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 Secedes From America

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
There is a reason that Fox consistently get the highest ratings. Think about that for a moment. Their shows have some of the highest ratings in the entire market.

Odd, for someone who is lying. It just may be that there are fewer idiots who will swallow anything found on all the other networks, and that those who quietly reach their own conclusions pick - choose - select - prefer the approach of FOX.

Everyone has a channel selector.

Odd. The majority willfully elect to watch FOX.

Now why would that be if FOX was such an inferior network?


It all seems odd to me, Fox seems to be on the same page in many ways as the posters on this forum.

I actually quit watching fox during the election because they were to soft on Obama.

The news reporters are either, down right liars are stupid or they don't investigate,

I knew more about Obama then they ever reported on the TV, ever, and now people are wondering what happened?




[edit on 083131p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Another thing,

Why would anyone in their right mind watch that one sided sickening love fest that the other stations had with Obama.

Frick, I would be ashamed to admit I watched that one sided crap.

And fell for it.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
www.newscorpse.com

VERY left wing site. Funny.



Originally posted by rich23
They're only interested in the Republican right.

And MSNBC is only interested in the Democratic left.
Bias and agenda are everywhere.


Originally posted by rich23

The sort of advocacy work normally done by independent organizations like MoveOn or Freedom’s Watch is now being conducted by a billion dollar media enterprise with a well known partisan agenda.


HYSTERICAL!
MoveOn is supposedly independent and doesn't have a partisan agenda? OMG .. that's beyond funny!



Originally posted by mandroid
Some of them are in it for their passion to report and investigate.

Really? Which MSM outlet would that be? I'd love to know.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by geodesicDbrane
this story defintely removes the credibility that newscorpse may have enjoyed in the past.


I dont know if that was an unintentional misspelling of News Corps or an intentional one, but it was brilliant regardless of motive.

It is an absolutely accurate reflection of the truth, the media as an objective presenter of news is dead. (If it were ever alive in the first place) and what we have left is simply and empty shell, animated, but devoid of life.

Newscorpse indeed.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
good 'effin riddance.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I know these people were found to be frauds and nothing happened, but they mentioned Fox on one of their readings. Talking about the next 21 days being very important. Nonetheless it was an interesting read for me and I am sure it will be interesting to many of you.

I posted this in here cause I felt like they were refering to fox news in this. You tell me if you think they are referring to Fox news. This was posted on March 24.

Ashtar Link

Like to hear what people decipher this as?

I urge you to keep the negative comments out, everyone is aware that October 14th came and went with nothing. I am just wondering what other people thought of this.

-Kdial1



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


First, BS! MSNBC has Joe and Pat, two right wingers if there ever was. Second, they had RON PAUL! On a lot during the elections. They WERE THE ONLY ONES to do so.

Second, www.abovetopsecret.com... Proves that people who watch FN make rocks look smart. So yeah, admitting you watch FN doesn't say much for you.

Third, how can you ignore that FN BANNED Ron Paul? Not just him, BUT FROM SAYING HIS NAME! MSNBC had him on as a third freaking anchor on half their shows.

Also, Pat Buchanon and Joe Scarborough any one? And all the Republican Reps and Senators they get on their shows all the time? Hell you'll see more Republicans on MSNBC then you do FN. But that's because they have what, five people plus Ann Coulter? But only people who have actually watched MSNBC know that.

As for rating, Olberman is kicking Billo's ass, who is also losing sponsors. He also has several times said that he needs people like Billo and Boss Limbaugh since half his show is pointing out he hypocricy of those people. He doesn't hide behind a banner of "Fair And Balanced" he comes out and says "I'm a liberal, I support Obama and hope he succeeds, unlike the GOP who have called for America to fail."

So get over it Republicans, AMERICA has decided they are tired of you and have dropped you from the Hose, Senate, and White House.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by JMasters]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Everytime I watch MSNBC I feel soiled.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Yup. Fair and balanced? Riiiight....


Yes I'd say it is fair and balanced given the extreme leftist slant of all the other media. It's just too bad that they actually allowed right wing media to grace the airwaves isn't it? (Though I consider Fox corporatist rather than conservative)

But don't worry Obama has a plan to crush what remains of free speech. The first amendment is clearly getting in the way of our socialist paradise so they intend to reintroduce the so called 'fairness doctrine'. If you want double-speak my friend the fairness doctrine trumps all other forms.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

The trouble is, there's no such thing as "objective".

There's something wretchedly mean-spirited and smug about most real right-wingers that renders them ugly in my eyes.



objective,(adj.) nonsubjective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena) "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu...


No such thing as objective????

Yes, I'm sure that no one can "objectively" state that (for example) a unrepentant degenerate scumbag like Bill Ayers does not qualify as "wretchedly mean-spirited and smug"

His BOMBastic status as being a co founder of the leftist terrorist organization "Weather Underground" surely qualifies him as a shining example of the "human ideal".


Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claimed that Ayers wanted to overthrow the United States government. In an interview in January 2009, Grathwohl stated that: "The thing the most bone chilling thing Bill Ayers said to me was that after the revolution succeeded and the government was overthrown, they believed they would have to eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order."
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 29-3-2009 by Snisha]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha

Yes, I'm sure that no one can "objectively" state that (for example) a unrepentant degenerate scumbag like Bill Ayers does not qualify as "wretchedly mean-spirited and smug"


Well, actually, by your own definition, that could never be an objective statement.

It is saturated in emotion and personal bias.

Doesnt mean that there may not be some measure of truth to it, I dont know the guy, so I cant comment on that. It just means that by virtue of the words used, and the limited position taken, (any person after all has more than one side, and you are leaving out the objective truth about any positive qualities he may have) the statement you made is not, nor could it be, objective.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 



I challenge you to watch Keith Olberman for a week and report back to me, I guarantee you will change your mind.


You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if MSNBC is more biased or not, what matters is that they all are, INCLUDING Fox. Who cares which one is more biased? That's like arguing over how many people I've stolen money from (if I stole money), am I any better than someone else who steals because they stole more than me? Your logic is failing...



[edit on 29-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Wow! I've just finished reading all of these posts and I just have to say that I find myself drawn, with a few exceptions, to the last sentence in Illusionsaregrander's signature.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Does anyone else not have a clue as to what this thread is about? All I know is that this is about Fox news, and that they are making an unpopular move, as always. What exactly is it that they're doing to have incited so much anger?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Obviously, you fail to watch NBC (Now Broadcasting Communism) and MSNBC (More Suckers Now Broadcasting Communism.) Both stations have VERY actively pushed a nutjob agenda for years now, and in a worse way than Fox News. Fox News is what it is, and doesn't play games about it. NBC and MSNBC act like they are voices of reason. In the case of NBC, they just integrate idiocy into all aspects of their programming, sort of an insidious plague. MSNBC is just full of people who belong in a mental institution. Seriously. They are progressive to the point that they have "progressed" past reality and sanity and come out somewhere very, very disturbed.

So basically, you're up in arms because a station is openly stating an agenda; Id rather see that, than see stations who strongly espouse an agenda but claim to do nothing of the sort.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


...this is why I listen to NPR.

Fox is ridiculous. Everyday I hear loaded statements. One poster, who I agreed with here, said that it's all about profit...nail on the head.

I remember a friend of mine in HS had a bumpersticker that said, "The media are only as liberal as the corporations that own them." That was in the 90s and I think it's more true than ever.

When you introduce a topic, you are not supposed to frame it with opinion, as Fox does. Let me be CRYSTAL CLEAR at this point:

FOX: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly
MSNBC: Mathews, Olbermann, Maddow
CNN: Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, who else?

These are "shows". These are not meant for dissemination of news items. The problem is that while MSNBC and CNN seem to have bias and just like FOX they have shows that are opinionated and lean in varying directions, FOX is the only one that every day has news anchors (those who simply are meant to present the stories) who use multiple methods of framing the "purely" news items - you know, the parts of the "news" that are meant to be information.

The anchor on Fox will present the information prefaced by sighs, disapproving facial expressions, head-shakes, tone, statements ("you are not going to believe this...", "Is this something you expect in the US..." etc. [paraphrasing])...all these methods already queue the viewer to how they are supposed to feel about the information that is about to be presented.

My favorite is: "What an interesting debate." or "She'll be with us with her answers to these difficult questions." and other such comments. The problem is that very little was debated (unless in their minds, debate means unclear shouting contests when barely a clear idea was transmitted from either side).

And finally. SOURCES..."There are those who say..." is not a source. Who are "those" who are saying that? Who are they??? You? Your advertisers? A government liaison? WHO??? Can you cite them? Can you read me their quotes?

I have to write papers with MLA style citations to even receive a grade and FOX isn't held to such a standard???? I should just write whatever loony-toon idea that comes to mind and for my citation page, "There are some who think this..." and my professor should just accept it...I'm gonna try that!



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
and is fox going to take over if they incite violence? that's the plan????

finally ,someone admits there is something VERY wrong in this country,and all everybody does is complain.

if you dont understand what is going on, the loss of rights and economic power,you deserve what you get.

and if you dont realize what obama is doing to us and this country,well,you deserve that too.
its a shame that people like you liberalscant see the forest for the trees,because some people who really care about what happens for generations to come will spill blood and die for you...and you wont even know why.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Call me naive if you like, but I find it incredible that modern TV news agencies are so partisan. How can any agency accurately report 'news' if they are biased one way or the other? How can their reports be trusted?

All the best

Myrdyn - UK



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snisha
No such thing as objective????


Quote the dictionary as much as you like, objectivity is a MYTH. In fact, so-called objectivity correlates to how much a person or statement conforms to the unexamined background assumptions of a society. Click the "dissident" part of my sig for more information on that.


Yes, I'm sure that no one can "objectively" state that (for example) a unrepentant degenerate scumbag like Bill Ayers does not qualify as "wretchedly mean-spirited and smug"


Quite right! It's a value judgement YOU are making about Bill Ayers. Someone else might see him differently. Quoting all the evil stuff he did doesn't help your argument because you're missing the point I'm making.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrdyn
reply to post by rich23
 


Call me naive if you like, but I find it incredible that modern TV news agencies are so partisan. How can any agency accurately report 'news' if they are biased one way or the other? How can their reports be trusted?

All the best

Myrdyn - UK


They can't.

Actually, the BBC used, a long time ago, to make a relatively good fist of it. Sadly, they've become just as much of a propaganda organ as any other.

On the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination they did a great programme looking into all the problems with the Warren Report, showing how many of the key witnesses had died in mysterious accidents (always just before testifying), etc.

Now they spend their time distorting the issues in 9/11.

Stuff you need to see to get in the picture (just my recommendations, but I'll stick by them)

Michael Parenti's "The Struggle For History"
"Orwell Rolls in his Grave"
"Network" - 1975 movie with Peter Finch, unbelievably good and accurate, even prophetic
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
Almost anything by Robert McChesney (he's in "Orwell Rolls in his Grave".




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join