FoxNews-Telling lies?

Do they have any context for this, or know the motives of why he was snubbed? You know...if I were doing an interview with one person then I wouldn't want someone else on there either. Newsmax isn't really what I'd call...a 'fair' site. They skew their 'news' to support whatever preconceived view conservatives already have. Find a more balanced source.

 

Another link for your reading pleasure, FID.

 

The only problem with Fox News is that it doesnt identify itself as a conservative news source. Its fairly obvious that it is. I think thats the main problem that some of the more established televison journalists have with it. Im pretty liberal and Fox News does occasionally enrage me, but I have to admit that Moyers attack on Hannity was pretty stupid being that Hannity is pretty much the only person on Fox News that doesnt conceal the fact that he is a conservative Republican. I mean really Moyer, its in the very title of the show for crimmineys sake. He's not doing us common sense liberals any good by putting his foot in his mouth like that. Attack O'Reilly if you need to critique somebody over at Fox News. He swears that he is an independent, but he isnt, as his voter information shows. Not that you need that to confirm that he is a staunch conservative.

 

The only problem with CNN is that it doesnt identify itself as a liberal news source. Its fairly obvious that it is. I think thats the main problem that some of the more established televison journalists have with it. Im pretty conservative and CNN does occasionally enrage me.

See? Goes both ways...

 

I would say that CNN, in its news segment anyway, is pretty balanced. But you are right there is two sides to every coin. I go the BBC on line to get my news. Its the straightest reporting on the planet in my humble opinion.

 

I go the BBC on line to get my news. Its the straightest reporting on the planet in my humble opinion.

I believe they are even more left than CNN.

Ya want a real eye-opener? Watch CNN International. They are about as left as it gets, IMO.

 

BBC reporters dont offer opinion and to me thats all important. Thats the biggest problem with Fox AND the networks. That was the biggest problem with Rather. I thought he was a good reporter and there is no denying his storied career, but he was too obvious in how he personally felt in his reporting. O'Reilly is the same way, so is Cavuto and Shepard Smith. Chris Wallace and Tucker Carlson are VERY good reporters and even they occasionally slip, more Wallace than Carlson.

 

Examples, J-Rod?

 

Examples, J-Rod?

Well, as far as PPOR, not much.

But an example would be last fall when the Iraqi's signed their constitution after some delays.

It was the lead story to CNN's news segment and started out with,"Finally, after many embarrassing delays, the Iraqi Governing Council, tommarow, will sign the Iraq Constitution."

A little bias, if ya ask me. It would have been more embarrassing if they would have signed it earlier, and then a civil war broke out over it.

 

Ooooohhhhh! Another Cal Thomas article. The same Cal Thomas that (stupidly I may add) portrayed another country as nazi's. It's not so much that your sources are biased, but they don't give much context for anything they talk about. Just like a connie.

It was the lead story to CNN's news segment and started out with,"Finally, after many embarrassing delays, the Iraqi Governing Council, tommarow, will sign the Iraq Constitution."

A little bias, if ya ask me. It would have been more embarrassing if they would have signed it earlier, and then a civil war broke out over it.

It is? Stating something is embarrassing isn't exactly bias if....it's embarrassing...

 

It is? Stating something is embarrassing isn't exactly bias if....it's embarrassing...

Embarrassing is an opinion, plain and simple.

Another word could have been prudent, but that also would have been an opinion.

 

CNN is a liberal news source!?

Are you KIDDING!!!!?

There is no major network today that can be defined as liberal in the sense FOX is conservative. Almost all major news stations are more to the right then the left.

CBS and the NYT have liberal leanings certainly, but most of it is straight news that people mistake for "liberal opinion!!!"

 

Almost all major news stations are more to the right then the left.

Your turn...give an example.

 

Embarrassing is an opinion, plain and simple.

Another word could have been prudent, but that also would have been an opinion.

It's a neutral statement. If something bad happens that you didn't want to happen, it's usually an embarrassing act.

 

It's a neutral statement. If something bad happens that you didn't want to happen, it's usually an embarrassing act.

But that lead in to the story was misleading and plays on public ignorance. As delays are something to be expected when you are trying to ratify a Constitution in a diverse populus such as Iraq.

Prudent is still a better word, yet also shouldn't be used in a news story like this, as it leads the listener to a conclusion that wasn't their own.

Hence...bias.

 

What sort of context was it in? Do you still have the article? I say that a lot, but no one ever provides it.

 

Thats true Crix. You couldnt equally compare CBS and CNN/BBC " liberalism " to Foxs' conservatism. I understand that there are two sides to every story but I feel that Sean Hannity suggesting night after night that the Iraq War is going well or Brit Hume saying something as offensive as he did when he suggested that a soldier being in Iraq has just as much chance of getting killed as a citizen of California has of getting murdered is a pretty poor use of a news venacular. Why it may have been statistcally true AT THE TIME that he said(Hume), it still is in extremely poor taste and is nothing short of wreckless conservative propaganda.

 

What sort of context was it in? Do you still have the article? I say that a lot, but no one ever provides it.

I watched it on CNN. So I only have my memory and outrage to share with you.

I understand that there are two sides to every story but I feel that Sean Hannity suggesting night after night that the Iraq War is going well or Brit Hume saying something as offensive as he did when he suggested that a soldier being in Iraq has just as much chance of getting killed as a citizen of California has of getting murdered is a pretty poor use of a news venacular.

Those guys are commentators, not news men. So's O'Rielly, for that matter.

Complaining about their "news" coverage is like complaining about Andy Runny(SP)? or Larry King.

 

I watched it on CNN. So I only have my memory and outrage to share with you.

Your memory and intepretation can fool you.

 

Well, I can still quote it word for word.

 

Yes, but how do you know it had a bias behind it?

 

" So's O'Rielly, for that matter "

No, thats not entirely true. Hannity is, as I pointed out in an earlier post, but O'Reilly tries to encompass the entire news gamut from op-ed to what he calls " balanced reporting " - which of course its not. And Brit Hume is Foxes' news anchor, not a commentator at all, except on his Sunday show. I think that its telling that you think that he is one, because he absolutely isnt. He's the guy thats supposed to be the straight news reporter.

 

Yes, but how do you know it had a bias behind it?

Because as I said, I feel the delays were prudent, as they were able to make changes that would make the constitution more palitable to the whole of Iraq.

To sign it before it was ready would have been an embarrassing mistake, IMO.

So saying that the delays in signing the constitution were embarrassing is, n fact, bias because other opinions exists. The news, by telling which opinion it believes you should have, is bias.

O'Reilly tries to encompass the entire news gamut from op-ed to what he calls " balanced reporting " - which of course its not.

And he does this on his...commentary program.

 

They were talking about the events that led to the delays. Not the fact that delaying was, in itself, embarrassing.

 

They were talking about the events that led to the delays.

"Ater several embarrassing delays"...kinda blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?

Also, what was embarrassing about the events that lead to the delays? People had a disagreement and wanted to rewrite and in some cases just reword some of the stuff in the constitution to make it better for the people they represent.