Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How does this not surprise?

Fox is fair and balanced compared to the other networks that gush over Obama and think he can do no wrong.

It's funny that you have no problem with the fact that around 90% of the people in the media identify themselves as "liberal democrats". You have no problem with that yet you think it's a terrible thing that Fox actually has more Republican reporters than Democrats.

Fox is still way more balanced than the networks. At least Fox has plenty of Democrats working for them. Greta is a democrat. Geraldo is a democrat. At some of the networks you would be hard-pressed to find a single republican.

I don't know why there is such a double-standard.

[Antitrust32]

I actually believe CNN is pretty fair.. they have republican voices too.

Fox News leans to the Right like MSNBC leans to the left.

Yet you dont hear conservatives complain about MSNBC all the time like Riot does about Fox News.

maybe its because people actually watch Fox News.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Yet you dont hear conservatives complain about MSNBC all the time like Riot does about Fox News.

maybe its because people actually watch Fox News.

You're kidding, right? Scott Brown tried to get his supporters fired up by saying he was going to run against Rachel Maddow in Massachusetts.

The difference between FOX News and MSNBC is MSNBC's anchor-led news coverage at least is usually down the middle. Even the live news shows on FOX are anchored by Republican talking point creating puppets.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're kidding, right? Scott Brown tried to get his supporters fired up by saying he was going to run against Rachel Maddow in Massachusetts.

The difference between FOX News and MSNBC is MSNBC's anchor-led news coverage at least is usually down the middle. Even the live news shows on FOX are anchored by Republican talking point creating puppets.

Who is a more biased anchor, Shepherd Smith or Dan Rather?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who is a more biased anchor, Shepherd Smith or Dan Rather?

really, those two in the same sentence? I'd love to hear how Rather, one of the best newsmen since Murrow, was 'biased'. Let me guess, because one time in 38 years he ran some story about a Republican from some guy who obtained the proof in some bad way or something. You're right, total proof of him being a leftist puppet. Put him in the stocks.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

wait, so the you're kidding was about Republicans equally complaining about MSNBC like Liberals complain about Fox News?

If that is the case then it deserves

Fox News has a 340% higher viewership rating than MSNBC.

Way to address the example I gave.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

really, those two in the same sentence? I'd love to hear how Rather, one of the best newsmen since Murrow, was 'biased'. Let me guess, because one time in 38 years he ran some story about a Republican from some guy who obtained the proof in some bad way or something. You're right, total proof of him being a leftist puppet. Put him in the stocks.



Way to address the example I gave.

They're all biased to some degree whether they are republicans or democrats. These people are not blank slates. The good ones do a pretty good job of not letting their bias affect their reporting, but the bias will always affect their reporting somewhat.

That incident with Dan Rather was hardly the first or only incident where his obvious bias stood out. There was the infamous interview he did with George Bush Senior back in approximately 1988 where Rather acted very unprofessionally.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who is a more biased anchor, Shepherd Smith or Dan Rather?

Dan Rather is no longer an anchor.

On Wednesday, I was watching Shepherd Smith complain that the material creating disposable Sun Chip bags was noisy.

Shep, anyone would hire you. Run away, run away .... !

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dan Rather is no longer an anchor. !

LMAO w/o facts.....


go ahead and tell us why?

[Riot]

Posted by Riot
Dan Rather is no longer an anchor. !

Posted by Dellinger
LMAO w/o facts.....
go ahead and tell us why?

Why what?

Is Dan Rather still a news anchor somewhere?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're kidding, right? Scott Brown tried to get his supporters fired up by saying he was going to run against Rachel Maddow in Massachusetts.

The difference between FOX News and MSNBC is MSNBC's anchor-led news coverage at least is usually down the middle. Even the live news shows on FOX are anchored by Republican talking point creating puppets.

wow

MSNBC is as left as it gets.

[Antitrust32]

wait, so the you're kidding was about Republicans equally complaining about MSNBC like Liberals complain about Fox News?

If that is the case then it deserves

Fox News has a 340% higher viewership rating than MSNBC.

people on the right could care less about MSNBC.

Obama and Pelosi & the rest of the dems are ALWAYS bringing up Fox News.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

people on the right could care less about MSNBC.
.

Nonsense. They complain constantly and unendingly about the "liberal bias of the lamestream media".

The question is the news, and the veracity with which it is relayed. I'm not talking about opinion shows.

And show me where another news organization has donated to one political party.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Fox is fair and balanced compared to the other networks that gush over Obama and think he can do no wrong.

It's funny that you have no problem with the fact that around 90% of the people in the media identify themselves as "liberal democrats". You have no problem with that yet you think it's a terrible thing that Fox actually has more Republican reporters than Democrats.

Fox is still way more balanced than the networks. At least Fox has plenty of Democrats working for them. Greta is a democrat. Geraldo is a democrat. At some of the networks you would be hard-pressed to find a single republican.

I don't know why there is such a double-standard.

Alot of people dont like Fox because they wont kiss O'dumbass' ass. Fox also wont sugar coat it. I would rather watch Fox than any other network.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Alot of people dont like Fox because they wont kiss O'dumbass' ass. Fox also wont sugar coat it. I would rather watch Fox than any other network.

(kinda funny)

me too, because they are the most entertaining.

Though I do love Anderson Cooper over at CNN.

but Fox doesnt sugar coat it? They take a lot of issues to the extreme.

Especially Hannity.. that guy is one of a kind. I swear every day the world is ending.

O'Reilly is the best though. And Beck is incredibly entertaining. Palin is an O'Dumbass.

[Riot]

It's funny that you have no problem with the fact that around 90% of the people in the media identify themselves as "liberal democrats".

How do you know "I have no problem"? What a silly thing to say. Well, no, it's not silly when you just want to pull crap and assumptions out of thin air.

I don't care how people identify themselves in their personal lives. I care about how they relate "news". You shouldn't be able to tell one's personal opinion about politics when you are reporting it as news.

You have no problem with that yet you think it's a terrible thing that Fox actually has more Republican reporters than Democrats.

Well, no, again, you are just blathering on about "my opinion" when in reality you have no clue about what I think about what you are bringing up.

And no, I don't care how many Republicans or Democrats Fox News employs. No, I don't think "it's a terrible thing".

You do realize that "news" is supposed to be objectively reported?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How do you know "I have no problem"? What a silly thing to say. Well, no, it's not silly when you just want to pull crap and assumptions out of thin air.

I don't care how people identify themselves in their personal lives. I care about how they relate "news". You shouldn't be able to tell one's personal opinion about politics when you are reporting it as news.



Well, no, again, you are just blathering on about "my opinion" when in reality you have no clue about what I think about what you are bringing up.

And no, I don't care how many Republicans or Democrats Fox News employs. No, I don't think "it's a terrible thing".

You do realize that "news" is supposed to be objectively reported?

Hardly any of the reporters at any news outlets are totally objective. Some are obviously worse than others. The biggest bias is in the choice of stories they report. For example, in California there were some credible allegations about Gov Schwarzenegger sexually harassing some women. The LA Times reported the story and rightfully so. Yet when there were some credible allegations about Gov Davis physically assaulting a female staffer, the LA Times refused to do the story. The story ended up coming out in a much smaller paper because the bigger papers didn't want to do the story. The only reason they didn't want to do the story was because Davis was a democrat.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Hardly any of the reporters at any news outlets are totally objective. Some are obviously worse than others. The biggest bias is in the choice of stories they report. .

Yes, my point exactly. Reporters and anchors don't usually have any choice in what they report, and how they write it, however, that is the producers who decide. And the producers report upstairs.

Have you ever seen the minutes particular stories get on Faux News, compared to any/all other TV/cable media outlets? Very telling, whether you are looking at Faux News or MSNBC.

For example, how much have you seen on Faux News about the final combat troop withdrawal over the past couple of days?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, my point exactly. Reporters and anchors don't usually have any choice in what they report, and how they write it, however, that is the producers who decide. And the producers report upstairs.

Have you ever seen the minutes particular stories get on Faux News, compared to any/all other TV/cable media outlets? Very telling, whether you are looking at Faux News or MSNBC.

For example, how much have you seen on Faux News about the final combat troop withdrawal over the past couple of days?

I agree with you. But to me that's not any bigger knock on Fox than it is a knock on the other channels. I think that most of the other news channels are left of center and it shows in their reporting. I think Fox is right of center and it shows in their reporting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. But to me that's not any bigger knock on Fox than it is a knock on the other channels. I think that most of the other news channels are left of center and it shows in their reporting. I think Fox is right of center and it shows in their reporting.

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party? What would you say if The Associated Press donated to a political party?

I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think it is appropriate for the News Corp to donate to a political party?

Yes if they had

But like GM never to be subsidized we already have that god forbidden station PBS who has about 2 good shows and cancelled Monti Python?

[/quote]I wouldn't care if it were Murdoch privately. Citizens can donate to whomever they want.[/quote]

yea right! including that crazy Hsu or not?