- #246
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Nicodemus said: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 said:I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.
drankin said: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 said:You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.
Nicodemus said: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.
WhoWee said: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 said:I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.
WhoWee said:Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX?
WhoWee said:Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources
"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.
In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.
"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.
But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."
WhoWee said:In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most
Char. Limit said:If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.
Char. Limit said:If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.
xxChrisxx said:The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.
So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.
I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.
I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.
Of course every news source is biased, as every person is biased. But biased is not the same as untrustworthy.Char. Limit said:If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.
Char. Limit said:If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.
It is very difficult for a media outlet to show bias when reporting on non-political issues (though it does crop up in unexpected stories sometimes)! I don't see what that has to do with anything.hillzagold said:My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?
hillzagold said:Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.
LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?hillzagold said:http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.
...the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.
hillzagold said:http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.
OK, is it your turn to show MSNBC's bias, and how it's just as harsh as Fox's bias?
Al68 said:LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?
I only checked your first link. If you wanted anyone to bother with the rest, you should have been a little less absurd with the first one.
On second thought, that first link was so preposterously funny I might have to check the others when I get the chance. Was your post intended as sarcasm or satire?
I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects....the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.
It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?
Why? What does that have to do with your comment about Fox attacking media outlets? Please explain the relevance of that link.hillzagold said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.
Is English your native language? I'm not sure you understand what the word "attack" means. This is really weird. Did you forget what you were claiming/arguing about? Did you misspeak and are now trying to cover it with misdirection? Please explain the relevance of that link.I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects.
No, I haven't gone beyond the first link. Based on how irrelevant the first link was, I didn't see any reason to go on to the second. Do the other links have any more relevance to your comment about Fox attacking other media outlets? I want an explanation as to what your point is: I won't fall for misdirection games.Are any of you going beyond my first link, or posting MSNBC attacks? I thought a forum like this knew how to hold a debate with any semblance of dialectic.
LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:hillzagold said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.
hillzagold said:It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.
WhoWee said:From you first link:
"Special Report's Bret Baier Uses Loaded Term "Illegals"
May 28, 2011 4:03 pm ET — 96 Comments
Fox News' Bret Baier, using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants in the United States, said that a U.S. Supreme Court decision would have the effect of "penalizing businesses for hiring illegals." However, prominent media outlets and journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals," noting that it "skewthe public debate on immigration issues.""
(my bold)
Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?
Al68 said:LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:
And seriously, why on Earth would you think I should defend Fox News? I never claimed they were unbiased, or were perfect in any way.
But from what I hear, the latest polls show they are the most trusted source around. Of course, given the Marxist propaganda that passes for their competition, that isn't really saying much.