FOXNews (GOP-TV) Not Biased? ROFLMAO!

Fox is bought and paid for by the Republican party. Biased? Yes they are.

And you think the 'Alphabet Networks' aren't biased in the other directions? (Except they have been spewing Democratic Party propoganda for a lot longer than Fox has been around.)

Lets hear from some IN the media shall we?

"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful." -- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002

"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will." -- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ?-- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." ?- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents." -- Walter Cronkite, March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.

"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg's report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky?'...
"?'Reality Check' suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: `Time Out!' You'd have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania." ?- CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
"I won't make any pretense that the American Agenda is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and 'Well, on the one hand this and on the other that'--I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues." ?- ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC's Equal Time, August 9, 1994.

"We're unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don't think we can run away from that. And I think we're unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people." ?- Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.

"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." ?- Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMF'nAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLLLOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
LOLOLOLOOL!!!!
JOAM!!!!!

Re: FOXNews (GOP-TV) Not Biased? ROFLMAO!


Do you watch CNN?

I think that if you are someone who thinks that Fox is unbiased then you will see anything to the left of it as biased.

I never said that Fox isn't unbiased, only that the 'alphabet brigade' are just as biased in the other direction.

Re: FOXNews (GOP-TV) Not Biased? ROFLMAO!


Would this be similar to the 'examination' that CBS News and Dan Rather made of the documents before releasing the story?

At least Fox has Colmes......

And it is turning out that the documents may very well be phony.
CBS really blew it this time,IMHO.
If the documents are phony,and I have not seen the documents,so I dont know,then somebody at CBS is going to lose their job.
Also,if it turns out to be true,CBS will have destroyed the Kerry campaign.Even if Kerry and the DNC didnt do it,they are the ones that stand to gain if the papers are real.
So,to most Americans,since the DNC and Kerry have not distanced themselves,it will look like they did it,or had it done.
Also,has anyone else noticed that this came up,and these papers surfaced,right after Kerry hired the Clinton staff to run his campaign?
Just an observation.

Why is it that Fox is the only network saying the documents are phony. The other networks who brought out the story are the ones who are right.

Fox is biased and right-wing and they are the liars, lying for their guy bush.

The people who brought the documents forward should present their proof, to shut up Fox, because we all know bush is an AWOL coward, this is well known now.

Not true.This from CNN..."The Washington Post says the "60 Minutes" documents are not consistent with other documents released by Bush's Air National Guard unit in the early '70's.

"If you compare the documents that CBS produced with the documents that we know to be authentic, that did come from Bush's National Guard unit, none of those documents use proportionate spacing. And that's only one of the anomalies," says the Post's Michael Dobbs.

Experts contacted by CNN say there are some inconsistencies in the type style and formatting -- noting those styles then existed on typewriters but were not common. They also say only a review of the original documents -- not copies -- can completely resolve the matter.

Beyond that, surviving relatives of Bush's then commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the author of the purported documents, insist they are fake. They say Killian always believed Bush was an excellent pilot and that he never wrote these documents. Killian died in 1984."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/10/rather/index.html

And from ABC news..."Sept. 10, 2004 ?- Questions are being raised about the authenticity of newly discovered documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Experts Question Veracity

Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter. The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas ?- the bible of fonts ?- does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
Thats from here...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

So,as you can see,there are other networks raising questions about those documents.

Did you hear the quotes from the wife and son of "writer" of the doc's? They have come forward and said that he didn't keep secret docs of any kind. They proclaim that he kept everything in his head and had no need for things such as this.

CNN is also reporting the story.



They can't come forward because they know they are being less then honest. Besides CLintons hitmen would lose any type of credibility that they currently have (which isn't much).

Ahhh! I see someone has fallen for the blame Clinton seed that was planted by Bartlett yesterday...

Well, well, so how does it feel? Being the victim of lies. (if they are lies)

Kind of like Kerry must have felt having his record distorted and dishonored.

Let's just say this document as well as the Swift Boat crap both prove to be a fakes. What that would mean is that Bush did hide out / "serve" as reported, in the guard in Texas, and Kerry did volunteer, serve in combat in Vietnam, save a life, sustain injuries, etc, etc. as reported. Bush still comes up on the short end, because he WAS on the short end.

And you know what else ? I don't think either set of lies (if that is what the Bush allegations turn out to be) will make a damn bit of difference. These stunts are changing no one's mind. The "bounce" is back down to 2-3%. People made up their minds a while ago, and nothing will change them.


Still, dirty politics s*cks. At least the Democrats tried to run a high road convention / campaign; the Repubs made no such attempt.

It hard to be a journalist, newsman, a corresponedent, to any of those you have to look for facts and decide what's the truth of the matter, what is real.

LOL!

As I said, everyone is "on" CBS to reveal their sources, but I don't recall much noise from various and sundry news organisations to properly "vet" the Swift Boat liars deceit-fest targeting John Kerry.

Only Lord Bush is accorded such protection.

I say Dan Rather gives up his source immediately after Bob Novak gives up his.

But not until Dick Cheney also releases the names of the people on the energy task force.

I couldn't have said it better me self, PDiddie.

We have a second lets make it a motion.

So who suggested making a sacrificial lamb of Mrs. Plame?