FOX shows boths sides, not

biko

Just a vid I stumbled upon and wanted to share. I may not be a communist myself but sometimes these righties take things way to far...
Does anyone here get FOX? Is it this bad _all_ time or they they actually have an ounce of professionalism? Pardon the background music but there you go => http://www.ownagevideos.com/page.php?id=523

billy the squid

yer one with the glasses is behind the World Can't Wait organisation.

and you only have to take a look at some of the ****e Bill O'Reily spouts to see how unprofessional FOX actually is.

Hobbes

Fox News is the only news station that I know that sued two of its reporters for not lying about a story and won.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

Also have a wander over to Mediamatters.org , they have tons of similar videos.

Zebra3

I was watching Fox one day and they were, ahem, "interviewing" some bloke out of the American army about the occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq and they just let him rant on uninterrupted for about five minutes. Then the "interviewer" said thanks and turned to the camera and said "We got to get in their and get the bad guys".

I mean wtf????!!!

magick

From our HeadQuarters in New York,
Spinning out of contorl
Coming to you at the speed of Lies,
The No1 News Network America distrusts
FOX NEWS!
Fair.................and biased

Vic Mackey

Fox news is legendary! its so totally biased and pro bush but when anyone levels this claim at them their told fox news is fair and unbiased!

i always watch the o reily factor for a good laugh!

The_Minister

They described Europe as intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Come on ...........intellectualy!

The_Minister

I love the O'reilly factor. Did you see the e-mail from "Billy" who was being bullied:D
They are biased but so are all media. They only seem bad because most media are liberal and they are conservative.

Nuttzz

are they supposed to show both sides? where is the law that says media must be balanced? I t would be great if the media was balanced but everything from an phoblacht and indymedia to fox and the telegraph have their agendas....

Hobbes

UK law you have to show balanced media, well at least when it comes to politics. Thats how they were able to censor Galloway on CBB.

US libel laws are very very lax, so you can spout pretty much any kind of crap as long as you don't do it through malice (victim has to prove malice).

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

where is the law that says media must be balanced?

I think the main thing that pisses people off about FOX News so much is that they make such a big deal about being "Fair & Balanced". Its their slogan, they constantly go on about it and they are always attack other news organisations for being unfair and biased in their reporting.

The funny thing is, they probably do believe they are being fair and balanced because they believe that all other news media is biased towards the leftwing/liberals agenda and hostle towards the right wing (not realising that news should be hostle to all forms of government, or it isn't doing its job). So they feel they are the only ones that are giving the Republicans and Bush a fair view hearing

Of course thats nuts, but people always think they are being fair to their side when everyone else is being unfair.

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

(not realising that news should be hostle to all forms of government, or it isn't doing its job). .

Why? Can't a government do a good job. (Rare but it happens)

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

Why? Can't a government do a good job. (Rare but it happens)

It is not the responsibility of the news media to tell the population the government is doing a good job. For a start "good job" is a relative concept. The news should not like or prefare any government or political party or organisation. It should probe and be critical of all forms of public organsiations.

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

It is not the responsibility of the news media to tell the population the government is doing a good job. For a start "good job" is a relative concept. The news should not like or prefare any government or political party or organisation. It should probe and be critical of all forms of public organsiations.

But they never do that and cannot do that. Even how they phrase a sentence affects what people see. They except some "dubious" behaviour as valid eg.homosexuality which cuts off a section of society who then create Fox News's. Then people offended by this set up The Village's. Then the first unbiased media crumbles. All you can get are medias near the centre like The Irish Times

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

But they never do that and cannot do that. Even how they phrase a sentence affects what people see.

I didn't say it doesn't.

Firespinner wrote:

They except some "dubious" behaviour as valid eg.homosexuality which cuts off a section of society who then create Fox News's.

Who do? How?

Nuttzz

Wicknight wrote:

I think the main thing that pisses people off about FOX News so much is that they make such a big deal about being "Fair & Balanced". Its their slogan, they constantly go on about it and they are always attack other news organisations for being unfair and biased in their reporting.

The funny thing is, they probably do believe they are being fair and balanced because they believe that all other news media is biased towards the leftwing/liberals agenda and hostle towards the right wing (not realising that news should be hostle to all forms of government, or it isn't doing its job). So they feel they are the only ones that are giving the Republicans and Bush a fair view hearing

Of course thats nuts, but people always think they are being fair to their side when everyone else is being unfair.

Indymedia say that:

The Independent Media Centre Network is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth

but i dont believe that either......

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

Indymedia say that:

The Independent Media Centre Network is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth

but i dont believe that either......

Don't worry, Indymedia pisses of its fair share of people ...

Hobbes

IndyMedia, Fox News, Pravda. Different agendas, none balanced.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

IndyMedia, Fox News, Pravda. Different agendas, none balanced.

correct so it is unreasonable to start moaning that they are not...(not you hobbes, the OP)

bonkey

Nuttzz wrote:

correct so it is unreasonable to start moaning that they are not...(not you hobbes, the OP)

Why not? If it were true to say "everyone breaks the law at some point", does this mean that its unreasonable to start complaining about people who break the law?

There are degrees of honesty and bias. There is a distinction between deliberately spreading propaganda and merely not being entirely balanced and fair in a report.

Wicknight wrote:

It is not the responsibility of the news media to tell the population the government is doing a good job. For a start "good job" is a relative concept. The news should not like or prefare any government or political party or organisation. It should probe and be critical of all forms of public organsiations.

Two points on this:

1) If "good job" is a relative concept and thus unacceptable, so is "bad job". Thus, the media are as equally (un)suited to say the government are doing something wrong as they are to say it is doing something right.

2) Its the media's job to be critical, yes. However, lets not forget that there is such a thing as positive and/or constructive criticism.

At the end of the day, anyone who trusts a single source (or a single flavour of sources) for their information will be inevitably somewhat mis- and under-informed. The only people who are seriously misled by Fox are those who choose to be - those who (for lack of a better description) choose the news source that fits with their pre-established beliefs, rather than those who look for sources to become informed.

I'm amazed this issue is rearing its head (again) though. I would have thought a far more interesting media-related topic would be that of Wikipedia banning the IPs of the House of Congress this week because of the amount of dirty-tricks editing that was going on from there (defaming opponents, removing "unawnted" history from bios, etc.) was just staggering.

As someone said...its a sad day when a public institution has to protect itself from vandalism carried out by the government.

jc

Nuttzz

bonkey wrote:

Why not? If it were true to say "everyone breaks the law at some point", does this mean that its unreasonable to start complaining about people who break the law?

There are degrees of honesty and bias. There is a distinction between deliberately spreading propaganda and merely not being entirely balanced and fair in a report.

ok, what i am trying to say is that the OP is kidding themsleves if they think Fox doesnt lean a certain way and expects them to support/develop/evenly report an agenda the owners/editors dont agree with, like wise if I started to bitch about Indymedia leaning a certain way and not showing balance I'd be kidding myself.

ISAW

Nuttzz wrote:

are they supposed to show both sides?

Yes they are! Especially when they have a motto of "the truth in the news" and claim to be "fair and balanced".

Try watching this: http://www.outfoxed.org/
and tell me if you think they are fair or balanced.

where is the law that says media must be balanced?

You have already been shown the UK law. In Ireland ther is also the Mc Kenna judgement.

It would be great if the media was balanced but everything from an phoblacht and indymedia to fox and the telegraph have their agendas....

There is a difference between having a political line and cutting off the mike of your detractors, telling people persistently to shutup (and later denying that) or claiming someone you did not like on your show - and who showed you up after YOU brought their mother and father into the debate - claiming lies about them like that they said George Bush planned 9/11. That is NOT an agenda that is plainly lying and stifling debate and free speech. the US had this sort of thing before. The Salem Witch Trials was one manifestation of them. Lynch mobs were another.

Nuttzz

its a motto ffs!

UK law? so what, Fox is american...

indymedia has never removed stories from its detractors?

I dont think fox is balanced, i have already said that, what i am saying is that people are kidding themselves if they expect then to be balanced......

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

indymedia has never removed stories from its detractors?

Maybe I missed a post, but who here is putting up Indymedia as an example of a fair and unbiased news source? In my view Indymedia is a far worse news source than an organsiation like FOX News

ISAW

Nuttzz wrote:

its a motto ffs!

UK law? so what, Fox is american...

THAT was NOT the point you made. You did not mention US law but there have been cases there as well.
If you think only US law applies to Fox then you are displaying some ignorance.
Maybe you have been watching to much fox news? You seem to be of the mindset who think that Al Jazera should answer to everyone else but Fox only to the people currently controling the Us administration.

indymedia has never removed stories from its detractors?

So what? even if true two wrongs do not make a right! You cant claim Fox is "fair and balanced" by showing that others are not.

I dont think fox is balanced, i have already said that, what i am saying is that people are kidding themselves if they expect then to be balanced......

Theat is NOT the point! The point is that fox CLAIM to be "fair and balanced"

Also surveys shown on OUTFOXED show how people who view Fox news believe the fox message to a much greater degree than others who watch ABC or CBS news for example.

Do a search in the following on "some people say"

http://www.outfoxed.org/docs/outfoxed_transcript.pdf

Simple questions like did al Khyda have anything to do with Iraq or Saddam hussain having WMD and supporting terror are actually believed by ~Fax viewers.

Look at from 49:05 on

particularly the questions after 49:27

You can NOT even compare Fox to other news channels as you claim. These results prove that!

ShayHT

Comparing Fox to Indymedia is ridulous.

Fox is owned and run by a multibillion dollar empire, Fox is a corporation. Fox is a piece of ****.

Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage.

Nuttzz

ISAW wrote:

Maybe you have been watching to much fox news?

see very little of fox, bar the jennifer lopez "blowjob" gaff that went arond the net, bbc world 24 for me...

ISAW wrote:

You seem to be of the mindset who think that Al Jazera should answer to everyone else but Fox only to the people currently controling the Us administration.

never mentioned Al Jazera, I think that Al J is its own way brings balance to the debate

ISAW wrote:

You cant claim Fox is "fair and balanced" by showing that others are not.

you're right but i have never claimed that fox was fair or balanced i have said they are not and that the OP was kidding himself to expect fox to be fair and balanced considering its repuation

ISAW wrote:

Theat is NOT the point! The point is that fox CLAIM to be "fair and balanced"

so my friend claims to be the worlds greatest lover, that doesnt automatically make him so

ISAW wrote:

Also surveys shown on OUTFOXED show how people who view Fox news believe the fox message to a much greater degree than others who watch ABC or CBS news for example.

does that show that fox is much better at getting its message across or does it say something about the people who watch fox? or both or something else

ISAW wrote:

You can NOT even compare Fox to other news channels as you claim. These results prove that!

where did i claim that?

Comparing Fox to Indymedia is ridulous.

i was using indymedia as something on the other end of the scale to fox

Fox is owned and run by a multibillion dollar empire, Fox is a corporation. Fox is a piece of ****.

quite true

Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage.

thats what they like to believe, but this story here is just a lift from the corporate media, they done this plenty of times... or the get us off dentention comrades stories like this one http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73840 :rolleyes: :eek:

Suff

Nuttzz wrote:

never mentioned Al Jazera, I think that Al J is its own way brings balance to the debate

I agree, I do read AL JAZEERA online news everyday... they do have their way but i must say they seem to cover a wider view on some of the world's issues/stories and do show good arguments from both sides.
Check them out:

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

ISAW

Nuttzz wrote:

see very little of fox, bar the jennifer lopez "blowjob" gaff that went arond the net, bbc world 24 for me...

You cant be watchi9ng it 24 hours a day though

never mentioned Al Jazera, I think that Al J is its own way brings balance to the debate

for me "balance" does not mean having two mutually exculsive sides and each always opposing the other. the are many shades of grey and antagonists may agree on some points. the important thing is not to confuse fact with opinion and to show people where they can go to find things out. Fox continually distort this with the use of phrases like "you know what?..." and "sompeople say..." as if the following phrase is a fact!

you're right but i have never claimed that fox was fair or balanced i have said they are not and that the OP was kidding himself to expect fox to be fair and balanced considering its repuation

If I accused you of making a claim you didnt then I withdraw the accusation. My main interest in this is in the thread title and contributing to the debate as to whether Fox News is "fair and balanced" and what good standards should be.

so my friend claims to be the worlds greatest lover, that doesnt automatically make him so

But your friend does not continually broadcast this message to hundreds of millions of people and support it with the opinion of a variety of "experts". Making claims that are not true even if you believe them to be is acceptable. Putting those claims out to the public and insisting they must be true to a degree which causes the death of others is not acceptable.

does that show that fox is much better at getting its message across or does it say something about the people who watch fox? or both or something else

Good questions. The Fox news message is the Bush line. Bush supporters watch Fox to a higher degree. But continual exposure to propaganda affects anybody. People who watch fox also tend to be loyal to it and not switch to other channels for other opinions. and dont forget it IS opinion and not fact most of the time.

i was using indymedia as something on the other end of the scale to fox

Indymedia is a different setup and not claiming to be a news feed like AP. Don't forget Fox made the call on the Presidential election without convincing evidence. NBC CBS and ABC all fell into line behind Fox which shows that propaganda works even on media people.

billy the squid

Firespinner wrote:

They described Europe as intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Come on ...........intellectualy!

and the US, the hub of capitalism, is um financially bancrupt, 8 trillion dollars in debt.

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

Good questions. The Fox news message is the Bush line. Bush supporters watch Fox to a higher degree. But continual exposure to propaganda affects anybody. People who watch fox also tend to be loyal to it and not switch to other channels for other opinions. and dont forget it IS opinion and not fact most of the time.

That is a rather petty way to right off other viewpoints. They do tend to support bush but have also disagreed with him on several occasions. They have the same viewpoint in many ways but they don't follow him like some mutt.

Sand

Actually, according to a survery carried out in September 2004 (the article links to the institute that carries it out - look for the June 8th 2004 dataset), Fox News is only trusted by 29% of declared Republicans whereas it is trusted by 26% of declared Democrats. That makes it the *most* trusted Republican TV news source and the *least* trusted Democrat TV news source. The painting of Fox viewers as slack jawed yokels hanging on every word is just that - a caricature. If anything, Bush voters are far less trusting of media than say, Kerry voters are.

As for Outfoxed? Sorry, was it supposed to come up with different answers to Fox=teh evil?

cousin_borat

couldnt sleep last night and ended up watching TV. Debate on Fox News re the Democrats chances in Texas in the next election, at 3AM in the morning!! This wasnt a repeat either, very funny

The_Minister

cousin_borat wrote:

couldnt sleep last night and ended up watching TV. Debate on Fox News re the Democrats chances in Texas in the next election, at 3AM in the morning!! This wasnt a repeat either, very funny

I doubt it was 3AM in America

lili

cousin_borat wrote:

couldnt sleep last night and ended up watching TV. Debate on Fox News re the Democrats chances in Texas in the next election, at 3AM in the morning!! This wasnt a repeat either, very funny

and what are the democrats chances in texas?
don't answer, i was just jokking:)

The_Minister

zuma

You do realise that the Fox News we watch on channel 5XX is the exact same as the US version but we dont have to watch their adds, hence the weather!

3AM here would be 22:00 in New York and 19:00 in LA.....prime viewing time and probable the most "serious" time of the day at Fox News.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

That is a rather petty way to right off other viewpoints. They do tend to support bush but have also disagreed with him on several occasions. They have the same viewpoint in many ways but they don't follow him like some mutt.

Really? Care to list five occasions when they disagreed with Bush? Now Fox are on 24 hours a day for several years so it shouldn't be difficult to find FIVE direct contradictions of Bush policy. Should it? actually if you can I will compile a "Fox - top ten disagreements with Bush policy from it". I don't believe you will get to five though.

One exception. Fox suggesting even more extreme measures than Bush when everyone else is calling for the opposite does NOT constitute disagreement with Bush.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Actually, according to a survery carried out in September 2004 (the article links to the institute that carries it out - look for the June 8th 2004 dataset), Fox News is only trusted by 29% of declared Republicans whereas it is trusted by 26% of declared Democrats. That makes it the *most* trusted Republican TV news source and the *least* trusted Democrat TV news source.

Your source does NOT say that it says:
Those figures make it the most trusted news source for Republicans - but among the least trusted by Democrats.

The painting of Fox viewers as slack jawed yokels hanging on every word is just that - a caricature. If anything, Bush voters are far less trusting of media than say, Kerry voters are.

I didnt paint them as that. I showed they were more loyal to a single source of news. Your refreence to the Pew Research supportsmy contention.

As for Outfoxed? Sorry, was it supposed to come up with different answers to Fox=teh evil?

I dont understand what you mean. If you mean did Outfoxed make this point too htey did. They did it not based on opinion but on objective independent research. I posted the place where the source is. If you want to suggest the research is in error then please show where. If you dont then that research and the Pew research you provided shows Fox viewers are more suseptable to propaganda since they claim not to trust news but trust Fox more than anyone else and Democrat viewers view a broader list of sources.

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

Really? Care to list five occasions when they disagreed with Bush? Now Fox are on 24 hours a day for several years so it shouldn't be difficult to find FIVE direct contradictions of Bush policy. Should it? actually if you can I will compile a "Fox - top ten disagreements with Bush policy from it". I don't believe you will get to five though.

Bill O'Reilly repeatedly lambasted Donald Rumsfeld.

ISAW wrote:

One exception. Fox suggesting even more extreme measures than Bush when everyone else is calling for the opposite does NOT constitute disagreement with Bush.

Yes it quite clearly does.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

Bill O'Reilly repeatedly lambasted Donald Rumsfeld.

Really? About what and when? references please

Yes it quite clearly does.

Being more extreme than the Bush line when everone else is against the line does not constitute opposition. It is a bit like saying you oppose rubber bullets because you want them replaced by lead bullets. Quite clearly you can distort this into a claim that you opposed rubber bullets. But the underlying context is that people don;t want other people harmed. THe replacement of rubber with lead bullets create an even worse situation. Calling for Bush to be even more extreme is not the same as opposing what he does and asking him to desist.

Now where are those examples of where Fox OPPOSED Bush policies.

Another exception - do not include the occasional token opposition that Fox sometimes bring on as representative of "the opposition" as being a Fox news line.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

Bill O'Reilly ...

Is this "fair and balanced" free speech O reilly who wants everyone else he doesnt agree with to "shut up".

http://www.slate.com/id/2087706/?0si=-


He is so "fair and balanced" (let us not forget how we came into this - I asked you to show examples of Fox criticisms of the Bush line as part of a general claim to "fair and balanced") that he even said on his show that he probably only once told anyone to "shut up".

I can't believe you can show the O Reilly Factor is anything but pro the Bush line, or indeed more extreme like the neo-cons libraterians who have disbanded in order to take over the GOP.

ISAW

Originally Posted by ISAW
One exception. Fox suggesting even more extreme measures than Bush when everyone else is calling for the opposite does NOT constitute disagreement with Bush.

Firespinner wrote:

Bill O'Reilly repeatedly lambasted Donald Rumsfeld.
...
Yes it quite clearly does.

Which is why I closed that door before you tried the trick of opening it by making it an EXCEPTION to what I asked.

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

Being more extreme than the Bush line when everone else is against the line does not constitute opposition .

Of course it does! That is complete rubbish! Bush is not at the top of any extremist scale. Therefore more extreme views than his still count! Besides not everyone is against the line. Some US citizens think he is soft.

ISAW wrote:

Really? About what and when? references please.

The what is easy. He was giving out about the war in Iraq.


I am having difficulty finding specific examples so could anyone tell me where i could get transcripts of the show?
I know that they do deviate from Bush as i sit up straight whenever they do it.

*Gaijin*

speaking of fox news lines...


>>>"After 3 seasons, FOX producers are considering their options for the Paris >>>Hilton reality vehicle 'The Simple Life'. The TV show, which stars Paris >>>Hilton, heiress to the Hilton Hotels fortune, and Kimberly Stewart, >>>daughter of rock star Rod Stewart, was due to start filming for its 4th >>>season early this year. Stewart was brought into the show at the end of >>>the 3rd season, following the well publicised bust-up between long-time >>>pals Hilton and Nicole Richie, daughter of music legend Lionel.
>>>As part of a deal with Hilton's Hotel Group, the 2006 series was due to >>>start filming in Dublin, Ireland, where a new Hilton Hotel opened last year. >>>Paris and Kimberly were to be hired as housekeeping staff and sent to live >>>in an average Irish home near the hotel.
>>>>>>However, the deal seems to have struck a rock in the form of Ireland's >>>Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, who is refusing to issue visas >>>to the pair. A spokesperson for McDowell, who is no stranger to >>>controversy in Ireland, stated that visas for persons wishing to be >>>employed in the hotel industry "would not be issued under any >>>circumstance, as there are many Irish and European citizens available for >>>those jobs", but refused to comment on the specific case.
>>>The shows producers are now looking at other scenarios and locations for the 2006 series"

The_Minister

*Gaijin* wrote:

speaking of fox news lines...


>>>"After 3 seasons, FOX producers are considering their options for the Paris >>>Hilton reality vehicle 'The Simple Life'. The TV show, which stars Paris >>>Hilton, heiress to the Hilton Hotels fortune, and Kimberly Stewart, >>>daughter of rock star Rod Stewart, was due to start filming for its 4th >>>season early this year. Stewart was brought into the show at the end of >>>the 3rd season, following the well publicised bust-up between long-time >>>pals Hilton and Nicole Richie, daughter of music legend Lionel.
>>>As part of a deal with Hilton's Hotel Group, the 2006 series was due to >>>start filming in Dublin, Ireland, where a new Hilton Hotel opened last year. >>>Paris and Kimberly were to be hired as housekeeping staff and sent to live >>>in an average Irish home near the hotel.
>>>>>>However, the deal seems to have struck a rock in the form of Ireland's >>>Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, who is refusing to issue visas >>>to the pair. A spokesperson for McDowell, who is no stranger to >>>controversy in Ireland, stated that visas for persons wishing to be >>>employed in the hotel industry "would not be issued under any >>>circumstance, as there are many Irish and European citizens available for >>>those jobs", but refused to comment on the specific case.
>>>The shows producers are now looking at other scenarios and locations for the 2006 series"

Good riddence to that pair.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

Of course it does! That is complete rubbish! Bush is not at the top of any extremist scale. Therefore more extreme views than his still count! Besides not everyone is against the line. Some US citizens think he is soft.

It doesn't! But I don't mind discussing that. As long as you admit it is seperate to the original question about Fox criticising Bush since I asked you to give examples EXCEPT when they called for more extreme measures.

The what is easy. He was giving out about the war in Iraq.

Where with the above exception does O reilly criticisr Bush policy?

I am having difficulty finding specific examples so could anyone tell me where i could get transcripts of the show?

So
1. You can't support your own claims. You are so sure they are true but you havent gone back to look BEFORE you made the claim. This is actually a good thing since you now are prepared to go and look for evidence rather than accept the proaganda line.

2. You want others to do your research for you. This is NOT good since YOU made the claim. Fair enough if you want to withdraw the claim and then go looking or ask someone to look but like Fox News YOU made a statement as if it was fact and it was just your opinion! That is exactly what I suggested they do!

As for references I have given in this thread the link to outfoxed. In the linked transcript are the seperate objective sources. You can go and xheck out these sources yourself. Furthermore you will be aware that Outfoxed used Fox itself as their primary material. They taped six months or so of Fox so the claims they make are backed up by Fox footage. Including the LIES O Reilly told such as claiming that he only once told people to "shut up".

I know that they do deviate from Bush as i sit up straight whenever they do it.

But you can't provide ANY evidence to this? Why don't you keep a notebook and note the show time and date and list how they opposed Bush and who did it. Outfoxed does indeed show where people departed from the Bush line (see the transcript I referenced or watch the DVD - you can get it in the library if you are not prepared to spend $10). Those "experts" in spite of being regulars before that and on contract for another year of so were quickly dropped from commentary!

cousin_borat

Firespinner wrote:

I doubt it was 3AM in America

I live in America.

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

It doesn't! But I don't mind discussing that. As long as you admit it is seperate to the original question about Fox criticising Bush since I asked you to give examples EXCEPT when they called for more extreme measures.!

If they criticise he for being weak and holding back than it is criticism.

ISAW wrote:

Where with the above exception does O reilly criticisr Bush policy?!

He gave out about how it was handled (organisation ie guns and armour for soldiers.)

ISAW wrote:

So
1. You can't support your own claims. You are so sure they are true but you havent gone back to look BEFORE you made the claim. This is actually a good thing since you now are prepared to go and look for evidence rather than accept the proaganda line.!

I know that i'm right i heard him say it, i just can't remember the dates or how to find the verbatim quotes. I will try and find them though. Remember im not saying fox is unbiased im saying that they do depart from bush policy.

ISAW wrote:

2. You want others to do your research for you. This is NOT good since YOU made the claim. Fair enough if you want to withdraw the claim and then go looking or ask someone to look but like Fox News YOU made a statement as if it was fact and it was just your opinion! That is exactly what I suggested they do!!

I asked if anyone knew where i could find transcripts as i need them for proof. Thats different then asking them to trawl through it.

ISAW wrote:

As for references I have given in this thread the link to outfoxed. In the linked transcript are the seperate objective sources. You can go and xheck out these sources yourself. Furthermore you will be aware that Outfoxed used Fox itself as their primary material. They taped six months or so of Fox so the claims they make are backed up by Fox footage. Including the LIES O Reilly told such as claiming that he only once told people to "shut up".!

I know he is biased and while he has never done it while i was watching im sure he has done that.

ISAW wrote:

But you can't provide ANY evidence to this? Why don't you keep a notebook and note the show time and date and list how they opposed Bush and who did it. Outfoxed does indeed show where people departed from the Bush line (see the transcript I referenced or watch the DVD - you can get it in the library if you are not prepared to spend $10). Those "experts" in spite of being regulars before that and on contract for another year of so were quickly dropped from commentary!

I always ment to watch outfoxed but i live in ireland so it would be more than $10. I don't know a library that has it our libraries only have books and sometimes music.

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

If they criticise he for being weak and holding back than it is criticism.

If it is it is a type I EXCEPTED from the examples I asked you for.

He gave out about how it was handled (organisation ie guns and armour for soldiers.)

SAying "our boys arent well equipped2 is not saying "we shouldnt be there"
The policy is not to equip soldiers the policy was to occupy Iraq.

I know that i'm right i heard him say it, i just can't remember the dates or how to find the verbatim quotes. I will try and find them though. Remember im not saying fox is unbiased im saying that they do depart from bush policy.

Not good enough. Provide the evidence or WITHDRAW what you suggest is a fact until you do. Aeeopt it is your OPINION and NOT a fact.

I asked if anyone knew where i could find transcripts as i need them for proof. Thats different then asking them to trawl through it.

A simple search on "fox news transcripts" yielded serveral for me.
There is also abundant references in the outfoxed transcript for which I posted a reference.

I know he is biased and while he has never done it while i was watching im sure he has done that.

I.e. you dont know at all! you sound more like Fox all the time!

I always ment to watch outfoxed but i live in ireland so it would be more than $10. I don't know a library that has it our libraries only have books and sometimes music.

You are wrong! Ever heard of inter library loans? If you cant find it in the catalogue

By the way outfoxed.org sell it for $7.95
you can watch it online here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7798.htm

thewillow

*Gaijin* wrote:

speaking of fox news lines...


>>>"After 3 seasons, FOX producers are considering their options for the Paris >>>Hilton reality vehicle 'The Simple Life'. The TV show, which stars Paris >>>Hilton, heiress to the Hilton Hotels fortune, and Kimberly Stewart, >>>daughter of rock star Rod Stewart, was due to start filming for its 4th >>>season early this year. Stewart was brought into the show at the end of >>>the 3rd season, following the well publicised bust-up between long-time >>>pals Hilton and Nicole Richie, daughter of music legend Lionel.
>>>As part of a deal with Hilton's Hotel Group, the 2006 series was due to >>>start filming in Dublin, Ireland, where a new Hilton Hotel opened last year. >>>Paris and Kimberly were to be hired as housekeeping staff and sent to live >>>in an average Irish home near the hotel.
>>>>>>However, the deal seems to have struck a rock in the form of Ireland's >>>Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, who is refusing to issue visas >>>to the pair. A spokesperson for McDowell, who is no stranger to >>>controversy in Ireland, stated that visas for persons wishing to be >>>employed in the hotel industry "would not be issued under any >>>circumstance, as there are many Irish and European citizens available for >>>those jobs", but refused to comment on the specific case.
>>>The shows producers are now looking at other scenarios and locations for the 2006 series"

Yeah, I heard that on the radio the other day. McDowell is such a tosser. He does everything to the letter of the law when it suits him. A couple of spliffs would sort him out.