Sometimes the truth is ugly. If you have a legitimate reason as to why the results are wrong then present it. These results as I have said were in the Political Science Quarterly which is a respected non-partison science journal (I had a link to it). The journal is owned by "The Academy of Political Science" where George Bush and other former presidents were honorary members. A lot of other polls have shown a big majority of Americans believed that Saddam/Iraq was involved with 9/11, obviously the media and the Bush administration had a role in that. Bush mentions 9/11 very often in his Iraq speeches.
After they investigated these issues did they go on to find if people who watch MSNBC have any misconceptions about various issues that Fox watchers don't have?
They did a poll and it turned out Fox lead in those regards. They weren't out to get Fox.
Of course they didn't, because they wanted to find something to prove their point, and once they found it, they stopped looking, rather than find the WHOLE truth, they found the portion of it that suited their purpose.
Any basis for this claim? They have their polls and results for you to read. I've been reading through some of their stuff and it is boring as Hell. Clearly they aren't trying to reach a wide audience, but perhaps political scientists suchs as themselves.
I was well aware of those studies, I had to watch an hour and a half long video about fox's bias. What I saw was an hour's worth of misrepresentations and half truths...I find it funny that when looking at Fox's bias, people completely forget that they themselves are extremely biased as well.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Wow your the biggest twit I have met in the forums, first of all you dont know me. Do you watch me with a camera? I think you have serious anger mangement and ego issues because you still do not make any sense what so ever none period.
Your the one who confused the posts then say I got owned lol its about time you get out in the real world kid because you have alot of growing up to do. Do you honestly think that anyone in these forums give a crap about how you think you owned someone?
Call it whatever you want but I know you think your cool and think your so brave behind that keyboard but in truth your just a scared childish moron who thinks they have it all figured out when they really dont.
I suggest a therapist, you seem very socialy supressed since you obviously cannot have a real discussion without acting high and mighty and aggresive. That is not how you commuincate and im sure many agree. Say whatever you want but no one will believe you rolls eyes people like you always end up alone and misrable.
lol wow...for someone who is way more mature than me, you sure do let stuff get under your skin easily.
www.angelbound.justgotowned.com srsly...for someone who is so miffed about being insulted in a thread you sure do like to throw out the insults "scared childish little moron" ? That's not very nice of you to say, especially since all I did was tell you that you were wrong, tell you why you were wrong, and then post a funny video...then you got your panties in a bunch about it.
ps. I'm a little child behind my keyboard? lawl, are you new here? Here you go big man, this is the little child hiding behind internet anonymity that you're talking to
pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda. In the documentary I watched about fox news' bias it was obvious that they had a vendetta against Fox and they sited those same studies that you did...with that in mind, I find it difficult to believe that any surveys are being done to see how informed or misinformed msnbc's viewers are, if you can find some then I'd like to see them...something that shows how msnbc viewers are swayed to believe that Clinton was impeached for adultery would be nice, because God knows that's what most of the retards out there think.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda.
Then don't accuse them of having an agenda based on one poll that you don't like because it didn't bash MSNBC. It's not their fault that they conduct a lot of research.
In the documentary I watched about fox news' bias it was obvious that they had a vendetta against Fox and they sited those same studies that you did...with that in mind,
I find it difficult to believe that any surveys are being done to see how informed or misinformed msnbc's viewers are, if you can find some then I'd like to see them...something that shows how msnbc viewers are swayed to believe that Clinton was impeached for adultery would be nice, because God knows that's what most of the retards out there think.
Like I said before, this survey was not out to get Fox News. They had questions about Bush's claims and his foreign policy in relation with Fox viewers, CNN viewers, MSNBC viewers, PBS viewers.....ect. Since Bush was wrong and people who watched Fox were more inclined to believe whatever Bush said, it turned out those viewers were wong too.
If MSNBC scored higher than Fox then they would be above Fox, then you would be perfectly fine with it, correct? Then you would call this the "MSNBC Stupid Viewers Poll" because MSNBC scored the highest and therefore this whole entire poll was out to get MSNBC right from the beginning.....
Just because some anti-Fox movie put this poll onto their show does not mean they are affiliated with PIPA and does not mean PIPA is liberal, it's not PIPA's fault it was used in a movie.
MSNBC had 49% of viewers who believed U.S. had found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization. There ya go, that's pretty stupid. People believe that crap because they are scared, and want justification that America is the good guy in everything...no grey area allowed, and are gullible.
"Bush Administration could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaida for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." - Former CIA director George Tenet.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Wow your the biggest twit I have met in the forums, first of all you dont know me. Do you watch me with a camera? I think you have serious anger mangement and ego issues because you still do not make any sense what so ever none period.
Your the one who confused the posts then say I got owned lol its about time you get out in the real world kid because you have alot of growing up to do. Do you honestly think that anyone in these forums give a crap about how you think you owned someone?
Call it whatever you want but I know you think your cool and think your so brave behind that keyboard but in truth your just a scared childish moron who thinks they have it all figured out when they really dont.
I suggest a therapist, you seem very socialy supressed since you obviously cannot have a real discussion without acting high and mighty and aggresive. That is not how you commuincate and im sure many agree. Say whatever you want but no one will believe you rolls eyes people like you always end up alone and misrable.
someone isnt being polite. wow and you jumped on me? atleast i didnt sink to name calling.can we say hypocrit(sp?) Oh and i think its great the way draenor has gotten under your skin so bad. And that is why you are owned
Originally posted by Draenor pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda.
Then don't accuse them of having an agenda based on one poll that you don't like because it didn't bash MSNBC. It's not their fault that they conduct a lot of research.
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Blah blah blah real pics or not it doesnt change the way you acted towards me in others in this threads, like I said I dont care what your defense is bud you still need to grow up.
I know many of you can see the propaganda that Fox spews out, and the joke called "Fair and Balanced"...but now we can see the man admit to giving us biased and a pro-bush view of the world therefore invalidating his media a source of "news". Youtube.com
I know many of you can see the propaganda that Fox spews out, and the joke called "Fair and Balanced"...but now we can see the man admit to giving us biased and a pro-bush view of the world therefore invalidating his media a source of "news". Youtube.com
I think accusing me of a false argument with no explanation is an ad hominem...
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Draenor pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda.
Then don't accuse them of having an agenda based on one poll that you don't like because it didn't bash MSNBC. It's not their fault that they conduct a lot of research.
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS. What the news is full of BS?! Nuh uh!
Originally posted by Draenor pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda.
Then don't accuse them of having an agenda based on one poll that you don't like because it didn't bash MSNBC. It's not their fault that they conduct a lot of research.
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.So how did we get into this discussion? I posted Murdoch admitting his show is biased towards Bush. I never accused you of not knowing. I never said other shows aren't biased and are to be trusted. You made a bunch of assumptions. I was thinking of Outfctrl in case he may have came around... and it was interesting to see Murdoch say such a thing (not the smartest move to help your journalists).
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Draenor pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda.
Then don't accuse them of having an agenda based on one poll that you don't like because it didn't bash MSNBC. It's not their fault that they conduct a lot of research.
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.So how did we get into this discussion? I posted Murdoch admitting his show is biased towards Bush. I never accused you of not knowing. I never said other shows aren't biased and are to be trusted. You made a bunch of assumptions. I was thinking of Outfctrl in case he may have came around... and it was interesting to see Murdoch say such a thing (not the smartest move to help your journalists).
By making a thread saying that Fox news is biased without any mention of the bias of other news sources, you lead one to believe that you believe that the bias of those news stations is not noteworthy.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
By making a thread saying that Fox news is biased without any mention of the bias of other news sources, you lead one to believe that you believe that the bias of those news stations is not noteworthy.
My Bad.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
People who want just the facts and to think for themselves?
I don't think people who enjoy thinking for themselves have any trouble with bias reporting at all. It's the drones that are all looking for easy to digest absolutes.
Bias news still present facts. They might not be the choice of facts you personally prefer to hear but they can be generally relied upon their accuracy and integrity.
If you are able to think for yourself you should be able to recognise that there is no such thing as "unbiased reporting", that it is an intrinsic impossibility. At best a journalistic ideal.
If on the other hand you didn't want to think for yourself, you could just find out which news service you deem to be "unbias" and never again question anything. Let their editors tell you what to think.
Rename blind faith "free thought" and go back to sleep.
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions :
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
Yet somehow me, a humble internet user, knew they were wrong all along. Although I also blame Bush for pushing the 9/11 and Iraq and WMD link, but the news shouldn't be just going along with whatever Bush says. They should be asking tough questions and remaining skeptical.
No, they shouldn't.
The news network with the opposing bias should do that.
What if Fox news were right, and it turned out that Saddam did have WMD, and he launched tham at Saudi and Iran and Israel?
What if Fox news had never been anti Saddam in 1991?
What if they had just shut up after he invaded Kuwait. What if they had said, don't bother with sanctions or no fly zones or weapons inspections, the left says we shouldn't interefere and they are right.
Then Saddam would have WMD. And he would have used them on Saudi, Iran and Israel.
Looking back at the past, choosing the winning argument and then claiming that the opposing argument should never have been raised is simple minded.
Bias is important.
Both sides of every argument should be examined.
Both sides of the case should always be made. The full light of scrutiny always shone.
It's not important to just have bias in favour of your own ideas, because you will never be 100% right 100% of the time. Not every aspect of your opinion will ever be properly thought through. We are all human.
Only a closed mind baulks at the impertinance of cross examination.
After 9/11, America wanted a war.
To show the world what happens.
99% of all Americans wanted to bomb something Muslim. That's what human nature is like.
Fox understood this.
Having bombed a load of Muslims until the bloodlust was gone, Americans still wanted to feel good about themselves.
Fox told their viewers the facts they wanted to hear.
67% of Fox viewers didn't believe Saddam had WMD because Fox told them, they watched Fox because Fox was sympathetic to their beliefs.
Baff that's a dangerous mindset you have there. Journalism isn't about reaching out for people's emotions and trying to get your ratings high ($$$), it's about reporting the verifiable news and facts. It's ok if you want to listen to a political opinionist like Bill O'reilly, but that should never be confused with the actual news.
You said bias is important and both sides should be examined, but when does that happen? I am also not saying I want a news show with my bias, I want one that simply reports what's true and verifiable, and debunks what's verifiably false...ok?
I can't believe what you said about the Muslim stuff...that's sad that you support it. You seem to think journalism is entertainment where people should feel good when they watch their sugar-coated "news". America is not gonna be free for long if we get BS news, people need to know the real stuff hardcore stuff.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I know many of you can see the propaganda that Fox spews out, and the joke called "Fair and Balanced"...but now we can see the man admit to giving us biased and a pro-bush view of the world therefore invalidating his media a source of "news". Youtube.com
I think accusing me of a false argument with no explanation is an ad hominem... No. Read about all three particularly with what I highlighted in mind. Use an ad Hominem as part of undistributed middle term. Throw in a little youtube Ignoratio Elenchi, and you have an argument reeling in fallacies.
Bottom line Alex, is: Just because the man admits he is biased does not implicitly make his news corporations biased or for that matter invalidate them as a source of news. Most of the channels on both sides of the spectrum do present some decent news interspersed with hours of mind boggling opinion based on that real news. We all know that Fox is slanted, but it is proven by the channel's own programing, not by the obscure admission of it's owner to being personally biased.
The point is that I am not trying to use Argumentem ad Logicam, merely pointing out what I said above.
Bottom line Alex, is: Just because the man admits he is biased does not implicitly make his news corporations biased or for that matter invalidate them as a source of news. Most of the channels on both sides of the spectrum do present some decent news interspersed with hours of mind boggling opinion based on that real news. We all know that Fox is slanted, but it is proven by the channel's own programing, not by the obscure admission of it's owner to being personally biased.
The point is that I am not trying to use Argumentem ad Logicam, merely pointing out what I said above.
I don't really care about those false arguments. Clearly you haven't watched the video or you're using selective hearing. The man said "we" like a billion times throughout his answers about how he was trying to to shape the opinions of a America...."we" implies his media and him. He has an agenda and trying to shape people's opinion around his agenda and he is pushing it through his news. If you can't understand that then you're very niave, and ignoring the video.
edit:... and this is for draenor: The above does not mean nor imply other news sources aren't biased.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I look forward to Alex's next thread attacking the New York Times for liberal bias and pushing a liberal agenda. Should I hold my breath? Is Sean Hannity a pompous ass? Yes Is Fox News biased in favor of conservatives? Somewhat
ROFL. btw they are in favor of neoconservatives...that's who's in the white house. Is Fox News still better than every other equally biased news source? Yes
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
lol wow...for someone who is way more mature than me, you sure do let stuff get under your skin easily.
www.angelbound.justgotowned.com srsly...for someone who is so miffed about being insulted in a thread you sure do like to throw out the insults "scared childish little moron" ? That's not very nice of you to say, especially since all I did was tell you that you were wrong, tell you why you were wrong, and then post a funny video...then you got your panties in a bunch about it.
ps. I'm a little child behind my keyboard? lawl, are you new here? Here you go big man, this is the little child hiding behind internet anonymity that you're talking to
pps. Alex: Without knowing every single survey that the organization has conducted, it's impossible for anyone to say if they have an agenda. In the documentary I watched about fox news' bias it was obvious that they had a vendetta against Fox and they sited those same studies that you did...with that in mind, I find it difficult to believe that any surveys are being done to see how informed or misinformed msnbc's viewers are, if you can find some then I'd like to see them...something that shows how msnbc viewers are swayed to believe that Clinton was impeached for adultery would be nice, because God knows that's what most of the retards out there think.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
LOL
Yeah, I have a bunch of random pictures of some random guy
I summation: Not a fake picture, and you're still really fun to mess with.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
someone isnt being polite. wow and you jumped on me? atleast i didnt sink to name calling.can we say hypocrit(sp?) Oh and i think its great the way draenor has gotten under your skin so bad. And that is why you are owned
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
I think accusing me of a false argument with no explanation is an ad hominem...
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS. What the news is full of BS?! Nuh uh!
They nailed Emo kids head on!
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.So how did we get into this discussion? I posted Murdoch admitting his show is biased towards Bush. I never accused you of not knowing. I never said other shows aren't biased and are to be trusted. You made a bunch of assumptions. I was thinking of Outfctrl in case he may have came around... and it was interesting to see Murdoch say such a thing (not the smartest move to help your journalists).
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Pardon me? So you're saying that it's okay to judge something even without all the facts in? I'm saying that you should be skeptical...and you disagree because why? Because you watch Fox news and think it's biased, therefore you take it at face value...Whereas, I take NOTHING involving the news media at face value, because it's all cutthroat and filled with BS.So how did we get into this discussion? I posted Murdoch admitting his show is biased towards Bush. I never accused you of not knowing. I never said other shows aren't biased and are to be trusted. You made a bunch of assumptions. I was thinking of Outfctrl in case he may have came around... and it was interesting to see Murdoch say such a thing (not the smartest move to help your journalists).
By making a thread saying that Fox news is biased without any mention of the bias of other news sources, you lead one to believe that you believe that the bias of those news stations is not noteworthy.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
lol...you're lucky I actually know who you are, otherwise I might report you for desecrating my picture.
And I regret to inform you that I do not have man boobs, I was leaning down and the wife beater dangled, causing the man boob affect
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Heh, don't get too excited, he knows me.....
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I don't think people who enjoy thinking for themselves have any trouble with bias reporting at all. It's the drones that are all looking for easy to digest absolutes.
Bias news still present facts. They might not be the choice of facts you personally prefer to hear but they can be generally relied upon their accuracy and integrity.
If you are able to think for yourself you should be able to recognise that there is no such thing as "unbiased reporting", that it is an intrinsic impossibility. At best a journalistic ideal.
If on the other hand you didn't want to think for yourself, you could just find out which news service you deem to be "unbias" and never again question anything. Let their editors tell you what to think.
Rename blind faith "free thought" and go back to sleep.
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions :
- 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
- 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
- 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
Yet somehow me, a humble internet user, knew they were wrong all along. Although I also blame Bush for pushing the 9/11 and Iraq and WMD link, but the news shouldn't be just going along with whatever Bush says. They should be asking tough questions and remaining skeptical.No, they shouldn't.
The news network with the opposing bias should do that.
What if Fox news were right, and it turned out that Saddam did have WMD, and he launched tham at Saudi and Iran and Israel?
What if Fox news had never been anti Saddam in 1991?
What if they had just shut up after he invaded Kuwait. What if they had said, don't bother with sanctions or no fly zones or weapons inspections, the left says we shouldn't interefere and they are right.
Then Saddam would have WMD. And he would have used them on Saudi, Iran and Israel.
Looking back at the past, choosing the winning argument and then claiming that the opposing argument should never have been raised is simple minded.
Bias is important.
Both sides of every argument should be examined.
Both sides of the case should always be made. The full light of scrutiny always shone.
It's not important to just have bias in favour of your own ideas, because you will never be 100% right 100% of the time. Not every aspect of your opinion will ever be properly thought through. We are all human.
Only a closed mind baulks at the impertinance of cross examination.
After 9/11, America wanted a war.
To show the world what happens.
99% of all Americans wanted to bomb something Muslim. That's what human nature is like.
Fox understood this.
Having bombed a load of Muslims until the bloodlust was gone, Americans still wanted to feel good about themselves.
Fox told their viewers the facts they wanted to hear.
67% of Fox viewers didn't believe Saddam had WMD because Fox told them, they watched Fox because Fox was sympathetic to their beliefs.
Baff that's a dangerous mindset you have there. Journalism isn't about reaching out for people's emotions and trying to get your ratings high ($$$), it's about reporting the verifiable news and facts. It's ok if you want to listen to a political opinionist like Bill O'reilly, but that should never be confused with the actual news.
You said bias is important and both sides should be examined, but when does that happen? I am also not saying I want a news show with my bias, I want one that simply reports what's true and verifiable, and debunks what's verifiably false...ok?
I can't believe what you said about the Muslim stuff...that's sad that you support it. You seem to think journalism is entertainment where people should feel good when they watch their sugar-coated "news". America is not gonna be free for long if we get BS news, people need to know the real stuff hardcore stuff.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I think accusing me of a false argument with no explanation is an ad hominem... No. Read about all three particularly with what I highlighted in mind. Use an ad Hominem as part of undistributed middle term. Throw in a little youtube Ignoratio Elenchi, and you have an argument reeling in fallacies.
The point is that I am not trying to use Argumentem ad Logicam, merely pointing out what I said above.
I look forward to Alex's next thread attacking the New York Times for liberal bias and pushing a liberal agenda. Should I hold my breath?
Is Sean Hannity a pompous ass? Yes
Is Fox News biased in favor of conservatives? Somewhat
Is Fox News still better than every other equally biased news source? Yes
edit:... and this is for draenor: The above does not mean nor imply other news sources aren't biased.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American