It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by RANT
Why all this effort to defend Fox? Kind of like the "news" stories from this week: "Halliburton Pets Kittens," or whatever nonsense defense of Halliburton some were spewing. And the "Republicans are Happier" breaking news thread.

You notice in spite of a somewhat liberal and extremely skeptical majority on these boards.... very few rush to defend against these absurd right wing allegetions, at least compared to Fox groupies defending it's tabloid network.

I know, they're like freaking pirahnas, attacking anyone who posts something critical of the great leader of the fatherland.

That's why this new news forum is a #ing joke. Like every other headline is about how the democrats are bad or something to that extent. Those kind of messages should be kept to the political mudpit or even the political scandals forums.

The Bush-loving members, which seem to be the majority because they're so damn loud and persistent, have a new playground in this unecessary ATSNN.

Hell, this whole board has become a damn mudpit, and there's very little info on the topics that brought me here in the first place: UFOs, paranormal, crypitds, science, etc. All it is now is a place for liberals and conservatives to duke it out. Even normal, non-political threads have partisan crap thrown in them after a while.

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 12:45 AM
Flinx I hear you loud and clear. And agree, but am TRYING with all my might to ride it out.

I hit that reply button ALOT, then just take a deep breath and walk away. I'm a refugee of extremely nonsensical hate filled political boards where all debate eventually reduced to namecalling.

But like you, that's not what I'm here for, so I'm trying to ignore it. Stay strong and objective.

Even the entertainment value of a good political debate gets lost in subjectivity.

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 09:20 AM
Bush was marketed as the conservative's candidate in the election... this is why you're seeing conservatives get VERY squemish today - they understand they were duped and are disheartened. (I'm new here, haven't touched the political mud pit except for this thread, and don't intend to... i come HERE for debate in other threads - this one caught my attention...)

I really hope this comment wasn't directed at me. I've said repeatedly in these posts that I DO NOT TURN to "foxnews" for all - or even a chunk of - my news - usually only when I want to see VIDEO of what's going on. And CSPAN is a joke - I can't stand watching politicians spew their propaganda... it's really disgusting. Anyway, there's a lot more to the news and life than what the politicians are up to.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by BelowtheRadar
If you are looking for a site that is nothing but knee-jerkers who blindly swallow the "news" that was fed to the public unrivaled for years until a new source came along, I'm sure you will find it. Go look for it. Then you can sit around and sing from the liberal hymnal with others just like you. Or, you can stick around and learn while at the same time offering another point of view to others. That is what we have here. Differing points of view, politically. We like it that way, elsewise we'd all go to sites where all the people are in lock step.

How is this a political scandal, by the way?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 09:25 AM

If one shouldn't be pro-Bush then what should they be?


posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 10:29 AM
Anyone who only watches one news source is going to have a biased view. I pay attention to FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN, and ATS. By far I think the best source for news is ATS. When don't you get everyone elses opinion?

posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 01:58 PM

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by darkwraith]

posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 10:37 AM
If the media is so liberal, how do you account for the non-stop coverage of those issues. I mean, come on.
Monica was on every cable outlet 24-7 !!!

That was mostly due to the dems. It was the dems that didn't like Clinton who tried to tear out his throat. Some republicans joined in, but most of them just sat back and smirked, cracking the occasional Clinton/sex joke. The democratic party is known for attacking it's own when they act or think differently.

posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 01:22 PM
Oh you mean the Republicans did get all involved in the impeachment?

You mean, they didn't go on TV and have their mouthpieces like Limbaugh and Coulter trash him day-in and day-out?

Thats an interesting revsion of history.

Short term memory loss, perhaps?

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:45 AM
Good letter that sums up fox news and the American media very well.

So... Fox is building its viewer base with hard core right wingers who don't want facts, don't want unbiased news. They want bull#. They want snide, smarmy reporting that supports their biased, partisan perspectives. And that's what they get. The frightening thing is that the other networks are, more and more mimicking Fox. CNN, which occasionally shows some unbiased ethical reporting, does use as some of its top reporters, clearly partisan individuals who ask thinly veiled questions aimed at making democrats and the left look bad.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by DiRtYDeViL]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:52 AM
To make it scarier...

Fox has unveiled it's new advertising campaign bragging on Neilson data that more and more Americans turn to Fox as their ONE SOURCE getting ALL THEIR "NEWS" from Fox.. since it's so Fair & Balanced.

Just saw the ad. It's laughable.

It has been cited time and again as the ONE SOURCE actually of alot of rampant misconceptions like: George Bush flew that plane to the aircraft carrier himself!

E.D. Hill blubbers and America laps it up like the truth.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:54 AM
Out of the dozens of biased news programs, you find one that caters to conservatives. Oh no, the world's ending!

Do you know how many liberally biased news programs there are? More than one, I can promise you that much. You people should just stop bitching about things being biased and just look at the raw facts. You're not forced to watch only one news program. I already listed what I watch, ATS being among them. Look for an objective opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:00 AM
Well the court says the media can lie. It's perfectly legal. This is old news but worth a re read.

Court Condones Media Lies, in Spite of FCC Policy Against "News Distortion"

Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges in at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle-blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
rest at

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:12 PM
I would like Joe Bayner to describe or cite some examples of 'liberal bias' on the TV news media.

Its easy to be indignant and righteous about some supposed liberal bias just like Rush, but here, unlike on his radio show, you have to back it up with facts.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 10:31 AM
Sorry it took so long. But here goes...

First of all it's Joe Hayner, second, if you want me to provide facts on how some news programs are liberally biased, you must provide me with evidence of conservative bias in FOX.

Anyway, heres a little quote from an article on Mr. Tom Brokaw-

Brokaw decried conservative outlets for liberal-media rebuttals as merely cesspools for "commercial nihilism." Radio stations are "instantly jingoistic and savagely critical of any questions raised about the decisions leading up to, for example, the war in Iraq." Conservative criticism isn't free speech, but the enemy of free speech: "They suffocate vigorous discourse, the oxygen of a system such as ours, by identifying those who refuse to conform and encouraging a kind of e-mail or telephonic jihad, which is happily carried out by well-funded organizations operating under the guise of promoting fair press coverage."

Here's the whole article, read

Here's another article regaurding Rush's 'racist' comment.

From a past survey of the national media:

80% have never voted for a Republican President.
86% of the media elite decision makers said they seldom or never attend religious services
53% don't think adultery is wrong
56% believe the U.S. "exploits" third world nations
80% favor affirmative action programs over merit based programs
These same people label conservatives "extremists, radicals, and mean-spirited."

This came from another

Example of bias: Coverage of Iraq: Kansas Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt, just back from Iraq, says despite what the mainstream media may be reporting, things are going along quite well there. While the majority of the national media is emphasizing the violence and unrest in Iraq, Tiahrt says the situation in that country is a lot better than the American public is being led to believe. During his recent fact-finding tour of Iraq, Tiahrt says he saw more happening than riots, ambushes, and unemployment. "There is some criminal activity, people trying to car-jack," he says, "but when you look at how dangerous some of our cities are here in America and compare that to the number of troops that we've lost ... it's a pretty successful story that should be told -- and the national news media has overlooked it." According to the U.S. congressman, Iraqi children returned to refurbished schools this week, the universities are back in session, every hospital in the nation is functioning, farmers are working again, and the markets are open. Also, 75% of Iraq now has electrical power, and other utilities are back on line as well. Tiahrt says the country is definitely making progress in the rebuilding effort, and the main problems still plaguing Iraq are the result of old infrastructure and acts of sabotage. You won't hear this from ABC, CBS, NBC, or NPR. Why, because they ONLY report that which will make President Bush and Conservatives appear in a negative way. It is how the media deceives Americans. Notice how they ALWAYS portray liberals in a positive light. Bias? Do you have ears to hear?
The above is from the same source.

All news sources have a bias, you can even find conflicting quotes on different ones. Aren't quotes supposed to be exact? Isn't that what these things mean ""?

I answered your challenge. Now answer mine.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:21 PM
Not to intrude on whoever that challenge was meant for, but I did read your links. What I feel compelled to redirect this debate towards is the difference in journalism and editorialism and even one's own right to a personal opinion.

In order of your presentation, Brent Bozell pointing to off camera comments from Brokaw doesn't PROVE biased journalism on Brokaw's part.

Debate over whether or not Rush really IS a racist, doesn't prove anything about journalism either way, for he is not a journalist, defining himself as an entertainer.

The survey results only prove what you might suspect. Highly educated types that enter the world of journalism tend to be liberal in personal belief and vote. Again, what does that have to do with proving what they report is biased?

And yet another Republican visits Iraq and says everythings GREAT. :sigh: That's kind of the most over reported "unreported" finding of the century, don't you think?

Should you be suspicious that the talking head on CBS or CNN (for example) might be a dyed in the wool liberal and secretly vote Democratic. Hell yes. Consider that as you consume his or her largely unbiased reporting of facts. And the fact you still have to guess where they stand for the large part is because they report UNEDITORIALIZED.

What you DON'T even have to speculate on, however, is where the typical FOX NEWS pundit stands (for that is where this debate started). "Dummycraps" "9 Dwarf Wannabes" "Dean has foot in mouth disease"

Fine. Great. Brokaw may secretly think Bush is a baby eater, but does he SAY it on the NEWS? Hell no.

I took journalism, have worked in broadcasting, and am a trained public relations practitioner... I also watch Fox News, and have to tell you, though no network is perfect, Fox has no line between editorializing and reporting. Same thing. How can you even pretend a COLONEL NORTH might be unbiased?

If Fox just did their thing and didn't harp on the Fair & Balanced lie, or everyone is biased but us JOKE of all time...fine. I wouldn't care if they wanted to be the cable version of a Rush type "INFORMATION ENTERTAINMENT" variety show. But they genuinely mislead without acknowledging it... and it's an insult to journalism and viewers.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:49 PM
For most other news sources, they do not really slant their stories very much, but it is the selection of stories that they choose to employ is where the slant comes from.

The slant is to the right despite what that the news commentators seem to be liberal.

FOX on the other hand, does not use the generic wording used in unbias journalism.

They cut to (what they think) the chase is.

But really, the media is ALL leaning one way. Towards money.

These guys are not out to change the world or people perceptions.

They are a business who product is advertising time. The platform is news, but in reality, it is afterall, still just a platform to sell time.

Why have all products become EXTREME (fill in the blank)? Cause it works.

Same with the News

Now it's the Extreme News.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in