So If A Media News Source Ran On Being Openly Biased..

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Who says he hates millions of Americans. At what point did you completely change your argument with this straw man?

You were comparing Ann Coulter and Al Franken

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You were comparing Ann Coulter and Al Franken

No I was making the relation between two sources that spoon feed liberal and conservative bias in hopes of showing that it goes both ways.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No I was making the relation between two sources that spoon feed liberal and conservative bias in hopes of showing that it goes both ways.

So Stalin, Reagan...both examples of leaders who favored strong confrontations in ideological battles

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No I was making the relation between two sources that spoon feed liberal and conservative bias in hopes of showing that it goes both ways.

the issue when it comes to bias shouldn't be argued with a channel's pundits. It should be in the selection and tone of reporting.

I'm sorry, but Fox News will never paint the Bush Administration in a negative picture.

It may say something to the effect of, "Bush has come under fire for..." However when doing a new report and saying on the graphic, "Dems will turn Senate into San Francisco" that is obviously a partisan jab.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So Stalin, Reagan...both examples of leaders who favored strong confrontations in ideological battles

What does this have to do with anything? If you're done debating the issue there's no reason to throw out these straw man arguments

[Donkey®]

So is there any correlation between Fox's (Fair and Balanced) and this?


Rice 'loves' Fox News; CBS anchor 'decent guy' - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice let slip her news media preferences Thursday, saying, "I love every single one" of Fox News network's correspondents and also favors CBS anchor Harry Smith.

In comments overheard on an open microphone between morning television interviews, including one with Fox, the top U.S. diplomat said: "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them."

But Rice told an aide that when she was next in Iraq she would like to do a "one-on-one" interview with CBS "The Early Show" anchor Harry Smith.

"He's a decent guy. I know they are, like, 55 in the ratings, but I like him," Rice said in comments monitored by Reuters on a television feed.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

the issue when it comes to bias shouldn't be argued with a channel's pundits. It should be in the selection and tone of reporting.

I'm sorry, but Fox News will never paint the Bush Administration in a negative picture.

It may say something to the effect of, "Bush has come under fire for..." However when doing a new report and saying on the graphic, "Dems will turn Senate into San Francisco" that is obviously a partisan jab.

Fox News puts Bush in a negative light more than NY Times puts him in a positive light. There's bias in all media including Fox. I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is the ignorant statement that conservatives Need to be force-fed their views and can't think for themselves and the liberals are the elitist group which can think for themselves.

So far all I've got in response to challenging that idea is a bunch of useless rhetoric and straw man arguments about personalities of unrelated people (pundits, not the followers) and something about Stalin.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Fox News puts Bush in a negative light more than NY Times puts him in a positive light. There's bias in all media including Fox. I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is the ignorant statement that conservatives Need to be force-fed their views and can't think for themselves and the liberals are the elitist group which can think for themselves.

So far all I've got in response to challenging that idea is a bunch of useless rhetoric and straw man arguments about personalities of unrelated people (pundits, not the followers) and something about Stalin.

It's in the definition of the words you use to define the two opposing groups really. "conservative" means old school standard don't change way of thinking and acting. So you pretty much KNOW how Conservatives are going to act and what they'll say. "Liberals" aren't constrained by what their 'party line' is. Outside of the box thinking is what they're about. Stretching the limits of "the norm" and looking outside it for opinions and solutions.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Fox News puts Bush in a negative light more than NY Times puts him in a positive light. There's bias in all media including Fox. I'm not denying that. What I am arguing is the ignorant statement that conservatives Need to be force-fed their views and can't think for themselves and the liberals are the elitist group which can think for themselves.

So far all I've got in response to challenging that idea is a bunch of useless rhetoric and straw man arguments about personalities of unrelated people (pundits, not the followers) and something about Stalin.

Please.. I beg you to find any mention of Bush's failures..one that lays the blame on him, or any sort of negative light on Foxnews.com

Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com


Find me one report that shows him in a negative light at all.
Then look for one regarding any democrat. It won't be hard.

Democrats are banking on popular support to back their revolt against the president, who announced Wednesday night that he wants to increase the number of U.S. forces in Baghdad and al Anbar province

It's a matter of language, and a matter of when to use quotes.

for example, I could say:

The Democrats' plan on Iraq

or

The Democrats' "plan" on Iraq

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Please.. I beg you to find any mention of Bush's failures..one that lays the blame on him, or any sort of negative light on Foxnews.com

People on this forum have used stories from Fox to show negatives of Bush and to say "See even Fox is reporting it...." etc etc.

Fox reports the same stories as everyone else. Whereas when NY Times is forced to write a story that's good for Bush there will be the first 10 paragraphs bad, one good, 10 more bad... Fox will often start off with the first few paragraphs bad, then finish up with the counter argument to shed some good.

I'm not gonna go through their site for you. It's just as easy for you to do it yourself.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Please.. I beg you to find any mention of Bush's failures..one that lays the blame on him, or any sort of negative light on Foxnews.com

Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com


Find me one report that shows him in a negative light at all.
Then look for one regarding any democrat. It won't be hard.




It's a matter of language, and a matter of when to use quotes.

for example, I could say:

The Democrats' plan on Iraq

or

The Democrats' "plan" on Iraq

Not much good "spin" on this story.

FOXNews.com - Former Officers Warn 'Surge' in Iraq Could Place Fatal Strain on U.S. Military - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

People on this forum have used stories from Fox to show negatives of Bush and to say "See even Fox is reporting it...." etc etc.

Fox reports the same stories as everyone else. Whereas when NY Times is forced to write a story that's good for Bush there will be the first 10 paragraphs bad, one good, 10 more bad... Fox will often start off with the first few paragraphs bad, then finish up with the counter argument to shed some good.

I'm not gonna go through their site for you. It's just as easy for you to do it yourself.

The NYT isn't on cable television. I'm not comparing newspapers because I haven't brought up the Washington Times which is like the NYT for the GOP.

I'm talking about Fox News. When people say, "even fox news is reporting it" it is because it usually involves a scandal or something that puts policies in a bad light.

However the Bush Administration is blameless. I have yet to see Fox News blame Bush directly for any of the problems he has caused.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Not much good "spin" on this story.

FOXNews.com - Former Officers Warn 'Surge' in Iraq Could Place Fatal Strain on U.S. Military - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

I was hoping you'd quote that story. Who now funds the operation?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I was hoping you'd quote that story. Who now funds the operation?

Would you say that story pretty much shows his sending more troops policy in a negative light? I would say it did.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Would you say that story pretty much shows his sending more troops policy in a negative light? I would say it did.

Or is shows that any type of funding resistance by Congress will be the cause of such.

The military has been underfunded due to the lack of oversight in the war budget.. troops getting the essentials while reconstruction companies have been squandering the funds left and right.

none of that story mentions the reasons why currently they're strained, and why an increase in troop levels without a fund increase (what Bush is asking for) would damage the military more.

you say tomato, I say tomato.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So you're comparing CNN's Situation Room, Washington Post, and the top Universities of the world to Sean Hannity?

I would invite you to substantiate your claims and move beyond speculation or small anecdotes

dailykos, democratic underground

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

dailykos, democratic underground

so now we are going to blogs?

One day, its CNN and Wolf Blitzer's two hour prime time situation room that is so bias, now we're left with "left wing blogs are left-wing!"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

so now we are going to blogs?

One day, its CNN and Wolf Blitzer's two hour prime time situation room that is so bias, now we're left with "left wing blogs are left-wing!"

He's substantiating the claim that liberals are spoon-fed ideals too and cited sources to substantiate the claim. Which is something you invited us to do. If you go back to the what he's responding to you'll see it has more to do with the discussion than Stalin....

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

so now we are going to blogs?

One day, its CNN and Wolf Blitzer's two hour prime time situation room that is so bias, now we're left with "left wing blogs are left-wing!"

make up your mind. You said "Liberals don't need opinions force-fed to them," yet those sites are very popular among the far left.