 | | 
10-24-09, 06:07 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: tucson,az/luray,va
Posts: 3,438
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly  To me Fox is no more credible a news organization than MoveOn.org they are a political organization focused on promoting certain views and their political agenda. | you are comparing fox news to moveon.org? you must have lost what is left of your marbles. fox news IS a credible news organization. they do have a conservative slant i agree, but they DO put up both side of the issues. unless you really think that bob beckle, juan williams, alan combs, among others are really conservatives(no way they are).
if you only look at hannity, oreilly, and beck, you are not getting news some much as commentary on the news. sheppard smith, neil cavuto, and others are the news casters. in the old days when there were people like walter cronkite, news anchors just reported the news, all the news, even if it went against their guys in office. remember all the bad news about carter and johnson? these days unfortunately all news casters put their spin on the news, regardless of network.  |
10-24-09, 09:50 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly I've dodged no questions.
I'm glad that you admit to Fox's bias. Now I'd like to know why they were the single largest promoters of the tea baggers?
Posted via Mobile Device | Ah, but you have dodged the question and issues several times (when you got called on the carpet  ). What I'd like to know is why the other news media organizations ignored the Tea Party's ? HUH? Over a million people (American Citizens of all colors & party affilations, there were no "tea baggers" there  ) showed up in Washington D.C September 12, this year. Yet, you heard nothing about it other than what Fox covered. Yet they all covered the "million man march" in which less than half that number showed up. So where's the bias here ? |
10-24-09, 11:40 PM
|  | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly Why strtrcr50, are you dodging my question? | Are you kidding me? Now I have 2 people that don't make sense.. How you can justify CBS after Dan Rather, but yet think FOX is the real problem is well beyond me. And what you have turned to when a president not only gets caught, but openly admits, controlling the news media sources. Oh, if Bush were president now. I can only imagine the level of outrage.....
You of all people really can't argue this. It'd be like me arguing that GWB was a great public speaker. While I could give it a valiant effort, it would be too obvious I was just arguing for the sake of disagreeing.
Last edited by strtrcr50; 10-24-09 at 11:45 PM.
|
10-25-09, 02:09 PM
|  | I love meat more than anything! I just have a special place for dogs. | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moorhead, Minnesota
Posts: 567
| | | |
10-25-09, 08:43 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by cusp Remember when Bush called the media the 4th branch of government?
The free press is supposed to be the watch dog of liberty. When they become the lapdog of the government we are all in trouble.
When any administration is uncomfortable with the exercise of free speech, the prohibtion of government sanctions aginst the exercise of that right is doing its Job. |  |
10-25-09, 09:07 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly I'm actually surprised at how few legitimate news organizations have reported on the bias of Fox. We all know they lean right. Is it possible that they are not as far right as I've come to believe they are? | YES, YES, YES...a THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!
Use logic....Think about it. Everyone in the industry HATES Fox...right? It's been made pretty clear. You would think that if Fox News was biased to the point where it completely devalued their worth as a news organization, if the attacks from the White House actually had merit, one would think that the other networks would shred them alive....
Yet, your surprised that few legitimate organizations report on the bias...
Maybe that should tell you something???
Just because you have an opinion/perspective...doesn't always mean it's correct. Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly They did promote the tea parties like crazy though, and they do have Hannity and Beck on their network, and they really seem to be anti Obama. Guess that's why y'all love the network so much. | Look, I won't argue you on this point, except to state that we are blurring the lines between what is "supported" by the NETWORK and what is "supported" by the on-air editorial personalities.
Holding Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly up to the standards of actual news anchors is asinie. They are entertainers, personalities and individuals. They are not News men....and non of them claim to be.
As stated before, for every Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly, there is a Maddow, Mahr, King and Olberman. If you ever watched those shows, you would get an earful of opinionated drivel from the other extreme side. It's entertainment, not news. Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly Eventually there will be a "conservative" in office. Will I still support the power the Obama administration now wields turned over to new hands?
Well do you support the powers that Bush wielded and turned over to the Obama administration?
I think we would both answer no to that question. I mean there's stuff we agree with and then there is stuff we think is totally unacceptable. (Signing statements are a good example) | Dancing and weaving Kelly....Dancing and weaving.
You responded by throwing a completely false implication that nothing has changed in the powers wielded by an administration...than then jumped right to putting implied words into my mouth.
So, let's deconstruct it a bit and I'll address both points.
First off.....I had no problem with the Obama administration wielding the level of power that was left following the Bush Administration. I, for one, actually come down on the side of supporting the Patriot Act (fodder for another thread, I'm sure) It does get a bit dicey at the end in the Nov-Dec time frame with the initial Bailout money being setup and spent.....I don't believe that any policy that develops in the time during a President-elect can truly be attributed to one party or the other (Obama or Bush)
So, yes, the answer would have been yes, I would have been fine with the transition of power that was given to Obama.
But it didn't stop there, did it?
Over the course of 10 months we have an exorbinate amount of unelected Czars making very public and VERY significant POLICIES. Say what you will about Bush having Czars as well, the Bush Czars very rarely accomplished anything or wielded any significant power to create policy. We have an administration that has TAKEN CONTROL of the auto industry, and a large part of the banking industry. We have an administration that is pushing for federal mandated CEO pay. We have an administration that is spending more money than ANY of us could imagine less than a year ago. We have an administration that promised transparency, yet every Bill thus far has been deliberated and voted in the most obscure methods available. We have an administration that has ties to individuals that should make your skin crawl. We have an administration that, for the most part, has maintained and even expanded nearly EVERY program and policy of the previous administration that he promised to eliminate.....
So...no I'm very scared of the precedence of power that this Administration has acquired in a short 10 months. And if your not, your not paying attention.
The VERY simple question Kelly is, if this were a Republican....doing EXACTLY the same things...the same bills, the same spending, the same expansion in Afghanistan, the same closed door politics, the same takeovers of big business, the same stimulus spending........would you be as comfortable and supportive as you are with Obama at the helm? |
10-25-09, 09:45 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| |
You KNOW Kelly would be screamin bloody murder if it were so ...................................  He's like the frog in the pot of water on the stove, with Obama in charge. |
10-25-09, 09:47 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm you are comparing fox news to moveon.org? you must have lost what is left of your marbles. fox news IS a credible news organization. they do have a conservative slant i agree, but they DO put up both side of the issues. unless you really think that bob beckle, juan williams, alan combs, among others are really conservatives(no way they are).
if you only look at hannity, oreilly, and beck, you are not getting news some much as commentary on the news. sheppard smith, neil cavuto, and others are the news casters. in the old days when there were people like walter cronkite, news anchors just reported the news, all the news, even if it went against their guys in office. remember all the bad news about carter and johnson? these days unfortunately all news casters put their spin on the news, regardless of network. | But Rohbm, Hannity, Oreilly, and Beck's talking points seem to creep their way into the regular Fox "news" reports. |
10-25-09, 09:57 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Are you kidding me? Now I have 2 people that don't make sense.. How you can justify CBS after Dan Rather, but yet think FOX is the real problem is well beyond me. And what you have turned to when a president not only gets caught, but openly admits, controlling the news media sources. Oh, if Bush were president now. I can only imagine the level of outrage..... | Did I ever try and justify CBS? Dan Rather screwed up big time and I'm glad he got called out.
Ha, as if Bush and crew wasn't the most, well one of the most secret administrations we've ever seen. You have to know they manipulated the media. Quote: |
You of all people really can't argue this. It'd be like me arguing that GWB was a great public speaker. While I could give it a valiant effort, it would be too obvious I was just arguing for the sake of disagreeing.
| I've made it clear to you what I think of Fox news.
Last edited by jikelly; 10-25-09 at 10:03 PM.
|
10-25-09, 10:43 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieOne YES, YES, YES...a THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!
Use logic....Think about it. Everyone in the industry HATES Fox...right? It's been made pretty clear. You would think that if Fox News was biased to the point where it completely devalued their worth as a news organization, if the attacks from the White House actually had merit, one would think that the other networks would shred them alive....
Yet, your surprised that few legitimate organizations report on the bias...
Maybe that should tell you something???
Just because you have an opinion/perspective...doesn't always mean it's correct. | Very good point. I could be wrong. Still what is it about Fox news that makes my skin crawl? I mean I've tried watching their news reports and I keep finding them lacking.
There was quite a long time period there where I didn't watch the news. I got fed up with all the death their went out of their way to find and show you something else you should be afraid of.
I really didn't start paying attention until the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. I wanted to know what was going on. I was not happy. Still I just want to know what happened. Generally I don't care what reporters think. Seems like that is all you get on the major news networks though. Analysis. I can do that myself. Tell me what the dude said not what you think the dude meant to say. Quote: |
Look, I won't argue you on this point, except to state that we are blurring the lines between what is "supported" by the NETWORK and what is "supported" by the on-air editorial personalities.
| In my mind if something appears on the network then it's supported by everyone on the network. Quote:
Holding Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly up to the standards of actual news anchors is asinie. They are entertainers, personalities and individuals. They are not News men....and non of them claim to be.
As stated before, for every Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly, there is a Maddow, Mahr, King and Olberman. If you ever watched those shows, you would get an earful of opinionated drivel from the other extreme side. It's entertainment, not news.
| Hum, maybe you're right. Course I'm only familiar with Olberman and I've only seen bits and pieces of his show. Quote:
Dancing and weaving Kelly....Dancing and weaving.
You responded by throwing a completely false implication that nothing has changed in the powers wielded by an administration...than then jumped right to putting implied words into my mouth.
So, let's deconstruct it a bit and I'll address both points.
First off.....I had no problem with the Obama administration wielding the level of power that was left following the Bush Administration. I, for one, actually come down on the side of supporting the Patriot Act (fodder for another thread, I'm sure) It does get a bit dicey at the end in the Nov-Dec time frame with the initial Bailout money being setup and spent.....I don't believe that any policy that develops in the time during a President-elect can truly be attributed to one party or the other (Obama or Bush)
So, yes, the answer would have been yes, I would have been fine with the transition of power that was given to Obama.
| That's surprising because the day after the election many on this forum were crying about it being time for revolution. Quote:
But it didn't stop there, did it?
Over the course of 10 months we have an exorbinate amount of unelected Czars making very public and VERY significant POLICIES. Say what you will about Bush having Czars as well, the Bush Czars very rarely accomplished anything or wielded any significant power to create policy. We have an administration that has TAKEN CONTROL of the auto industry, and a large part of the banking industry. We have an administration that is pushing for federal mandated CEO pay. We have an administration that is spending more money than ANY of us could imagine less than a year ago. We have an administration that promised transparency, yet every Bill thus far has been deliberated and voted in the most obscure methods available. We have an administration that has ties to individuals that should make your skin crawl. We have an administration that, for the most part, has maintained and even expanded nearly EVERY program and policy of the previous administration that he promised to eliminate.....
So...no I'm very scared of the precedence of power that this Administration has acquired in a short 10 months. And if your not, your not paying attention.
The VERY simple question Kelly is, if this were a Republican....doing EXACTLY the same things...the same bills, the same spending, the same expansion in Afghanistan, the same closed door politics, the same takeovers of big business, the same stimulus spending........would you be as comfortable and supportive as you are with Obama at the helm?
| I want to answer your question as honestly as possible.
If McCain were elected there would still have been a massive bailout/stimulus. I mean Bush started that stuff. It was either that or collapse of the financial system.
Auto bailout and subsequent governmental involvement in the US auto industry. I'd have been fine with that. The dudes in charge before set the companies up for failure and their failure would result in millions of Americans out of work.
The banking industry, well the FED is all in that anyway so it's like whatever they say is what happens. 
The Czars, well they are just like undersecretaries. I don't care much for the czars, but as long as they do a good job I'm fine with them holding their office.
Transparency in government, well I give Obama an F on that one. Were he a republican I'd have never believed he would actually follow through on that one. 
Expansion of the many questionable Bush security initiatives/powers and patriot act type stuff. Democrat or Republican I'm not happy about this. (I am happy that they ended the use of torture, and I believe McCain would have made that same decision)
Expansion of the Afghanistan war. I could see the justification for our invading Afghanistan. The gov there directly supported and harbored the people who attacked us. I was not happy when, for whatever reason, the Bush administration thought they needed to change their focus from there to Iraq. They half a$$ed the efforts in both countries. Now we are finally pulling back in Iraq and I hope we are going to commit to finish what we started in Afghanistan.
RookieOne I know I'm a liberal, and I know I come off as a$$ sometimes but I don't mean to offend and I enjoy our discussions. I do think about what you say and I can see merit in a lot of it.
Tell you what I'll go as far as reading some of the articles on Fox internet site. Well see how that goes.
Last edited by jikelly; 10-25-09 at 10:44 PM.
|
10-26-09, 12:55 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly RookieOne I know I'm a liberal, and I know I come off as a$$ sometimes but I don't mean to offend and I enjoy our discussions. I do think about what you say and I can see merit in a lot of it.
Tell you what I'll go as far as reading some of the articles on Fox internet site. Well see how that goes. | We all come off as an a$$ sometimes in here....It's the Fight Club after all.
I do have to give you credit, while you do hold quite a few views quite opposite my own...and many others here, you do stand your ground and continue to pop up and be heard. I find it quite impressive, in light of all of the lack of rational liberal voices lately.
I also find it commendable that, unlike many individuals on there (from both extremes) you appear to have a partially open mind...which does make for good conversations.
I don't expect, nor desire, complete acquiescence of either side....to do so would make the world a dull place indeed.
Regardless of the differences, the reality is that most of us agree on far more things in life than those political differences we bicker about...
I'm just sick, because I find that I enjoy fruitless and nauseating political debate with no hope of a finite conclusion..... 
Ok, that's all...carry on
Last edited by RookieOne; 10-26-09 at 12:56 AM.
|
10-26-09, 02:25 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | | |
10-30-09, 03:54 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| |
Ran across this. They conduct polls like they conduct everything else apparently. |
10-30-09, 04:27 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 Ran across this. They conduct polls like they conduct everything else apparently. |  |
10-30-09, 10:24 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 Ran across this. They conduct polls like they conduct everything else apparently. | So tell us where you find a problem with that poll question ? I see dozens like it all over the net. I have no problem with any of them, no matter who's conducting it. Only the ones you see posted by lefties, where the questions are worded where no matter what you choose, it always agrees with the outcome they're looking for, do I have a problem. |
11-01-09, 03:38 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne So tell us where you find a problem with that poll question ? I see dozens like it all over the net. I have no problem with any of them, no matter who's conducting it. Only the ones you see posted by lefties, where the questions are worded where no matter what you choose, it always agrees with the outcome they're looking for, do I have a problem. | You see, by not including an option that supports the public option, they are biasing the results. It's like asking if President Bush was good and having the options be yes or not sure.
Do leftist media outlets do this? Yes, of course. I posted Fox's only because it is relevant to this thread.
You yourself have said that you feel Fox isn't bias. If they are really fair and really balance, then they'd do it all the time. They don't. Why? Because they are not. |
11-01-09, 08:06 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 You see, by not including an option that supports the public option, they are biasing the results. It's like asking if President Bush was good and having the options be yes or not sure.
Do leftist media outlets do this? Yes, of course. I posted Fox's only because it is relevant to this thread.
You yourself have said that you feel Fox isn't bias. If they are really fair and really balance, then they'd do it all the time. They don't. Why? Because they are not. | Look at the question. "Do you support healthcare reform WITHOUT the public option" That SHOULD answer your question.
Last edited by D.Hearne; 11-01-09 at 08:10 AM.
|
11-01-09, 08:16 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| |
Bottom line here is: Yea, Fox is biased slightly toward the right,(so what?) but in being so, they're the counterbalance to the rest of the media, the majority of which leans HEAVILY toward the left. Fox is THE only news organization on television that questions what the Obama administration is doing. THAT is why the Obama administration has started this "war" against Fox. If the rest were doing the job they should be doing, Fox wouldn't stand out like the "voice in the wilderness" against what Obama & company are doing. This is the undeniable truth to the matter. |
11-01-09, 03:45 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne Look at the question. "Do you support healthcare reform WITHOUT the public option" That SHOULD answer your question. |  |
11-02-09, 06:10 PM
|  | I'll save you the time and choke myself | | Join Date: January 2002 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,183
| | | |
11-03-09, 01:04 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne Look at the question. "Do you support healthcare reform WITHOUT the public option" That SHOULD answer your question. | And if you do want the public option, you can't answer the poll; hence it being bias.  |
11-03-09, 01:12 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne Bottom line here is: Yea, Fox is biased slightly toward the right,(so what?) but in being so, they're the counterbalance to the rest of the media, the majority of which leans HEAVILY toward the left. Fox is THE only news organization on television that questions what the Obama administration is doing. THAT is why the Obama administration has started this "war" against Fox. If the rest were doing the job they should be doing, Fox wouldn't stand out like the "voice in the wilderness" against what Obama & company are doing. This is the undeniable truth to the matter. | News should never be bias. Never. Period. Obama didn't start the war; Fox did. Fox, White House Said To Agree To Truce - Coop's Corner - CBS News
You know, if the White House was destroying America and Fox was the lone wolf standing their ground and fighting for America, then why on earth would they call it quits? Hmmmmmmm. |
11-03-09, 10:43 AM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | |
Last edited by strtrcr50; 11-03-09 at 10:45 AM.
|
11-03-09, 11:52 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne Bottom line here is: Yea, Fox is biased slightly toward the right,(so what?) | Dangit D.Hearne I just spit coffee out all over my desk.
Slightly towards the right!!! |
11-03-09, 12:37 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 | Where did I say that CBS was right? O yea I didn't. Once again, you assume since my argument disagrees with yours, that I then must be supporting Obama and every single liberal policy. I don't. Just because I find Fox News highly bias and deceptive does not mean I'm a liberal.
CBS and Rather were flat out wrong for what they did. Period. I have no problem pointing that out. However, this thread is about Fox, hence me only commenting on them. Stay on topic here. If I said something like, "Fox is bias; they need to be objective like CBS", then you'd have a point. I didn't, so I fail to see the point of your comment. Two wrongs don't make a right. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
Allena
Allena
