Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: glenn1
Fox News Admits Bias
Why is this so earth-shattering? Everyone has bias, it's stupid to claim otherwise. Being able to control that bias is the hard part. I'll let others make the arguments for how well or poorly Fox and other news organizations have been meeting that second goal.
One could even make a reasonable argument that a no bias policy is not necessarily a goal every news organization should strive for since it would create a homogenized, bland product in a marketplace of ideas.
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!
Doesn't take much brain power to reach that conclusion. FOX is the lowest common denominator.Originally posted by: Genx87
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!Originally posted by: Giancarlo
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't take much brain power to reach that conclusion. FOX is the lowest common denominator.Originally posted by: Genx87
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!Originally posted by: Giancarlo
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.
WRONG! my dad watches fox non-stop, so i'm able to catch their programming and see right through all their crap. i don't watch it in the sense that i don't tune into them to get my news, and i don't watch their programming on a regular basis
Viewing it one time is all that's needed. Or, poke around http://www.mediamatters.org or watch Outfoxed.Originally posted by: Genx87
Might not take a lot of brain power but without viewing it how can you possibly come to the conclusion?Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't take much brain power to reach that conclusion. FOX is the lowest common denominator.Originally posted by: Genx87
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!Originally posted by: Giancarlo
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
Originally posted by: conjur
Viewing it one time is all that's needed. Or, poke around http://www.mediamatters.org or watch Outfoxed.Originally posted by: Genx87
Might not take a lot of brain power but without viewing it how can you possibly come to the conclusion?Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't take much brain power to reach that conclusion. FOX is the lowest common denominator.Originally posted by: Genx87
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!Originally posted by: Giancarlo
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
I don't need to eat a pile of sh*t to know it's going to taste bad.
Sounds like you need to pratice what you preach. You obviously haven't seen it.Originally posted by: Genx87
Outfoxed?Originally posted by: conjur
Viewing it one time is all that's needed. Or, poke around http://www.mediamatters.org or watch Outfoxed.Originally posted by: Genx87
Might not take a lot of brain power but without viewing it how can you possibly come to the conclusion?Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't take much brain power to reach that conclusion. FOX is the lowest common denominator.Originally posted by: Genx87
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!Originally posted by: Giancarlo
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
Laughable, those bumbling idiots cant even figure out a Fox affiliate is not FNC.
No, I don't. I've crapped enough in my life to know.But you need to at least see it.I don't need to eat a pile of sh*t to know it's going to taste bad.
Sounds like you need to pratice what you preach. You obviously haven't seen it.
No, I don't. I've crapped enough in my life to know.
They used actual FOX News memos from Ailes, himself, along with hours and hours and hours and hours of tapes of FOX News coverage and commentary shows.Originally posted by: Genx87
Really, who were the Fox producers they used as their sources?Sounds like you need to pratice what you preach. You obviously haven't seen it.
Originally posted by: conjur
They used actual FOX News memos from Ailes, himself, along with hours and hours and hours and hours of tapes of FOX News coverage and commentary shows.Originally posted by: Genx87
Really, who were the Fox producers they used as their sources?Sounds like you need to pratice what you preach. You obviously haven't seen it.
Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know off-hand. I'd have to watch it again.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.
WRONG! my dad watches fox non-stop, so i'm able to catch their programming and see right through all their crap. i don't watch it in the sense that i don't tune into them to get my news, and i don't watch their programming on a regular basis
You sure like to tell people they are WRONG.
So you were telling us a lie earlier when you said "i don't watch network "news" because it has become editorials instead of facts".
Sounds like you have a credibility issue now.
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Giancarlo
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
WRONG! no bias means that there is no attempt to withold information, or putforth information with the goal of furthering an agenda. information should be reported purely on the basis that it is an important event which has occurred
And you think you on the left are much more capable of that? I think not.
a HELL of a lot more capable than the people at fox!
How would you know? You dont even watch Fox by your own admission.
WRONG! my dad watches fox non-stop, so i'm able to catch their programming and see right through all their crap. i don't watch it in the sense that i don't tune into them to get my news, and i don't watch their programming on a regular basis
You sure like to tell people they are WRONG.
So you were telling us a lie earlier when you said "i don't watch network "news" because it has become editorials instead of facts".
Sounds like you have a credibility issue now.
WRONG! "I don't watch" means i don't sit down, tune into the channel, and watch a program for 30 mins.
What i do is while eating when my dad is watching crap like hannity & colmes, or the o'reilly factor, i will listen to the crap that spews forth from the tv, but once i'm done eating, i will go back to my regularly scheduled activities
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Wrong again dude, and btw, i have seen entire shows of these programs which is WHY i don't watch it now! i know what they are
He said he doesn't watch them. That's PRESENT TENSE. He WATCHED them BEFORE (PAST TENSE).Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Wrong again dude, and btw, i have seen entire shows of these programs which is WHY i don't watch it now! i know what they are
WRONG! You either watch them or you dont. You said you dont watch them yet admit that you do.
Credibility is out the door.
Originally posted by: conjur
He said he doesn't watch them. That's PRESENT TENSE. He WATCHED them BEFORE (PAST TENSE).Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Wrong again dude, and btw, i have seen entire shows of these programs which is WHY i don't watch it now! i know what they are
WRONG! You either watch them or you dont. You said you dont watch them yet admit that you do.
Credibility is out the door.
Get it?
FOX Television Stations owns and operates WTTG. FTS is a subsidiary of News Corp. Ailes/Murdoch have issued edicts down to the affiliates in the past as far as what news they'll cover.Originally posted by: Genx87
how about theseOriginally posted by: conjur
I don't know off-hand. I'd have to watch it again.
? Alexander Kippen is referred to as a ?former FOX News producer? when in fact he was never employed by FOX News Channel. He was an employee of WTTG-TV, a FOX affiliate** in Washington, DC.
? Frank O'Donnell is referred to as a ?FOX News producer? in film materials, which is factually incorrect. O?Donnell worked for FOX affiliate WTTG** from 1984 ? 1991 and was never a FOX News Channel employee.
First off, you expect me to believe FAUX itself?? Jon Du Pre was hired in 1999 as a reporter for FNC?s Los Angeles bureau, not an anchor as the film material states. His contract was not renewed in 2002 because, as his personnel file states, he was considered to be a weak field correspondent and could not do live shots. At the time his contract was not renewed, Du Pre was applying for an anchor position on FOX News Channel.
? Clara Frenk was a pool booker, not a ?producer? in the FOX News Channel Washington, D.C., bureau. She worked at FNC from February 1998 until March 1999 and expressed no concern about the editorial process while she was employed here.
Outfoxed is laughable already without considering who funded the project then it moves into hysterical.
Clara Frenk
Clara Frenk has been a political producer, booker and writer for over 10 years. Her broadcast experience includes ABC News (television and radio), CNN, Fox Morning News, CNBC. She has been a featured speaker at the yearly Campaigns and Elections seminars, where she has taught political professionals message shaping and how to book clients on cable and network television and radio. She is currently a freelance producer living in the Washington, D.C. area. She also runs her Web site, www.dcmediagirl.com.
Originally posted by: conjur
FOX Television Stations owns and operates WTTG. FTS is a subsidiary of News Corp. Ailes/Murdoch have issued edicts down to the affiliates in the past as far as what news they'll cover.Originally posted by: Genx87
how about theseOriginally posted by: conjur
I don't know off-hand. I'd have to watch it again.
? Alexander Kippen is referred to as a ?former FOX News producer? when in fact he was never employed by FOX News Channel. He was an employee of WTTG-TV, a FOX affiliate** in Washington, DC.
? Frank O'Donnell is referred to as a ?FOX News producer? in film materials, which is factually incorrect. O?Donnell worked for FOX affiliate WTTG** from 1984 ? 1991 and was never a FOX News Channel employee.
It may be ambiguous but Outfoxed didn't claim they worked for FOX News Channel. They said FOX News producer which would fall under FOX Television Stations.
First off, you expect me to believe FAUX itself?? Jon Du Pre was hired in 1999 as a reporter for FNC?s Los Angeles bureau, not an anchor as the film material states. His contract was not renewed in 2002 because, as his personnel file states, he was considered to be a weak field correspondent and could not do live shots. At the time his contract was not renewed, Du Pre was applying for an anchor position on FOX News Channel.
? Clara Frenk was a pool booker, not a ?producer? in the FOX News Channel Washington, D.C., bureau. She worked at FNC from February 1998 until March 1999 and expressed no concern about the editorial process while she was employed here.
Outfoxed is laughable already without considering who funded the project then it moves into hysterical.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125437,00.html
You should credit your sources.
As for what Outfoxed says of its sources:
http://www.outfoxed.org/FeaturedInterviewees.phpClara Frenk
Clara Frenk has been a political producer, booker and writer for over 10 years. Her broadcast experience includes ABC News (television and radio), CNN, Fox Morning News, CNBC. She has been a featured speaker at the yearly Campaigns and Elections seminars, where she has taught political professionals message shaping and how to book clients on cable and network television and radio. She is currently a freelance producer living in the Washington, D.C. area. She also runs her Web site, www.dcmediagirl.com.
But, this is just the typical right-wing m.o. Attack the messenger and ignore the content. The content of what these people say are dead-on.