News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[Jasongreat]

Complete nonsense.

Consent is determined by law; if the law says a person under a certain age can not consent, then they can't. No gray area, period.

There is a gray area as far as being old enough to consent is concerned, if a person is under 16 they are considered unable to consent as an adult but if they do something bad enough they are all of a sudden considered adults and are punished as such. So it seems to me they are not old enough to make "adult" decisions, but if they do make an "adult" decision they become an adult in the eyes of the law. If they are too young to decide for themselves they are too young to decide for themselves IMO. No more trying 10 yr olds as adults, no matter what they do.

You say there are cases where the child "obviously did consent"...that's complete make-believe. Children under the age of consent, can't consent.

I agree completely.

 

[Choronzon]

That's legal fundamentalism. E.g. the Taliban Law says that before marriage you can't consent to having sex. Now, I'm not saying that grown ups should have sex with children, just that fundamentalism is a bad thing and we don't need it in the West.

About Polanski, he could have faced charges in France, but the US insisted that he be extradited to the US.

Your defense of Polanski hasn't addressed the issue that instead of sweet-talking the 13 year old girl into sleeping with him, he drugged her. That means rape here in the U.S., not statutory rape.

Honestly, I'm baffled and sickened by all the people defending this criminal, and France should be ashamed for providing asylum for a rapist for no better reason than he makes movies people like.

 

[Count Iblis]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl?

 

[Choronzon]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl?

From wiki:

Polanski was initially charged[38] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[39]


I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it is possible, but his plea should be invalidated and he should be tried for the original charges.

 

[lisab]

But how come Polanski faced sentencing on statutory rape charges in the US if in fact he raped that girl?

I'm no expert on the law, but I don't think he's facing that charge anymore. That charge was a result of plea bargaining, which means a perpetrator agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime. It allows the perpetrator to serve a less severe sentence, and it saves the state a costly trial.

But when he skipped the country, he reneged on the plea agreement and it's no longer offered.

Count, did you read the victim's account of the ordeal? It may give you a different view of the guy...regardless of how good his movies are.

 

[mheslep]

That admission was part of a "plea bargain" which is a competely alien concept in most European countries. We would consider that a form of coercion.

Who is we? By alien, you must mean a Europe on some distant planet. The Europe on this planet, outside of Scandinavia, has had plea bargains for some decades now at least. Galileo's http://www.truthinjustice.org/bargaining.htm" agreement to shutter himself in his house also comes to mind. All of the English common law countries (US, England, Canada) have had such for much longer.http://law.jrank.org/pages/1285/Guilty-Plea-Plea-Bargaining-comparative-perspective.html"
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.htdetail/object_id/0c283fb6-94bd-4f5d-bbda-74a7e4213195.cfm"
http://www.encore.nl/pleabargaining.htm"

 

[WhoWee]

Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue. I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy. The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.

The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous. Compare with Sharia law that doesn't regard sex outside marriage to be consensual.

Consensual, meaning we both agree to the act - right?

Given this definition, castration of someone attempting "consensual sex" with my 10 year old would also qualify - and given the alternative choices I would offer.

 

[Hepth]

And I maintain that I think you cherry picked your headlines.

EDIT: Actually, I think you straight out lied. The tech topics are *not* the same simply with a different *spin*.

You went to the pages that supported your view, threw those down, and ignored the others.

No no, I didn't. I went to ones that had corresponding stories. After that I put up the tech one (who would have corresponding stories in tech anyway?) (I edited it after adding the first one).

If you want me to admit that the US one was a normal story, ok. It was. And CNN didn't have the same headline. I wasn't cherrypicking, I was providing evidence of why I have an opinion about something. I'm sorry I said "everything" that was an exaggeration. I mean "most of what I happen across".

I guess its a different way of looking at I. I say, the main page, World, US, and Tech are my most read/seen topics. 3 of those 4 had attributes that immediately turn me away from Fox. That is my point. Before even getting to the content, I had an urge to walk away from the site. I felt that their approach of making news more sensational only serves for me to distrust their motives. And before you get upset, I feel the SAME WAY about CNN/MSNBC/Etc when they do it as well. I'm not denying that. I just NOTICE that the frequency I run into that turn-off at fox is high, and I don't think its an inherent bias because of political views.
Actually, I'll freely admit that it may NOT be to an unusual number of stories that are ridiculous (i.e. "Man Who Stole, Ate Hot Dog Gets 18 Months in Jail ","Pa. Man Arrested for Allegedly Wrapping Cat in Duct Tape", taken from their current US section. ) Because CNN has some crazies too ("Four-legged Colbert wins dog photo contest", "10 secret menu items at fast food restaurants"). Things that I read and ask "Why is this called news, and who could possibly care about this."

But maybe its rather the imagery and wording they like to use sometimes. I.E. :

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/nato2_20090928_195639.jpg
(Main Page right now)

It seems every time its a new main picture it has some huge bold print overlayed on some image. Itjust feels so unnecessary and unprofessional, doesn't it?

I'm trying not to bash them, really. I just hope you can see my point of view. I'm sure (I really hope) that there are other readers out there that are turned off from sensational news like I am. Or maybe I'm alone.

 

[Choronzon]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/nato2_20090928_195639.jpg
(Main Page right now)

It seems every time its a new main picture it has some huge bold print overlayed on some image. Itjust feels so unnecessary and unprofessional, doesn't it?

I'm trying not to bash them, really. I just hope you can see my point of view. I'm sure (I really hope) that there are other readers out there that are turned off from sensational news like I am. Or maybe I'm alone.

I admit I'm not a fan of the image you've linked. My own barely educated guess is that some people don't like Fox's obvious red-white-and-blue color scheme, sort of like they're wrapping themselves in the American Flag. CNN and MSNBC have just as predominant graphic schemes, but they seem to be in less in-your-face colors.

I don't think you're alone, though I just disagree with some of your opinions. I think CNN is NPR with holograms, and MSNBC is a socialist orgy. Keith Olbermann actually makes me cringe every time I see him. For Awhile, he and O'Reilly seemed to have this war going on between them, where O'Reilly named him a "pinhead" every couple of weeks, and he would call O'Reilly "the worst person in the world" every day for six months or so.

When I want to find out what is happening, I read, since I read faster than news anchors talk. I'll read a variety of news sources. If I want to watch a discussion on current events or politics, it's straight to Fox News for me, partly because they pull less punches, but mostly because they often have a lovely lady strategically placed to grace my television with a great pair of legs.

 

[seycyrus]

No no, I didn't. I went to ones that had corresponding stories.

From your post...

( I didn't SEARCH for these, they were just what was the leading story on the respective pages.)

I think its ridiculous that your personal bias is leading you to twist your own words in such a manner.

 

[Hepth]

i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...

 

[seycyrus]

i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...

Yes of course they were the headlines of the pages, I did not dispute that.

First you said you just went through the sections and pasted the headlines. But it was obvious that you ignored the section that didn't support your argument, Then you claimed you went through the pages and looked for similar content. Then when I pointed out that this was obviously not true either, you claimed something else. The point of the mater is, you cherry picked them.

The fact that you felt you needed to do this to support your *worldview* (scary!) is telling,

The fact that, at this moment in the news cycle, fox's website has more graphic content than CNN does not prove a trend. I would be interested in looking at your dataset that comprises either *all* or a well defined subset of sections(that does not change) over a lengthy period of time, however.

I for one find the *lack* of content (irregardless of the nature and quality of the graphics) over the acorn events alarming. The sound of the silence was deafening, or in this case the lack of graphic was blinding.

Whatever your feelings on the pimp/hooker expose, the fact that the Senate cut off funding(!) was certainly a newsworthy event and deserved timely coverage.

 

[seycyrus]

Nice spread on CNN Politics (also on the home page): "First lady says 'gloves are off' in bid for Olympics"

HUGE byline, HUGE photo. Picture of Michelle with arms upraised etc.

Fox politics: U.S. Eyes Energy, Financial Sanctions on Iran

EDIT: Well dayum! CNN is now running the Michelle Obama story on its US section! I wonder if every section is going to be graced?

 

[Count Iblis]

Count, did you read the victim's account of the ordeal? It may give you a different view of the guy...regardless of how good his movies are.

Yes, and I feel that he should have been prosecuted on those charges. But he wasn't and then legally it is difficult to make the case here in Europe that he should be considered to be a convicted rapist.

The first problem is that we don't do plea bargains here (despite what mheslep wrote). We consider confessions based on an offer of a reduction of prison sentence not reliable. What then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

 

[seycyrus]

...then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

So, your confusion about the arrest is merely due to your inability to see the topic outside of a strictly legalistic point of view?

Ehh cmon!

 

[Choronzon]

Yes, and I feel that he should have been prosecuted on those charges. But he wasn't and then legally it is difficult to make the case here in Europe that he should be considered to be a convicted rapist.

The first problem is that we don't do plea bargains here (despite what mheslep wrote). We consider confessions based on an offer of a reduction of prison sentence not reliable. What then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/

So let me get this straight—in Britain, if a man tells me he raped someone, and I then call him a rapist, he can then sue me for slander or libel because he was never convicted of rape?

I personally don't care what he was convicted of—he admitted to drugging and raping a thirteen, and all of Great Britain can sink into the sea before I accept their position on the matter is anything but idiocy.

 

[seycyrus]

...

I personally don't care what he was convicted of—he admitted to drugging and raping a thirteen, and all of Great Britain can sink into the sea before I accept their position on the matter is anything but idiocy.

Yeah, this is utter malarky. So...if the european countries *shouldn't* accept his confession because it was part of a plea bargain then pretend the confession and the plea never happened.

Iblis should be insisting that the MoFo be arrested for drugging and raping a 13 yr old!

 

[Choronzon]

Yeah, this is utter malarky. So...if the european countries *shouldn't* accept his confession because it was part of a plea bargain then pretend the confession and the plea never happened.

Iblis should be insisting that the MoFo be arrested for drugging and raping a 13 yr old!

Not to mention that he admits his actions outside of his guilty plea. I don't know if those statements can be used against him, but they should. If it is at all legally possible, he should be tried for the original charges, and let the jury hear all of the times that he has admitted to his acts out of his own mouth.

 

[Count Iblis]

So, your confusion about the arrest is merely due to your inability to see the topic outside of a strictly legalistic point of view?

Ehh cmon!

I can do that, but the case is now in the Swiss court and the extradition will be juged according the usual legal rules.

 

[mheslep]

I see Hollywood is getting up a petition to "Free Polansky"; of course Woody "I cheated on the mother of my children with her daughter" Allen was one of the first to sign. The entire thing disgusts me. Maybe a boycott of the Academy Awards will be manageable this year.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13432#more-13432

 

[WhoWee]

Fox has a few stories filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556301,00.html

Fox has also reported with a political reference, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html?test=faces

"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left."

I'm not sure what a "'rape' rape" is and how it's different than a rape? As for leaving the country to avoid sentencing, it's total nonsense as he didn't need to agree to a plea bargain. He had the resources to fight the charges and appeal upon conviction. He had contempt for our legal system and now he should be judged on his actions.

 

[Pythagorean]

Fox has a few stories filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556301,00.html

Fox has also reported with a political reference, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html?test=faces

"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left."

I'm not sure what a "'rape' rape" is and how it's different than a rape? As for leaving the country to avoid sentencing, it's total nonsense as he didn't need to agree to a plea bargain. He had the resources to fight the charges and appeal upon conviction. He had contempt for our legal system and now he should be judged on his actions.

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.

 

[WhoWee]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.

He was 44 and she was 13. He used drugs and booze to take advantage of her. It was rape.

The second crime was against the court and (I suppose?) the bondsman. I'm not sure what the amount of the bond was, but 31 years is surely a large amount of time to compound interest. If nothing else, they should hold him in jail until he repays the bondsman accordingly.

 

[russ_watters]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.

You only got one out of three of those correct.

-"Rape" is forced sexual intercourse - it does not require physical force.
-"Statutory rape" is a subset of rape, and is roughly as you described.
-"Date rape" is rape during a date. What you described is only one of many possible scenarios of date rape.

And something I didn't actually know until looking into the specifics: legally, statutory rape is not necessarily separated from violent rape like we tend to view it:

Most states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault. Sexual assault is divided into degrees: first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree sexual assault. West Virginia provides an illustration of how rape laws are typically written. In West Virginia, a person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person and either inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone or employs a deadly weapon in the commission of the act (W. Va. Code § 61-8B-3 [1996]). Additionally, a person age 14 years or older who engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is 11 years old or less is guilty of first-degree sexual assault. A person convicted of the crime of first-degree sexual assault in West Virginia faces imprisonment for at least 15 years and not more than 35 years and may be fined from $1,000 to $10,000.

In West Virginia, a person commits sexual assault in the second degree by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without that person's consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping; or (3) fear by a person under 16 years of age caused by intimidation by another person who is at least four years older than the victim.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rape

Notice that they define two different classes of statutory rape and one is considered in the same category as physically violent rape.

 

[mheslep]

rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling.

Or drugging the victim

 

[WhoWee]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935

 

[Choronzon]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935

Doesn't anyone else realize what Beck and Big Government.com are doing?

They're attacking President Obama's staff and supporters at random but with very little focus. They're watching these people being thrown in front of the bus because they know President Obama's too much of a milquetoast to really defend any of his people.

Eventually, however, President Obama is going to give into the left side of his party and stand up for one of these targets. When that happens, Beck and Breitbart are going to go on an offensive much more focused than one we've seen.

Six months or a year from now millions of dollars will be spent on ads showing President Obama giving his full support to some meaningless Czar who will then be outed as a child molester or something.

All I know is that whoever is running this nation after 2012 should consider appointing Breitbart as Secretary of Defense. The man knows how to destroy his enemies.

Look how pathetically our President fights! Seriously, a blog on whitehouse.gov? President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[russ_watters]

Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935

That's a dangerous game Obama is playing. When he went on the morning talk shows and snubbed Fox, it sends a message that the viewers of Fox don't matter to him. I think he's setting himself up to look more extremist by doing that.

And going after Fox on his website, Obama is treating Fox like Fox is just another politician to sling mud at, but Fox isn't and they thrive on rolling around in the mud. He's playing exactly the game that hurts him and helps them the most!

 

[mugaliens]

By Tue morning of this week, the pipes in my apartment had frozen solid, including the hot water pipe which heats the central air. Thus, I spent the week at my parents house watching the Egyptian/Middle East protests.

They watch news more than 12 hours a day. Don't ask me why, as I don't know.

Fox is one of their staples, but they're as apt to watch CNN, NBC Nightly News, and MSNBC. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams is one of their favorites.

The one thing I noticed is that while the rest only presented a cursory explanation of the underpinnings behind both sides of the Egyptian protests/riots, Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81" , and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.

 

[dlgoff]

...Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81" , and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.

Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine.

 

[WhoWee]

Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine.

You must have watched this clip?
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/04/i-feel-ashamed-american-chris-matthews-rips-obamas-handling-egypt-crisis#

"The Hardball host berated, "And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling." He added, "I believe in relationships...You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.""

 

[klimatos]

And going after Fox on his website, Obama is treating Fox like Fox is just another politician to sling mud at, but Fox isn't and they thrive on rolling around in the mud. He's playing exactly the game that hurts him and helps them the most!

When you choose to wrestle with pigs, you end up covered with mud and excrement--and the pig LOVES it!

 

[WhoWee]

The Bill O'Reilly Super Bowl interview with President Obama is airing right now - and it sounds pretty fair - no mud is apparent (or pigs).

 

[Nicodemus]

I've noticed that CNN seems to like to tell "stories" like Heroes, MSNBC is often first to report, but they're not very good in the field, and Fox does a decent job on stories like Egypt, but they emphasize fear.

I watched today, what the take of each network was to the news of meetings with the VP.

MSNBC broke the news, and seemed hopeful.
CNN has recorded programming (Sanjay Gupta I think)
Fox had the best coverage, but they were talking over it about how this meant the Muslim Brotherhood was taking over.

From what I can tell, they each sell a specific product to a specific audience, except for CNN which is more like a series of 'Olympic Hero' stories interrupted by news.

 

[Proton Soup]

You must have watched this clip?
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/04/i-feel-ashamed-american-chris-matthews-rips-obamas-handling-egypt-crisis#

"The Hardball host berated, "And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling." He added, "I believe in relationships...You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.""

omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze

 

[Nicodemus]

omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze

Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p

 

[WhoWee]

Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p

It's not often that I agree with Chris Matthews, but he made some very strong arguments. I read it this way - President Obama is playing a dangerous game of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples at the expense of US allied interests. To describe President Obama as transitional (Merriam-Webster transition: passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another to another, evolution from one form, stage, or style to another) is not a compliment.

The last thing a country (Egypt) in turmoil needs is to identify their greatest ally is undependable - Fox is keeping it's finger on the pulse.

 

[humanino]

Turkey is playing the same "game" of telling Mubarak the truth for instance. Being a friend does not mean we always have to comfort each other. Sometimes we have to tell each other the truth, whether it hurts or not. That is also part of loyalty.

 

[Nicodemus]

It's not often that I agree with Chris Matthews, but he made some very strong arguments. I read it this way - President Obama is playing a dangerous game of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples at the expense of US allied interests. To describe President Obama as transitional (Merriam-Webster transition: passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another to another, evolution from one form, stage, or style to another) is not a compliment.

The last thing a country (Egypt) in turmoil needs is to identify their greatest ally is undependable - Fox is keeping it's finger on the pulse.

Did you reply to the right post? I don't see how what you're saying is a response to my jibe. Oh, and "Nations don't have friends, only interests." As for winning hearts and minds, I thought that was a strategy that began during the Iraq war, so Obama would be continuing it. If you look at actual transitions, Bush W. was transitional: two wars, a change in tone, emphasis on christianity, 9.11... and so on. I think presidents for the next decade or so are just going to be riding that wave, and hopefully they'll try to turn it back in places.

 

[WhoWee]

Did you reply to the right post? I don't see how what you're saying is a response to my jibe. Oh, and "Nations don't have friends, only interests." As for winning hearts and minds, I thought that was a strategy that began during the Iraq war, so Obama would be continuing it. If you look at actual transitions, Bush W. was transitional: two wars, a change in tone, emphasis on christianity, 9.11... and so on. I think presidents for the next decade or so are just going to be riding that wave, and hopefully they'll try to turn it back in places.

This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".

If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?

 

[Nicodemus]

This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".

If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?

 

[drankin]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

 

[Nicodemus]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

 

[WhoWee]

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?

Please demonstrate your findings of "the vast preponderance of evidence" - that is a very definitive statement - that clearly needs supported.

As for "transformational" - I posted that Chris Matthews called President Obama "transitional" - no idea whatsoever as to what you are referring to - care to elaborate?

 

[drankin]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

You won't hear me arguing with that: I don't drink soda, but it makes a dandy cleaner when you let it react with baking soda. I think some fat coke-head marketed it as, "OxyClean", and left out the soda.

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

 

[Nicodemus]

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

I need to know: do you keep missing the point I'm making on purpose, or do you just do this as online for fun? If I wanted to play, 'top the other guy's metaphor', I'd trot on down to BC and talk to a Jesuit.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

 

[Nicodemus]

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

Yeah, but I was just making a joke about Mubarak exuding strength, the rest I could care less about. Really, Fox News is clearly biased, so is MSNBC, and CNN seems to leave bias up to each anchor. I wouldn't recommend ANY of them as a means to get news, only coverage of breaking events where assets ont he ground matter more than anything else.

This is also the link to nations having interests and not friends: it doesn't matter if Mubarak is truly a great man, it only matters how he serves American interests. No need to be sorry, this seems like a genuine misunderstanding, and really it seemed like it from the beginning.