War on Terror

Gato_Solo said:
Show me a news article by Fox that is biased. Just one. If you pull up an editorial, I'll never let you forget it.
Click to expand...

That is the real problem with Fox news. It is overwhelmingly opinion and very small percent news.

I'll use today as an example... from 7am-7pm there is exactly 3 hours of news and 9 hours or editorials/feature hosts. So for every 3 hours of opinion there is an hour of news. Oh did i mention the "news" part is placed in the lowest viewing time slots?

www.tvguide.com
 
ekahs retsam said:
That is the real problem with Fox news. It is overwhelmingly opinion and very small percent news.

I'll use today as an example... from 7am-7pm there is exactly 3 hours of news and 9 hours or editorials/feature hosts. So for every 3 hours of opinion there is an hour of news. Oh did i mention the "news" part is placed in the lowest viewing time slots?

www.tvguide.com
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you couldn't find a biased news article, or you wouldn't find a biased news article?
 
Gato_Solo said:
So you're saying that you couldn't find a biased news article, or you wouldn't find a biased news article?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the editorial sections of Fox news are out of control and that it is over shadowing the small percentage of real news it does report. I'm saying that Fox primarily isn't reporting news as so much as it is giving editorials and should not be considered news at all.

If someone gave you 90% political pandering and 10% facts regardless of the quality of the facts it doesn't change what the product is.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Show me a news article by Fox that is biased. Just one. If you pull up an editorial, I'll never let you forget it.
Click to expand...

Bias does not have to contain lies to be effective. You know humpty dumpty is not just any old egg. He's got a good hard shell and even if he falls he has all the kings horses and all the kings men at his disposal. All these things i have said about humpty dumpty are in fact true and it paints a good picture that helps us to feel secure that if humpty falls he'll be ok.
On the other hand humpty, ragrdless of his nice shell, is an egg and eggs are fragel. Anyway what do horses and men know about putting an egg back together? See it's all in how the picture is painted. This is why i've pretty much given up all tv news infortmation sources aside from c-span, Chris Matthews and Charlie Rose. Because the networks are all mostly enetertainment based they've moved beyond facts/story telling and into the realm of picture painting and drawing conclusions when there are no conclusions in a situation like Iraq. It's funny i turned on fox news the other day when they were discussing Iraq(it's been awhile since i've watched) and after about a half hour i walked away feeling pretty good about how well things seem to be going. It's like reason had temporarily abanded me. The facts are that we're making progress but what happens when we leave? America has a strong will and an even greater amount of power(money, resources etc...). The Iraqi military/police forces will never reach the level of our military so they'll have to make up for the withdrawl of American forces and resources with sheer will, determination and brutality. On top of that when we leave many of the restrictions forced upon radical eliments in Iraq will be lifted as much of the surveillance technology will be departing with American forces. Think Vietnam. Since neutralizing all terrorist forces is just not plausable it's eventually going to come down to the will of the Iraqis. Cnn, nbc, cbs, abc and Fox are all in the entertainment business and the reality which they present is just not worth its salt.
 
ekahs retsam said:
I'm saying that the editorial sections of Fox news are out of control and that it is over shadowing the small percentage of real news it does report. I'm saying that Fox primarily isn't reporting news as so much as it is giving editorials and should not be considered news at all.

If someone gave you 90% political pandering and 10% facts regardless of the quality of the facts it doesn't change what the product is.
Click to expand...

That's not what you're saying at all. You're saying that you don't want to show that you don't want to think for yourself, so you refuse to look at any alternative news sites, or listen to any alternative views so that you won't have to question whether you know the truth or not. You can mince words all you wish, but that's what I hear from people who don't like Fox, but will embrace Pravda, the NY Times, or any other news program thought of as liberal, without the slightest doubt to their truth. Not only that, but your last post also tells me that you are lazy. Not willing to dig a bit to find the truth, but you'd rather somebody handed you something that you want to believe is true. You have lost quite a bit of respect, and your opinions on all things are now going to be placed in the same catagory as my daughters when they were 3.
 
*shakes head*

Oh Gato, why must you always resort to patronising and/or insulting when backed into a corner? :disgust2: Anyway, as YOU appear to be the proponent of the Fox news group, I believe the burden of proof lies with YOU to come up with proof that fox releases 'unbiased' news items. Here's Fox's online maxim : "Offers worldwide news coverage, analysis, show profiles, broadcast schedules,
team biographies, and email news alerts". News coverage gets first priority, now tell me why there's actually so little of it? :shrug: WITHOUT insulting my intelligence, if it's at all possible. :rolleyes:
 
BeardofPants said:
*shakes head*

Oh Gato, why must you always resort to patronising and/or insulting when backed into a corner? :disgust2: Anyway, as YOU appear to be the proponent of the Fox news group, I believe the burden of proof lies with YOU to come up with proof that fox releases 'unbiased' news items. Here's Fox's online maxim : "Offers worldwide news coverage, analysis, show profiles, broadcast schedules,
team biographies, and email news alerts". News coverage gets first priority, now tell me why there's actually so little of it? :shrug: WITHOUT insulting my intelligence, if it's at all possible. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry.

1. If you wish to prove me wrong, then prove me wrong. That's what a debate is all about.

2. Patronizing I may be, but when someone gives an opinion that I feel is wrong, I tell them.

As for insulting your intelligence, I only insult those who will, when shown something that is factual, won't even look at the facts as shown, and instead make excuses as to why they won't look.

Now. To answer your question. FoxNews gives news top priority, and actually interrupts their scheduled programs when new stories come to the surface. The reason that they don't 'schedule' news is because watching the same report 200 times in one day, like CNN and MSNBC, is not going to change what happened. It's only going to give a reporter time to add more and more of his/her personal views to what they see. I'd rather have a quick brief when the incident first occurs, and a followup at the end of the day, if anything changes.

I'll give you an example...

During a hurricane about 6 years ago, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were here in Charleston, as thick as fleas on a dog. There was a report of a famous landmark being damaged by the storm. The Folly Beach Pier, to be exact. All during the day, the reports of the pier...with the same footage being shown...was appearing on CNN and MSNBC, and all during the day, the damage was being reported as worse than it actually was. At the end of a two hour span, the pier went from slight damage to being destroyed, and washed out to sea. I'll clue you in on what actually happened.

During a period of high wind, and a large wave, a picnic table was washed off of the pier, and out to sea. That's it. The pier wasn't damaged at all. The only news outlet that didn't report the complete loss of the pier? Fox News.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not only that, but your last post also tells me that you are lazy. Not willing to dig a bit to find the truth, but you'd rather somebody handed you something that you want to believe is true. You have lost quite a bit of respect, and your opinions on all things are now going to be placed in the same catagory as my daughters when they were 3.
Click to expand...

Respect? Interesting you should mention it considering you just inferred I was lazy and my opinions are on the level with your daughters? Your opinions of me personaly are not at issue and I would prefer you keeping to the topic at hand rather than resort to petty attacks.

As I was saying, Fox does not offer as much news as it does opinions. I was using today's TV listings as proof that the vast majority of that channel is nothing but editorials and as you earlier pointed out.

Gato_Solo said:
What most have against Fox is their editorial section.
Click to expand...

So the editorial on Fox (Fox News has been proven to be mostly editorial content) is at best objectionable...
 
ekahs retsam said:
Respect? Interesting you should mention it considering you just inferred I was lazy and my opinions are on the level with your daughters? Your opinions of me personaly are not at issue and I would prefer you keeping to the topic at hand rather than resort to petty attacks.

As I was saying, Fox does not offer as much news as it does opinions. I was using today's TV listings as proof that the vast majority of that channel is nothing but editorials and as you earlier pointed out.



So you say that the editorial on Fox (Fox News has been proven to be mostly editorial content) is at best objectionable...
Click to expand...

You didn't go to the site, and you haven't posted one news article, have you? That's what I call lazy. Maybe you have another definition. You refuse to go outside your comfort zone to seek the truth. That's what I call immature. You don't like it? Fine. Put me on ignore, or stay out of my posts. That's another thing an adult would do.
 
Gato_Solo said:
You didn't go to the site, and you haven't posted one news article, have you? That's what I call lazy. Maybe you have another definition. You refuse to go outside your comfort zone to seek the truth. That's what I call immature. You don't like it? Fine. Put me on ignore, or stay out of my posts. That's another thing an adult would do.
Click to expand...

oh no.. ignoring you isn't the answer to your personal attacks. I want to talk about the issues but that doesn't seem to be your agenda. You have repeatedly called me names and insulted me rather than finding counter evidence. That is my definition of immature.
 
ekahs retsam said:
oh no.. ignoring you isn't the answer to your personal attacks. I want to talk about the issues but that doesn't seem to be your agenda. You have repeatedly called me names and insulted me rather than finding counter evidence. That is my definition of immature.
Click to expand...

Nope. It wasn't a personal attack, but a rather apt description of your avoiding the topic, and now changing the issue because you are wrong. That is immature as well.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Nope. It wasn't a personal attack, but a rather apt description of your avoiding the topic, and now changing the issue because you are wrong. That is immature as well.
Click to expand...

How excatly am I advioding any topic?

Fox is mostly editorial content not news. It shouldn't be presented as news when it is obviously not.
 
ekahs retsam said:
How excatly am I advioding any topic?

Fox is mostly editorial content not news. It shouldn't be presented as news when it is obviously not.
Click to expand...

It has a news program. You refuse to show me a news article they wrote that is biased. I'll ask you again. Is it because you can't, or because you won't. If it's because you can't, that means your argument is lost. If it's because you won't, then it's because you are either lazy, afraid, or immature.
 
The issue with Fox news is that the majority isn't actually news, but opinion pieces and editorials. Citing Fox as a source for threads more often than not means citing editorials...individual posters have to take it upon themselves to filter out the biased editorials from the plain-Jane news.

The same can be said for NY Times, Washington Times, or any number of news sources. Panning one over the other doesn't seem to help promote the discussion. I don't see the effort helping in this discussion at all.
 
HomeLAN said:
*Sniff*

Can you smell the thread closure coming? I certainly can.
Click to expand...

I already set the precedent for shutting threads that go circular. Ask if either side has anything, or might come up with anything new to say.
 
I can't close it in this forum, but I'm on very good terms with the people who can. Be aware, it's being watched. Closely.
 
MrBishop said:
The issue with Fox news is that the majority isn't actually news, but opinion pieces and editorials. .
Click to expand...


As opposed to fabrication and fiction from a certain other news channel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top