Please post any and all clips available showing where said channel supports the protestors and movement of Occupy Wall Street. Seriously. I'd love to see that.
Just turn on Fox News!
No! That's the point. If you're claiming that they're "Fair & Balanced", prove it. Their site has plenty of vids, I'm sure. It shouldn't be hard for you. You watch their stuff all the time, you have to know where to look, and for what shows.
I don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove they're biased. Because I watch Fox News on a regular basis, and therefore have an informed opinion. Whereas you don't even watch Fox News, so how the fuck would you even know.
All you know is what you've been spoon-fed in out-of-context soundbytes with heavy liberal commentary, on Jon Stewart's show and various liberal blogs.
Every Fox news broadcast I watched over a two-day period (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, their morning program, all played the Hank Williams Jr clip you mention (comparing Obama to Hitler) and laughed about how ridiculous a comparison it was. Basically saying "this is why we don't take celebrity political opinion seriously."
You distort it to be completely opposite what I saw on every Fox program I watched. You allege that Fox got behind this comment. They sure as hell didn't.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove they're biased.
No, I have given evidence of FOX's bias in the form of a video segment. I have proven my point. The burden of rebuttal is now on you, sir. It's up to you to refute my claims. Otherwise, you must concede that I have offered facts you cannot, or will not, refute. That's how a debate/exchange of ideas works...
Quote:
Every Fox news broadcast I watched over a two-day period (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, their morning program, all played the Hank Williams Jr clip you mention (comparing Obama to Hitler) and laughed about how ridiculous a comparison it was. Basically saying "this is why we don't take celebrity political opinion seriously."
You distort it to be completely opposite what I saw on every Fox program I watched. You allege that Fox got behind this comment. They sure as hell didn't.
Sweet! Then, I'll concede the point--.....right after you post some clips proving what you say.
The fact that you are so immune to the notion that Fox could possibly give fair coverage, or any coverage, of the protestors, speaks volumes about your own partisan biases.
I'm "immune" to it like I am in believing aliens exist: I've never seen any proof! Show me where they are being Fair & Balanced. Not "This is where they are being fair, because the truth is the Liberal Media lies, and this is what's really happening" or anything. Simply point to a clip, and I will watch it. It's just that simple.
You've never seen proof because you're prejudicially biased to the point that you never watch Fox News to know one way or the other!
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Pro
Why didn't they air this one, then? If they're "fair and balanced", as you and others suggest, then what did it matter if they aired this? You claim it's fantasy and all, but I think it's truth. It's a sad, painful truth that we've all been taken advantage of by our government and corrupt corporations.
I don't know why they didn't air it. They may have aired it and I just didn't see it.
No, it was never aired. That's the thing that made it stand out. The Daily Show aired it from the YouTube segment that was loaded up.
And you know this because you personally observed that Fox News never aired it. The same Fox News you never watch.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
But they certainly didn't avoid airing it because this guy presented any facts or persuasive argument of the protests, or the evils of conservatism, or the evils of Fox news.
Like Herman Cain, they didn't ask him for any facts. They asked his opinion, and why he was out there, and what it all meant to him. He took the opportunity to answer that, explain his opinion, and challenge Mister "Fair & Balanced" to explain the discrepancies of the organization he represents. I mean, why do people attack Olberman when they rail against the Liberal slant of MSNBC? Because he's the face. This reporter was the face. He asked questions, the guy answered, and he obviously embarrassed the management enough for them not to air it. Facts.
Griff Jenkins (if I even got his name fully correct) is a tiny speck on the wall at Fox news. He doesn't have a daily show, he isn't a newsdesk anchor. I doubt the liberal snot being interviewed knew who he was, beyond the fact that he was holding a Fox microphone!
The liberal snot didn't "ask him questions", he just vented a bunch of rapid-fire one-liners at Jenkins ranting about Fox News, evil Republican responsibility for the Wall Street collapse. (Despite that Dodd, Frank, Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other Dems made up the largest recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac donations. Despite that Franklin Raines led Fannie Mae over the cliff, and then was on Obama's vice presidential selection committee. Despite that Wall Street firms --the ostensible source of the protests-- supported not the Republicans, but their largest donations ever made were to Barack Obama.)
And as the unemployment and insolvency deepens (post 2008)... he blames Republicans?!? NON-SEQUITOR!
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: Wondy
For example, "Glenn Beck called the president a racist". If you were a regular Glenn Beck viewer (and that is probably the show i watched most frequently on Fox) you would have seen one day Beck presenting facts of Obama's specific actions related to social justice and black liberation theology, where he said "I'm sorry, but putting these facts together, I can only come to the conclusion that Obama is a racist". Which even in that context he said factually and respectfully, and it was clear he was presenting it as his opinion on the facts as he knew them. But the very next day on his own show, and later in the week on O'Reilly and other shows, Beck apologized and said that at that moment he saw it that way, but now Obama's motivations are clearly ideological (socialism, anti-colonialism) and not racial. This demonstrator misrepresents Beck to hold the eternal opinion that Obama is a racist. But in truth Beck only voiced that opinion for at most a day, as he wrestled with the facts as they became known about Obama.
I understand what you are saying. He's attacking Glenn Beck for something Beck apologized for already. Got it. Here's the problem with that entire scenario, though: Glenn Beck is a public figure. He's about on level with John Stewart when it comes to being an "informed political pundit", as he's way too much of a cartoon to be taken seriously. Any man who sits there and cries on camera for ratings is, in my book, a comedian. So, Glenn Beck said Obama was a racist. Then, a day later after "much hand-wringing" apologized about it, saying he hadn't thought it all out. Okay. Let's just ignore that it's almost a transparent ratings ploy. Beck would have said "God loves Martians" if he thought it would get his show the same amount of press coverage. He apologizes so as to not have any long-term repercussions for it. Thereby, allowing him to say something shocking, and then be able to deny any accusations of misconduct by 'I said I was sorry'. Thus, negating any Leftist point to make with it. It is, honestly, brilliant. He's a master at what he does. No doubts. I even caught a few episodes of his CNN show everyone forgets about. I stopped watching because, even though he was positively restrained on boring CNN, he was still a bit too theatrical to take seriously.
All of that said, Glenn Beck said it. He's a public figure. He, you, and anyone might could easily say 'He said he was sorry'. But it doesn't change the fact that he called the President of the United States of America a racist on live television. No more than it does Hank Williams Jr calling him 'Hitler'. You can neither be surprised or claim outrage at The Left when they use it to point to what FOX allows on air. All under the banner of "Fair & Balanced".
So basically, because Beck said it once and corrected himself within 24 hours when he clarified with the known facts that changed his opinion, it's still okay to slander Beck as having the permanent opinion that Obama is a racist. Got it. Because Beck is a public figure --a CONSERVATIVE public figure-- it's perfectly okay to smear and misrepresent him, despite the clear facts that Beck made the correction after less than a day, over two years ago. Got it.
I'm certain you'd have a very different opinion if these same tactics were used on a liberal. And that's just one --ONE!-- of the deliberate distortions this weenie liberal snot unleashed on Jenkins, rapid-fire.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
Similarly, each of the points raised by this shithead protestor can be disproven. He espoused a lot of highly opinionated opinion, that you obviously agree with beforehand, in the absence of any facts presented.
Okay then, disprove them. I'm not going anywhere. Prove him wrong.
I already deconstructed the Beck one, and at least explained the interviewed weenie snot guy's tactics of rapid-fire distortions, that it takes hundreds of words to explain the context of and deconstruct. Slander tactics, that a video interview would require 30 minutes to defuse with the facts.
And then you'd just bypass the points made and say :yawn:
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
And you further enjoy that --your opinion-- he "PWN'D", or whatever, Fox News. All I see is a snot with no facts being a jerk.
Oh I said he "spanked" FOX News. And he did. Jerk or not, that happened.
No, it didn't. It was too factless to be any kind of a serious "spanking". It was just brat-noise. The kind of absolute excrement garbage the far-left loves and everyone else hates.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Pro
Now, go out and really look at FOX News, read as many diverse takes on the subject as possible, and then ask yourself: How can you be part of 90% of the world that believes in a God, and simultaneously one of the 10% of the world that believes FOX News is actually, honestly unbiased?
Because of your own biases against Fox.
Re-read what I said. Your response doesn't make any sense.
The 90% opposed to Fox -vs.- 10% support Fox are numbers you just pulled out of your ass. And they are wishful thinking. Fox News is tremendously influential on public opinion, because a majority of the nation is center-Right.
I posted a Gallup poll (liberal polling group, by the way) about a year ago (and I believe G-Man, BSAMS and others have posted similar polls year after year) that people who identify as conservative outnumber people who identify as liberal by about 2-to-1, with a large group of independents who are likewise center-Right.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
The fact is, Fox is the highest rated cable news network, for like 10 years. And those numbers have only increased since Obama became president, and more viewers have rejected the partisan coverage of the other networks.
What does "ratings" have to do with being "Fair & Balanced" or unbiased? If you claim is that people who hate Obama watch FOX because it's "Fair & Balanced", I am going to have to laugh at you. Come on, David. Stare at what's right in front of your face! If people who hate Obama watch FOX News....it's because FOX is slanted towards hating Obama! People that have a strong enough opinion to dislike someone aren't going to try and find a channel that disagrees with them, even "neutrally". They're going to find a channel that supports the position they have already created in their mind. "I hate Obama! Fox hates Obama! I like Fox!" That math is obvious to 90% of the planet. Think about the religious analogy I made, and you will understand how anyone gasps at you when you try and prop FOX News up as the epitome of journalistic integrity.
The fact that Fox News is the highest rated cable news service indicates a large number of people who have watched various channels, and have chosen Fox as the one they trust to consistently provide them the facts that other channels are not providing them.
O'Reilly has been the highest rated cable program for 10 years!
And another fact you choose to gloss over is that many who choose to watch Fox are independents and liberals, not just the conservative base. O'Reilly presents these stats regularly on his program.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
It is only relative to other networks' partisan coverage that Fox --relative to the other networks-- is more conservatively biased.
Again, that's recursive logic. FOX only "appears" biased because others actually are? Jeez man. Come on.
The Pew (PEJ) report for the 2008 election cycle is out.
Among the findings?
FOX NEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the 2008 presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didn't release the latter three network's numbers. Keep in mind, while Pew bills itself as Independent, it certainly leans to the left, which is probably why they didn't release all the numbers. God forbid they stated Fox News was the most fair of any television network, as it's doubtful any network bested the Fox numbers below since the Fox positive/negative are almost a perfect match. Interestingly, while they released the numbers for MSNBC and FOX, they didn't release individual CNN numbers, choosing to say it closely reflected the "Total Coverage" numbers below, putting it somewhere between MSNBC and FOX.
The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?
That doesn't correlate with me. The 10% state that FOX is "fair and balanced". But, they never seem to be able to point to anything to prove it. Whereas, I can show you this:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:398771" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-3-2011/moment-of-zen---gretchen-carlson-on-roseanne-barr">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
Not to mention the video above they didn't air.
Originally Posted By: WB
Be serious! You show a 20-second out of context clip from the Daily Show (a clearly liberal centerpiece of clearly liberal network that never misses an opportunity to bash Fox News, or to bash Republicans in general as ignorant backward inbred so-and-so's) and that's supposed to prove something? (Beyond your own prejudices, going to comedy central to look up clips that support your preconcieved biases?
Originally Posted By: Pro
Re-watch it again. She's lambasting Rosie O'Donnell (and I don't blame her, trust me, because Rosie is an fat, ignorant cunt) who supports Occupy Wall Street, because she supports Occupy Wall Street, asking why ANYONE would listen to celebrities. "One Hour Later", on the very same show, all of a sudden they're welcoming Hank Williams, Jr. as a wonderful, great celebrity to "get his take" on the politics of the day. And we all know how that went, don't we? That right there is hypocrisy. It's not like she was creating her own opinion on the air when it came to Rosie, either. That's not how TV works. Not even in the Golden Land of Fair & Balanced. That was the company line, and she towed it. But, the moment a "celebrity" that they agree with politically comes on? Oh, that's okay. That's fair. That's balanced. Right?
Where was the patriotic outrage from FOX when HWjr did the Hitler thing? You would call someone like that a "socialist, marxist, etc." if a Liberal made such a remark about a Republican President (and you did...all the Right did...on many occasions under Bush, Jr). Like I said, hypocrisy.
As I already detailed, on later broadcasts, every Fox News program I watched made fun of Williams Jr., and basically said this is why we don't look to celebrities for political opinion.
You showed 20 seconds of snipped video in a carefully selected anti-Fox liberal context, with no attempt to see how Williams Jr was called on his idiocy on commentary after commentary on Fox News.
But again, you wouldn't know. Because you prejudicially never watch Fox News, except in edited clips from rabidly liberal sites who perpetuate your own prejudices.
God forbid you should ever expose yourself to Fox news in unedited form and dare to think for yourself.
Originally Posted By: WB
But I also often post other sources, and still watch the News Hour.
An example of PBS bias from 2 days ago: FOX NEWS: Sen McConnell on the Senate floor, answering Obama's calls for a vote on his Jobs Bill, said okay, right now, let's have a vote! But Harry Reid tabled the bill, because he knows that it not only faces opposition from Republicans, but because a majority of Democrat Senators won't vote for it either. So rather than lose, Reid tabled the bill. PBS NEWS HOUR (Kwame Holman, same story) Sen Mitchell answered Obama's call for a vote on his Jobs Bill saying let's vote on it today. Sen Reid said elected not to vote on the Jobs Bill, because he said there was other pressing legislation that was a greater priority...
Do you see the difference? Fox gave the proper perspective of what was really at stake and that the bill did not have Democrat support. And PBS just completely glossed over and selectively omitted that important part of the story!
Originally Posted By: Pro
I am not, and never HAVE argued that the media doesn't slant Liberal. I've said repeatedly that it's obvious to anyone that MSNBC is Hard Left, FOX is Hard Right, and CNN is just useless. The flaw in reasoning that I question in you, is that you see it: MSNBC is Hard Left, CNN is Hard Left, PBS is Hard Left, Nickelodeon is Hard Left, MTV is Hard Left, The Home Shopping Network is Hard Left, and FOX News is absolutely Fair & Balanced. How can you choose to see the hypocrisy in Liberal media, and completely ignore it in FOX?
Originally Posted By: Pro
Originally Posted By: WB
I don't have to search for clips, it's right there for you to see, 24 hours a day.
And until someone can show me proof it's Fair & Balanced, like you champion, I will not bother in trying to watch it...
That's idiotic. Like I said, how will you ever know, if you never watch it firsthand, to judge for yourself? I don't like 100% of what any news channel presents. But I see a lot of "fair and balanced" on Fox. The fact that so many feel such a burning need to demonize Fox, for just presenting a conservative POV, in addition to the dominant liberal POV on the other networks, is just testament to the intolerant liberal prejudice against Fox.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Every Fox news broadcast I watched over a two-day period (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, their morning program, all played the Hank Williams Jr clip you mention (comparing Obama to Hitler) and laughed about how ridiculous a comparison it was. Basically saying "this is why we don't take celebrity political opinion seriously."
So, now the story is that FoxNews used Hank Jr. as fodder and denigrated him and his opinion as laughable and ridiculous to prove Gretchen's point about Rosie O'Donnell and other celebrities. Way to jump from hypocrisy to real "class act" there. That's the kind of rationalization that would make Wanky proud. Further, this is also totally disputed by the frequent appearance of celebrities/sports stars talking politics on--at the very least--Hannity's Great American Panel.
I watch Fox fairly regularly along with MSNBC and other news outlets. Face it, Fox is just as biased as any of those organizations. It takes far too much willful ignorance or plain stupidity to argue otherwise.
Lastly, let's have a look at the recent dust up around Robert Jeffress. He was great to have on Fox when pushing the Obama is a secret muslim stuff and the "war on Christmas." But, he speaks his mind about a lot of Christians views on Mormonism and gets marginalized and accused of attacking someone's religion. Glad it matters when he is talking about a GOP frontrunner. Totally fair and balanced.
Every Fox news broadcast I watched over a two-day period (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, their morning program, all played the Hank Williams Jr clip you mention (comparing Obama to Hitler) and laughed about how ridiculous a comparison it was. Basically saying "this is why we don't take celebrity political opinion seriously."
So, now the story is that FoxNews used Hank Jr. as fodder and denigrated him and his opinion as laughable and ridiculous to prove Gretchen's point about Rosie O'Donnell and other celebrities. Way to jump from hypocrisy to real "class act" there. That's the kind of rationalization that would make Wanky proud. Further, this is also totally disputed by the frequent appearance of celebrities/sports stars talking politics on--at the very least--Hannity's Great American Panel.
I watch Fox fairly regularly along with MSNBC and other news outlets. Face it, Fox is just as biased as any of those organizations. It takes far too much willful ignorance or plain stupidity to argue otherwise.
Lastly, let's have a look at the recent dust up around Robert Jeffress. He was great to have on Fox when pushing the Obama is a secret muslim stuff and the "war on Christmas." But, he speaks his mind about a lot of Christians views on Mormonism and gets marginalized and accused of attacking someone's religion. Glad it matters when he is talking about a GOP frontrunner. Totally fair and balanced.
So if I don't accept your POV, I'm "willfully ignorant"? Nice.
I don't think it's a "plot" by Fox to either rationalize criticizing Rosie O'Donnell or scapegoat Williams Jr for making the dumb comment that was aired of Fox & Friends (who in America beyond the far left ever took Rosie O'Donnell seriously, prior to the Williams Jr thing?) You bash Hannity, but one of the comments where Williams Jr was panned and ridiculed was Hannity's "great American Panel" (a segment I don't like, because I prefer serious political commentators, not actors, athletes, and other celebrities like Williams Jr.
There are many comments I see on Fox that are partisan, sure. But as I said repeatedly, they also have valuable coverage of things like the ACORN scandal that other networks selectively downplay or omit, and also offer plenty of balancing liberal perspective and opinion, such as Juan Williams and the others I listed.
My greatest complaint about Fox is that they have panels where people talk over each other, and there's so much crosstalk that it becomes a waste of time to discern what is being said at times. CNN likewise has this problem. I'd say the best show that has the most controlled and civil equal-time panel discussions is PBS. But as I outlined above, they too have their biases and selective omissions.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
Basically, I listen to everyone at various times, and from all sides I can distill the basic facts, and various perspectives of the facts.
Now I have to shut my computer off and go to bed early so I can get up earlier than usual to find a new way to get to work. My way to work is blocked by unemployed criminal,drug addict hippies who wave their gay wad signs and demand the world give them a free ride.When I get to work I will spend my day counting my bags of money and thinking of new ways to stomp on poor people.
"My friends have always been the best of me." -Doctor Who
"Well,whenever I'm confused,I just check my underwear. It holds most answers to life's questions." Abe Simpson
I can tell by the position of the sun in the sky, that is time for us to go. Until next time, I am Lothar of the Hill People!
Now I have to shut my computer off and go to bed early so I can get up earlier than usual to find a new way to get to work. My way to work is blocked by unemployed criminal,drug addict hippies who wave their gay wad signs and demand the world give them a free ride.When I get to work I will spend my day counting my bags of money and thinking of new ways to stomp on poor people.
All right Lothar!
Carry on, you rich evil capitalist exploiter of the Proletariat!
So, now the story is that FoxNews used Hank Jr. as fodder and denigrated him and his opinion as laughable and ridiculous to prove Gretchen's point about Rosie O'Donnell and other celebrities. Way to jump from hypocrisy to real "class act" there. That's the kind of rationalization that would make Wanky proud. Further, this is also totally disputed by the frequent appearance of celebrities/sports stars talking politics on--at the very least--Hannity's Great American Panel.
I watch Fox fairly regularly along with MSNBC and other news outlets. Face it, Fox is just as biased as any of those organizations. It takes far too much willful ignorance or plain stupidity to argue otherwise.
He will not listen. Nor can he back up any of his presented "facts". I don't think there's much point in trying to show him reality. He's too personally vested in FOX to admit their slant.
Quote:
Lastly, let's have a look at the recent dust up around Robert Jeffress. He was great to have on Fox when pushing the Obama is a secret muslim stuff and the "war on Christmas." But, he speaks his mind about a lot of Christians views on Mormonism and gets marginalized and accused of attacking someone's religion. Glad it matters when he is talking about a GOP frontrunner. Totally fair and balanced.
Rationalizations 3:16 - Thou shalt allow FOX all words they wish to Espouse. Verily, thou shalt not ask for facts or proof to anything. Thou shalt have FAITH in Lord Murdoch, and all his benevolent gifts to mankind.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
THAT we agree on. Charlie Rose is an actual, real-life journalist. I love that guy.
Now I have to shut my computer off and go to bed early so I can get up earlier than usual to find a new way to get to work. My way to work is blocked by unemployed criminal,drug addict hippies who wave their gay wad signs and demand the world give them a free ride.When I get to work I will spend my day counting my bags of money and thinking of new ways to stomp on poor people.
BTW, whatever happened with Murdoch's British tabloids illegally wire-tapping the phone of a murder victim to get juicy scoops, but didn't bother using said knowledge to help police find said victim before she was killed? I'm sure it's all some "smear campaign" by the Horrible Liberal Left. They probably killed that girl to frame Murdoch's paper so they could slander his untarnished image...
I don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove they're biased.
No, I have given evidence of FOX's bias in the form of a video segment. I have proven my point. The burden of rebuttal is now on you, sir. It's up to you to refute my claims. Otherwise, you must concede that I have offered facts you cannot, or will not, refute. That's how a debate/exchange of ideas works...
Quote:
Every Fox news broadcast I watched over a two-day period (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, their morning program, all played the Hank Williams Jr clip you mention (comparing Obama to Hitler) and laughed about how ridiculous a comparison it was. Basically saying "this is why we don't take celebrity political opinion seriously."
You distort it to be completely opposite what I saw on every Fox program I watched. You allege that Fox got behind this comment. They sure as hell didn't.
Sweet! Then, I'll concede the point--.....right after you post some clips proving what you say.
The problem is, there are plenty of defiant, gloating and unemployed liberals out there who sound just like you, who demonize any conservative opnion and have all day to download video snipped into exactly the context they want it. I also think Youtube is less friendly to conservative opinion. I keyword O'Reilly or Fox News or Glenn Beck, and it's generally all videos of "so-and-such OWNS O'Reilly, Beck, etc" And if there are videos that portray them positively, they are buried and hard to find.
And his show from Sunday, Oct 9, 2011, I would love to post the complete show here if I could find it online. Because almost the full hour was devoted to the Wall Street protests. And despite that Geraldo was very fair and sympathetic to their cause, you could barely hear the interviews because a crowd of hundreds was vindictively yelling "Fox News lies!!" over and over through the whole thing.
Ironic, because Geraldo was doing his damndest to give them fair coverage. He also interviewed Cornell West, Tavis Smiley, and (the one I felt best represented the protestors) a writer for the Huffington Post whose name escapes me.
Again, Pro, you don't watch Fox, so how would you know one way or the other.
Fox every hour presents both criticissm and praise of the protestors in balanced commentary. I actually think this latest (Oct 9th) Geraldo At Large program was a full hour sympathetic to the Wall Streeters, despite their scorn of even liberal Geraldo. I hope someone posts it online for you at some point. Or maybe it's there and I just can't find it.
Wow. I was at Youtube, and you can't find the broadcast program, but there's plenty of hate-Geraldo amateur footage, gloating about owning and humiliating him.
The problem is, there are plenty of defiant, gloating and unemployed liberals out there who sound just like you, who demonize any conservative opinion and have all day to download video snipped into exactly the context they want it. I also think Youtube is less friendly to conservative opinion. I keyword O'Reilly or Fox News or Glenn Beck, and it's generally all videos of "so-and-such OWNS O'Reilly, Beck, etc" And if there are videos that portray them positively, they are buried and hard to find.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A strong majority of Americans are aware of the ``Occupy Wall Street'' protests against U.S. economic inequality and a majority either view them favorably or do not have an opinion about them, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said Wednesday.
Eighty-two percent of Americans have heard of the protest movement, and 38 percent feel favorably toward it, the poll found. Thirty-five percent are undecided, and about one-fourth -- 24 percent -- are unfavorable.
Ipsos research director Chris Jackson said the large number of people who were positive or undecided reflected the mood of the country.
``People are just sort of angry,'' he said. ``They aren't necessarily sure what they are angry about, and the protest captures that to a certain extent.''
U.S. Democrats and Republicans were equally familiar with the protests, at 84 percent and 82 percent, respectively, but only 73 percent of independents were aware.
But their views are sharply divided by party. Fifty-one percent of Democrats viewed the protests favorably, versus just 11 percent who saw them unfavorably. Among independents, 37 percent had a positive view, compared with 14 percent who felt negative.
Just 22 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable view, compared with 44 percent who were unfavorable.
According to Occupy Together, which has become an online hub for protest activity, the Occupy Wall Street movement has sparked rallies in more than 1,300 cities throughout the United States and around the world.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,113 adults, including 934 registered voters, was conducted Oct. 6-10. It surveyed 536 Democrats, 410 Republicans and 167 independents.
The margin of error was 3.0 percentage points for all respondents, 3.2 points for registered voters, 4.2 points for Democrats, 4.8 points for Republicans and 7.6 points for independents. (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.
The public probably supports the protests (at least in the above reported poll) because the (liberal) media goes beyond reporting and openly advocates for them.
Likewise, I think (liberal) media support for Obama is why he still polls at about 42% popularity, and hasn't plummetted to the low 30's. The media, for Obama and for the Wall Street protests, is doing the polar opposite of what they did to (not for) W.Bush and the Tea Party.
Slow? There was a two-week media blackout, with only YouTube videos uploaded by the protestors themselves to get the word out. Slow doesn't even begin to cover it. And they're only interested now to see how each one can spin it to their parties favor...
So, now the story is that FoxNews used Hank Jr. as fodder and denigrated him and his opinion as laughable and ridiculous to prove Gretchen's point about Rosie O'Donnell and other celebrities. Way to jump from hypocrisy to real "class act" there. That's the kind of rationalization that would make Wanky proud. Further, this is also totally disputed by the frequent appearance of celebrities/sports stars talking politics on--at the very least--Hannity's Great American Panel.
Well, which is it? Prometheus was saying that they praised Hank Williams Jr's commentary on Fox & Friends. You say they denigrated him.
Either way, you both spin it as eeeeevvviiiillll Fox News! Fox News called the guy on an over-the-top remark, and they gave him multiple opportunities in the interview to walk it back and soften his remarks, maybe paraphrase his contempt for Obama's socialist policies, but self-deprecatingly say okay, Obama's not a nazi, but his policies are bad for America.
Here's What Hank Williams Jr himself had to say:
His disdain for Fox News is clear from 1:45 to 2:15 in the updated lyrics.
While I agree with the basic thrust of what Williams said about Obama's policies being bad for America, I think he came across as uninformed and unable to back up what he said. And therefore a stupid criticism of Obama. That Fox News pundits on every one of their shows (Fox Report, O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta, The Five, Redeye) all made fun of. The same way they make fun of any other conservative or liberal celebrity that likewise goes over the top on things they don't have the political knowledge to warrant their comments.
At the same time, I don't think Williams Jr should have lost his football gig. If Letterman can keep his job after joking about A-Rod raping Sarah Palin's daughter, Williams' comments are certainly less harsh, and not a firing offense. It's another example of liberal craziness being more acceptable than arguably less extreme conservative craziness.
I watch Fox fairly regularly along with MSNBC and other news outlets. Face it, Fox is just as biased as any of those organizations. It takes far too much willful ignorance or plain stupidity to argue otherwise.
He will not listen. Nor can he back up any of his presented "facts". I don't think there's much point in trying to show him reality. He's too personally vested in FOX to admit their slant.
Demonizing me with facts not in evidence. You spin me as only watching Fox News, sponging up only the Fox News perspective. Despite that I frequently quote other sources, despite that I even distance myself from some of what Hannity and others have said. I only say: Fox News is no more partisan than the other networks, it simply gives a conservative perspective in addition to the liberal commentary it presents. And in that respect, at least makes an effort to be fair and balanced, more so than most other networks.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Nor can he back up any of his presented "facts".
I gave you an example earlier (Harry Reid tabling Obama's "Jobs Bill" Friday) of how PBS slanted the news in the Dems' favor, whereas Fox reported the full perspective of why Reid tabled the bill (namely, it was not Republicans obstructing it, the bill didn't even have Democrat support). Another example is the ACORN coverage. Another example is the current "Occupy Wall Street" coverage. In each case, the (liberal) media sugarcoats and selectively omits parts of the story to make the Dems look better, while simultaneously demonizing Republicans.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Lastly, let's have a look at the recent dust up around Robert Jeffress. He was great to have on Fox when pushing the Obama is a secret muslim stuff and the "war on Christmas." But, he speaks his mind about a lot of Christians views on Mormonism and gets marginalized and accused of attacking someone's religion. Glad it matters when he is talking about a GOP frontrunner. Totally fair and balanced.
I finally saw the Jeffress guy's comments about Romney a day after you posted this. I never saw Jefress talk about Obama. I think his comments about Romney are a silly and unsophisticated attack that isn't worthy of anyone's time. His comments are like something out of the 1950's.
Originally Posted By: Pro
Rationalizations 3:16 - Thou shalt allow FOX all words they wish to Espouse. Verily, thou shalt not ask for facts or proof to anything. Thou shalt have FAITH in Lord Murdoch, and all his benevolent gifts to mankind.
More of your partisan crap. You can't even be specific about what I'm allegedly clinging to with alleged "religious faith".
I post their articles and commentary. I also post the commentary and articles of PBS, the AP and others. In your fanaticism to rationalize your own partisan biases as you blindly parrot the liberal party line, you try to portray me as "extreme" or otherwise a blind zombie of Fox News.
But you're the one posting Youtube clips and socialist/extremist manifestos here in the topic, right off of liberal blogs, and cheering them on with a zeal I couldn't possibly match.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus, 10-10-2011 (said with rabid foam in his mouth, with partisan fanaticism, oblivious to my actual opinion)
He will not listen. Nor can he back up any of his presented "facts". I don't think there's much point in trying to show him reality. He's too personally vested in FOX to admit their slant.
Originally Posted By: WB, answering Iggy, 10-10-2011
There are many comments I see on Fox that are partisan, sure. But as I said repeatedly, they also have valuable coverage of things like the ACORN scandal that other networks selectively downplay or omit, and also offer plenty of balancing liberal perspective and opinion, such as Juan Williams and the others I listed.
My greatest complaint about Fox is that they have panels where people talk over each other, and there's so much crosstalk that it becomes a waste of time to discern what is being said at times. CNN likewise has this problem. I'd say the best show that has the most controlled and civil equal-time panel discussions is PBS. But as I outlined above, they too have their biases and selective omissions.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
Basically, I listen to everyone at various times, and from all sides I can distill the basic facts, and various perspectives of the facts.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus, 10-10-2011 (spoken with rabid foam in his mouth, in full partisan attack mode, oblivious to my actual opinion
Rationalizations 3:16 - Thou shalt allow FOX all words they wish to Espouse. Verily, thou shalt not ask for facts or proof to anything. Thou shalt have FAITH in Lord Murdoch, and all his benevolent gifts to mankind.
Originally Posted By: WB, answering Iggy, 10-10-2011
There are many comments I see on Fox that are partisan, sure. But as I said repeatedly, they also have valuable coverage of things like the ACORN scandal that other networks selectively downplay or omit, and also offer plenty of balancing liberal perspective and opinion, such as Juan Williams and the others I listed.
My greatest complaint about Fox is that they have panels where people talk over each other, and there's so much crosstalk that it becomes a waste of time to discern what is being said at times. CNN likewise has this problem. I'd say the best show that has the most controlled and civil equal-time panel discussions is PBS. But as I outlined above, they too have their biases and selective omissions.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
Basically, I listen to everyone at various times, and from all sides I can distill the basic facts, and various perspectives of the facts.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus (said foaming at the mouth, in full-on partisan attack mode, oblivious to what I actually said)
Originally Posted By: WB, answering Iggy, 10-10-2011
There are many comments I see on Fox that are partisan, sure. But as I said repeatedly, they also have valuable coverage of things like the ACORN scandal that other networks selectively downplay or omit, and also offer plenty of balancing liberal perspective and opinion, such as Juan Williams and the others I listed.
My greatest complaint about Fox is that they have panels where people talk over each other, and there's so much crosstalk that it becomes a waste of time to discern what is being said at times. CNN likewise has this problem. I'd say the best show that has the most controlled and civil equal-time panel discussions is PBS. But as I outlined above, they too have their biases and selective omissions.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
Basically, I listen to everyone at various times, and from all sides I can distill the basic facts, and various perspectives of the facts.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Wow. I was at Youtube, and you can't find the broadcast program [Geraldo At Large, Sunday, Oct 10, 2011] but there's plenty of hate-Geraldo amateur footage, gloating about owning and humiliating him.
OWS Edits Video: Wants You To Believe They Chased Off Geraldo Posted by Christina Timothy | October 10, 2011
Geraldo talks to Occupy Wall Street protestors at NYC's Zuccatti park There is an ugly vicious rumor being circulated on the social networks by OWS. They are alleging that Geraldo was forced to abort his broadcast on Sunday, October 9th, due to Occupy Wall Street protestors chanting "Fox News Lies", during the taping of the show. NOT SO. Here are the facts:
OWS protestors started chanting "Fox News Lies" during our interview with Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornell West, which began 45 minutes into our hour long program. Their chants did not send us packing. In fact, through the crowd's chanting, we completed the remaining 2 topics and 5 interviews. Then, 12 minutes later, having covered all the topics planned and interviewed all the guests invited on the program, coming back on camera from an edited piece on the similarities between Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox, Geraldo delivered this wrap to close the show:
"Before I say goodnight, I want to end with a couple of statements here about what's happening in Zuccotti park. The crowd is easy to mock. They are disorganized. They look funny. Some, like the person putting the paper in front of the lens are aggressive. But they have a real, legitimate complaint deep down and it is a message that I think will resonate eventually as people listen up. Thank you for being with us. We'll see you next time."[Geraldo said this, ironically, as a crowd of hundreds was shouting, chanting "Fox News Lies!" over and over. Especially under these circumstances, Geraldo was incredibly charitable to the protestors. --WB]
At that point, Geraldo and crew called it a day. Geraldo posed for pictures and then exited the scene.
An organization named RT [Russia Today, a 100% state-owned anti-American Russian government news site --WB]- will have you believe that the video they've posted to YouTube is an accurate depiction of the afternoon's events. The truth is, their video is edited to show only the crowd chanting and Geraldo's exit and it is an insult to the intelligence of everyone watching. If the OWS movement is about telling the truth, then why not start here? .
Originally Posted By: Prometheus, 10-10-2011 (said with rabid foam in his mouth, with partisan fanaticism, oblivious to my actual opinion)
He will not listen. Nor can he back up any of his presented "facts". I don't think there's much point in trying to show him reality. He's too personally vested in FOX to admit their slant.
Originally Posted By: WB, answering Iggy, 10-10-2011
There are many comments I see on Fox that are partisan, sure. But as I said repeatedly, they also have valuable coverage of things like the ACORN scandal that other networks selectively downplay or omit, and also offer plenty of balancing liberal perspective and opinion, such as Juan Williams and the others I listed.
My greatest complaint about Fox is that they have panels where people talk over each other, and there's so much crosstalk that it becomes a waste of time to discern what is being said at times. CNN likewise has this problem. I'd say the best show that has the most controlled and civil equal-time panel discussions is PBS. But as I outlined above, they too have their biases and selective omissions.
Charlie Rose is another program I value for it's in-depth and not overtly partisan spin. After 10 years of watching Charlie Rose, I still cannot discern where on the political spectum Rose's views are. Which speaks well for the facts presented on his show.
Basically, I listen to everyone at various times, and from all sides I can distill the basic facts, and various perspectives of the facts.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Early Polls Indicate 44% of Respondents Saying "It's about damn time" and 32% Wishing For A Kick Instead of Punch
NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2011) - Apparently seeking to ride the wave of popular anger being expressed by the growing "Occupy Wall Street" movement, today President Obama punched an investment banker in the face.
The punch occurred during a White House meet-and-greet around noon. After a brief speech on tax reform, President Obama called investment banker Ron Milner to the podium and then, without provocation or warning, delivered what witnesses describe as a "haymaker" punch to Mr. Milner's jaw. "That's for ruining the economy, asshole," Mr. Obama remarked, then spit at Mr. Milner's feet and walked away.
Early polls indicate the President's punch is receiving widespread voter approval, with 44% of respondents telling survey-takers "It's about damn time one of those rich pricks got their teeth knocked in" and another 32% saying they wished Obama had kicked Mr. Milner in addition to punching him.
On-the-street interviews with "Occupy Wall Street" protestors also indicate broad support for Obama's action. "I personally do not condone violence of any kind, but come on, you gotta admit that was pretty sweet," activist Louis Cartwright, 32, told Onion News Network reporters. "Obama was all like 'Bam!' and that dickhead banker was like 'No, not my perfect face!' I mean, I would prefer to see Obama push for financial regulatory reform, but that was still pretty awesome."
The banker punch may have also been a boon for President Obama's efforts to pass his American Jobs Act. When asked if he still opposed the bill this afternoon, a visibly nervous Republican house majority leader Eric Cantor said, "No no no. I'll pass whatever the President wants. P-p-please don't let him hurt me."
Fucking Lothar... 
