Beer
- kcar - Jul 4, 2025 - 9:19pm
Trump
- R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 8:41pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 7:10pm
Hey Baby, It's The 4th O' July
- islander - Jul 4, 2025 - 4:54pm
Russia
- islander - Jul 4, 2025 - 4:51pm
July 2025 Photo Theme - Stone
- fractalv - Jul 4, 2025 - 2:46pm
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Jul 4, 2025 - 2:20pm
Britain
- R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 1:41pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Jul 4, 2025 - 1:31pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 11:39am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 11:10am
NY Times Strands
- maryte - Jul 4, 2025 - 9:48am
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - Jul 4, 2025 - 9:24am
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Jul 4, 2025 - 8:08am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Jul 4, 2025 - 6:52am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Jul 4, 2025 - 6:36am
Best Song Comments.
- 2644364236 - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:32pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:29pm
Customize a shirt with my favorite album
- eve0 - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:13pm
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Jul 3, 2025 - 7:27pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 3, 2025 - 3:49pm
M.A.G.A.
- islander - Jul 3, 2025 - 1:53pm
Immigration
- R_P - Jul 3, 2025 - 1:23pm
The Obituary Page
- ScottFromWyoming - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:27am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:23am
Israel
- R_P - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:10am
Documentaries
- Proclivities - Jul 3, 2025 - 9:31am
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi...
- Steely_D - Jul 3, 2025 - 8:36am
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote')
- black321 - Jul 3, 2025 - 7:40am
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Jul 3, 2025 - 7:15am
Copyright and theft
- black321 - Jul 3, 2025 - 6:48am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- wossName - Jul 3, 2025 - 6:30am
Trump Lies™
- R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 5:01pm
Outstanding Covers
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 2, 2025 - 2:38pm
Protest Songs
- R_P - Jul 2, 2025 - 2:20pm
Fox Spews
- islander - Jul 2, 2025 - 10:39am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jul 2, 2025 - 8:02am
Economix
- rgio - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:37am
New Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Jul 2, 2025 - 7:30am
Carmen to Stones
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 1, 2025 - 7:44pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jul 1, 2025 - 5:27pm
Baseball, anyone?
- rgio - Jul 1, 2025 - 11:06am
President(s) Musk/Trump
- VV - Jul 1, 2025 - 8:10am
June 2025 Photo Theme - Arches
- Alchemist - Jun 30, 2025 - 9:10pm
Please help me find this song
- LazyEmergency - Jun 30, 2025 - 8:42pm
Forum Posting Guidelines
- rickylee123 - Jun 30, 2025 - 6:17pm
Thanks William!
- buddy - Jun 30, 2025 - 5:49pm
Living in America
- R_P - Jun 30, 2025 - 3:15pm
Gardeners Corner
- marko86 - Jun 30, 2025 - 10:39am
Comics!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 30, 2025 - 7:59am
Birthday wishes
- Coaxial - Jun 30, 2025 - 6:36am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Jun 30, 2025 - 5:39am
Global Mix renaming
- frazettaart - Jun 29, 2025 - 9:23am
Iran
- R_P - Jun 28, 2025 - 8:56pm
Live Music
- Steely_D - Jun 28, 2025 - 6:53pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 28, 2025 - 10:17am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 28, 2025 - 9:52am
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Jun 27, 2025 - 3:00pm
Know your memes
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2025 - 11:41am
What Makes You Sad?
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:41am
Calling all Monty Python fans!
- FeydBaron - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:30am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 27, 2025 - 10:23am
SCOTUS
- Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2025 - 8:30am
Framed - movie guessing game
- Proclivities - Jun 27, 2025 - 6:25am
Yummy Snack
- Proclivities - Jun 26, 2025 - 1:17pm
Parents and Children
- kurtster - Jun 26, 2025 - 11:32am
What Makes You Laugh?
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2025 - 9:36pm
PUNS- Political Punditry and so-called journalism
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2025 - 12:06pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 11:30am
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2025 - 10:32am
Astronomy!
- black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 8:58am
The Grateful Dead
- black321 - Jun 25, 2025 - 7:13am
Billionaires
- R_P - Jun 24, 2025 - 4:57pm
Great guitar faces
- Steely_D - Jun 24, 2025 - 4:15pm
Buying a Cell Phone
- Steely_D - Jun 24, 2025 - 3:05pm
|
Index »
Entertainment »
TV »
Fox Spews
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 ... 38, 39, 40 Next |
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:49pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:You are incorrect. From Real Clear Politics: Wow...who knew? The same trend holds...downward. Or do you wish to deny that, too? Pick a number, ride a winner...all show the same trend.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:49pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:Pointless. Likeable or not, Mr. Obama, according to Gallup, now sits at a new low of approval: 40%. Liking Mr. Obama is not going to help the unemployed nor make his decided Liberal agenda more palatable to most. And, despite some wrongheaded notions, Glenn Beck is not FOX.
Possibly as pointless as approval rates? (Gallup:)   Obviously Glenn Beck isn't Fox, he's merely an employee hosting a show with political commentary on the Fox News Channel.
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:47pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:...The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News. ... Too funny. When necessary, lather, rinse, repeat. This story has been around for as long as some Left wing bloggers decided to unleash it. If you would just look at it only superficially, you would see it for what it is: pure, unadulterated, fetid rubbish. The last election...so, all those independents, the same ones that just 2 years prior had helped elect Mr. Obama, began tuning into FOX in what, lethally stupid doses, and viola!, having been dumbed down by FOX, they voted largely Republican? Please. I don't want to call it the purest of dumbness, but the endless denial over what the voters said loudly just 8 weeks ago, is pathetic. Democrats got the same country butt whuppin' Republicans had rec'd in '06 and '08. Did Republicans then turn to some reason that bore no relation to reality or even sanity, and say, well we lost because of XY & Z, all of which were unrelated to voter sentiment? No. Once again the failure to distill news from opinion as regards FOX. MSNBC reports the news and that is vastly different from the Left wing goop Mr. Olbermann spews by the barrel.
|
|
Monkeysdad

Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:44pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:You are incorrect. From Real Clear Politics: 40%...45%...whatever; he's a long way down from where he was 2 years ago....even a year ago. And I note that the numbers are declining......
|
|
hippiechick

Location: topsy turvy land Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:39pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
Pointless. Likeable or not, Mr. Obama, according to Gallup, now sits at a new low of approval: 40%. Liking Mr. Obama is not going to help the unemployed nor make his decided Liberal agenda more palatable to most. And, despite some wrongheaded notions, Glenn Beck is not FOX.
You are incorrect. From Real Clear Politics:
|
|
hippiechick

Location: topsy turvy land Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:37pm |
|
...The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News. ...
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:31pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:Don't tell Fox News, but Obama's better liked than Reagan or W. BushFrom today's Wall Street Journal : Both pollsters say Mr. Obama retains a strong reservoir of good will, considering the string of bad news that has buffeted his White House: 9.8% unemployment; the worst congressional losses for his party in a midterm election since 1946; continuing discontent with his signature health-care law; even the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Fully 72% of Americans say they like the president personally, a reading well above those of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at this point in their presidencies. In other words, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which dominates at Fox News and throughout the right-wing media, is not the norm. This obsessive desire to tear down Obama and present him as a monstrous man determined to destroy the United States from within (I'm looking at you Glenn Beck) is a distinctly radical view among Americans. That's worth keeping in mind next time you tune into Fox News. Pointless. Likeable or not, Mr. Obama, according to Gallup, now sits at a new low of approval: 40%. Liking Mr. Obama is not going to help the unemployed nor make his decided Liberal agenda more palatable to most. And, despite some wrongheaded notions, Glenn Beck is not FOX.
|
|
Monkeysdad

Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:27pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:Don't tell Fox News, but Obama's better liked than Reagan or W. BushFrom today's Wall Street Journal : Both pollsters say Mr. Obama retains a strong reservoir of good will, considering the string of bad news that has buffeted his White House: 9.8% unemployment; the worst congressional losses for his party in a midterm election since 1946; continuing discontent with his signature health-care law; even the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Fully 72% of Americans say they like the president personally, a reading well above those of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at this point in their presidencies. In other words, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which dominates at Fox News and throughout the right-wing media, is not the norm. This obsessive desire to tear down Obama and present him as a monstrous man determined to destroy the United States from within (I'm looking at you Glenn Beck) is a distinctly radical view among Americans. That's worth keeping in mind next time you tune into Fox News. I've actually seen this on Fox News(not Glenn Beck,...who watches that sh*t anyway?). A 72% "like" rating as a person....and a 48% "approval" rating as it pertains to the job he's doing. So what?!
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:22pm |
|
Don't tell Fox News, but Obama's better liked than Reagan or W. BushFrom today's Wall Street Journal : Both pollsters say Mr. Obama retains a strong reservoir of good will, considering the string of bad news that has buffeted his White House: 9.8% unemployment; the worst congressional losses for his party in a midterm election since 1946; continuing discontent with his signature health-care law; even the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Fully 72% of Americans say they like the president personally, a reading well above those of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at this point in their presidencies. In other words, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which dominates at Fox News and throughout the right-wing media, is not the norm. This obsessive desire to tear down Obama and present him as a monstrous man determined to destroy the United States from within (I'm looking at you Glenn Beck) is a distinctly radical view among Americans. That's worth keeping in mind next time you tune into Fox News.
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:08pm |
|
Jack_Jefferson wrote:First off, let me say I agree with Knut about MSNBC. Olbermann's commentaries can be good and insightful at times (heavy handed, but good nonetheless), but I quit watching because I couldn't stomach his ending segment about tacky people like the Octomom, Sarah Palin, Kate what's-her-name, Donald Trump, OJ Simpson, etc. However, I think MSNBC's demise started with them becoming as blatantly biased as Fox News. That MSNBC morning show is such nonsense, but I think all of those morning shows are nonsense.
Now about Fox's morning show: it started out promising with a diverse trio of co-anchors (an African American man, a scatterbrained blonde haired woman and a homosexual). But behind that seemingly cheerful facade, the tone of that show was no better than that time spent around the water cooler with that terminally PO'd co-worker. I've even seen the weather man on Fox make backhanded remarks about the president or Harry Reid. I asked a regular viewer of the show about that. His response was that they have been doing stuff like that for years on NBC. Maybe so, but not to that degree. I don't recall Willard Scott or Gene Shalit dissing Reagan or Bush while showing storm fronts or waxing about the latest Dudley Moore film.
musik_knut wrote:
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.
I think therein lies the secret of Fox's success. Chilean miners have no bearing on how I make decisions in my life, impact the price of gasoline or shape policy where I live. Yet some of us are drawn to things like that. I think there is a specific demagraphic that they are trying to appeal to with such stories, a demagraphic more encompassing than just conservatives. I'd be curious to know what that story was that was "important to mostly liberals". I'd be willing to bet it was an issue that should be relevant to all voters/consumers/workers, but not near as sexy as rescuing people you've never met before in a continent south of here. Sadly, most people are drawn to sensationalism, even moreso than information that has an impact on their day-to-day lives. I think the only time I can recall Fox not covering a such a story was when Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face. They even went so far as to say it wasn't that big of a deal, which I guess it wasn't, since that guy apologized to Cheney once the stitches were sown.
That was a time of greater civil demeanor, of a much less coarse Nation. And it was also a time when going snide could mean losing your job as a broadcaster or a talking head on the tube. Now, you can all but drop the F bomb in a comment and the only thing that interrupts some personal explosions on the air is a commercial break. Times change but not always for the better. Covering the Chilean miners was simply a compelling human interest story and much of the world covered it. For reasons of their own, MSNBC and CNN gave updates while FOX fixated on the unfolding drama.
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 3:00pm |
|
Danimal174 wrote:
While I'm not trying to defend Olbermann's impartiality by any means, he probably stands atop the pile because you disagree with most of his views, relative to other commentators. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would hold that post for me. In my opinion, they are the embodiment of what is wrong with Fox News and conservative talk radio; however, I'm sure I feel that way in part because I disagree with most of the beliefs and viewpoints they are pushing.
The problem I have with Fox is that it pushes opinionated viewpoints as "news". (I have only watched MSNBC a couple of times, but you may share the same complaint concerning their network.) If you're going to be opinionated and biased, just admit that you are. Don't give me a tagline of "fair and balanced" when you're anything but.
FAUX News, FIX News. That is how many of my friends on the other side see FOX News. The commentators are not the reporters, they are not in the field covering Katrina or Afghanistan or Congressional doings. FOX News, as I stated, uses the same sources, reports the same stories, especially those breaking stories. I don't listen to Mr. Beck and in particular, I despise Mr. Limbaugh. However, the few times I have heard their rants or comments, they paled in comparison to those of Mr. Olbermann who has recently shown a total lack of tolerance for views outside his own: he is now sniping at Mr. Obama when he once was one of Mr. Obama's more ardent and at times, man-crush defenders. In a forum now long forgotten, I said shortly after Mr. Obama won but was yet to be sworn in, that his greater opponents would be fellow Liberals. It might be taking that course for Mr. Obama. The 'fair and balanced' is a calling card, one that leaves FOX open to criticism. But where does most of the criticism come from? Certainly not their viewership which is number one among the many. It's like the unfortunate tag 'America's Team' that is hung on The Dallas Cowboys: lots of folks seethe at that calling card. So the majority of the critics of FOX are what, Liberal? That does not mean 'fair and balanced' is a false tag *anymore than being numer uno in viewership means it's a worthy tag*. I have never seen evidence that FOX lies. FOX lies. That suggest that that is all FOX does. If that be the case, then there must be buckets of evidence of lying. Lying where? In their commentaries which are afterall, opinion? In their field reports?
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 2:35pm |
|
Jack_Jefferson wrote:First off, let me say I agree with Knut about MSNBC. Olbermann's commentaries can be good and insightful at times (heavy handed, but good nonetheless), but I quit watching because I couldn't stomach his ending segment about tacky people like the Octomom, Sarah Palin, Kate what's-her-name, Donald Trump, OJ Simpson, etc. However, I think MSNBC's demise started with them becoming as blatantly biased as Fox News. That MSNBC morning show is such nonsense, but I think all of those morning shows are nonsense.
Now about Fox's morning show: it started out promising with a diverse trio of co-anchors (an African American man, a scatterbrained blonde haired woman and a homosexual). But behind that seemingly cheerful facade, the tone of that show was no better than that time spent around the water cooler with that terminally PO'd co-worker. I've even seen the weather man on Fox make backhanded remarks about the president or Harry Reid. I asked a regular viewer of the show about that. His response was that they have been doing stuff like that for years on NBC. Maybe so, but not to that degree. I don't recall Willard Scott or Gene Shalit dissing Reagan or Bush while showing storm fronts or waxing about the latest Dudley Moore film.
musik_knut wrote:
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.
I think therein lies the secret of Fox's success. Chilean miners have no bearing on how I make decisions in my life, impact the price of gasoline or shape policy where I live. Yet some of us are drawn to things like that. I think there is a specific demagraphic that they are trying to appeal to with such stories, a demagraphic more encompassing than just conservatives. I'd be curious to know what that story was that was "important to mostly liberals". I'd be willing to bet it was an issue that should be relevant to all voters/consumers/workers, but not near as sexy as rescuing people you've never met before in a continent south of here. Sadly, most people are drawn to sensationalism, even moreso than information that has an impact on their day-to-day lives. I think the only time I can recall Fox not covering a such a story was when Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face. They even went so far as to say it wasn't that big of a deal, which I guess it wasn't, since that guy apologized to Cheney once the stitches were sown.
All broadcast news programs these days are driven by the desire to increase market share, and thus advertising revenue. (Paddy Chayevsky's nightmare vision has more or less come to pass; think Glenn (Howard) Beck(Beal). (Although Beck was a morning zoo DJ to begin with, not a news anchor). And the competitive world of cable news broadcasting does seem to be leading to increased niche marketing approaches, much like newspapers in the UK; you watch the programming that reflects your substantially unchanging world view. Let's assume arguendo that Fox viewers are the least educated, or someone else's viewers are the most educated with regard to world events (or however you want to define "educated"). I think there is a correlation equals causation fallacy at work here. Just because I watch Beavis and Butthead, or Masterpiece theatre, doesn't mean I'm more or less educated because of what I watch. There might be more of a basis for proposing that Rupert Murdoch's FNC viewers were less educated than others as a result of watching Fox News if the primary function/mission of Fox News (or MSNBC or CNN) was informing viewers, but we've already established (I believe) that that's not their primary goal. Nor is it the primary goal of virtually any other so-called "broadcast news organization"; their goal is to entertain people to drive up ratings and revenues. So they give us entertainment dressed up to look like "news", "reporting", and "informed opinion".
|
|
Jack_Jefferson

Location: Columbus, OH Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 2:03pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. How did Fox News Suck? I happened to see their coverage of the miners' rescue. I was at a restaurant where it was on. Most of it was waiting for the next miner to be rescued. In the meantime, they kept re-iterating the obvious and throwing a bone to those that thrive on sensensional BS ("Hey, that miner has a wife and a mistress!"). A big, boring waste of airtime.
|
|
Jack_Jefferson

Location: Columbus, OH Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 1:31pm |
|
First off, let me say I agree with Knut about MSNBC. Olbermann's commentaries can be good and insightful at times (heavy handed, but good nonetheless), but I quit watching because I couldn't stomach his ending segment about tacky people like the Octomom, Sarah Palin, Kate what's-her-name, Donald Trump, OJ Simpson, etc. However, I think MSNBC's demise started with them becoming as blatantly biased as Fox News. That MSNBC morning show is such nonsense, but I think all of those morning shows are nonsense.
Now about Fox's morning show: it started out promising with a diverse trio of co-anchors (an African American man, a scatterbrained blonde haired woman and a homosexual). But behind that seemingly cheerful facade, the tone of that show was no better than that time spent around the water cooler with that terminally PO'd co-worker. I've even seen the weather man on Fox make backhanded remarks about the president or Harry Reid. I asked a regular viewer of the show about that. His response was that they have been doing stuff like that for years on NBC. Maybe so, but not to that degree. I don't recall Willard Scott or Gene Shalit dissing Reagan or Bush while showing storm fronts or waxing about the latest Dudley Moore film.
musik_knut wrote:
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.
I think therein lies the secret of Fox's success. Chilean miners have no bearing on how I make decisions in my life, impact the price of gasoline or shape policy where I live. Yet some of us are drawn to things like that. I think there is a specific demagraphic that they are trying to appeal to with such stories, a demagraphic more encompassing than just conservatives. I'd be curious to know what that story was that was "important to mostly liberals". I'd be willing to bet it was an issue that should be relevant to all voters/consumers/workers, but not near as sexy as rescuing people you've never met before in a continent south of here. Sadly, most people are drawn to sensationalism, even moreso than information that has an impact on their day-to-day lives. I think the only time I can recall Fox not covering a such a story was when Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face. They even went so far as to say it wasn't that big of a deal, which I guess it wasn't, since that guy apologized to Cheney once the stitches were sown.
|
|
Danimal174

Location: Upstate South Carolina Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 1:21pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
In the pantheon of arrogant, obnoxious, rude and mean spirited 'commentators', Mr. Olbermann stands atop the pile. Only recently has he seen fit to draw his unique name calling, smearing, lying brand of rubbish upon Mr. Obama and only because Mr. Obama had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and worse, because Mr. Obama has not taken us as far Left as Mr. Olbermann would want. While Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Hannity and others are not journalists in the purest sense, there are considerable differences: to Mr. Olbermann, anything said in a negative vein about Mr. Obama invites an often vulgar 'Special Commentary' where the targets are seen in Hitleresque stature by Mr. Olbermann. It bears keeping in mind that twice since 2008, MSNBC, the very network pulled hard to the Left by Mr. Olbermann, has had to rein him in for his blatant biases. Where the wheels of MSNBC began to fall off can be traced to the employment of Mr. Olbermann. MSNBC once had some following, they now lag behind 3AM infomercials. For whatever reasons, FOX leads MSNBC and the continually sinking CNN. That cannot be traced to the usual rationale provided by, in particular, MSNBC: well, FOX viewers are mostly racists and other slurs without proof or warrant. I guess when you're drowing by your own hand, you try to take others down by name calling. With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. When you see the field reporters of any network, they all do the best job possible, usually pass on the same information and cite the same sources. It's amusing to see so many Liberals rant on FOX while using the same reasons and words. FOX is despised by Liberals mostly because of their 'talking heads' and the bias they bring. Gee, and the other networks don't bring bias with their talking heads? FAUX News, suggestive of make believe news. Hardly. News is news and while one network might skim over what another concentrates on, reporting the news as FOX does is just reporting the news as the others do.
While I'm not trying to defend Olbermann's impartiality by any means, he probably stands atop the pile because you disagree with most of his views, relative to other commentators. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would hold that post for me. In my opinion, they are the embodiment of what is wrong with Fox News and conservative talk radio; however, I'm sure I feel that way in part because I disagree with most of the beliefs and viewpoints they are pushing. The problem I have with Fox is that it pushes opinionated viewpoints as "news". (I have only watched MSNBC a couple of times, but you may share the same complaint concerning their network.) If you're going to be opinionated and biased, just admit that you are. Don't give me a tagline of "fair and balanced" when you're anything but.
|
|
KurtfromLaQuinta

Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 1:13pm |
|
Sic 'em Knut!
I watch Fox just for Bill O Reilly. I find him entertaining and funny. And he backs up what he reports on.
Hannity is way over the top IMHO. Just as is that dorkus Colmes.
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:52pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Whatever you think of Olbermann, HE is the one that called out the bullshit by Fox, which admittedly became an arm of the Bush White House and was used to spread propaganda and lies. And that was a good thing.
Fox still is lying, as shown in my post, which got skipped over, but instead turned into a discussion of Olbermann.
Oh that's right...how could I forget...FOX got their talking points from The White House...and that was confirmed by Left wingers like Olbermann...good to know an unbiased source confirmed a lie they were spreading... Of course FOX is lying. I am comfortable in stating again, you are the most steeped partisan in RP... Once again, the views of Mr. Olbermann cannot be seen by anyone as less than extremely biased...so to him, all FOX is all bullshit...he only sees the truth as a radical Left winger sees it.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:46pm |
|
 “A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”
|
|
hippiechick

Location: topsy turvy land Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:44pm |
|
musik_knut wrote:
In the pantheon of arrogant, obnoxious, rude and mean spirited 'commentators', Mr. Olbermann stands atop the pile. Only recently has he seen fit to draw his unique name calling, smearing, lying brand of rubbish upon Mr. Obama and only because Mr. Obama had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and worse, because Mr. Obama has not taken us as far Left as Mr. Olbermann would want. While Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Hannity and others are not journalists in the purest sense, there are considerable differences: to Mr. Olbermann, anything said in a negative vein about Mr. Obama invites an often vulgar 'Special Commentary' where the targets are seen in Hitleresque stature by Mr. Olbermann. It bears keeping in mind that twice since 2008, MSNBC, the very network pulled hard to the Left by Mr. Olbermann, has had to rein him in for his blatant biases. Where the wheels of MSNBC began to fall off can be traced to the employment of Mr. Olbermann. MSNBC once had some following, they now lag behind 3AM infomercials. For whatever reasons, FOX leads MSNBC and the continually sinking CNN. That cannot be traced to the usual rationale provided by, in particular, MSNBC: well, FOX viewers are mostly racists and other slurs without proof or warrant. I guess when you're drowing by your own hand, you try to take others down by name calling. With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. When you see the field reporters of any network, they all do the best job possible, usually pass on the same information and cite the same sources. It's amusing to see so many Liberals rant on FOX while using the same reasons and words. FOX is despised by Liberals mostly because of their 'talking heads' and the bias they bring. Gee, and the other networks don't bring bias with their talking heads? FAUX News, suggestive of make believe news. Hardly. News is news and while one network might skim over what another concentrates on, reporting the news as FOX does is just reporting the news as the others do.
Whatever you think of Olbermann, HE is the one that called out the bullshit by Fox, which admittedly became an arm of the Bush White House and was used to spread propaganda and lies. And that was a good thing. Fox still is lying, as shown in my post, which got skipped over, but instead turned into a discussion of Olbermann.
|
|
musik_knut

Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:33pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:I am sorry, but I have watched both networks and other than the fact that MSNBC does not have "news" if thats what either of these networks call it 24/7, I see no difference between the two. They are both partisan as hell and useless to objective eyes. For every Olbermann there is a Hannity and so forth. If anyone who tries to tell me that either of these entertainment networks even resembles objective news, they are revealing their own partisan leanings.  In the pantheon of arrogant, obnoxious, rude and mean spirited 'commentators', Mr. Olbermann stands atop the pile. Only recently has he seen fit to draw his unique name calling, smearing, lying brand of rubbish upon Mr. Obama and only because Mr. Obama had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and worse, because Mr. Obama has not taken us as far Left as Mr. Olbermann would want. While Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Hannity and others are not journalists in the purest sense, there are considerable differences: to Mr. Olbermann, anything said in a negative vein about Mr. Obama invites an often vulgar 'Special Commentary' where the targets are seen in Hitleresque stature by Mr. Olbermann. It bears keeping in mind that twice since 2008, MSNBC, the very network pulled hard to the Left by Mr. Olbermann, has had to rein him in for his blatant biases. Where the wheels of MSNBC began to fall off can be traced to the employment of Mr. Olbermann. MSNBC once had some following, they now lag behind 3AM infomercials. For whatever reasons, FOX leads MSNBC and the continually sinking CNN. That cannot be traced to the usual rationale provided by, in particular, MSNBC: well, FOX viewers are mostly racists and other slurs without proof or warrant. I guess when you're drowing by your own hand, you try to take others down by name calling. With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. When you see the field reporters of any network, they all do the best job possible, usually pass on the same information and cite the same sources. It's amusing to see so many Liberals rant on FOX while using the same reasons and words. FOX is despised by Liberals mostly because of their 'talking heads' and the bias they bring. Gee, and the other networks don't bring bias with their talking heads? FAUX News, suggestive of make believe news. Hardly. News is news and while one network might skim over what another concentrates on, reporting the news as FOX does is just reporting the news as the others do.
|
|
|