YAP - FOX NEWS AKA Republican NEWS

[ShapeShifter]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

Shapeshifter,

Well, let's get philosophical and mathematical for a second...You do believe that certain things are "objectively true" in certain situations, right? Completely hypothetical now...is there such a thing as an objective fact, yes or no?

This diverting from the real issue - but no, I don't believe in "objective" trues - it is all personal.

I believe Clarke might have not fully spoken out on the negatives in the past of Bush. But, I don't believe what Clarke said under oath was a lie. If it was a lie, what he said under oath, I think and believe that they should prosecute him if they so STRONGLY believe he was lieing. This is not the FIRST time that Bush and company has used this tactic of attacking the person's credibility.

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

Shapeshifter,

Well, let's get philosophical and mathematical for a second...You do believe that certain things are "objectively true" in certain situations, right? Completely hypothetical now...is there such a thing as an objective fact, yes or no?

This diverting from the real issue - but no, I don't believe in "objective" trues - it is all personal.

I believe Clarke might have not fully spoken out on the negatives in the past of Bush. But, I don't believe what Clarke said under oath was a lie. If it was a lie, what he said under oath, I think and believe that they should prosecute him if they so STRONGLY believe he was lieing. This is not the FIRST time that Bush and company has used this tactic of attacking the person's credibility.

Shapeshifter,

That's what I thought. So there's no such thing as an "objective fact"

That's rather convenient when it comes to rationalizing one's views or actions, don't you think? But I have heard many, many people on the political left tell me that nothing is objectively factual...amazing.

[DumbStupidRedneck]

Fox News Could take a poll of Kerry's family and have Bush winning...  That station is a piece of sh**t royally!!!

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

[dunn]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

Dunn,

Yes, it's been pretty obvious that CTGuy has decided to go with the multiple poster names in an effort to further disrupt this forum. He's a sad individual. So it was obvious to you as well?

[dunn]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

Dunn,

Yes, it's been pretty obvious that CTGuy has decided to go with the multiple poster names in an effort to further disrupt this forum. He's a sad individual. So it was obvious to you as well?

yup
with the Jesus guys and this  - and there is another troll I belive - It stats to be a problem

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

Dunn,

Yes, it's been pretty obvious that CTGuy has decided to go with the multiple poster names in an effort to further disrupt this forum. He's a sad individual. So it was obvious to you as well?

yup
with the Jesus guys and this  - and there is another troll I belive - It stats to be a problem

Dunn,

Indeed it does. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, but unfortunately, this is no longer an option because nobody realized CTGuy was a troll at first. I have to confess that I'm at fault for much of this...I should have just ignored CTGuy rather than argue back and forth with him the way I did.

[Gustaf]

MarkDel,

The concept that there aren't objective truths is an old one, even though I don't personally agree with it. I think Opebo is kind of close to that kind of view, if we're talking about denounicng moral principles.

On Clarke, let's calm down a little. None of us really know whether it's true or not. And people have lied a lot on the past, it doesn't prove anything per se. We'll have to wait for the White House's reaction to see whether they're scared or not...

[opebo]

I like FOX - since the Democrats have all the other news outlets, why should we have at least one?

[Ben.]

 

I like FOX - since the Democrats have all the other news outlets, why should we have at least one?

But they dont CNN and MSNBC are not out there stridently articualting a GOP message Fox does... watch this...

 http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?7852&3_-_Business&Taking%20S...

...is that fair is that balanced...since when on CNN or MSNBC did you see five people each with a different shade of the same opinion... now Opebo take off your Machiavellian hat for a moment and tell the truth... is that fair?, is that how the other networks behave?... CNN has Mark Shields but it also has Bob Novak... on MSNBC yeah Mathews and Russet are both to the left but both are objective on fox they aren’t... there funny at times... i have as much time for O'Reilly as for Franken (that would p*** both off)... but fox is just so overwhelmingly biased at times its amazing...  

[opebo]

Ben, the broadcast networks are extremely biased against Bush and Republicans in general in their reporting.  Those still have a lot more influence on older people who are most likely to vote, as well as simpler types who can't figure out their sattelite dish or just can't follow news for more than 30 to 60 minutes in the evening.

[zachman]

Ben, the broadcast networks are extremely biased against Bush and Republicans in general in their reporting.  Those still have a lot more influence on older people who are most likely to vote, as well as simpler types who can't figure out their sattelite dish or just can't follow news for more than 30 to 60 minutes in the evening.

I don't know if it was this way during Clinton, but the media says the Bush administration's take on every political issue. This makes everything unbalanced.

[Ben.]

Ben, the broadcast networks are extremely biased against Bush and Republicans in general in their reporting.  Those still have a lot more influence on older people who are most likely to vote, as well as simpler types who can't figure out their sattelite dish or just can't follow news for more than 30 to 60 minutes in the evening.

the other networks are generally better than the "alphabet" networks... but you've gotta see that FOX is the most openly partisan of all the networks not even CBS is so partisan... have you used that link... is that "fair and balanced"?... I really dont think so...    

[classical liberal]

That's the point.  The pseudo-conservatism of FOX cancels out the slight slant of the liberal outlets.  That way the net effect is a neutral field.  1(CNN)+1(NBC)+1(CBS)+1(ABC)-2(FOX)-2(CBN)+0(CSPAN)+0(PBS)=0

[Ben.]

 

True, the vast majority of news outlets have a semi-liberal slant, but Fox News is just blatantly biased.  Just take a look at the Fox News coverage of the BBC Iraqi coverage conflict
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

Blatant bias.  One would never see anyone on any news outlet other than Fox News screaming about how the evil foreign european devils who didn't support the war consider themselves "superior" to American newscasters who have "flags in their lappels." You wouldn't see anyone on any network except Fox News deliver their spiel with such a blatantly biased tone in their voice.  

Enough with the conservative "tu quoque" arguments of the conservatives, whatever liberal slant that exists in most of the news media pales in comparison to the blatant conservatism shown by Fox News.

I just don’t get it.... FOX is so blatant.. no pretence... its really shocking, I can stand O'Reilly at times he is good but that’s about it on politics and business news they are shockingly bad and partisan on CNN and MSNBC at least you get both sides of the argument... there is no liberal equivalent to FOX's blatant lies... and they are lies... its really worrying at times...    

...ever seen the simpsons where Homer tries to pluge for CBS and then has to do a retraction at gun piont during the credits?

...CBS has a liberal bias that is undeniable but not nearly as much so as FOX...

[Lunar]

While every station has a bias, when I watch FOX* I get the feeling it has an agenda.  I watch them update us on the current political situations and it goes like this:

1- Bush giving a speech in Florida (Kerry's going to raise our taxes!!!)
2- Kerry could have attended a shadowy anti-war meeting in the 60s who talked about assassinating our leaders

Fair and balanced?  Covering the Richard Clarke story usually goes like this:

1- Clarke made some huge accusations
2- Clarke is publishing a book and could be doing this to sell more copies
3- Clarke contradicted himself here (play tape)
4- Many consider him an opportunist seeking political gain (etc.)

Nothing about Clarke's responses to the attacks, nothing about Clarke's friends considering him non-partisan and very dedicated to his work.  Display both sides or none.

*I have it playing in the background many hours a day.  I like news and FOX is more interesting to listen to.

[klrbzzz]

Bottom line   Fox News leans right, most radio talk shows lean very far to the right, and everyone else is way to the left.  Like I tell people who support censorship, if you do not like what is on, turn it off or to something else.  

[Duke Fan]

Yes Fox News is right wing. But also, many Democrats point to the shows that are opinion programs to prove it's conservative. These shows are no differant than say Chris Matthews. Sure the primetime shows are conservative, but the average day time programming, stuff thats supposed to be actual news, is not as bad.

[opebo]

I agree with the above points that FOX is biased more openly, while the rest are biased to the left in a more subtle way.  Basically the reason is this - FOX is actually designed for Republicans.  Almost its entire audience is already right-wing.  The rest - the broadcast networks and CNN - are designed for the middle.  Their purpose is to subtly misrepresent and selectively cover the news in order to benefit Kerry and get Bush out of office.

[ian]

Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

First of all, anyone who has any morals at all wouldn't appear on Bill O'Reilly's show.  Secondly, calling Colmes a flaming liberal is a horrid exaggeration.  You should read, "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them."  It's really funny & it proves how overwhelming Hannity is and what a wuss Colmes is.

[Duke Fan]

Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

First of all, anyone who has any morals at all wouldn't appear on Bill O'Reilly's show.  Secondly, calling Colmes a flaming liberal is a horrid exaggeration.  You should read, "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them."  It's really funny & it proves how overwhelming Hannity is and what a wuss Colmes is.

Colmes is a wuss. He isn't TV material. The only reason they keep him on that show is to uphold the "fair and balanced" moniker. Who watches that show for Alan Colmes? Who likes this guy?

[ian]

D. CNN and MSNBC do present both of the sides and may lean towards a liberal audience BUT for the love of me, they do not make it as OBVIOUS as Fox NEWS. Just call it REPUBLICAN/PRO-BUSH/ NEWS.

MSNBC?  Do you watch that???  I watch MSNBC all the time; it is my favorite news network.  However, being an avid watcher, I know that it is incredibly slanted to the right.  Up until Michael Savage said something incredibly offensive, he made MSNBC Studios home.  That man is a radical, disgusting Nazi.  Secondly, when Peggy Noonan was fired from Fox News, where did she go?  MSNBC.  Pat Buchanan's show Buchanan and Press (with Bill Press, the coolest guy ever) reminds me of Hannity and Colmes in the fact that it showcases an overbearing Conservative (the man ran for President) and a weak, passive Liberal.  Joe Scarbrough is on prime time.  He is a half-term Republican extremist from Florida.  You just don't need any more proof that MSNBC is a Conservative news network than this.  (Oh, and Chris Matthews is a Liberal-leaning individual, but I always thought that he was a Republican, until my History teacher told me that Matthews worked for Carter and Clinton...)

[Lunar]

Both Hannity and Colmes are terrible at interviews and debates.  Hannity loves to phrase questions in a "tricky" manner and ask them to everyone he sees for a month since it causes a few people to stumble over the wording.  He's also a hack, I'd be surprised if he ever disagreed with Bush (unlike, say Rush Limbaugh).  

Colmes simply gets everyone's viewpoints wrong.  He's slightly better since he does occasionally bring up good points.

[Duke Fan]

Both Hannity and Colmes are terrible at interviews and debates.  Hannity loves to phrase questions in a "tricky" manner and ask them to everyone he sees for a month since it causes a few people to stumble over the wording.  He's also a hack, I'd be surprised if he ever disagreed with Bush (unlike, say Rush Limbaugh).  

Colmes simply gets everyone's viewpoints wrong.  He's slightly better since he does occasionally bring up good points.

Actually Hannity disagrees with Bush quite a bit. He criticizes him all the time about his Medicare bill and his massive spending. To really see what these guys are about you have to listen to thier radio shows. Colmes's radio show is extremely BORING, Hannity's is an OK listen