Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:I do tune into Fox occasionally, and find that it mostly sophomoric and biased.
"biased" = not leftist enough
No, "biased" = not truthful enough, full of propaganda, full of right wing talking heads, who fold like tents as soon as any real issues are discussed.
JTT wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:I do tune into Fox occasionally, and find that it mostly sophomoric and biased.
"biased" = not leftist enough
No, "biased" = not truthful enough, full of propaganda, full of right wing talking heads, who fold like tents as soon as any real issues are discussed.
You are making a serious mistake.
FOX NEWS and I stress NEWS is one of the best news agencies out there.
Yes, they do have people like Bill Oreilly,but he is not a journalist, he is a commentator.
He gives his OPINIONS, not news facts.
Every news agency out there, from Fox to CNN to ABC,CBS,NBC, etc all have their talking heads that give opinions about the news.
That doesnt make them journalists, it makes them commentators.
Dont confuse the two.
Do you chaps know of another cable news or news network where the president of the operation previously worked as media consultant for three Dem presidential bids, or who worked with someone like Lee Atwater producing something comparable to the Willy Horton campaign?
I'm unaware of a "Willie Horton campaign". I do know that Fox news has been recently favorably evaluated (by an in depth independent college study previously posted) as being the most balanced of all mainstream news sources though it is rated as tilting right of center. It is the ONLY one that is tilted right of center which explains why liberals can't stand it. They seem to think they should have a 100% monopoly on news bias.
As for Willie Horton as a campaign issue, that was a Democratic primary invention. The Republicans simply recognized it as a valid (and useful) issue in the general campaign.
Anything related to temperament, experience, voting record, advocacy, or any other influences that could give us a clue as to how somebody might govern should be fair game for discussion. That for the most part leaves out a person's kids or whether the wife bakes cookies.
So far McCain is holding up quite well under the scrutiny. If he can hold up as well in the intense assault that is sure to come in the general campaign, that will give me increased assurance that he can also hold up under the intense pressures of the Presidency.
On the question of bias in the Fox Network, you may be interested in:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
I did not say there was no bias in Fox--I specifically described it as right of center. I do believe that overall you get more balance and more complete information from Fox than you will get from any other single news source, however.
Here's one with more recent information and includes more than one man's opinion but is not an impartial site either:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
For an impartial observation, however, I posted this one earlier. It's a safe bet you didn't read it then and perhaps won't now, but it is quite instructive:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Fox, I did read your linked pieces, which are interesting.
The presentation of news should be done professionally, which means without slant or bias, but merely presenting the truth. The various media will also have commentary, which will reflect the views of those presenting it.
My perception is that Fox's presentation of the news is not as coldly professional as it should be. As for the commentary, much of what is on Fox borders on the demagogic, which I don't find elsewhere.
The following typifies the slanted news reporting on Fox.
Fri, Apr 18, 2008 12:43pm ET
Fox News' Garrett distorted Obama's debate comments on Wright, falsely claiming they contradicted his March speech
Summary: Fox News' Major Garrett falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright made during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate were "in conflict with his speech on that very subject." But in purporting to contrast Obama's reference during the debate to "comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned" with Obama's assertion during his March 18 speech that "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community," Garrett left out the next two sentences said in the debate exchange during which Obama made clear that he was not claiming to have "disowned" Wright, but to have disowned "[t]he comments" Wright made.
On the April 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Major Garrett falsely claimed that during the previous evening's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama "gave yet another explanation" on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Obama's church, "one in conflict with his speech on that very subject." Garrett then aired a clip from the debate in which Obama said of the controversy surrounding Wright: "[T]he notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit." Garrett then purported to contrast that statement with Obama's assertion during his March 18 speech that "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community." But Garrett left out the next two sentences said in the debate exchange, during which Obama made clear that he was not claiming to have "disowned" Wright, but to have disowned "[t]he comments." Immediately following the clip aired by Garrett, debate moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Obama, "You've disowned him?" to which Obama responded: "The comments, comments that I've disowned."
From the April 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: On the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama gave yet another explanation, one in conflict with his speech on that very subject.
OBAMA [video clip]: Yeah, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.
GARRETT: Here's what Obama said about disowning Wright before.
OBAMA [video clip]: I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.
From ABC News' April 16 Democratic presidential debate:
OBAMA: And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've disowned him?
OBAMA: The comments, comments that I've disowned. Then that is not something that I think --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?
OBAMA: This is somebody who's a former Marine. And so, I have --I believe that he loves this country. But I also believe that he's somebody who, because of the experiences he's had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices that he's seen.
--mediamatters
The Bush aftermath schtick was getting pretty old so Foxy thought she'd try a new paintbrush and some new colors. It hasn't worked. You can't divorce yourselves from the mess that you all helped create and sustain for all those long years.
Quote:
Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'
Advocate wrote:Fox, I did read your linked pieces, which are interesting.
The presentation of news should be done professionally, which means without slant or bias, but merely presenting the truth. The various media will also have commentary, which will reflect the views of those presenting it.
My perception is that Fox's presentation of the news is not as coldly professional as it should be. As for the commentary, much of what is on Fox borders on the demagogic, which I don't find elsewhere.
I actually got out of the media business when it ALL abandoned cold professionalism and went to sensationalism, yellow journalism, and appealed to emotion rather than appreciation for confirmed fact. Evenso, there are news organizations that do better than others in reporting all the news and Fox is one of those that does--in my opinion, it does better than all the others.
And if you actually read the links as you say, you will acknowledge that Fox was found to be among the top rated as the least biased. I gently disagree with MM, however, that there are no journalists left in the business. There are a few top guns left with editorial control over the news they broadcast and/or write and who do maintain respect for integrity.
Alas, I fear they are a dying breed.
But also based on those same links, any prejudice against Fox News is clearly based on ideological prejudice and not on the competence by which they present the news.
Advocate wrote:The following typifies the slanted news reporting on Fox.
Fri, Apr 18, 2008 12:43pm ET
Fox News' Garrett distorted Obama's debate comments on Wright, falsely claiming they contradicted his March speech
Summary: Fox News' Major Garrett falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright made during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate were "in conflict with his speech on that very subject." But in purporting to contrast Obama's reference during the debate to "comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned" with Obama's assertion during his March 18 speech that "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community," Garrett left out the next two sentences said in the debate exchange during which Obama made clear that he was not claiming to have "disowned" Wright, but to have disowned "[t]he comments" Wright made.
On the April 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Major Garrett falsely claimed that during the previous evening's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama "gave yet another explanation" on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Obama's church, "one in conflict with his speech on that very subject." Garrett then aired a clip from the debate in which Obama said of the controversy surrounding Wright: "[T]he notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit." Garrett then purported to contrast that statement with Obama's assertion during his March 18 speech that "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community." But Garrett left out the next two sentences said in the debate exchange, during which Obama made clear that he was not claiming to have "disowned" Wright, but to have disowned "[t]he comments." Immediately following the clip aired by Garrett, debate moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Obama, "You've disowned him?" to which Obama responded: "The comments, comments that I've disowned."
From the April 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: On the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama gave yet another explanation, one in conflict with his speech on that very subject.
OBAMA [video clip]: Yeah, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.
GARRETT: Here's what Obama said about disowning Wright before.
OBAMA [video clip]: I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.
From ABC News' April 16 Democratic presidential debate:
OBAMA: And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've disowned him?
OBAMA: The comments, comments that I've disowned. Then that is not something that I think --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?
OBAMA: This is somebody who's a former Marine. And so, I have --I believe that he loves this country. But I also believe that he's somebody who, because of the experiences he's had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices that he's seen.
--mediamatters
The distinction between Obama disowning Wright's comments, vs disowning Wright, really are rather superfluous. Along with Wright comes all of his baggage. Wright's comments and preachings are really him, they really cannot be separated. That is who Wright is. And this is the type of splitting hairs that the Obama supporters are trying to do, but I don't think it flies. If it was an offhand comment out of character here and there, it would be different, but it isn't, this is the theology that Wright has been preaching for a long long time, and you cannot separate it from Wright himself. I think the questioners are recognizing this and trying to pin Obama down to making a choice, but he continues to ride the fence. He is in his own words, a pretty good politician, and that is the problem with him.
Dishonest drivel as usual from JTT. At least have the decency to properly quote what was said.
okie wrote:Dishonest drivel as usual from JTT. At least have the decency to properly quote what was said.
That's exactly what you said, Okie. Only the characters have changed and your duplicity stands exposed. So you squirm.
Standing there naked, writhing like a worm on a hook, you still manage to accuse others of being dishonest. Is that chutzpah or idiocy?
okie wrote:Dishonest drivel as usual from JTT. At least have the decency to properly quote what was said.
He's a troll, okie. That's what they do.
Speaking of trolls. Guess who just happens along to try to divert attention away from the hypocrisy of these cons, the biggest con of them all.
Ticomaya wrote:okie wrote:Dishonest drivel as usual from JTT. At least have the decency to properly quote what was said.
He's a troll, okie. That's what they do.
And I can't find any troll spray anywhere.
Foxfyre wrote:Ticomaya wrote:okie wrote:Dishonest drivel as usual from JTT. At least have the decency to properly quote what was said.
He's a troll, okie. That's what they do.
And I can't find any troll spray anywhere.
You've been watching too many 60's Batman episodes.
T
K
O
And from where did our liberal friends originally 'learn' that FOX was biased?
From ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times.
FOX's competitors told 'em it was so.
Go back to the beginning and remember the overwhelming tide of publicity that attended FOX's debut, predicting that it would be 'biased' and 'rightwing'.
See there, the reigning media (FOX's competition) told you it was gonna be so, and they periodically 'remind' you that they were correct.
Good thing they keep us all informed.
Objectively.
