Lawl.usmarine2005 wrote:
Funny thing is. You go to their website, which increases their traffic, which makes their numbers climb even higher. GJ
I don't really care about their numbers or ratings to be quite honest, it doesn't give their journalism any more integrity. I don't actually visit their website, I just laugh at it on TV.usmarine2005 wrote:
Funny thing is. You go to their website, which increases their traffic, which makes their numbers climb even higher. GJ
The mear fact you are bring up this subject is actually helping them. People who haven't seen Fox before will probably go watch a couple of hours to see if its all true and then realize that they are getting a different spin.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. It is isn't very balanced when they switch the mic off on any liberal saying things they don't want to hear...Harmor wrote:
Wonder why Fox is still on top? Perhaps they at least try to have both sides to a debate instead of the same ol' liberal bias.
The reason it's on top is because it's watched by those who hate it and those who like it.
As for the 'cutting of the mics', says often that the reason is, and I'm pharaphrasing, that when a guest doesn't answer the question and starts talking idiological talking points, from either side, that he interrupts them to answer the question.
It just happens to be that more of the liberal comentators/guests go off on tangents - listen to the interviews and you'll see (i.e. Bill asks a person about making stricter gun laws against mentially ill and then the person talks about the persecution of immigrants in the United States - Bill will cut them off).
It almost sounds like you're defending that cock knocker O'Reilly. I've seem him cut guest's mics because they've brought up facts that were totally relevant but didn't fit with the FOX agenda. You don't cut a guests mic even if he does go off on a tangent, a good host will bring the debate back into focus (I've never seen Jeremy Paxman cutting a guests mic on BBC's Newsnight).Harmor wrote:
The mear fact you are bring up this subject is actually helping them. People who haven't seen Fox before will probably go watch a couple of hours to see if its all true and then realize that they are getting a different spin.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. It is isn't very balanced when they switch the mic off on any liberal saying things they don't want to hear...Harmor wrote:
Wonder why Fox is still on top? Perhaps they at least try to have both sides to a debate instead of the same ol' liberal bias.
The reason it's on top is because it's watched by those who hate it and those who like it.
As for the 'cutting of the mics', says often that the reason is, and I'm pharaphrasing, that when a guest doesn't answer the question and starts talking idiological talking points, from either side, that he interrupts them to answer the question.
It just happens to be that more of the liberal comentators/guests go off on tangents - listen to the interviews and you'll see (i.e. Bill asks a person about making stricter gun laws against mentially ill and then the person talks about the persecution of immigrants in the United States - Bill will cut them off).
http://www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/1045 … alking.jpg
I was talking about Cam.Braddock wrote:
I don't really care about their numbers or ratings to be quite honest, it doesn't give their journalism any more integrity. I don't actually visit their website, I just laugh at it on TV.usmarine2005 wrote:
Funny thing is. You go to their website, which increases their traffic, which makes their numbers climb even higher. GJ
It's cool, I was just pointing out my view on them.usmarine2005 wrote:
I was talking about Cam.Braddock wrote:
I don't really care about their numbers or ratings to be quite honest, it doesn't give their journalism any more integrity. I don't actually visit their website, I just laugh at it on TV.usmarine2005 wrote:
Funny thing is. You go to their website, which increases their traffic, which makes their numbers climb even higher. GJ
I like to get news from various different sources, both right and left wing. My favourite TV news outlets are BBC (which is biased but much less than most and it is certainly not a specifically liberal bias, I've noticed lots of bias on a few issues that I know enough about to see that they are not giving a true representation of the situation) and Channel 4 News (which has an enormous liberal bias, but I quite like). My favourite paper to get news from is the Times, which is a long way from being a liberal news source (it's pretty right wing in fact).
FOX News is very different to your average news station, all of which are biased. FOX is just outrageous propaganda. It is not news, it is too far removed to be, it is a channel that reports opinion on current events - not a news channel.
What is scary is that some silly people seem to actually believe FOX news is a real news source.
FOX News is very different to your average news station, all of which are biased. FOX is just outrageous propaganda. It is not news, it is too far removed to be, it is a channel that reports opinion on current events - not a news channel.
What is scary is that some silly people seem to actually believe FOX news is a real news source.
That's because Bill O'Reilly (who I am only familiar with because of one of Cougar's posts) has very little skill as an interviewer. An interviewers job is to extract information from their guest. Bill O'Reilly's job seems to be to express his opinions, put words into the guests mouth and ignore their responses.Braddock wrote:
It almost sounds like you're defending that cock knocker O'Reilly. I've seem him cut guest's mics because they've brought up facts that were totally relevant but didn't fit with the FOX agenda. You don't cut a guests mic even if he does go off on a tangent, a good host will bring the debate back into focus (I've never seen Jeremy Paxman cutting a guests mic on BBC's Newsnight).Harmor wrote:
The mear fact you are bring up this subject is actually helping them. People who haven't seen Fox before will probably go watch a couple of hours to see if its all true and then realize that they are getting a different spin.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. It is isn't very balanced when they switch the mic off on any liberal saying things they don't want to hear...
The reason it's on top is because it's watched by those who hate it and those who like it.
As for the 'cutting of the mics', says often that the reason is, and I'm pharaphrasing, that when a guest doesn't answer the question and starts talking idiological talking points, from either side, that he interrupts them to answer the question.
It just happens to be that more of the liberal comentators/guests go off on tangents - listen to the interviews and you'll see (i.e. Bill asks a person about making stricter gun laws against mentially ill and then the person talks about the persecution of immigrants in the United States - Bill will cut them off).
http://www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/1045 … alking.jpg
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-09 08:43:29)
I think your making a big deal about nothing.
I completely agree.Bertster7 wrote:
That's because Bill O'Reilly (who I am only familiar with because of one of Cougar's posts) has very little skill as an interviewer. An interviewers job is to extract information from their guest. Bill O'Reilly's job seems to be to express his opinions, put words into the guests mouth and ignore their responses.Braddock wrote:
It almost sounds like you're defending that cock knocker O'Reilly. I've seem him cut guest's mics because they've brought up facts that were totally relevant but didn't fit with the FOX agenda. You don't cut a guests mic even if he does go off on a tangent, a good host will bring the debate back into focus (I've never seen Jeremy Paxman cutting a guests mic on BBC's Newsnight).Harmor wrote:
The mear fact you are bring up this subject is actually helping them. People who haven't seen Fox before will probably go watch a couple of hours to see if its all true and then realize that they are getting a different spin.
As for the 'cutting of the mics', says often that the reason is, and I'm pharaphrasing, that when a guest doesn't answer the question and starts talking idiological talking points, from either side, that he interrupts them to answer the question.
It just happens to be that more of the liberal comentators/guests go off on tangents - listen to the interviews and you'll see (i.e. Bill asks a person about making stricter gun laws against mentially ill and then the person talks about the persecution of immigrants in the United States - Bill will cut them off).
http://www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/1045 … alking.jpg
I've just been reading some FOX news articles online, all completely unrelated to terrorism or the Middle East. I was horrified to find just how much allusion to the insidious terrorist threat there is constantly in all sorts of different types of stories.
Bill O'Reilly's interview with Jon Voight provides some examples
A film that happens to be about attrocities committed by Mormons - but of course they are quick to point out that this shouldn't influence anyones decisions to vote for a Republican Presidential candidate who happens to be a Mormon.
I particularly liked this bit
Bill O'Reilly's interview with Jon Voight provides some examples
Exactly the sort of thing you expect to come up in an interview with an actor about a film.O'REILLY: You bet. The Jihadists want to put a bullet right in your head.
A film that happens to be about attrocities committed by Mormons - but of course they are quick to point out that this shouldn't influence anyones decisions to vote for a Republican Presidential candidate who happens to be a Mormon.
And now we're onto the dangers of religious fanaticism and how it is creating America's enemies.O'REILLY: Yes. All right. So I mean, I feel sorry for Mitt Romney in a way. I don't think anybody should vote for anybody for religious purposes at all. Romney is a good man.
VOIGHT: He is.
O'REILLY: He ran the commonwealth of Massachusetts...
VOIGHT: The irony is that Mitt speaks very eloquently about the dangers we face with religious fanaticism from the....
O'REILLY: So the theme of the movie is religious fanaticism. It's a cautionary tale.
I particularly liked this bit
It is shocking that virtually every subject tackled on FOX seems to revolve around terrorism in some way or another, that and the occassional feel good story about dogs rescuing their owners from burning buildings or such like.what has happened to our great nation. We're being divided by extremists who really believe the propaganda that they're being fed on a daily basis by cunning professionals
Harmor wrote:
It just happens to be that more of the liberal comentators/guests go off on tangents - listen to the interviews and you'll see (i.e. Bill asks a person about making stricter gun laws against mentially ill and then the person talks about the persecution of immigrants in the United States - Bill will cut them off).
Shouldn't somebody have cut O'Reilly's mic for going off on a tangent?Bertster7 wrote:
O'REILLY: Yes. All right. So I mean, I feel sorry for Mitt Romney in a way. I don't think anybody should vote for anybody for religious purposes at all. Romney is a good man.
VOIGHT: He is.
O'REILLY: He ran the commonwealth of Massachusetts...
VOIGHT: The irony is that Mitt speaks very eloquently about the dangers we face with religious fanaticism from the....
O'REILLY: So the theme of the movie is religious fanaticism. It's a cautionary tale.
i cant stand fox news. its good for the entertainment value. but i hate lou dobbs and nancy grace even more
When i want the news, i just come here, something big on everyday, there's often comedy appeal as well.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-09 13:06:56)
That is one of the good things about this website, it's like interactive news. the way of the future IMO.M.O.A.B wrote:
When i want the news, i just come here, something big on everyday, there's often coedy appeal as well.
It just so happens that more than half of the forum trolls here are liberal. Therefore its only natural for them to despise FOX news. . . .
The facts are the facts. . . Fox is THE most successful news organization on cable PERIOD! They have the most watched shows consistently every week. . .Their ratings blow away the competition!
People can think all they want about O'Reilly and Hannity etc etc, bottom line is those guys ruin their competition. . .They are competent, entertaining news personalities that people like to watch! If you dont like em', you dont have to watch em'!
I hate Wolf Blitzer/CNN cause they/he are/is a liberal hack(s), therefore I DONT WATCH THEM!! Fox is a reliable, understandable news channel with a more moderate to conservative edge to it. All the other networks are one sided, liberal run organizations that pride themselves on bashing the conservative/republican base without remorse. . .see Dan Rather.
I like FOX, and wont stop watching cause some liberal tells me its a shitty network. . .If anything I will tune in more!!
The facts are the facts. . . Fox is THE most successful news organization on cable PERIOD! They have the most watched shows consistently every week. . .Their ratings blow away the competition!
People can think all they want about O'Reilly and Hannity etc etc, bottom line is those guys ruin their competition. . .They are competent, entertaining news personalities that people like to watch! If you dont like em', you dont have to watch em'!
I hate Wolf Blitzer/CNN cause they/he are/is a liberal hack(s), therefore I DONT WATCH THEM!! Fox is a reliable, understandable news channel with a more moderate to conservative edge to it. All the other networks are one sided, liberal run organizations that pride themselves on bashing the conservative/republican base without remorse. . .see Dan Rather.
I like FOX, and wont stop watching cause some liberal tells me its a shitty network. . .If anything I will tune in more!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-05-09 16:37:29)
You're so cool, can I be your friend?Braddock wrote:
[
I don't really care about their numbers or ratings to be quite honest, it doesn't give their journalism any more integrity. I don't actually visit their website, I just laugh at it on TV.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-09 16:43:24)
Why do you care so much?
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
"Liberals feel they owe a debt to society. A debt they plan to pay off with your money."
I likely earn a damn sight more than your sorry ass whatever it is you do - I'm repaying my debt to society happily. I say raise taxes if it will improve public services and society as a whole. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I likely earn a damn sight more than your sorry ass whatever it is you do - I'm repaying my debt to society happily. I say raise taxes if it will improve public services and society as a whole. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
where is the debate and serious talk
Because gradual but sustained incitement to hatred through mass media made it 'acceptable' for 6 million jews to be gassed/burned to death. Wouldn't like see history repeat itself.d4rkst4r wrote:
Why do you care so much?
I think all the gassing and burning you're worried about has been executed upon the Kurds by the Arabs. And your precious CNN turned a blind eye on that...CameronPoe wrote:
Because gradual but sustained incitement to hatred through mass media made it 'acceptable' for 6 million jews to be gassed/burned to death. Wouldn't like see history repeat itself.d4rkst4r wrote:
Why do you care so much?
Whose precious CNN? CNN is a shit news provider too.The_Mac wrote:
I think all the gassing and burning you're worried about has been executed upon the Kurds by the Arabs. And your precious CNN turned a blind eye on that...CameronPoe wrote:
Because gradual but sustained incitement to hatred through mass media made it 'acceptable' for 6 million jews to be gassed/burned to death. Wouldn't like see history repeat itself.d4rkst4r wrote:
Why do you care so much?
The only good US news provider are the AP.
Huh? I hate CNN. It's turgid biased muck.The_Mac wrote:
I think all the gassing and burning you're worried about has been executed upon the Kurds by the Arabs. And your precious CNN turned a blind eye on that...CameronPoe wrote:
Because gradual but sustained incitement to hatred through mass media made it 'acceptable' for 6 million jews to be gassed/burned to death. Wouldn't like see history repeat itself.d4rkst4r wrote:
Why do you care so much?
Not all of us are liberals btw. I just discovered the other day I'm actually a libertarian. It's not just left and right. Want to find out what you are? http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html - takes 20 seconds.