fox news slates tim robbins' play

giftgrub

Jeez these people dont know when to let up!

heres a fair and balanced article on Tim Robbins New play Embedded.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104322,00.html

krattapopov

i lived in america for the summer and i have to say fox was the worst news station that i saw, i hated the way they were spinning everything, but i had to keep watching to see what they would come up with next.

the american people i believe do not know what is really happening in iraq because of tv stations like fox who are deliberatly spinning news on the war.

about robbins' play, i think i would put my faith in him that he would try to portray what is happening over there accuratley and factually ( i know its a play!! ), with a sense of realism

giftgrub

i think the point missed by fox is that the play was intended as satire. who knows?

but i do agree with you on this

i hated the way they were spinning everything, but i had to keep watching to see what they would come up with next

you just cant help yourself, we have it on in work and sometimes we're looking on in total disbelief!

Victor

"Robbins' 'Embedded' Play Not So Realistic" It's a play - it's f.i.c.t.i.o.n. like the content of Fox News, just a different spin.

chill

Don't get me started on Fox F*****g News !!! I have never seen such a bunch of unmittigated garbage put out under the guise of a television station.
Garbage from morning to night, interrupted by a couple of minutes of lucidity with the weather guy in the morning and the round table 30 minutes each night. Then there's the spinmeister himself Bill O'Reilly, an embarrassment to the O'Reilly name.
Why do I watch it ? because you really have to see it to believe it and it's kinda like watching a slow mothing car crash I suppose

Capt'n Midnight

Is the same Fox news that started to sue the Simpsons ?
Or is it the on that tried to use the First Ammendment to jusfify sacking a journalist who refused to Lie ?

BigEejit

I watch it for a laugh sometimes .... the spin on everything is so pro-American and if any country or individual says anything anti-American foriegn policy or even something neutral then they (the person who said something) become the devils evil twin ...and they are so damn "patriotic" it can get very annoying ... not to mention the usual ad-breaks every 2 minutes ... all in all I only ever watch about 1 or 2 minutes at a time

chill

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Is the same Fox news that started to sue the Simpsons ?
Or is it the on that tried to use the First Ammendment to jusfify sacking a journalist who refused to Lie ?

It's the one that tried to sue a publisher last month for using the phrase "fair and balanced" which they claimed ownership of


.

chill

Originally posted by BigEejit
I watch it for a laugh sometimes .... the spin on everything is so pro-American and if any country or individual says anything anti-American foriegn policy or even something neutral then they (the person who said something) become the devils evil twin ...and they are so damn "patriotic" it can get very annoying ... not to mention the usual ad-breaks every 2 minutes ... all in all I only ever watch about 1 or 2 minutes at a time

Yeah ... I don't mind patriotism, it's a good thing. But when patriotism moves on to Nationalism then THAT is a really bad and dangerous thing and that is what Fox does.

Wompa1

Perhaps Fox News was the worst news channel you say out there because they don't agree with your political stance...I am American and I can tell you they are the only right wing news station in America...They claim to be fair and balanced, but that is just a gimmick, they are to an extent by actually having liberal minded guests on but rarely do they let them speak as they always get fired up and shoot them down before they finish a sentece

As for Tim Robbins, I think he's a good actor and I think the war is just...
I still watch the shawshank redemption and Arlington road but why slate americans for boycotting or slating him and his work....They live in a free society don't they??
Not like Iraq or North Korea...or sometimes this country!

Hobbes

Originally posted by Wompa1
They live in a free society don't they??
Not like Iraq or North Korea...or sometimes this country!

I thought Iraq was a free society? :rolleyes:

Depends on your defination of free.

Wompa1

In my world Iraq isn't a free society as yet because Sadam is still alive and people still fear him....when Sadam is dead, then Iraq can start to become a free society

sovtek

Originally posted by Wompa1
In my world Iraq isn't a free society as yet because Sadam is still alive and people still fear him....when Sadam is dead, then Iraq can start to become a free society

Some might say that Americans (ummm and in turn the world) might not be free from terrorism until dubya and friends are dead.
Might that be an oft repeated sight on Fox, the bodies of George, Dick and Rummy. I wonder how Al-Jeezera would handle it?

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
I thought Iraq was a free society? :rolleyes:

Of course it is...NOW!

chill

Originally posted by Wompa1
Perhaps Fox News was the worst news channel you say out there because they don't agree with your political stance...

No, you don't get it. They're the worst yes, but not because I don't agree with them. They are the worst because they broadcast a big LIE. They say they are fair and balanced when they are the very opposite of that. I don't care how right wing they are, they are welcome to it. But they should have the honesty to say what they are, a right wing channel that is basically the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. And O'Reilly should rename his show "O'Reilly the Spinmeister".

As for Tim Robbins, I think he's a good actor and I think the war is just...
I still watch the shawshank redemption and Arlington road but why slate americans for boycotting or slating him and his work....They live in a free society don't they??
Not like Iraq or North Korea...or sometimes this country!

Well I suggest to you that this country is a lot freer than the US these days where there is a deeply embedded prejudice against anyone opposing the Bush policy and the Democrats have to tread warily in case they are labelled as traitors as some of them have already been. Read what the big hitting news anchors have said about the censorship of the news in the US over the last couple of years. I'll take Ireland any day.

As far as Robbins goes I feel totally free to slate him or support him. Why shouldn't we ? In our free society we are free to hold whatever view we wish. Y'ought to try it sometime

.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Some might say that Americans (ummm and in turn the world) might not be free from terrorism until dubya and friends are dead.
Might that be an oft repeated sight on Fox, the bodies of George, Dick and Rummy. I wonder how Al-Jeezera would handle it?

There will always be terrorism. There was terrorism long before the United States became a nation and terrorism will continue to exist long after you and I depart from this earth.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
There will always be terrorism. There was terrorism long before the United States became a nation and terrorism will continue to exist long after you and I depart from this earth.

I'd agree, although war without end I think would better describe the era we are living in. A pipe bomb here and there I can live with (along with my civil rights being restored).
So I guess you don't agree with the "war on terror" then (maybe this is another thread.)

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
I'd agree, although war without end I think would better describe the era we are living in.

There is nothing exceptional about this era. Almost every era of humanities can be described as "war without end".

Terrorism has really only grown out of the notion of people agreeing on terms for war...but the techniques themselves, and - more importantly - the reasoning behind them are as old as the hills.

Yes, yes, we can look at the Roman Empire and say how they had a hundred years of peace, but that was a hundred years of peace within the Empire. I'm no Roman expert (thats the GFs department), but from what I recall, they fought a number of wars and had continuous ongoing hostilities along some of their borders within that entire period. Lets not also forget that there's a couple of other contintents that had people on them that such a view would also completely ignore.

The only thing new in our era is the levels and scales of violence that technology has permitted. Perviously, destroying a city on the opposite side of a country required a massive undertaking even for the largest armies. Today, its a lesser undertaking for the largest armies, and is no longer "across teh country", its "across the globe".

But the violence itself...always been there, baby.

As for "always will"....I'm unconvinced. Maybe someday enough people will grow up that it won't all be necessary.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
There is nothing exceptional about this era. Almost every era of humanities can be described as "war without end".

I was refering to America specifically as well as the "war on terror" which as a stated goal is to end terror...that I would consider as an open ended excuse for war.
Yes there was the Cold War, but there was never (that I'm aware of) a declaration of intent to invade any country that accepted communism, although it was put in practice to some extent (depending on said countries ability to resist) .

lili

i can't see fox news but have seen some extraits in a french reportage.
quite amazing:eek:
that's what i call a journalism of investigation! seems their first source comes from the pentagone and to counterpoint it they use the white house informations:p

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
I was refering to America specifically as well as the "war on terror" which as a stated goal is to end terror...that I would consider as an open ended excuse for war.

Yes, I know. However, the point I was making is that there is nothing exceptional in this. Every powerful nation which has come before them has had its own excuse for "war without end". Sometimes its "we need more space", other times its "they pose a threat", and other times its "we've nothing better to do"....but they all have their reasons.....and when you look close enough, all of the reasons are unwinnable causes.

Hell, even the Swiss, who are viewed as the model of peace, were psycho warmongering nutjobs until not too long ago.

jc

PopTart

When Europe being ruled by dictators such as Mousilini and Hitler America was the country that came to help restore democracy in Italy,Germany,Austria,France etc.
What is so different this time? Sadam Hussein is a brutal dictator just like Hitler and Mousilini....
What I thought was interesting was before the war, The U.S stated that they would not leave the Iraqi people behing again like 10 years earlier.....in the first gulf war was it not allied forces...including France?
Mah, I'm gonna stop trying to figure out this world...maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong....but maybe your right or maybe your wrong...?????!!!?????

Victor

Originally posted by chill
Read what the big hitting news anchors have said about the censorship of the news in the US over the last couple of years.

Even Dan Rather, who while mainstream can get the awkward questions in, has said "We [journalists] have sold out [to the Whitehouse]."

lili

poptart,
each one has his beliefs, i'm not sure that the remove of a dictatorial regim is the real reason of this irak invasion by the coalition.
and by the way i'm not sure either that the iraqis are reconizing to US to have import terrorism in their country.

about the ww2, american intervention was more (in my opinion) an act to stop the russian advance than stop a hungry dictator. otherwise they would entered in this war long time ago instead to wait a hitler war claim to decide finally to engage military actions.

Victor

Originally posted by PopTart
When Europe being ruled by dictators such as Mousilini and Hitler America was the country that came to help restore democracy in Italy,Germany,Austria,France etc.
What is so different this time? Sadam Hussein is a brutal dictator just like Hitler and Mousilini....

The difference is Saddam was contained (look at how quickly the country collapsed during the invasion). Yes take out the dictators, but do it to all of them, not just the ones that aren't convenient to have around.

chill

Originally posted by Victor
The difference is Saddam was contained (look at how quickly the country collapsed during the invasion).

You must be joking.

Yes take out the dictators, but do it to all of them, not just the ones that aren't convenient to have around.

That's a daft suggestion. Maybe the Police should avoid arresting any specific criminal gan member until they can arrest all of them in one go... ? daft !
Let's take them out as opportunity arises.

Personally I believe we should go back to assassination and special forces to avoid large scale conflict. The US, UK and France should have got together and taken Saddam out a long time ago with special forces. Same for many of his ilk.

.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Personally I believe we should go back to assassination and special forces to avoid large scale conflict.

To do so would also legitimise the use of such actions by other governments against leaders that they felt would be beneficial or convenient to have out of the day.

"...lest ye become a monster yourself" and all that.

On something related you mentioned in another thread, I do agree that Europe is hardly the role-model to ascribe to.

However, you seem to continuously take the binary approach - there's only a and b. We live in a dynamic world, and the whole point of public opinion and pressure in the free world is to enable us to try and guide the world towards what we see as a better tomorrow.

Yes, military intervention is sometimes necessary, but that does not mean that the intervention should be unquestioned - either in its necessity nor in its execution. You glibly dismiss every allegation against recent decisions and operations by the US government as being false, pro-evil (in whatever guise you wish to cloak it in - oppression, Saddam, etc) or just plain anti-Americanism, but the simple fact is that many people feel that this is still the wrong way.

Accepting all of the imperfections of what we have dooms us to being incapable of bettering any of them, save by accident.

While you are perfectly justified in saying that the US are the best game in town right now (note : justified does not equate to absolute correctness), it is also unquestionable that they could do better.

Just as you, or the US, would draw the line somewhere at what is, and is not, Good Enough to be permissable, so to have people the right to look at every single player and say the same.

You insist that they are wrong. They insist the US are wrong. Each of you are convinced in your absolute correctness. And you know what....that the thing that many wars are built of...absolutism...extremism...the ultimate belief that "I am completely right and you are completely wrong".

jc

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
To do so would also legitimise the use of such actions by other governments against leaders that they felt would be beneficial or convenient to have out of the day.

Implying that other governments, and by that you imply I believe "illegitimate" governments ? are seeking such legitimacy and that they are reluctant to carry out such actions because of that perceived lack of legitimacy. I don't buy that myself. It's not a judgement I jump to. I supported the Executive Order in the US that banned such assassinations. But I myself believe that things have fundamentally changed since the arrival of global unbounded terrorism with the potential for using WMD and I consider the Twin Towers as an act of WMD in this context.

"...lest ye become a monster yourself" and all that.

While I generally subscribe to those kinds of sentiments, I believe that when a democratic society is seriously in danger, or seriously threatened by an enemy that it out to destroy it then it must do whatever it takes to stop that enemy. War is itself a monstrous act, but war is necessary sometimes even for a democratic nation if it is to protect it's self or it's vital interests.

However, you seem to continuously take the binary approach - there's only a and b. We live in a dynamic world, and the whole point of public opinion and pressure in the free world is to enable us to try and guide the world towards what we see as a better tomorrow.

Not sure I really get what you're getting at here...

Yes, military intervention is sometimes necessary, but that does not mean that the intervention should be unquestioned - either in its necessity nor in its execution. You glibly dismiss every allegation against recent decisions and operations by the US government as being false, pro-evil (in whatever guise you wish to cloak it in - oppression, Saddam, etc) or just plain anti-Americanism, but the simple fact is that many people feel that this is still the wrong way.

Firstly I agree with you, there is a sizable proportin of people that share your view. I do not question their right to question. I do condemn what I and many others see as a vitriolic campaign against the war not borne out of having an alternative course of action, not out of having anything constructive to say about how to free the 25 million people from that brutal regime. No, their campaign was solely centered on a blind opposition to a combination of "war in principle" and "anything Bush wants to do" and "their reasons were wrong". They showed no compassion for the people of Iraq or their fate. They were happy to comdemn those people to further brutality to satisfy their personal 'precious' sensetivities and their vendetta agains Bush - a politician I have NO time for.

I do not agree with your characterisation of my contributions. I have always been open to accepting the errors made by the US during their execution of this and other wars. I accept that mistakes have been made. But that is never what is being claimed by those on this board that take the opposite view.
Those contributions focus solely and exclusively on American errors, mistakes and wrong doing to the total exclusion of the clearly disproportionate evil of the forces against which they are fighting. That is not a justification of America's wrong doing, it is a simple statement that such miopic attacks on one side of the position is transparently biased. I never read a sigle post here on these boards about the attrocities of Saddam. I never read any contributions detailing and attacking the litany of outrages of his regime over a period of 20 years. I never read any comment on some of the barbaric deaths he iposed on some of his victims such as that witnessed by one wife of a comdemned man who was she said fed in to a crushing/mincing machine feet first. - And no I ain't goingt o offer a stupid 'link' to that - I watched her as she told the story on the BBC and French television and I myself believe it to be true.
All of these things as well as the fact that the UN itself and it's inspectors repeatedly claimed he had WMD are ignored for the single purpose of attacking the US and it's allies choice to invade.
The imbalance is palpable.

While you are perfectly justified in saying that the US are the best game in town right now (note : justified does not equate to absolute correctness), it is also unquestionable that they could do better.

Yes I have agreed with that. I have agreed that this crisis is also "partly" of their own making.

Just as you, or the US, would draw the line somewhere at what is, and is not, Good Enough to be permissable, so to have people the right to look at every single player and say the same.

Yes but actions cannot be looked at in isolation. Actions have consequences and just as there are and were actions of the US that had and could have been predicted would have, horrible consequences - those actions by the anti war campaigners also would have had consequences. Consequences that would have condemned the Iraqi people to many more years of unacceptable brutality. Those consequences cannot be shirked simply ebcause they had the "right" to campaign for their views.

You insist that they are wrong. They insist the US are wrong. Each of you are convinced in your absolute correctness. And you know what....that the thing that many wars are built of...absolutism...extremism...the ultimate belief that "I am completely right and you are completely wrong".

An interesting point because the words make sense - but the argument does not.

All poodles are dogs therefore all dogs are poodles ? No.

There is nothing "absolute" about my belief that on the balance of the evidence I know of, Bush and Blair were right to invade Iraq both for the reasons they gave and even if they were wrong, for the sake of the Iraqi people - I'm happy either way. Same applies to most of those who disagree with me. They mostly do see the good side of the outcome but they cannot get past their miopic obsession with America to allow themselves to accept a fair balancing of good against wrongs.
The only sign of the absoluteness you speak of is in the actions of the ultra right wing of the US administration who wish to drive patriotism toward nationalism, who push through the Patriot Act and tried to push through citizen spying schemes as well as silencing opposition to their policies.


.

chill

Originally posted by daveirl
So who decides who lives and dies? Should Robert Mugabe be assasinated?

Let me ask you a question in response. How long should he be allowed to continue to be responsible for thousands of deaths among his own people and quite possibly millions if there is a famine - which is looking likely ?

At what point is enough enough ? Or do you hold the believe that he has some kind of inalienable right to do whatever he wishes with human life ? while the rest of humanity sitsback and watches ....

gom

Originally posted by Wompa1
In my world Iraq isn't a free society as yet because Sadam is still alive and people still fear him....when Sadam is dead, then Iraq can start to become a free society

Well wompa, in my opinion America isn't a free society as it is run by a brutless tyrant(some tyrants are elected... just look to Hitler, and oh yes.. BUSH). Americans' views are shaped by Bush Propaganda. As highlighted by the many many teres of US scoiety. Fox News is one of the worst but the news papers are even worse as people use teh phrase:

"Don't believe everything u see on tv"

Americans therefore belief anything in print as the word of god(the protector of america- the free world)

Americans have been brainwashed into submission

Lets Free America from itself

Up EuropeFirsters!!

Havelock

Political assassination and State sanctioned murders, make the giver of the order a legitamit target for it. There is a "rule" that you don't do it, so no one does it to you.
America, has broken that act before, and will do so again, but so have many nations.

On the threads orginail topic, Fox was put in a bad light by the play, so It returned the favour. Freedom of speech works both ways.

bus77

America has always had trouble compiling a list a credible countries that are suportive of the war.
So I paid paticular attention to how Fox listed them in this
report,

Countries that contributed troops and supported the effort -- such as Italy,Africa , Micronesia, Spain, Japan, Rwanda and Afghanistan -- will be able to bid on prime contracts.

Wow , getting Africa's support is great, pity it's a conitinent rather than a country.

I dunno maybe its just really bad journalism :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Wompa1

Gom, the whole of Europe watches American Television!, Ever listen to Ryan Turbberdy in the morning...its a rip off of pretty much every american morning radio show
That old show that Colin Murphy did for a few weeks that was so **** I've forgotten the name of it was a rip off The Daily Show with John Stewart

Americans have a hell of alot more choice and freedom of opinion than we do
Do some reseach and find out how many Liberal News shows and radio shows are in America...Theres alot, The American people chose to listen to the Republicans because Liberal have lost their heads up their @sses
Look @ that idiot Micheal Moore...He said if he was president he'd charge rich people 80% tax! and lower poor peoples taxes so that everyone is equal...Thats Communism!..so they can pick communists or realists

I have to admit, I am not Bushes biggest fan either but I do beleive the war is justified
I even talked to a friend of my fathers when the war first started, a guy who was held prisoner in Iraq for 90 days during the original Gulf war about his opinions and he said its about time...Hussein made foreigners give blood samples weekly, his sons raped and killed innocent women.

I support the American Army, I think its lousy that the Canadians were not allowed to have construction contracts because they sacrificed for the cause. I think thats it

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
You never answered the question?

That would be cause he got banned, I'm guessing.

Who decides who gets assasinated?

WEll, clearly anyone the good guys choose to assassinate is a fair target, and anyone the bad guys choose to assassinate is an unacceptable victim

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wompa1
[BThe American people chose to listen to the Republicans because Liberal have lost their heads up their @sses[/b]

<and in another thread....>

Clinton was a disgrace as president, if anything he spent too much time worrying about trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and The Middle East...

So, the Liberals have their heads up their arses, the Democrats elect disgraceful Presidents (who waste their time trying to bring peace to regions as opposed to fighting wars in them), and everyone chooses to listen to Republicans.

Look @ that idiot Micheal Moore...He said if he was president he'd charge rich people 80% tax! and lower poor peoples taxes so that everyone is equal...Thats Communism!..so they can pick communists or realists

Err.....so anyone who isn't preaching communism is a realist? But that would include those head-up-their-asses Liberals as well. How can they be realists and head-up-ass types?

Wouldn't be showing just a trace of your own party allegiance/affiliation with these comments by any chance, because your basic argument seems to boil down to "the Republicans are right, and everyone else is wrong, and thats just the way it is".

jc

Wompa1

Glass stomachs

Wompa1

No, I thought Bush should have signed The Kioto agreement, I don't think he should have gone through the trouble of drafting a second U.N resolution,I think his regime is a bit cocky and that Republicans tend to be too politically correct on some issues
And having said that I've been following the campaign trail over the past few months and it seems to me that the liberal candidates seem to be more concerned with criticising Bushes actions than competing with one another for the position. The Democratic and Anti-war protestors have shown no class. Every chance they get/got to personally attack bush be it with burning effigys or just name calling they took it...which made watching Bushes speechs unbearable...his reaction to all the protests and slander was the same each time "I can respect the opinions of Peace loving people and countries"....ever since 911 he's been careful not to show raw emotion incase its miss-interpretated by Muslims..like last night during his announcement you could tell he was fighting back a smile, I kind of wish everything wasn't so reversed

spanner

Originally posted by lili
i can't see fox news but have seen some extraits in a french reportage.
quite amazing:eek:
that's what i call a journalism of investigation! seems their first source comes from the pentagone and to counterpoint it they use the white house informations:p

it should be on a comedy channel its that funny. they talk complete and utter nonsense, the best news channel i think is the BBC

Wompa1

As much as people slate Fox News on this, BBC is even worse, I was watching the news yesterday, first it had the bombing in Baghdad and it was all basically trying to paint America as the evil and if that Iraq is worse now then before they entered?...Then they had the anniversary of The Wright Brothers Flight and slanted that against America for turning planes into Weapons!!!!.....If that isn't Bias, then what is....or maybe when Bush came here months ago, Network 2 Sharon Ní Bhoilann with her snide comments every 5 mins...everyone know President Bush is early to bed and early to rise so I'm sure his lantern isn't buring much oil in his hotel room..??

RicardoSmith

All reporting is bias. Whats surprising about that?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by Wompa1
As much as people slate Fox News on this, BBC is even worse, I was watching the news yesterday, first it had the bombing in Baghdad and it was all basically trying to paint America as the evil and if that Iraq is worse now then before they entered?

That might be because it is worse than before they entered.

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
Actually on percentages in the run up to the war the BBC was the most biased channel towards the pro war movement - http://pilger.carlton.com/print

It of course being the "official" British broadcaster, "listener" to foreigner radio stations and state propagandist has never been doubted.

Hmm, I wonder is GCHQ (British version of the NSA) in part subsidised by the TV licence.

Wompa1

yeah I guess it was better....you know when the 200 Mass graves weren't uncovered and Uday and Qusay Hussein raped and killed innocent Women.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.