Split from 'Endings For a (Potential) Darfur Diplomatic Simulation' thread. --Jae


No news from them should be trusted.



I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.

I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.

Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting:

1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times.

2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS).

3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson.

Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel.

Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth.

Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting:


That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges.


1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times.


Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.


2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS).


I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican...


3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson.


You mean this John Conyers? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/griffin.conyers/)

And this William J. Jefferson?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196517,00.html)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/william_j_jefferson/index.html)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jefferson9jun09,1,5387002.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)


Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel.


There is a difference between making mistakes and incompetitence and/or slander. As far as humor, Fox News usually tries to incorporate some humor in their news broadcasts so that people have something to laugh about after hearing an hour's worth of depressing stories.


Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth.

I usually use more than one source online, TV is generally harder because of the fact that most cable television news programs get their news stories from the New York Times which is the most liberal paper in the country. So in television ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS all will have similar stories because they used the same source. I'm not sure if CNN uses the New York Times, and I don't think Fox News does either.


Back to topic, there is no way in my mind that there will be a diplomatic solution. It's going to have to be a military one, however the US is too busy with Afghanistan and Iraq + potentially Iran to deal with Darfur at the moment. Otherwise Bush would have probably launched an invasion by now to end the situation in Darfur, typical cowboy diplomacy.

To set the facts straight, the United states has no interest in econmically in Sudan we've had a trade embargo on Sudan for quite a while. If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no.

How many times has the weather been not as reported? We should press charges.

That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges.

Against who could Bush press charges? Against the people CBS fired, CBS or the person that defrauded them into believing his forged documents? How is it slander on CBS part? They were deceived and ran a story without gather all the facts under the belief by a longtime producer and report that the story was true. Once the truth was found out, they fired the same longtime and loyal employees.

Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.

It was the no longer the truth when you draw the people a map to the so-called terrorist house. I still hope there is a belief in this country that we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Source (http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/08/fox_pundits_mis.html)
Fox News did not fire the reporter. This is not a simple mistake as police had to set up special protection for the family.

Conyers (http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-06-05-fox-news-blunder_N.htm)
Your link about Conyers still does not dimiss Fox News mistake.

According to Fox News Foley Changed Party (http://www.democrats.com/node/10241)

Screen shot on Page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/)

If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no.

Why should the US vote no if we are not sending troops as peacekeepers? No, Bush should skip his usual 2 month vacation in Crawford this summer and use the time and what remaining power and integrity the office of the Presidency affords him and the power the US has remaining in the world to achieve a collation to resolve this issue. You are right there will not be a diplomatic solution without troops, but with proper leadership we could get those troops without using American soldiers.

I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News....

I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News....
No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot.

Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home.
It was not true. The "terrorist" had not been in the home for years, and Fox gave DIRECTIONS to the house that was taken down by the police some time later. If Fox News wasn't sure or you don't know, that happens to be illigal.
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/08/fox_pundits_mis.html)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/26/17626381.php?show_comments=1)

You mean this John Conyers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qRUAMWIyE)

I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffOhr9zo6o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIgRyN3uHA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTGVFn5sYW8)

Fox Attacks Black America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&mode=related&search=)

Keith Olbermann shows O'Reilly mistake on Nazi history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AyF7_oN9kk)

I have more, but I can see right now that you are too far gone as a kool aid drinker to have any of this seep in.

No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot.

http://www.democrats.com/node/10241)

Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue.

Furthermore True_Avery was kind enough to provide this, if you listen through the audio you'll find Ann Coulter talking about the Democrats bringing up Mark Foley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI)

Then MSNBC and Fox News don't exactly get along, I mean a really vicious bloodfeud situation. If some guns were thrown into the mix there'd probably be a shootout before the day was out...

http://www.democrats.com/node/10241)

Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue.

It looks yellow in the actual clips that True_Avery just posted. Maybe Fox News changed font color since last year. When talking they either referred to him as a republican or a congressman, all I am talking about is how the labeled him on the picture which was as a Democrat.

I'm not saying Fox News is terrible (like I said before I watch it too), but they are just as imperfect as the rest of us. The media tries their best to get the story fast and get it correct. Those two things are just incompatible sometimes and they all make mistakes. Fox News is not immune to this and neither is any other news agency. Personally I like looking at all sources of news including TV, radio and print and then making a decision. When it comes to politics neither side is wrong all the time, but they are not right all the time either. If Fox News is your preferred source then there is nothing wrong with that. It is about whom you are the most comfortable with and trust the most. I just hope you understand no person or organization is perfect and we all make mistakes.

There was two things actually about the font, the font was too large in proportion to the screen, and the font was the wrong color. However in one of the things submitted Ann Coulter spells out the fact Mark Foley was a Republican. I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, they do make mistakes, however some of the mistakes people say they make are actually made up. As shown with Ann Coulter's statements.

I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted.
Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%.
But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL.
They obviously only appeal to Republicans.
Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. :)

Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%.
But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL.
They obviously only appeal to Republicans.
Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. :)


The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.

The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning,

A slight conservative leaning! :lol:
What hell are they talking about?
They have fallen over to the conservative side, fully.

however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.
Of course, they wasn't politically biased to the left. :lol:

About this left-wing media business.
I don't trust no media, period. :)

Split from the Darfur thread since it had totally derailed that thread. This is THE hot place for all your News Organization Bias discussions. :)

No media agency is unbiased, because you'll never find a person completely absent of preconcieved notions. Part of this is simply due to connections to certain business/political/religious interrests and the subconscious effects of cultural conditioning; Slashdot.org news tends to be biased towards high tech interrests, as it is run by bloggers. All the major television networks seem (to me) to have a distinct bias towards the internet, as web news is quickly becoming a viable alternative to traditional newspaper and television media. Of course, this mostly effects individual reporters/media staff. For example, could Nancy Pelosi's daughter(who actually is a reporter) be a truly unbiased spectator on political events?

In short, everything that you or I hear from ANY information outlet must be taken with a grain of salt, because everyone, no matter how fair-and-balanced they may claim to be, has an axe to grind.

The one to really be careful of is the BBC news. Why? Because their bias is so insidious that if you aren't looking you can miss it.

As Totenkopf said, no-one is trustworthy in the world of news.

The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire.

In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view.

It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all.

Bahahha. This thread makes me laugh. "This can't be true!" "Why not?" "The font's different!"

Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show.

The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire.

In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view.

It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all.

People generally like to hear what they want to hear. Elsewise, why did Sean Hannity get his own show, apart from the one with Alan Colmes, on Fox?

Read a range of newspapers and watch a large variety of news channels, I'd say is your best way of getting reasonably unbiased view of what is going on in the world, regardless of what political alignment you cling to :).

I actually happen to have a copy of The Guardian right next to me now... and for some reason Boris Johnson has written a column in it. That and The New Statesman and The Independent suit my political ideals but I also force myself through The Times and The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum :). Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says.

The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum :). Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says.
Provided the columns in question aren't by Bryony Brainless, I'd agree with that, if not the appellation Torygraph. In line with the Conservative party, perhaps, but not Tory.

The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left.

One survey does not mean anything, has anybody else taken another sample and gotten the same results? What was the sample size and are you sure it was not taken at the last Republican National Convention?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Fox News, but there is no way that I can watch that program and not find it slanted strongly to the right. If Fox News is down the middle then Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

Fox New fills a niche for those that want there news tilted more to the right and people must want that for Fox News to stay on the air.

Are you talking about this UCLA study?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)

If so it only says that “Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.” It is not talking about Fox News entire body of work, but only this program.

“The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.” According to the 2005 study these shows where more balanced than the Brit Hume program.

Then study goes on to say “The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center…” That says to me t“Special Report with Brit Hume is closer to center, but is not saying the same for the rest of Fox News.

Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show.
C SPAN maybe!
I look at the Washington Journal: A news program where viewers call in and give their opinions on the day's news topics, the reporter at the desk talk's about.
It airs 6am CT/7pm ET!

The UCLA study did not include opinion segments which are clearly labeled in Fox News broadcasts as such. They only covered what was reported news wise. Commentators like Chris Mathews from MSNBC's Hardball, O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes from Hannity and Colmes on Fox News all were not included in the study because they are commentators.

The reason I find Fox News to be generally more trustworthy is actually quite simple.

The "mainstream" media is pretty much entirely slanted to the political left. Going to just list American Journalism sources not going to bother listing what was actually surveyed just going to provide a summary so people get the jest, I've included the link to the study in this post. http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)

Left Wing Bias:
MSNBC
NBC
ABC
CBS
NPR
CNN -- Some of their programming is extremely close to center.
New York Times
Washington Post
Drudge Report -- Was close to center too
Wall Street Journal
LA Times
USA Today
US News and World Report
Newsweek

Right Wing Bias
Fox News -- Was rather close to center
Washington Times

Because of this disparity, and the apparent dislike to outright hatred towards Fox News due to its success, the mainstream media would like nothing better than to bash Fox News. True Avery was kind enough to provide some evidence that proves this. Did they go after Dan Rather concerning memogate oddly enough MSNBC and NBC both remained totally silent. So Fox News has a bunch of people waiting to pounce on any mistake they make, as shown by True Avery. However the only media outlet that I know of in the cable media that went after CBS concerning Memogate was Fox News. The other news agencies didn't even report it, I watched NBC still somewhat at the time and it was never covered on their News program in the evenings, seriously a News Anchor from a major media outlet slandering a sitting President using forged documents is very serious news. However the other news agencies weren't covering it, they were content to bash Bush on various things but not blow the whistle on one of their own trying to slander a sitting President. However MSNBC is eager to go after Fox News, assuming the political party mixup actually happened on their graphics, over a stupid typo by someone in the tech department especially when in those programs the people talking about Foley say he's a Republican isn't anything more than a stupid mistake, yes they should have caught it, but there was no malicious intent.

In summary Fox News constantly finds itself being held to a higher standard due to all the scrutiny they get from other media outlets whom are trying to find anything they can to discredit Fox News.

The other media outlets do not practice the same scrutiny on each other. The only media outlet that seems to scrutinize them is Fox News. That's why I consider Fox News more trustworthy.

Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is.

Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories.

The study only covered the news stories, it did not cover opinions sections or book reviews.

The study does prove that Conservatives were right all along there was and is a left wing bias in the Mainstream Media. When I get my book by Bernard Goldberg back from the person I loaned it to, I'm going to site some specific examples.

Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is.

Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories.

The WSJ is overall conservative, but the news reporting part of the paper is considered liberal. Overall I find they cancel each other out and make for a fair paper, put that is my personal taste as I'm conservative on money and smaller government and more liberal on our freedoms.

I see bias in the local paper and news everyday here. If you were to only watch the local media here you would believe George Bush's approval numbers were still around 60%. Fox News is more to the middle of the road here compare to George Bush home state media. I have nothing against that as the population is largely conservative here, but when they report more on the Texas Aggies than the Texas Longhorns, well to be polite, that when I gripe.

In summary Fox News constantly finds itself being held to a higher standard due to all the scrutiny they get from other media outlets whom are trying to find anything they can to discredit Fox News.

The other media outlets do not practice the same scrutiny on each other. The only media outlet that seems to scrutinize them is Fox News. That's why I consider Fox News more trustworthy.

Our Definition of Bias - Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference.

By the studies own definition they are saying that the information presented by all the news organizations may be honest and accurate, so why should I trust Fox News more than CNN which got a closer to the middle score than Fox News?

If as you wrote Fox News is watching all the other media outlets waiting for them to make an mistake, then are they not under the same scrutiny and have to watch what they do or say just as closely as Fox News?

The thing I get from the complete study (from 2005) is most of the Cable and Network News shows were closer than I believed to the center. I’d really like to see an updated study since the country has gone so against the war to see if these numbers inflate both ways.

The Commentators and panel discussion are a large reason I consider Fox News bias. It is one thing to have a commentary once a day or twice a day, but Fox News does it on almost every show. You can not separate the News from these commentaries without competent counter views, then this is blatantly bias .

If you trust them and they share your views then by all means watch them, but please respect my preference to watch Fox News, but also get my news from other sources. All News is bias no matter which side they are on because it is impossible produce or edit a show, magazine, web site or paper and get all the news that affects their views/readers within the limited time/space. When limiting the information to the time/space restraints or when choosing the story they run or don’t run, the producer/editor is allowing there personal and economic views to influence those decisions.

A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels. When Fox News gives opinions they clearly label it as such.

CNN had a rather bad reputation when Bill Clinton was in office as being Clinton News Network. Also Fox News tends to incorporate some humor at the end of shows like Special Report with Brit Hume. Other shows read email they get from viewers.

MSNBC has on Hardball and then Tucker during the time when it is prime time for the news. Fox News however has on their actual news programs at least that's how it is on Eastern Standard Time. Then there was the fact MSNBC had to devote memorial day to talking about prisons in the US, an entire marathon of it. Whereas Fox News covered Memorial ceremonies and actually had the news. CNN did rather well with the Republican debate, not quite as well as Fox News (partially due to technical difficulties). MSNBC's Republican Debate I'm sorry it was just plain garbage, it was more about how to try to humiliate the front runners and paint the Republican Party to look like a party of lunatics.

My point is that Fox News is constantly under a much higher level of scrutiny by people that would like nothing better than for them to make a mistake so they can try to discredit them. However the other mainstream media outlets do not call each other on mistakes or things like memogate. Therefore I consider Fox News to be a better news source due to the fact they are constantly scrutinized by people whom are trying to find any little thing they can to discredit them.

A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels

Like I wrote competent counter views would be helpful. Getting someone to the extreme left is not what I consider fair, but even that does not balance the issue when Ann Coulter is on the other side. Also someone that has the personality to go toe to toe with some of those sharks would be helpful. Inviting someone to participate and then not allowing them to speak over your yelling is by no means fair.

Fox News could be called the Bush network by the same token.

Until the Debates take real unrehearsed and unapproved questions from intelligent voters from both sides then it is all a faux. Until the candidates outline a plan to fix our problems and stop telling me who to blame for my problems then all the debates are a waste of my time no matter how well it is choreographed.

I thought you wrote Fox News was calling the other networks on their mistakes. My bad.

Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it.

Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it.

What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions.

I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, they do make mistakes, however some of the mistakes people say they make are actually made up. As shown with Ann Coulter's statements.

Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery.

What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions.


I'm saying Fox News couldn't air more that brief snippets of the 1st Republican Debate due to MSNBC's restrictions on the debate being reaired.

After Fox News did the Debate, they reaired it at least 1 more time that night also I don't think they had the same restrictions MSNBC did. Plus CNN when they did the debate partnered with one of the online video places so it could be viewed by anyone at anytime.


Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery.

I'm saying it's suspect because the font color at the bottom was the wrong color and disproportionate to the size that is seen on Fox News television broadcasts. If it is the case that this actually happened, it was a goof up by the tech people, which happens. Another thing is if something like this did happen Bill would have appologized for the mistake, cause he has done so for other goof ups.

Provided the columns in question aren't by Bryony Brainless, I'd agree with that, if not the appellation Torygraph. In line with the Conservative party, perhaps, but not Tory.

Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least.

Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least.
Fairly typical of the slime, I thought.

I don't like the Independent. It's sort of like the BBC, only without the threat of being slapped down if it's too obvious in its bias.

Oh that reminds me someone emailed Bill O'Reilly the other night about how the BBC wasn't covering the situation of this Station planning on airing the video of Princess Dianna's dying moments even though Prince William and Prince Harry were both outraged.

Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't.

Additionally I'm going to drag some universities into the mix as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun13/0,4670,BritainIsrael,00.html)


Israeli/Lebanon Conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html)

I really need to drag out my speech on media bias.

Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't.
Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so...:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml)

Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so...:rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml)


I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued.

I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued.

However accurate the "tip" was, a broadcaster, or whatever he is, should know to check the sources before standing on top of a soap box and proclaiming it to the world. But then again... we're all human :)

7 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6730235.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6728941.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6726693.stm)
6 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6725237.stm)
5 June 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6721789.stm)
28 May 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6697131.stm)

There are many others and the dates are simply "last updated on" dates - so the articles are likely older.

Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.

Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.

My mistake then :). But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again.

My mistake then :). But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again.

Well it was just email he got, someone thanking him for covering the Diana situation, and that person was from the UK whom in their email to O'Reilly stated that the BBC wasn't covering it, could mean they meant on television programming.

FOX News is clearly biased, clearly misinforms its viewers, and clearly can not be trusted.

As for giving directions to where an alleged terrorist had lived ages ago... if they really did that, that's beyond reprehensible - it's more reminiscent of something a low-grade tabloid or on-line stalker would do. Not to mention that it's very likely not a 'mistake' or 'isolated incident' at all.

Other incidents are the almost totally made-up covering of the Swedish city of Malmц, which, if we were to believe FOX News, was a Hell-hole of violence, death and robbery because of its high Muslim population. In reality, only ,2% of the population of the area covered by FOX was Islamic, and the violence was in no way restricted to Muslims. The channel also stated Obama was a Muslim and never bothered to retract the statement.

Finally, to end my short list of examples, a poll made by World Public Opinion indicates that viewers of FOX News have significantly more misconceptions on several important issues, such as WMDs in Iraq, than viewers of other networks. Source (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc).

Source: FOX News Channel controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)
Oh, and there's a Senate thread on this already. Search 'FOX News' and it should appear.

I'm well aware how much the liberal left hates Fox News. As far as your source, world opinion.org I've never even heard of them. Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about, top that off there was legislation to yank NPR's and PBS's federal funding because they were getting into supporting the Democrat Party when they are both supposed to remain politically neutral.

Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers.

And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers.


He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.

What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself.Because the topic appears to be FOX News. The first post states that you see no reason to not trust them, and it goes from there.

When you discuss invading Iraq, you don't also have to add a disclaimer saying 'oh, but I hate North Korea, Iran, and every other oppressive regime out there, too!'. If I discuss evolution, I don't add a sticker to my post saying I also support the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity, and atomic theory. I dislike all media bias - as a matter of fact I'm quite irritated, quite often at the left-wing bias of certain Norwegian news outlets - but this thread's apparently about FOX News, despite its title.

Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about
You do now. (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf)

Also, just because you find bias in other networks does not instantly mean that Fox is an exception. I notice, Garfield, that you love pointing out problems with other news networks but still hold onto the thought that Fox is "Fair and Balanced."

There is no such thing as a Fair and Balanced news network. And people particularly like attacking Fox because it is a rather silly and over the top news network. I know liberals, democrats, -and- republicans who all think it is a joke, so don't assume that it is a war between the liberals/democrats and all the republicans.

Oh so you're saying that everyone else offers the real news and only Fox News and Conservative Radio shows spew propaganda?

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-can-you-trust.html)

By the way, why has Fox News outdone all the other news outlets if people think it's a joke? Seriously, why did Fox News due a much better Republican Primary debate than MSNBC?

He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks.
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be trusted, that guy's misdirection on issues is very apparent.