.

I'm sort of depressed that you've gone completely to bunker recently shouting out periodic non-sequitors about how TV news sucks (duh?) as if that makes propaganda efforts, misappropriation of your tax money, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as relevant as last episode of Two And a Half Dads.

Can you think real hard and tell us which other major world power had a state-sponsored and run "news" organization? Hint: You were making fun of their tanks.

Is the BBC considered state-sponsored?

(Yes, I know that's not what you were referring to, but it occurred to me that BBC News is sometimes held up as one of the better news organizations.)

From my understanding the BBC gets supported in a way similar to NPR, a fund is created to keep the corporation running, but there is a legal barrier to interference. The BBC is a bit different since it's a lot more than just a news organization, perhaps one of our Brits is more intimately familiar. Conceptually similar to a state-subsidized utility, http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ appears to be the glossy pamphlet for the independent governing body.

Incidentally, the current administration has been actively trying to kill funding for NPR.


Ha, from Wikipedia:

The BBC has long faced allegations of holding a left wing or liberal bias, many from right-of-centre organisations and pressure groups. Similar allegations have been made by past and present employees such as Antony Jay, former political editor Andrew Marr, North American editor Justin Webb, former editor of the Today Programme, Rod Liddle and former correspondent Robin Aitken. By contrast left-wing figures such as the journalist John Pilger have frequently accused the BBC of a right-wing bias, a view supported by the left-wing website Media Lens. The anti-Iraq war MP George Galloway has referred to it as the "Bush and Blair Corporation".

Apparently people with agendas think every new organization is against their interest ;>

http://www.phombo.com/anime-cartoons-comics/calvin-and-hobbes/4800/popular/

Chris 'it runs up and down my leg' Matthews and the Obamaman's righteous indignation is beyond irony.

I'm not sure about Oreilly, but I'm quite certain Hannity has never said he was "fair and balanced." And neither have ever been in the tank for Bush or any GOP politician 2% as much as MSNBC has been for Barrack. Anyone only halfway paying attention would have their gut splitting open from the hilarity about 10 seconds into that clip.

Hint: there's this thing called evidence you might want to look into, because otherwise you look like you're just making things up. Course, you are making things up, which will make that a problem.

You also might want to actually watch the video.

I guess Clinton didn't do that either :)

Much adue about nothing.....

And concerning a bias in News...lets look at the results of a recent survey (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story)

Since when did it become a moral outrage that the White House try to get its message out?

Talking points, off the record briefs, one-on-one lunches with a reporter, telecons, press releases, etc. What's the difference? Change the title on the letter head and it's the same thing.

If they weren't doing this, they would be morons. As Bise pointed out, Clinton was a master of the "war room" and he was routinely praised for it. You think it's bad now? Wait until Obama gets in there.

And everyone agrees that while under McClellan, the White House press corps operations were abyssmal. I find it gut splitting hilarious that he's out there rediculing it now.

Secondly, contrary to DiscW's assertion that I didn't watch the entire clip - I watched the entire interview, not just the posted clip. The vapid star reporters Chris -it's running up my leg- Matthews and Keith Obamaman fail miserably in one central aspect: Where's the evidence? Is that only reserved for sexual misconduct against possible Obama VP picks? These talking points aren't classified, it should be quite easy to get a few contentious ones and then compare it to what was said that night. But given how in the tank these two stars are for Obama, I'm not surprised at their righteous indignation.

Thirdly, in the interview, McClellan's soul peeks through when he announced both political parties do this. Did that make it to your clip? Standard operating procedure for all White Houses.

Lastly, the cherry on top of this non-issue is the sitting Democratic paid advisors to Clinton and Obama acting as hosts on CNN and other networks as unbiased pundits. And CNN's supposedly undecided voters asking questions during a GOP debate and those same undecided voters giving their opinions in the post-debate rooms? How many were actually Democratic political activists easily found using google? Quite a few. No vein popping moral outrage by Chris and Keith there.

Anyway, I've long suspected both parties in the White House have political pundits in the media actually writing their talking points - not the other way around. Not until Tony Snow came onboard for Bush did the White House ever have the talent to tell the media how to do their job. That occurance I'll give some consideration to, but since I rarely if ever watch any of these channels any more, it won't be much.

Since when did it become a moral outrage that the White House try to get its message out?

WHEN THEY PRESENT IT AS UNBIASED NEWS AND IT ISN'T. clear?

Well the disparity (http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=147067&postcount=26) is telling.

Did you even read past my first sentence?

Yes I did, would you now be so kind to answer my question?

WHEN THEY PRESENT IT AS UNBIASED NEWS AND IT ISN'T. clear? Not clear, because I'm not even certain you understand the fundamental issue here being accused without any given evidence put forward.

Bill Orielly and Hannity aren't the NEWS... and they're certainly not considered UNBIASED by anyone sane.

Bill Orielly and Hannity aren't the NEWS... and they're certainly not considered UNBIASED by anyone sane.

But we were talking about Fox News. The problem is that fox along with other stations completely blur the line between news and commentary, fox tends to do it more.

But will you answer my question concerning Edwards?

There's no way Fox News could have commentators. The audience surely isn't sophisticated enough to understand that. Perhaps they should have big, flashing letters superimposed on the screen that say "NOT NEWS, COMMENTARY".

That way people won't become confused as to what they are watching.

The problem is that fox along with other stations completely blur the line between news and commentaryIt's only a problem if you're naive enough to believe there's a news organization out there that doesn't blur the line.

fox tends to do it more.It's ALL biased. All news organizations do it, full tilt for one motivation or another since the beginning of history. The day you understand that, the better off you'll be.

It's ALL biased. All news organizations do it, full tilt for one motivation or another since the beginning of history. The day you understand that, the better off you'll be.

Stupid, Paranoid, and believed only to justify your own asshattery.

But we were talking about Fox News. The problem is that fox along with other stations completely blur the line between news and commentary, fox tends to do it more.



Actually, I think MSNBC is pretty much tied with Fox for that behavior. I do enjoy watching Countdown, but can only watch Hardball occasionally since Chris Mathews is just as annoying as any of those on Fox that like to constantly interrupt their panel before they finish answering so he can hear his own voice.

All in all though, those two stations are almost identical twins, albeit one is from the bizarro dimension and does the exact opposite.

Not even close Byl... MSNBC is biased, with the exception of Joe Scarborough, but one can be safe in knowing that when watching MSNBC if the Democrats fudge something up, you will hear about it. Shit, Olberman ripped Hillary a new asshole many times during the primary season.

The news on MSNBC is not biased, the commentary is, and nowhere near as bad as Fox. People who think otherwise need to just realize that its not MSNBC that is trying to find bad things to say about Bush and republicans... It is the Republicans that provide so much that needs to be said.

It is like an endless supply of stupidity provided by Bush, McCain and the GOP that someone has to report... and MSNBC chooses to do so, without lieing and jumping to conclusions based on heresay evidence and the national enquirer.

I just heard today on Fox News that McClellen retracted his statement today about O'Reiley, but let it stand for the rest of the commentators.

There are some who are biased, either way.

Some of them are pretty powerful. NYTimes, Fox News, ect.

But to say ALL of them are actively pushing an agenda is the talk of Wingnuts and Paranoid delusionals. It kind of reminds me when I was a prison guard long time ago. Every single skid in there was CONVINCED, totally and absolutly, that EVERYONE was corrupt in one way or another. The thief thinks everyone steals, the drug dealer thinks anyone will do anything for money, the pedo thinks everyone has his same desires, ect, ect.

I suppose its human nature. An ugly side of it for sure, but endemic of our condition.

No Akipt, not everyone is like you. Thankfully.

You are just mad, because to quote a famous man: "Reality has a well known liberal bias". That quote is true in so many aspects. Conservatives resist change. Its the nature of conservatism, going back to the Roman Senate, The Congress of Vienna, The British Parliament or our own government. But change is inevitable. The order will always be upset. But those who fear change, or have something to lose by a changing of the order, will do anything to stop it from happening. A futile act.


There is no "Global Warming", the earth is fine, nothing to see here move along.
The Civil rights that people have now are fine, give them more and society will collapse
Forget "new" technology or ways of doing things, MORE OIL!
Lets go back to 1915 as a model of what Government should do for its citizens.
Lets go back to when women didn't have access to abortions.
Gays are icky, lets stone them like in da bible.
The Cold War was Fun lets do it again. Terrorists/Muslims = Communists.
Lets NEVER leave Iraq! America has to remain the Hyperpower Policeman State.


But applaud you as you shovel sand into the tide trying to hold it back. Lying to yourself that your little wall will hold. Its cute and sad at the same time.

There are some who are biased, either way.

Some of them are pretty powerful. NYTimes, Fox News, ect.LMAO. 4 years ago you wasted just as many words to tell me that the NY Times wasn't biased.

Progress!

Anyway, save the kleenex. I'm no where near as paranoid, cynical, and pessimisstic as half of you all on this board.

This thread has almost entirely consisted of people confusing news networks being terrible with a news network that has been proven for years to have a set political message. And non sequiturs. My god the non sequiturs.