On September 26 2006 19:04 eG)HeavenS wrote: if you want proof O Reily is a fucking liar just watch the video of john stewart i posted (on this page) owning O Reily and catching in a lie, or rather, misinformation.
O'Reilly stated that he believed that the liberal media was calling the captured terrorists as criminals. Condy did not say that the captured terrorists were criminals, rather she stated that they were not POWs. Of course we only get to hear that come out of her mouth, not what she believed the captured terrorists should be called. Also, if you actually watch The Factor, you know that O'Reilly doesn't call the captured terorists POWs. He wants to circumvent the Geneva Convention regulations to get answers (because he believes that cold rooms and playing music at loud volumes gets answers, and he will show the evidence to prove it; while evidence might be able to be shown otherwise), something that cannot be done if the captured terrorists are called POWs.
Maybe, instead of watching shows that quote The Factor out of context, you should make it a daily habit to watch it. While you might not agree with anything he says, it is also a good dose of conservatism in your daily live of what appears to be pure liberalism. Balance is the essence of life, and at least making an effort to listen to both sides of the argument gives you a much better outlook on life.
I think Obermann provides a great example of media bias with the Lewinsky thing. Clinton got a type of full fledged negative attention Bush doesn't get about numerous war lies. Clinton bombs terrorist camps and they make very serious allegations about his motives, clearly different than how Bush is treated.
On September 26 2006 19:15 Mindcrime wrote: [removed quote within quote]
To say that any of the other news networks are as far to the left as Fox News is to the right is a total fallacy.
What the fuck? You have absolutely no proof to it. Read either of the books I presented and then read a book about conservatism in FOX. I gurantee you that they are at least close. Total fallacy does not describe my statement at all, especially with no proof to back it up.
On September 26 2006 19:17 Servolisk wrote: I think Obermann provides a great example of media bias with the Lewinsky thing. Clinton got a type of full fledged negative attention Bush doesn't get about numerous war lies. Clinton bombs terrorist camps and they make very serious allegations about his motives, clearly different than how Bush is treated.
A good point! However, having sex with a ssecratary is something that not many agree with. When Clinton tried to get Osama Bin Laden he was seen as trying to shake off the Lewinski deal. That was probably one of the few mistakes in his presidency, to fail to shake off the media's ideas about him and not follow through with the bombing of Al-Qaeda camps. It is clearly well documented that the CIA and FBI failed to help him out, which I don't believe was a flaw of Clinton's, much more rather the CIA and FBI's problem. Clinton was probably wrongly attacked for his intentions in Somolia while Bush has clearly gained a free-ride from most of the media (lacking some newspapers *coughNewYorkTimescough*) even though most of his foreign policy plans could be questioned undoubtedly.
On September 26 2006 19:04 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Go watch the 'shut up' video again. Realize two things: O'Reily cant help but lie. Most of the people he yells shut up are kids. Go O'Reilly!
And please dont ever call fox fair and balanced, which is what you seem to be aiming at. That has already been proved beyond a doubt to be false.
Is that the video where that guy comes on the show, O'Reilly gives him his time of day, tries to make a statement and then the lunatic keeps interrupting HIM?? Becuase, then we see the difference in opinions on how the situation was handled. About your second comment, I have already stated in my previous quote that FOX was leaning towards the right to the same extent the network news lean to the left. You seem to take me for an idiotic rightist, yet me beliefs would be that a nonpartisan news network would be the best thing for America (besides a key with all the ways to fix things and make the world completely correct, of course), yet it is something that neither of the following will ever achieve: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, nor FOX. I fail to see your point.
To the person saying it's up to the Average Joe, you are absolutely correct. However, if a nonpartisan media network actually existed, then it wouldn't be up to Mr. Joe to decide which news network he agrees with most; he would instead be deciding which points brought up he agreed with more.[/QUOTE]
Yes. And Im saying they aren't even close. The 'liberal media' is just a smokescreen to make neo-cons feel oppressed and united. whens the last time CNN or even CBS spent their entire news segment (never mind a 24 hour news channel) on the democrat talking points? You really think its coincidence they just happen to coinicde with the bush speach of the week?
When was the last time the mainstream media (and from this I rightly exclude fox) consistently lied about a partisan issue? the bush documents? An entire network got uprooted and raked over the coals by neo-cons for that...
The lies are so common on Fox, that I would be surprised if anyone was able to keep track.
Saying "but the liberal media is just as bad" is highly disingenuous (at least I hope it is)... I know politics is about opinion, but if you say something like that, back it up with studies.
On September 26 2006 19:26 fusionsdf wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Is that the video where that guy comes on the show, O'Reilly gives him his time of day, tries to make a statement and then the lunatic keeps interrupting HIM?? Becuase, then we see the difference in opinions on how the situation was handled. About your second comment, I have already stated in my previous quote that FOX was leaning towards the right to the same extent the network news lean to the left. You seem to take me for an idiotic rightist, yet me beliefs would be that a nonpartisan news network would be the best thing for America (besides a key with all the ways to fix things and make the world completely correct, of course), yet it is something that neither of the following will ever achieve: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, nor FOX. I fail to see your point.
To the person saying it's up to the Average Joe, you are absolutely correct. However, if a nonpartisan media network actually existed, then it wouldn't be up to Mr. Joe to decide which news network he agrees with most; he would instead be deciding which points brought up he agreed with more.
Yes. And Im saying they aren't even close. The 'liberal media' is just a smokescreen to make neo-cons feel oppressed and united. whens the last time CNN or even CBS spent their entire news segment (never mind a 24 hour news channel) on the democrat talking points? You really think its coincidence they just happen to coinicde with the bush speach of the week?
When was the last time the mainstream media (and from this I rightly exclude fox) consistently lied about a partisan issue? the bush documents? An entire network got uprooted and raked over the coals by neo-cons for that...
The lies are so common on Fox, that I would be surprised if anyone was able to keep track.
Saying "but the liberal media is just as bad" is highly disingenuous (at least I hope it is)... I know politics is about opinion, but if you say something like that, back it up with studies.
Ok, added an extra quote thing because that was starting to get on my nerves, but now onto the valid points you do raise.
Opinions matter in deciding which news is right for you. You are clearly liberal and thus you agree with what the mainstream news say more often than not. I am clearly conservative on issues (with the exception of the death penalty, but that is only one point) and thus I agree with FOX more often than not. Clearly neither side reports all of the stories nor all of the facts. Sometimes they produce stupid stories, like the one you linked to. One example of the liberal media failing to report all of the facts is in the Erica Pratt case. They failed to mention a drug connection with Erica Pratt's parents and her kidnappers. Of course, FOX brought this up. However, I am more than certain that you guys have your points of FOX not reporting all the facts that were within a story that the liberal media got right. We, the people who take in the news from a potentially wide variety of sources, must decide who got the story right. Unfortunately, media corporations will do anything to play their agendas, even at the cost of doing what they need to do (report the news factually). I am not saying that ABC, NBC, etc. are bad news sources. They clearly do report most of the stories right. However, our differences occur because I say that ABC, NBC, etc. get most of the stories correct and you say FOX gets NO stories correct, which is factually wrong.
I'm going to bed now as well, I hope that we can continue this another time, as I enjoy talking with people who oppose my opinion in things that intrest me (the media being forced to lose their agendas is certainly a big one with me).
On September 26 2006 19:21 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
What the fuck? You have absolutely no proof to it. Read either of the books I presented and then read a book about conservatism in FOX. I gurantee you that they are at least close. Total fallacy does not describe my statement at all, especially with no proof to back it up.
I can show that certain Fox News personalities have fabricated stories in various attempts to make one point or another. Remember O'Reilly's argument with General Wesley Clarke and the Malmedy controversy? Remember when O'Reilly fabricated a story to support his claim that there was a "War on Christmas" and got called on it?
Can you show me a reporter from one of the so-called "leftist" networks fabricating stories and blatantly lying in order to push their agenda?
Really, what the fuck... Dan Rather was forced to resign because he didn't check the credibility of his source. O'Reilly makes up shit and Fox News does nothing about it. What does that tell you?
On September 26 2006 19:21 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
What the fuck? You have absolutely no proof to it. Read either of the books I presented and then read a book about conservatism in FOX. I gurantee you that they are at least close. Total fallacy does not describe my statement at all, especially with no proof to back it up.
They may be as far off-center ideologically as FOX, but their actual news coverage is MUCH more neutral than FOX. All you have to do is watch in order to know that..
On September 26 2006 19:35 hasuprotoss wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Yes. And Im saying they aren't even close. The 'liberal media' is just a smokescreen to make neo-cons feel oppressed and united. whens the last time CNN or even CBS spent their entire news segment (never mind a 24 hour news channel) on the democrat talking points? You really think its coincidence they just happen to coinicde with the bush speach of the week?
When was the last time the mainstream media (and from this I rightly exclude fox) consistently lied about a partisan issue? the bush documents? An entire network got uprooted and raked over the coals by neo-cons for that...
The lies are so common on Fox, that I would be surprised if anyone was able to keep track.
Saying "but the liberal media is just as bad" is highly disingenuous (at least I hope it is)... I know politics is about opinion, but if you say something like that, back it up with studies.
Ok, added an extra quote thing because that was starting to get on my nerves, but now onto the valid points you do raise.
Opinions matter in deciding which news is right for you. You are clearly liberal and thus you agree with what the mainstream news say more often than not. I am clearly conservative on issues (with the exception of the death penalty, but that is only one point) and thus I agree with FOX more often than not. Clearly neither side reports all of the stories nor all of the facts. Sometimes they produce stupid stories, like the one you linked to. One example of the liberal media failing to report all of the facts is in the Erica Pratt case. They failed to mention a drug connection with Erica Pratt's parents and her kidnappers. Of course, FOX brought this up. However, I am more than certain that you guys have your points of FOX not reporting all the facts that were within a story that the liberal media got right. We, the people who take in the news from a potentially wide variety of sources, must decide who got the story right. Unfortunately, media corporations will do anything to play their agendas, even at the cost of doing what they need to do (report the news factually). I am not saying that ABC, NBC, etc. are bad news sources. They clearly do report most of the stories right. However, our differences occur because I say that ABC, NBC, etc. get most of the stories correct and you say FOX gets NO stories correct, which is factually wrong.
I'm going to bed now as well, I hope that we can continue this another time, as I enjoy talking with people who oppose my opinion in things that intrest me (the media being forced to lose their agendas is certainly a big one with me).[/QUOTE]
You really think the books you linked are unbiased? how about a study that shows...say that people who watch fox are more infrormed about the war in Iraq?
I would also like to point out that Im not Liberal. I dont blindly follow party politics. I understand being conservative, you would want news with a conservative stance. But Fox isn't news.
And why the fuck should I care about some kidnapped girl? Thats how important? Why dont we talk about journalistic integrity on a story that is actually news worthy.
And a majority of tv news media is useless anyways, whether you think it is liberal or conservative. You should switch to print media. And then come back and look at what Fox is actually like.
you say FOX gets NO stories correct, which is factually wrong.
uh? I never said that. I said they constantly lie, and their viewers either dont bother researching, or don't care that their "news station" is lying to them in order to shift their votes. Fox is teaching you a "the liberals say, but.." us vs them mentality. But you should be careful, as not everyone who disagrees with you is liberal.
im glad we dont have fox here in holland sounds like a shitty newsstation.. then again, newspapers, radio and tv over here try to make us scared with their terror propaganda. They even started 'anti terror kits' and commercials on what to do when we are struck with terror. Its all propaganda in my honest opinion, i can't imagine how it would be like over there in the states.
on a sidenote, how do you link youtube in the forum ? : )
On September 26 2006 17:50 fig_newbie wrote: -_- I really dont think clinton should be so glorified for that interview. Sure he chewed out that ridiculous sham of a reporter and he certainly spoke his own side of the issue (quite well I might add), but Obermann's commentary is itself also a complete disgrace to journalism. Clinton is not infallible and theres certainly two sides of the issue, I just wish this shit would stop its really frustrating to see media who we as the public sadly depend on to disseminate unbiased facts succumb to blatant tabloid journalism. I mean wtf, do you guys really think Bush isnt TRYING? LOL? He is, and, just like Clinton, he FAILED in reaching SOME of his goals. This guys commentary is still running and I'm getting angrier hearing his bullshit rhetoric, wtf im gonna turn this off gg
what? ur an idiot a disgrace to journalism? he's saying the truth, which not many other journalists are..
clinton is not infallible? his commentary wasn't even ABOUT clinton
--- In April 2003, O'Reilly appeared at a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city schoolchildren. O'Reilly was trying to fill time before an African-American singing group called the Best Men was set to perform, and quipped "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps." Some in the audience felt that it was a racially insensitive comment. O'Reilly claims the remarks were a reference to a common prank in the 1950s, and the event had a 50s theme
EPT
sounds like a shitty newsstation.. then again, newspapers, radio and tv over here try to make us scared with their terror propaganda. They even started 'anti terror kits' and commercials on what to do when we are struck with terror. Its all propaganda in my honest opinion, i can't imagine how it would be like over there in the states.
