Political Discussions
FOX News Misleads the Public
Posted by voodooKobra • 5/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: faux news, fox, fox news
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLdVNM9pQ8
One of the YouTubers I subscribe to just reuploaded this video. What do FOX news viewers have to say about this? Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think they can refute this?
User Comments
-
Fox "news" viewers can't handle the truth. It doesn't fit their perception of reality.-
LOL I guess you can't handle the truth sati. I figured it would only be a matter of time before you cried foul. Fox news is no worse or better than other media outlets, as far as slant. You confuse the commentators with the news portions of the network.
MSLSD, errr, I mean MSNBC (shout out to Mark Levin) does the same thing Agit8r. Does anyone really take Keith Olberman seriously?
And by the way, I am sure there is still plenty of kool aid ready for anyone who might want it.
-
-
All media outlets are guilty of significant "slant" and serious omissions. The difference with Fox, is that they bring on "experts" to directly mislead... I saw this just yesterday with the healthcare debate.-
Now you're being disingenuous. If you're trying to posit that other media outlets do "not" bring in experts of their own to debate global warming, economics, and or health care, you're either lying or without significant knowledge. I see it everyday on the Kudlow Report, Hardball, The Situation Room, Lou Dobbs, and a host of others. But let me guess, "their" experts lack malicious intent? Unbelievable. -
I couldn't say for sure, because i don't watch those particular shows. I just know that if I'm watching fox news during my 6:00 AM break, I'm going to see some silly crap compared to CNN or EVEN on MSNBC.
-
Fox's so called "experts" are often in the pocket of companies that benefit from their expertise.
PBS News Hour is really the only news program I trust to be completely unbiased.
-
-
Let us extend this colloquy. Fox prevaricates while other institutions play a bigger role in purveying the truth, although semiconscious in its application. Does it lay with intent, then? The atmospheric circumstances within Fox is pervaded with malevolence, whose singular design is to disregard the truth, "only" in so much that the truth will not provide a foundation to back up their argument. Is this your contention? Your inference is clear then, regardless of the shows you watch, that FOX is inherently fallacious while other news agencies furnish, because of their affinity to it, a higher degree of relevant truisms. But isn't truth, when viewed through the perceiver's prism, a standard that embodies a predilection towards self-interest? To say that other news factions are impartial in their representation is particularly absurd.
As far as PBS is concerned, I found thee;
oregonmag.com/PBSGAO.htm
rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Machan/Bias_at_The_News_Hour_.shtml
There are more.-
There are more.
I would hope so. Those are kind of lame.
-
Those are only lame to sati because they denigrate his beloved government television, PBS.
-
Well said liberty, by the way.
-
-
"mostly lukewarm mainstreamers without a scintilla of a seriously challenging opinion coming from any of them."
sounds like people you want analyzing stuff! When did being branded an "expert" require that you have a "challenging opinion"? That is what hacks are for!-
Republicans are radicals, so they want radicals doing analysis.
-
I have noticed that there is no longer a moment of silence for the fallen soldiers at the end of News Hour. When did that stop?
-
They may be lame, but they are a representation of bias that is perceived by viewers. Does this make them less legitimate, or again, is it another example of the perceiver's prism? Agit8r stated quite laconically with these words;
"All media outlets are guilty of significant "slant" and serious omissions."
Unfortunately, the rest is not consistent with reason. If one prescribes to a specific news format, it is conceivable that they maintain a rationalized mental attitude with the presented material. And radicals, what is a radical? These are definitions;
"One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions."
"Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions."
By definition our Founding Fathers were radicals. By definition, the policies enacted by our current administration fit within these parameters. You can maintain that probity exists within the Democratic party, while illustrating the mendacious behavior of the Republican right, but it doesn't necessarily make it "completely" true.
-
-
Of course our founding fathers were radicals. They were revolutionists. The only difference between a revolutionist and a terrorist is who won.
This is probably the closest definition in this context: "favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms." I'd also add reckless to the equation.
I'd agree that some of the current policies are radical -- the bailouts, especially. But it's a reaction to the radical policies that got us into this mess.
The removal of regulations that were enacted after the Great Depression in an attempt to prevent a future depressions was radical. Cutting taxes at a time of war is radical, as is running up enormous deficits at a time when supposedly, "the fundamentals of our economy were strong." Laws influenced by belief in some imaginary being is radical. Invading a sovereign nation that was of no imminent threat to us is radical. Torturing prisoners is radical in regard to our system of laws as is our elected officials breaking laws with no repercussions.
Radical deregulation has proven to be disastrous to our economy, yet it's still one of the main tenets of Republicanism. The idea that deficits don't matter is embraced by the right, but now we're wasting over 400 billion dollars a year just on interest on the debt.
Republicans don't seem to believe that experience or competence matters. How the hell did George W. Bush ever get elected governor of Texas when he never held a political office nor was he ever successful in any of his business endeavours.
The Republican party is a radical party.-
[The only difference between a revolutionist and a terrorist is who won.]
sati, you are saying that had our founding fathers lost their bid for our independence that they would be on equal footing with Islamic Fascists that behead people and promote suicide bombers??? Please tell me that you don't really believe that.
[I'd agree that some of the current policies are radical -- the bailouts, especially. But it's a reaction to the radical policies that got us into this mess.]
Two points on this, but I don't know why I bother, you won't answer to either point I raise.
1. It is okay to spend out country into oblivion because it is all the other party's fault? As long as you are liberal, then two wrongs make a right, I guess.
2. You said "...some of the current policies are radical..." Please, illuminate us as to which of Obama's other policies you think are radical.
By the way, the fundamentals of our economy ARE strong. Because Obama even admitted it, of course it was AFTER he got elected. While campaigning, he made fun of McCain for being an optimist, yet after his election he was such a doom and gloom predicter that even Clinton told him to lighten up. All the while the stock market plummeted.
abcnews.go.com/GMA/President44/story?id=6916695&page=1
[Republicans don't seem to believe that experience or competence matters. How the hell did George W. Bush ever get elected governor of Texas when he never held a political office nor was he ever successful in any of his business endeavours.]
You REALLY want to go there, when your own anointed one did absolutely NOTHING other than be a community organizer?? He was a Senator for how long? Other than being elected for office, he has done NOTHING. Point to one, ONE "endeavor" that he excelled at, and parroting Sol Alinsky does not count. -
Antics, you're a moron.
-
The only difference between a revolutionist and a terrorist is who won.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!! Sati wins logic prize of the week.
If we had lost the revolution, the founding fathers would have been demonized, and burned at the stake.
With glee, at that. -
Ha ha ha ha sati. Gotcha again. You are sooooo predictable. I knew you would have no valid response.
Thanks for keeping the liberal stereotype alive and well!
-
-
There's nothing wrong with being radical and zealous for liberty and justice. Being fanatical about superstitions, greed and artificial hierarchies is another matter:(
-
It's bad luck to talk about superstitions...
-
It is? Then why do people witness to their religious delusions without having terrible random things happen to them?
-
-
Aaah, remember the good old days when the Greek philosophers debated? And remember when Plato called a fellow debater a moron for dissenting? Mmmm, the age of enlightenment. Sati, run for local office.
-
No, dissent is good, as is debate, but that guy's a frikin' moron.
-
-
I am giving you a mental hug right now!!
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
