Sure I did.
Fox changes people's quotes all the time to mis-represent what they've said. The latest is good ol' Brit Hume flat-out lying about our past president's quotes. They also use polls that show drastically differing results from, yeah, every other poll. They ALSO, as Ican pointed out, retract things later on in the day that they get wrong; to a much smaller audience. I've seen the same thing.
I have a vivid memory of a Fox announcer saying this:
'Now, there's a lot of hype out there, a lot of spin, and things are coming from both sides. But, let's cut through the hype and just look at the issues. Tell me (guest), what are the three biggest problems with John Kerry's foreign policy?
THAT'S the kind of crap I'm talking about. They present the ultimate spin; partisan reporting that continually claims it's not, and the majority of it's viewers aren't smart enough to figure it out, apparently.
Cycloptichorn
So in other words, you have no documentation of your claimed uncorrected factual error presented as news by Fox but you object to the way a question was phrased? You must not watch anything other than Fox then.
fair and balanced .... maybe
truthfull
NOT .......... KLIKME
I see a lot of spin there from another anti-Fox source Geli. I see zero evidence that Fox is less truthful than any other news source or that it is not more truthful than any other news source.
Ticomaya wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Sorry, I thought the subject was the accuracy of Bush's immature declaration of victory .... semantics lend no value to that debate so I'll butt out.
Perhaps the issue is what was "victory" at that time. In purely military analysis: Saddam was defeated; US in control of Iraq. That was a victory at that stage in the war.
It appears
semantics is the entirety of the liberals' argument here.
Actually, that whole argument started when somebody posted an article that the death toll in Iraq had reached 1,500.
Nobody discussed that fact. You choose to ignore it, and instead talked about how the "Mission Accomplished" sign was not handpainted by Bush, and that victory can be a something like a military term with no meaning.
I'm guilty of arguing with you about those ridiculous details.
Which is why I'm going to post this re death toll:
Geli, I read the story. It concerns corporate executives of one Fox affiliate protecting their local advertisers. It has zero to do with Fox cable news. A little precision please.
Gelisgesti wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I see a lot of spin there from another anti-Fox source Geli. I see zero evidence that Fox is less truthful than any other news source or that it is not more truthful than any other news source.
If you would read the story you would know ....
Husband and wife reporters filed a lawsuit, and have apparently lost. You direct us to a completely biased site run by their good friend. What were you expecting this to prove?
"Legal technicality." That is a fine example of spin. The damn law getting in the way and keeping these poor folks from winning their lawsuit.
old europe wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Sorry, I thought the subject was the accuracy of Bush's immature declaration of victory .... semantics lend no value to that debate so I'll butt out.
Perhaps the issue is what was "victory" at that time. In purely military analysis: Saddam was defeated; US in control of Iraq. That was a victory at that stage in the war.
It appears
semantics is the entirety of the liberals' argument here.
Actually, that whole argument started when somebody posted an article that the death toll in Iraq had reached 1,500.
Nobody discussed that fact. You choose to ignore it, and instead talked about how the "Mission Accomplished" sign was not handpainted by Bush, and that victory can be a something like a military term with no meaning.
I'm guilty of arguing with you about those ridiculous details.
Wrong. I didn't ignore it. I posted an article which pointed out the relatively low number of deaths in February, a story receiving less media attention than the 1,500 number. You responded by talking about "Mission Accomplished." The digression into the "Mission Accomplished" banner came from you.
old europe wrote:Which is why I'm going to post this re death toll:
At which point we are asked to compare apples with walnuts.
AND let me add that I am not happy to see that 1,502 US soldiers - or 1,675 coalition soldiers - have died so far.
I'm not happy to see that 11,220 were wounded.
I'm not happy to see that 18,443 Iraqi civilians have died.
And it hasn't stopped.
Ticomaya wrote:old europe wrote:Which is why I'm going to post this re death toll:
At which point we are asked to compare apples with walnuts.
It's a valid point, though. But we don't have to compare anything with anything.
What do you think about the totals, Tico?
Foxfyre wrote:Geli, I read the story. It concerns corporate executives of one Fox affiliate protecting their local advertisers. It has zero to do with Fox cable news. A little precision please.
The name 'Murdock' ring a bell?
You're saying Murdock owned Channel 13? I seriously doubt that.
OE, the point is, the media splashes large numbers of deaths or any bad news across the front page in 50 point type. But when things are improving or the death rate significantly falls off, such news if reported at all is below the fold on Page 27 somewhere. We do not ask that the numbers not be posted. We do ask that all the news be reported, not just that which anti-war people can spin as 'proof' that all the news is bad.
Ticomaya wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I see a lot of spin there from another anti-Fox source Geli. I see zero evidence that Fox is less truthful than any other news source or that it is not more truthful than any other news source.
If you would read the story you would know ....
Husband and wife reporters filed a lawsuit, and have apparently lost. You direct us to a completely biased site run by their good friend. What were you expecting this to prove?
"Legal technicality." That is a fine example of spin. The damn law getting in the way and keeping these poor folks from winning their lawsuit.
I still have no faith in the veracity of your opinion. I'll bet you have nothing o base your opinion upon, or am I wrong ...
