Win a copy of Pipeline as Code this week in the Cloud/Virtualization forum!
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Bear Bibeault
Sheriffs:
  • Rob Spoor
  • Henry Wong
  • Liutauras Vilda
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Carey Brown
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Himai Minh
  • Jj Roberts

More Moore

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Everyone's favorite source editorializes:



Yet again another gem from Fox news. I'm guessing that they're going for "Best Fictional Storyline" at the Oscars.

Its a bit hypocritical that they say:


Now all of this information "Talking Points" is giving you is solid. It is fact, not opinion.


despite saying some blatantly bias opinion:


The Bush administration strikes back against the deceptive media...

...the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort....

...Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger...

...Now I knew when I presented the facts linking Al Qaeda to Iraq that the far left would accuse me of shilling for the president...

..That opinion, of course, is nonsense...

...But those facts will not matter to the anti-Bush fanatics, who put partisan politics ahead of both truth and national security...



Above all though, the best bit of the entire article was:


As you know, we're independent here




The sad thing is that there are probably some people who read Fox "News" and think that its actually a neutral, factually correct and politically neutral depiction of the world. I can imagine Comical Ali fitting in well as a Fox presenter.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
What is Putin so desperate about?



Kerry getting into office as US president and starting to actively support the terrorists (oops, freedom fighters) in Chechnya.

Like it or not, Kerry is a danger to the world and an active supporter of communist regimes.
Under him it wouldn't be too long to see the USSSA (United Socialist Soviet States of America) rise.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
The sad thing is that there are probably some people who read Fox "News" and think that its actually a neutral, factually correct and politically neutral depiction of the world.



Name one major news source that fits the above description. Hell, the BBC is far worse than Fox ever is, just to name but one. The New York Times is another that quickly comes to mind. He does specifically say the inormation is fact. Opinions are not information, therefore he is not claiming that his opinions are fact as alleged.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:


Name one major news source that fits the above description. Hell, the BBC is far worse than Fox ever is, just to name but one. The New York Times is another that quickly comes to mind. He does specifically say the inormation is fact. Opinions are not information, therefore he is not claiming that his opinions are fact as alledged.



[You're out of line, Jeroen. Cool it.]
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Like it or not, Kerry is a danger to the world


Isn't this a little over the top?

and an active supporter of communist regimes.


Proof?


Under him it wouldn't be too long to see the USSSA (United Socialist Soviet States of America) rise.


Is this a joke?! Yes he's more to the left than Bush, but to call him left wing is a bit like saying the the Saharra is cold because the Arabian desert is hotter. His policies clearly show that (by the standards of most of the world) he is to the right of the centre. The American election is not about left vs right but about centre right versus further right.

I don't think there's any danger of the Dems pulling off a communist coup in America just yet. :roll:
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
JW: ... and an active supporter of communist regimes.

JK: Proof?

Not speaking for Jeroen, but I believe this is a reference to Kerry's 1971 testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other anti-war activities.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
So something Kerry said 33 years ago is construed as "active" support of "coomunist regimes"? His protest of our presence in Vietname means communism in Kerry's mind is better than democracy? And that he's rather have Communism here, rather than the system that has supported his political career so far?
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
So something Kerry said 33 years ago is construed as "active" support of Communism?



I think the original quote was "active supporter of Communist regimes", but anyway... I guess it depends on one's perspective. Would you consider Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam active support for North Vietnam?
 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
The sad thing is that there are probably some people who read Fox "News" and think that its actually a neutral, factually correct and politically neutral depiction of the world. I can imagine Comical Ali fitting in well as a Fox presenter.[/QB]



Not long ago, I was a rabid anti-Fox News "activist". But over the last 12 months I have realized that FOX is the only unbiased news source in USA. When the economy is making a roaring recovery CBS, NBC and ABC never report it. When schools and hospitals are built in Iraq, the 3 networks are busy covering the Iraqi militant who unfortunately got shot when he crossed the road. When the Abu Ghraib scandal took place, FOX was the only one to put it in perspective.

When you disagree with FOX, I know you are a liberal. Cos I was.. when I disagreed with FOX. Liberals cant stand FOX and best of all, they cant stand the fact that FOX has more viewers than any other cable news network.

Long Live Rupert Murdoch!!!
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I think the original quote was "active supporter of Communist regimes", but anyway... I guess it depends on one's perspective. Would you consider Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam active support for North Vietnam?


I don't believe Jane Fonda ever said she wanted North Vietnam to defeat the US. That is what I would consider active support. What Fonda did to promote her cause as she saw it is easily construed as tacit support. I didn't share in the sentiments of the time because I wasn't old enough to care what a movie star thought of the war.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:


I think the original quote was "active supporter of Communist regimes", but anyway... I guess it depends on one's perspective. Would you consider Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam active support for North Vietnam?



yes, I certainly would.
She betrayed her country by openly siding with the North Vietnamese and letting herself be used as a channel for North Vietnamese propaganda.
Kerry did the same.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Talk about wasted discussion. I can tell when a comparison of two politicians is pointless when you reverse the roles.

If Kerry had stayed home and joined the Air National Guard and George W. Bush had fought in Vietnam and then come home and protested against the war, would you reverse your vote if everything else stayed the same? No? Then what is the point of any of this?
 
town drunk
( and author)
Posts: 4118
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Everyone on this thread needs to chill. If you have a point to make, and you can make it without resorting to ridiculous platitudes, then make it. If you're just peddling a sound bite, take it elsewhere.

M
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Name one major news source that fits the above description.


Channel 4 news is probably the best one I've seen for being fairly neutral and giving a good amount of coverage of international news (this is one area in which US news is fairly bad - there is a lot less coverage of international news in the US then in many other countries).

Hell, the BBC is far worse than Fox ever is, just to name but one.


The BBC screwed up big time over the whole "dodgy dossier" business, but there is no way that it could be said to be worse than the blatantly bias Fox News. At least the BBC doesn't do its news bulletins as film-trailer style presidential propaganda. The UK does, however, have a news programme that is attempting to be as bad as Fox - the ITV news. Its a bit like a TV version of the Daily Mail - truly awful.

He does specifically say the inormation is fact. Opinions are not information, therefore he is not claiming that his opinions are fact as alleged.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


The problem is that he mixes fact with opinion throughout the article. Ignoring for the moment that a properly neutral news source should have little or no opinion in its reporting, the article does pass off some bits of opinion as if it were fact, for example when it says things like:


...deceptive media...
...Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger....



In fact most of the article is opinion. This puts Fox news into the realm of political lobbying rather than news reporting.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Not long ago, I was a rabid anti-Fox News "activist". But over the last 12 months I have realized that FOX is the only unbiased news source in USA.


Unbiased?! How bad can the rest be then? Fox news is about as unbiased as Comical Ali.


When you disagree with FOX, I know you are a liberal.


Interesting logic there. Although I can see that liberals wouldn't agree with Fox, I think a lot of other people would also disagree, namely anyone who doesn't like listening to news that has a clear right wing bias.

On a slightly different note, its fascinating that "liberal" is such a bad word for many people on the right in America, especially as the American right is incredibly liberal in the field of economics. Maybe "liberal" has just become an synonym of "left" in the US. It certainly seems as if the word has a different emphasis in Europe to in the US - in Europe there are right and left wing people who are described as "liberal".

Anyway, back to the topic in discussion.....

Liberals cant stand FOX and best of all, they cant stand the fact that FOX has more viewers than any other cable news network.


Maybe its because people who voted for Bush like to see a news programme that makes him look good. That way they don't feel as if their vote was a mistake. Fox also has a very patriotic feel to it, and this again makes viewers feel good. Perhaps Fox could be seen as a good thing for keeping the nation's moral high during war time, but personally I'd rather see an unbiased report of the news, even if it made me feel bad.

Long Live Rupert Murdoch!!!


Blech. Rupert Murdoch has far too much influence for my liking... I don't like the idea of one person have so much control over media in so many countries....
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
The problem is that he mixes fact with opinion throughout the article. Ignoring for the moment that a properly neutral news source should have little or no opinion in its reporting, the article does pass off some bits of opinion as if it were fact, for example when it says things like:

The O'Reilly Factor is an opinion show. It is not meant to be an unbiased program. Many news programs on all the major news networks have become opinion shows because they get good ratings.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Many news programs on all the major news networks have become opinion shows because they get good ratings.



This is sadly a sign that many people prefer to be told what opinion they should have rather than look at the evidence themselves and make up their own opinion. Its probably much the same reason why trashy tabloids like the Sun are popular. (A damning indication of the intelligence of the average Briton is that the UK's most popular paper is the Sun )
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:


This is sadly a sign that many people prefer to be told what opinion they should have rather than look at the evidence themselves and make up their own opinion. Its probably much the same reason why trashy tabloids like the Sun are popular. (A damning indication of the intelligence of the average Briton is that the UK's most popular paper is the Sun )



Well, the very existence of something like Michael Moore shows that already...
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
Unbiased?! How bad can the rest be then? Fox news is about as unbiased as Comical Ali.



I dont know if you have ever seen the news on CBS, NBC, ABC.. but they are pretty much to the far left. A few examples; they have not reported anything good about the war in Iraq. They have not mentioned even one of the hospitals or schools that were constructed by the coalition but let an innocent Iraqi die in the crossfire and they will make it seem as though the entire nation is in furor. They have not reported anything about the economic recovery in the US, they only report the unemployment claims. I suggest you try and read the book called "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS insider. He reveals how CBS executives explicitly push a liberal agenda through their network.

Interesting logic there. Although I can see that liberals wouldn't agree with Fox, I think a lot of other people would also disagree, namely anyone who doesn't like listening to news that has a clear right wing bias.



Give me one example of right wing bias.. if you point out the fact that FOX admonishes democrats then I can point out that they admonish republicans just as much. Infact a survey conducted showed that an overwhelming majority of viewers preferred the Reagan funeral on FOX compared to CNN or MSNBC simply because FOX anchors kept quiet during the entire ceremony and let the viewers decide their feelings for themselves. CNN and MSNBC on the other hand had their anchors tell viewers how they should be feeling (now, isnt that characteristic of some group of people???)

Maybe its because people who voted for Bush like to see a news programme that makes him look good. That way they don't feel as if their vote was a mistake. Fox also has a very patriotic feel to it, and this again makes viewers feel good. Perhaps Fox could be seen as a good thing for keeping the nation's moral high during war time, but personally I'd rather see an unbiased report of the news, even if it made me feel bad.



You wouldnt want to even consider the option that perhaps people feel FOX reporting is really unbiased and fair??

the American right is incredibly liberal in the field of economics.



I think you are confusing the term liberal with libertarian. American economics are certainly libertarian. Liberal economics would mean a welfare state..
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Actually, I think you'll find that ALL media in the free world will concentrate on the negative, because negative stuff sells. People are interested in wars, crashes etc. This may be partly because good things tend to be mundane, ongoing, everyday things - like people helping eachother, doing their jobs. Bad news tends to be more spectacular, such as a train crash or earthquake or gun battle.

Plus theres more consensus on whats bad news - you might say opening a hospital is good news, but someone else will say thats bad because it took funding from another hospital. Whereas most people will agree that a terrorist attack or whatever is bad. Plus, we, as media consumers, do seem to have an appetite for bad things.
 
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Joe King:

Maybe "liberal" has just become an synonym of "left" in the US.

Actually, it's been pretty much a synonym for "left" here ever since I've been paying attention - say, three decades at least.

How does "liberal" differ from "left" in England? I may be making a lot of faulty assumptions about the Liberal Democrats....
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Joe King,

Have you ever watched Fox News? You didn't seem to know who O'Reilly was and the type of show he puts on, which is why I ask. If you have not really spent much time watching them, I would ask how can you justify the statements you have made about them?
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Joe King on Kerry:

His policies clearly show that (by the standards of most of the world) he is to the right of the centre.

What do you see as his policies? Being from Massachusetts, he's been one of my senators for some years now, and I've never been able to figure them out. His rhetoric when running for senator never matched his voting record - for example, his vote in favor of invading Iraq was unexpected based on his previous rhetoric.

Now that he's running for president, his rhetoric has shifted substantially - and I agree it's much more centrist than it used to be - but I keep wondering whether that will be any better an indication of his policies than it's been in the past.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

The O'Reilly Factor is an opinion show. It is not meant to be an unbiased program. Many news programs on all the major news networks have become opinion shows because they get good ratings.


This is one of the few statements in this thread I find worth repeating.

People do tune in to these shows to hear strong, "no-nonsense" opinions. It is a part of the rhetorical game that a blowhard like O'Reilly tells you he's based his arguments entirely on facts, that he's telling you "the truth," blah blah, blah.

There is no more obvious tell in the world of broadcast opinionation of an empty tank, and it sure isn't a partisan practice. Phil Donahue made his bread and butter for a long time by playing devil's advocate against all sides in his shows. It was a compelling hook: nothing ever got answered in a Donahue show. You could just feel the audience struggling to come to a point, and the genius that was Phil Donahue never let that happen. Tune in tomorrow: we'll try again! Heh.

What makes O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest of that ilk so tiresome to me is they think they're right and other people are wrong. Chris Matthews, for a brief time, seemed to be actually engaging listeners. But on they whole they don't moderate, they dictate and they judge. They don't so much challenge their questioners as resort to intimidation.

John McLaughlin was a major proponent of this approach, which he very, very drily described as moderating by 'force of intellect.' Funny man. But it was really the Donahue method revamped into a panel format: always, always throw in a question that complicates the picture when it sounds like consensus is around the corner. Then, while everyone is busy processing the Gordian knot you just gave them, say something that sounds certain. The continuing silence seems like you've stunned everyone with something brilliant and unexpected.

Good trick, if you can pull it off.

Outside of G. Gordon Liddy, no one on the conservative broadcast scene has those kinds of chops, so they resort to [snip-MH].

In other words, Joe, I don't think you're missing much if you're not watching O'Reilly.

[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I did try listening to G. Gordon Liddy and I must admit that it is one of the worst talk radio shows I have ever heard. My favourites are:

1. Rush Limbaugh (what would I do without him..)
2. Michael Graham (author of Redneck Nation: How the South really won the war!) (local host on 630 WMAL)
3. Sam Donaldson (former ABC anchor and a liberal, so see I like balance in my sources, ABC radio)
4. Chris Core (local host on Washington DC's 630 WMAL)
5. John Batchelor (ABC Radio)
6. Glenn Beck (www.glennbeck.com)
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

I think you are confusing the term liberal with libertarian. American economics are certainly libertarian. Liberal economics would mean a welfare state..



Nope, Liberal ;-). I looked on the excellent Wikipedia, and they confirm that it does have different meanings in different places.

Here in Europe it tends to mean someone who prefers there to be less government control over things i.e. less regulation, rules etc. This means that less government control over the economy is seen as being "liberal".

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
How does "liberal" differ from "left" in England? I may be making a lot of faulty assumptions about the Liberal Democrats....



I can see that the "Liberal Democrats" must seem to an American (especially to a Republican) to be a term consisting of two words for "left". Here in the UK its a bit different. The Lib Dems have been traditionally a party in the centre. They do have some "left" policies such as free higher education and higher state pensions, but they also have some "right" policies such as a reduced government role in the economy and a reduction of regulations for businesses. This has caused them a bit of a problem - previously there was Labour on the left, Tories on the right and the Lib Dems in the middle. Now that Labour have moved to the centre, the Lib Dems are directly competing with them. Some people in the Lib Dems want to move more to the left to fill the gap left by Labour, but at the moment they are still a party in the political centre.

I suppose this goes to show that we should be careful in debates with people in different countries as fairly common terms may have different meanings. "Socialism" and "conservatism" probably have a different emphasis in Europe compared to the US as well, although "Liberal" is probably the most different word of the lot.
[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

I dont know if you have ever seen the news on CBS, NBC, ABC.. but they are pretty much to the far left. A few examples; they have not reported anything good about the war in Iraq. They have not mentioned even one of the hospitals or schools that were constructed by the coalition but let an innocent Iraqi die in the crossfire and they will make it seem as though the entire nation is in furor. They have not reported anything about the economic recovery in the US, they only report the unemployment claims.



I think Steve Wink answered this one the best:

Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Actually, I think you'll find that ALL media in the free world will concentrate on the negative, because negative stuff sells. People are interested in wars, crashes etc. This may be partly because good things tend to be mundane, ongoing, everyday things - like people helping eachother, doing their jobs. Bad news tends to be more spectacular, such as a train crash or earthquake or gun battle.



At the end of the day the news programmes want to capture an audience, and bad news tends to do that better than good news. I expect that when the Dems were in charge the same news stations were still reporting mainly bad news.

I dont know if you have ever seen the news on CBS, NBC, ABC.. but they are pretty much to the far left.


Far left? I thought far left was verging on communism. Are they really that left, or just slightly more left than the current administration?


Give me one example of right wing bias..




...Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger...
...But those facts will not matter to the anti-Bush fanatics, who put partisan politics ahead of both truth and national security....
...but I'm getting awful tired, awful tired, of the far left lying and endangering us all...




You wouldnt want to even consider the option that perhaps people feel FOX reporting is really unbiased and fair??



I've got no doubt that some people feel that Fox is unbiased and fair, but that doesn't mean that it is. Some people also think that the Sun, Mirror, New Of The World are quality factually correct newspapers, but they clearly not. Maybe some people prefer to be entertained by the news rather than informed by it.
[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Joe King,

Have you ever watched Fox News? You didn't seem to know who O'Reilly was and the type of show he puts on, which is why I ask. If you have not really spent much time watching them, I would ask how can you justify the statements you have made about them?



Yeah, I've watched Fox news, although I haven't seen the O'Reilly show. My statements are based upon what I've seen whenever watching the news being read on Fox: that the news consists more of graphics of flags waving and explosions going off to dramatic music than facts being told, that the news seems to spend as much time blaming a none-existent left wing movement for all the world's ills and that it seems to praise George Bush at every possible opportunity, often presenting the facts in a bias way, consisting of what is referred to in the UK as spin (is that term used in the US?). It often seems to be more an election advert or film trailer than a neutral reporting of world events, not that any of the world other than the US or Iraq is covered in the news of course

I'm not trying to single out Fox as having the only bad news programmes (ITV news in the UK is almost as bad), but its the worst I've seen yet.... well, that's not true - Al Jhazeera is worse
[ June 24, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 311
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Well, I for one, am captivated by the shots of George Bush in the Florida classroom. I can only thank Micheal Moore for showing me the face of a strong leader in the time of a national crisis.

When Andy Cord comes in and whispers in Bush's ear "America's under attck." I know what I think will be

Give me Howard Dean's wacko yell.
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
We've had too many problems deriving from political threads here of late, so I'm shutting this one down. Sorry, gang...
 
Something about .... going for a swim. With this tiny ad ...
SKIP - a book about connecting industrious people with elderly land owners
https://coderanch.com/t/skip-book
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic