It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News predicts the future. Makes promise based on "fact"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Fox has assures it's viewers that President Bush's Supreme Court pick will be honest. The sub-box title says FOX FACTS which means either they can predict the future or they have made a promise to it's viewers.





A good question to ask is if we are being Subliminally conditioned by FOX?

[edit on 6-7-2005 by syntaxer]




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Also you'll notice how Fox will continually show "TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED" on their ticker every two minutes or so.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Haha Fox facts.
Whats next?


Fox Fact !
We are not biased !



Good find.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Also you'll notice how Fox will continually show "TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED" on their ticker every two minutes or so.


They all do.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Um...If you actually look at that in context, it's saying Bush said those things.

Fox Facts
BUSH:Nominee will interpret constitution faithfully

Is the claim here that Bush never said that, or is this an attempt to slam Fox for stating what Bush's message was while he was speaking?

EDIT: I just printed those images out and asked 2 people what that meant. Both of them didn't hesitate to say that it meant Bush believed xxx.

Fox gives you plenty of bias to freak out about, why do you have to create it where it doesn't exist? Did you honestly misread it and think it meant Fox believed this, or was this a spin attempt against FoxNews?

[edit on 7-6-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Syntaxer, is the media syntax taxing your ability to decipher syntax?

It is very clear to anyone who has viewed more than 10 minutes of TV news, or read more than two front pages of a local newspaper, that Fox is saying that Bush is stating this.

Are you trying to use a cunning tactic of some sort to cast Fox News in bad light? Do you work for CNN?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I haven't been following it at all this past week, and just given the two screen shots I was able to discern, rather quickly, what Fox was saying. That big BUSH: before the comments really clued me in.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
LOL!

This is too much!

A CNN employee comes here, misrepresents screen shots, and the anti-Fox people come out of the woodwork to spout of their own misunderstandings and take the falso report as fact!


You gotta love it!




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Everyone knows that that media shorthand of BUSH: Something means Bush said Something...which is a fact!

Go FOX for being factual and delivering the information to the people!



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
*looks in Magic 8 ball*

"Will I see polarity in this thread"?

Answer, "The outlook looks bleak".

That means YES.

:shk:



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Just another prime example of how far the lefties will go to slam foxnews, even if it is a misinterpretation



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
*looks in Magic 8 ball*

"Will I see polarity in this thread"?

Answer, "The outlook looks bleak".

That means YES.

:shk:


Is there another way to interpret it? Most (all I've ever seen) major news networks, when they're stating something Bush has said, use "BUSH: blah blah blah". Yet here, that was taken to mean FoxNews was predicting the future.

Is there another way to understand what was said? As TC said, someone came out saying FoxNews was biased, although in this case it was inaccurate, and people immediately jumped on the bash Fox bandwagon. If polarity exists here, it's because people have brought to the attention of folks exactly what the context was and what the whole statements were, as syntaxer posted. The other option would be to keep our mouths shut and let people bash Fox for a misinterpretation. Who was the :shk: for?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Ill appologize for any bashing I did. The way I saw it was silly, they are claiming something someone said about the future to be a fact.


Is this a fact ?

Fox Facts
-Dulcimer: Will post only humorous content

Its not a fact.

dictionary.reference.com...

"Knowledge or information based on real occurrences"


Perhaps if it read something like:

Fox Facts
-Bush elects Person X

Something that actually is a fact.

You see where im going. As for my bash, hey, I appologized.

Of course the Fox Facts are just highlights.

Meh !



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Ahh, so it's linguistic semantics. Fox Facts has a ring to it, but you'd prefer, maybe, Fox Interpretation Of Comments Made During The Speech You're Watching?

Yeah, my comment was snide, but I was trying to express a point. Fox has plenty for people to complain about, they do have a right-slant, but to start slamming them for linguistic marketing semantics, it's just petty. Fox Facts is the header when they are pointing out details about a report or issues being discussed by someone on screen.

EDIT:
For that matter, now that I think about it, Facts is accurate. As your dictionary reference stated, a fact is "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences". Bush really said those things. Just like your example, if you came out and said "I will post only humorous content", stating that you said that would be a fact.

EDIT2 (and 3, cause JJ can't spell appology): And, of course, the appology is accepted, although I don't think it was really necessary. I was just looking for clarification on what you meant

[edit on 7-6-2005 by junglejake]

[edit on 7-6-2005 by junglejake]

[edit on 7-6-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

You have voted junglejake for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Unfortunately, no "way below" for the originator of this thread



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
A good question to ask is if we are being Subliminally conditioned by FOX?


I do indeed get the impression that the 'ticker' and 'sub-box title' in American media have a conditioning the American public's subconscious.

I've never seen this used by any non-American new station, by the way. I wonder why.....



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by IlluSionS667
I've never seen this used by any non-American new station, by the way. I wonder why.....


I saw a ticker like that on a Canadian all news station when I was in Halifax for work. I'm suprised others don't do that. When there's a big story, or even when there's not, the news anchors spend a lot of time repeating themselves, usually about every 7 minutes or so. The ticker keeps viewership, because you're getting headlines that aren't being talked about while being forced to listen to the same thing you did a minute ago. The ticker can keep people from going to one of the other news stations and just reading through the ticker to see the day's news.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejakeI saw a ticker like that on a Canadian all news station when I was in Halifax for work. I'm suprised others don't do that.


I'm not able to receive Canadian channels, so I don't know about them. I have never seen any of Dutch, Belgian, German, French, Brittish or other channels that I can receive out here, though. The only exception I can think of is a business channel, which has a ticker with stock information.


The ticker can keep people from going to one of the other news stations and just reading through the ticker to see the day's news.


Whenever I turn on an American station, these tickers always distract me from the featured news topic. Also, I rarely get enough information out of them, as they are just one-liners. I think that might be why European stations prefer not to use them. We prefer a bit more content and less distraction



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
"Knowledge or information based on real occurrences"


Operative words right there. It's a fact that Bush said those things.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Operative words right there. It's a fact that Bush said those things.


Bush saying something does not make it true. The title gives the impression that the statement is a fact, while it's just something that someone said. Therefor it may not be a lie, but definitely a deception.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join