Proof that Fox News is bias: - Page 3

Thorgrim · 10-10-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Here's a quick one:

Classic CNN Bias

I don't trust the Jerusalem Post, or the IDF, and CNN isn't required to either

imind · 10-10-2006, 12:11 PM

i say again...

i don't know why any of you depend on 'personal experience' to determine bias in media, when there are more quantitative data out their to cite.

Thorgrim · 10-10-2006, 12:13 PM

Comparing Cheney X and etc here is so ridiculous

You honestly think people changed their opinion about BushCheney because there was a brief X on the screen? Give me a break

But someone flipping channels, seeing "mark foley (D)" could go "oh that democratic scumbag, and then flip to another channel...changing their opinion

JaJae · 10-10-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Comparing Cheney X and etc here is so ridiculous

You honestly think people changed their opinion about BushCheney because there was a brief X on the screen? Give me a break

But someone flipping channels, seeing "mark foley (D)" could go "oh that democratic scumbag, and then flip to another channel...changing their opinion

Who cares if you think people may or may not have changed their opinions?

I love how people so quickly dismiss the bias of the liberal media, yet hang Fox out for everything. CNN has many many "errors", Fox has a few and they crap for each and every one of them. CNN never put the wrong affiliation under someone's name?

Why is one argument "ridiculous" yet the other seems to be perfectly fine in your book?

And then people say there's no liberal bias?

They go... see look, Fox did this this and this. And you go well CNN did this this and this and the response is "that's ridiculous. I think this instance of Fox is worse, so my argument is correct. Meanwhile I'll completely ignore your other comments."

imind · 10-10-2006, 12:18 PM

i don't know why any of you depend on 'personal experience' to determine bias in media, when there are more quantitative data out their to cite.

lew · 10-10-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Comparing Cheney X and etc here is so ridiculous

You honestly think people changed their opinion about BushCheney because there was a brief X on the screen? Give me a break

But someone flipping channels, seeing "mark foley (D)" could go "oh that democratic scumbag, and then flip to another channel...changing their opinion

Right.

Link to ONE person thinking Foley was a Democrat?

Thorgrim · 10-10-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Right.

Link to ONE person thinking Foley was a Democrat?

I bet I'd have an easier time finding someone thinking Foley was a Democrat than I would thinking Dick Cheney has a big X on his face

7960 · 10-10-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Talking about "Thank god and President Bush" when you are there to talk about the market is bias.

No, it's not. She was saying the market is going to tank if there's an attack here and then said "thank god and thank president bush" that there have been no more attacks here.

She's saying we're lucky there have been no attacks here and she's saying president bush (his policies, I presume) is the reason there have been no attacks.

Where's the bias?

7960 · 10-10-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

News is not supposed to take sides in arguments between one half of the country and the other...Democrats feel one way you can't just dismiss it in a headline title of a NEWS nonopinion piece

And BTW, this isn't formal logic

When Harry Truman said "The buck stops here" no one went 'OH MR PRESIDENT THATS NOT LOGICAL!"

Politics is politics, Formal Logic is formal logic

Tell all of that to the person who used that EXACT same logic in an argument against me

imind · 10-10-2006, 01:01 PM

i'm going to use the invisibility i now enjoy to enter the rooms of your girlfriends.

these arguements of individual news stories have been fought since the dawn of time, and are a waste of precious text. multiple studies have been conducted and those should be cited. in pointing out individual stories, you're commenting more on the individual, rather than the network; its the sum of these stories that matter.

Stylerod · 10-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by imind

i'm going to use the invisibility i now enjoy to enter the rooms of your girlfriends.

these arguements of individual news stories have been fought since the dawn of time, and are a waste of precious text. multiple studies have been conducted and those should be cited. in pointing out individual stories, you're commenting more on the individual, rather than the network; its the sum of these stories that matter.

Stylerod · 10-10-2006, 01:19 PM

How about this golden oldie?

CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.

In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted that for the past decade the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.

Or the statement that brought Jordans downfall; that US soldiers were under instructions to purposely target reporters in Iraq?

Thorgrim · 10-10-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

How about this golden oldie?

Or the statement that brought Jordans downfall; that US soldiers were under instructions to purposely target reporters in Iraq?

Thats an old one

CNN was protecting its source who would have been killed if they would have released the information

Also, CNN reported the findings of Human Rights groups at the same time, so the information was out there, just not from one guy who would get killed just to make a news story

Stylerod · 10-10-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Thats an old one

CNN was protecting its source who would have been killed if they would have released the information

Also, CNN reported the findings of Human Rights groups at the same time, so the information was out there, just not from one guy who would get killed just to make a news story

For 10 years??????

They were suppressing news. It seems they don't care to "hide" news that might compromise national security. How convenient....

I remember them showing "Breaking News" when Saddam won an election with something like 98% of the vote. They showed it like it was real news. They turned into a mouthpeice for Saddam. And they seemed to enjoy it.

Thorgrim · 10-10-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

For 10 years??????

They were suppressing news. It seems they don't care to "hide" news that might compromise national security. How convenient....

They showed it like it was real news. They turned into a mouthpeice for Saddam. And they seemed to enjoy it.

Nope and Nope

Dumpy Dooby · 10-10-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by imind

i'm going to use the invisibility i now enjoy to enter the rooms of your girlfriends.

these arguements of individual news stories have been fought since the dawn of time, and are a waste of precious text. multiple studies have been conducted and those should be cited. in pointing out individual stories, you're commenting more on the individual, rather than the network; its the sum of these stories that matter.

Cite some? I'd be interested in reading them.

motivez · 10-10-2006, 02:17 PM

@ the idea that the "X" over cheney, something that was on screen accidently for a second too long that they use to help position cameras or whatever it was is somehow evidence of "bias", get real.

Dumpy, you're right, but the difference is they push their commentary as "News", and claim it to be "fair and balanced", when it's anything but.

Every news outlet is biased to some extent, Fox is just to a much greater extent than anything else except the NY Times, as their bias starts at the organizational level rather than with an individual producer, etc.. It's their entire reason for existing.

liberalsuck · 10-10-2006, 05:58 PM

It has to do with the lack of time they give the republican point of view on any given subject.. like the 'round table' discussions, where the republican is typically outnumbered by other guests.. who are highly trained to get the republican 'off point..' and the favorable amount of time given to the liberal positions (smears, and unverifiable accusations); the 'cover stories'; the liberal point of view being the only view and consideration.. etc. etc.

You liberals are so used to the liberal spoon-fed bias, that fair and balanced news seems 'right wing' to you. It's the same phenomenon with the average college grad these days... they are so spoon-fed that they are not used to debating in the real world, with real opposing views.

JaJae · 10-10-2006, 06:02 PM

Please don't say "you liberals" and then condenscend them.

Everyone is entitled to their political beliefs here.

SoFlaJDM · 10-10-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Please don't say "you liberals" and then condenscend them.

Everyone is entitled to their political beliefs here.

that guy gives "you conservatives" a bad name