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.


REFRESHER on why FOX is NOT a reputable news source!

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 08:53 PM
No for profit business is a reputable source they will spin whatever to what the customers want to hear period. I dont care who it is FOX, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, Sky etc. none are reputable.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by mental modulator

FOX is attempting to HIGHJACK the TEA ( don't know what to call it ) in order to reestablish a GOP - same old two party system game. WHICH is what many are trying to
fight against, the two party system..

What do you mean you "don't know what to call it?". It's Tea Party.

Tea Party.

As in, The Boston Tea Party.

You are saying that you don't know it is in reference to the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773?

The Boston Tea Party in which American Patriots were protesting the unjust taxes of the oppressive monarchy of George III? (namely, the Tea Act?)

Do you live in the United States? These are events we learn about in grammar school.

In regards to Fox trying to "reestablish a GOP - same old two party system game." Your anti-Fox rhetoric plays right into their hands. You are perpetrating the two party system and doing their work for them.

Good Job.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by DrZERO]

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by mental modulator

I belong to no Party. Both are equally corrupt. Congress and Obama have spent more in 4 months than all other Presidents combined, not to mention he has not pulled out of Iraq and never intended to. In what way is he better than Bush? If you supported him he lied to you with the help of nearly every TV Media source out there.

So you don't misunderstand, I'm anti-Bush also.

You are attempting to get people to boycott Foxnews which is no more Partisan than any other, so I can only assume you want to limit free speech and control people by controlling what they watch.

The general news stories are the same on Fox and CNN. The difference is the commentary which is not news reporting in the first place. For instance I don't like Hannity but the news reporting is perhaps better than CNN and way better than MSNBC. I watch all three however because I want to make informed decisions and not be controlled by a single Partisan source. That is what sheep do.

Lobbyist and people with conflicts abound in the Obama Cabinet, he is spending money that is not his to spend like it is nothing, the promise of transparency is forgotten as he intended, he is attempting to take over businesses and the Constitution be damned and people still support him? Perhaps they should watch some news, any news or quit voting due to illiteracy.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:33 PM
I don't consider ANYTHING to be a reputable news source...

I don't watch FOX at all anyway, it's one of the WORST channels around in terms of its entertainment! (except the Simpsons!)

Don't make the mistake of thinking you have to side with the right if you want to be against something the left stands for...

And if youre on the right, don't assume someones dissatisfaction with our leftist leaders means they want to be assimilated into your agenda!

Too many people get caught up into this left/right bullsense. (bullsense is a word I JUST thought up! You all have my permission to use it!
...I'm so generous!)

EDIT: ...It appears there is already a oh dag!

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mostlyspoons]

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:43 PM
Personally, I like Fox. I like foxnews. Is there bias? Of course. But it's easier to diseminate the truth with Fox than you could with Obermann over at MSNBC or any other news outlet.
If anyone watches the news with zombie-like aplomb then they get what they want/or deserve.
But if you have a modicum of intelligence then I think that you can get an understanding of what is going on in the world without subscribing to any group-think ideology whatever your location on the political spectrum.


posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 09:59 PM
Please Please Go find Rupert Murdocs war on the media, It's one hour and fifteen minutes on what Fox is really about. It's a must see....

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

I used to also, until however I saw Rupert's war on the media, I have not turned them on since. And I'll tell you what, I think we should turn them all off so the ratings go down the tube. Maybe they will then tell the truth for once.. NOT...

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by 22-250
Please Please Go find Rupert Murdocs war on the media, It's one hour and fifteen minutes on what Fox is really about. It's a must see....

I might, who produced it? Are they without any bias themselves? Or would this be a bias against a bias with a bias slant?

Seriously, I'll look at it...

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by 22-250
Please Please Go find Rupert Murdocs war on the media, It's one hour and fifteen minutes on what Fox is really about. It's a must see....

How many posts are there about CNN and the fact they are in the DNC's hip pocket. What is the difference? What about NBC and their channels that have a tingle up their leg just thinking about Obama.

They are the same other than the master they serve. Their Commentary is unreliable, but the news reporting is almost the same word for word. Sometimes I think people are illiterate about the difference between a Reporter and Commentator. Criticizing a Commentator for commenting is like criticizing a Dog for having four legs. Commentators give opinion and don't even claim to be Reporters.

OP/ED people give their opinions for a living. Reporters who give opinion are fake Reporters who should be taken off the air. How sad so many adults don't know the difference. Or is it they do and lie?

Partisans on both sides are the problem. All Partisans are sheep.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:23 PM
Woot Look at all the flags on this puppy, this is hitting close to home for some many...... my faith in America is slowly coming home... Keep it up guys.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by 22-250
Please Please Go find Rupert Murdocs war on the media, It's one hour and fifteen minutes on what Fox is really about. It's a must see....

Why is it the OP just says "watch this" and here you are doing the same thing? Why do i have to watch anything? I have seen both the films in question. I've never taken FOX seriously. I take no media outfit seriously. Why should i watch someone else's agenda driven material to get the truth on another's agenda. Can i not discern this for myself?

Once again, as many others have stated, everyone has an agenda. Fox has one, CNN has one and believe it or not so does NPR.

Nonetheless, the republican/democrat arguments have gone well past their shelf life. Neither side is for change. Both sides are simply quibbling over who gets to manage the power usurped from the people. As the old adage goes "meet the old boss..."

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
This is from another thread, but it belongs here as well.

The proof is in the viewing. This woman is not a Reporter. She is a DNC hack.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by mental modulator

NPR and PBS are definitely dependent on corporate funding. Don't you listen to their "credits" and sponsorship statements?

I love NPR and PBS, just watched the "Sidewalk Astronomer." I wake up to "Morning Edition."

It may be "news," but they are biased.

I just tried to point out that there are sources other than broadcasters and MSM. (Yes, PBS and NPR are MSM.)

Deny ignorance.


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:38 AM
First off, All News Media, especially Stations running nearly 24/7 News Broadcasts, do in fact make mistakes from time-to-time in regards to Facts, and Data. This is absolutely the same across the entire News spectrum. However, when Newspapers and other such sources of News Media are caught in lies, then I would dare say that we have a more serious issue at hand. They have the time and format with which they can more thoroughly scrutinize and properly source their information before publishing it. Therefore, when left-leaning Papers for instance, such as the New York Times, consistently publish fallacy after fallacy, then we begin to witness a seriously Partisan PR Machine of immense and unethical proportions.

Second, using sources such as "Prison Planet", and the "Huffington Post" to bash Fox News is most certainly not helping any argument which you are attempting to proceed forth with. "Prison Planet" has a reputation for always having been against the Mainstream Media since the very beginning, and the "Huffington Post" is a well known EXTREMELY Leftist News Source with obvious ulterior agendas emanating from such.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:27 AM
It's awesome to see the people 'awakening' huh?

There's a rumbling in the cages below.

Feels volcanic.

How much carnage will there be?

That's up to the Dealer.

He's always had the hand.

Though now the 'people' have born witness?

They watch in horror as they discover, who they 'thought' they were.

"The Doors" of the Matrix.

"Back on the bus people....that's right..... everyone back on da bus"?

Where we goin boss man?

"You ask too many questions! and I'm not da boss maan."

But who told you where to go?

"My boss."

Who told him?

"I dunna know? Some Big Boy fellow with a silly top-hat."

"They said he needed a Red Shield."

But why?

Ask Rothschild.... and while your at it, ask him what the next currency is going to look like.

Will it matter?

"What are ya looken at me Fah?"

We take back the book and 'right' the next page while being compass-ed by the golden 'Mean' of justice.

The Owl can rest at night. The Owl now consumed the food of the people.

When all the smoke cleared, the people had Thanksgiving and removed the bobwire from their fences.

This is what can happen to someone who turns off the TV.

'Some say one no longer has to wear glasses.'

But that could be a rumor.



I thought I heard someone humming "The Yellow Rose of Texas".

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM
i remember when bush was voted in the second time, there was a map on cnn called the jesusland map. the reporter who showed the map also spent time going over what he called "studies" that proved (in his way of thinking), that the people who didn't vote for kerry (red states), were not as well educated and were generally dumber than the people in the blue stats. he even tried to make the case that it was biological dumbness and somehow was also related to their religion (christianity). he also played the "dumb white red neck" card, hoping to further infuriate both sides of the issue.

and to make matters worse, they claimed it was voting machine fraud that gave bush the election anyway, but somehow that's the fault of dumb white christian people, who are not educated and are fat and are biologically dumb. you heard it here first folks.

now, the map of jesusland is mostly blue states who voted for the cnn candidate (obama). wonder what the new excuse is: those dumb people suddenly grow a brain?

mark my words, if we ever get to see another election and we end up with another republican at any point, the dumb people that suddenly grew brains during this election, will lose their smarts again...conveniently, just in time to blame it on their lack of education, their skin color, and of course, their religion.

makes ya feel loved, don't it?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by undo]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:31 AM
Jeremy Glick on The O'Reilly Factor is the exemplar why FOX NEWS is not reputable.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:56 AM

Originally posted by dampnickers
reply to post by mental modulator

You say sir that the BBC is not corporately sponsored...

The BBC gets some of its funding from the European Union in EXCHANGE for broadcasting "favourable stories".

Meaning that the BBC are as bad at being "fair and balanced" as FOX.

Do some research.

I'd be genuinely interested to read anything you can link to about this. Can you post some links?

EDIT to add: I saw further on in the thread that you did post some links. However, the piece from the EUreferendum blog page is a little weird. The European Social Fund is painted as some kind of pact with the devil where black deeds are done in exchange for money, in this case it's assumed there's a pro-EU bias. In reality what tends to happen with projects (partially) funded by the European Social Fund is that it's nothing more than a little logo in the footer of office stationery.

Part of the BBC's remit is education provision; it's one of things they have to do. At the moment there's already enough dissent about the licence fee - which is nicer name for what is to all intents and purposes a tax , made all the worse by some very spurious salaries &c. Their funding is a cake that can only be cut so many ways, so in that sense, it's hardly surprising that they're also turning to a perfectly legitimate avenues for extra cash.

The European Social Fund isn't some Mephistophilian organisation. It's primary purpose is education and training and it helps funds an incredible amount of training and education schemes in Britain and across Europe.

For the record, I generally have little love for the EU. I think Britain does rather badly out of it generally, but schemes like the European Social Fund are one of the things that make it a lot more palatable. Also, whilst I admire the supposed aim of the BBC, I think the reality leaves a lot to be desired. I'm hardly a cheerleader for the BBC nor the EU.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Merriman Weir]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:11 AM
What does it mean when someone becomes a 'special agent'?

Do they get to do special things?

What makes them so special?

No one else knows silly, he-he.

But why not?

Who Cares?

After scrolling through the codex libreria I came up with this.

Sometimes it helps to laugh at one another.

Everyone's just 'caught' up?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:08 AM
Okay guys - what I see is an attempt to muddy the waters so much so that the point of the OP has been completely lost in the fray. I gave all of you multiple examples and
sources of FOX dis info and agenda, followed by an Attempt to suggest other sources
of NEWS information.

I even suggested and welcomed all of you to create your own
thread about MSNBC -CNN - BBC whatever, here on ATS.

As response, not one of you have presented EVIDENCE that refutes the OP's points. BASIC charge is that FOX purposely and systematically attempts to lead its viewers in a way that is manipulative and deceptive.

Exhibit A has PLENTY of examples for you to refute or deny, yet nobody has even bothered to reference it. There are at least a dozen EX FNC employees who explain in detail the specific manifestations that the station uses to lead, guide and subtly manipulate its viewers... From music, to graphics, timing, body language, to a specific "style" of "reporting", even actual memos sent out by Murdoch himself...

"A" goes on to discuss the history of the company and FOX's impact on WORLD HISTORY itself.

What I see here is a total lack of interest as it pertains to the truth of the matter.


In place, I see people defending FOX based upon things that are, generally speaking, subjective.

My OP has a base which is composed of 1 documentary, 1 article - which quotes a man who held the most prestigious communications job on the planet, numerous clips that served as good examples of OPs thesis...

I mean aren't any of you curious to learn about what you are defending???

It seems the argument and political implications far outweigh a basic desire to understand an entity that has shaped a DECADE of American HISTORY,

YOUR history...

Aside from the negative, FOX does posses a profound innovative genius
which has mastered the ART of modern entertainment, business, political agenda, physiology and all the technical merits involved with broadcasting.


HALF of AMERICANS were calling other AMERICANS "UNPATRIOTIC, UNAMERICAN" because they disagreed and protested against starting a ( stupid now, huh?) war.

IS that called for?

IS this a fascist dictatorship were we cannot peacefully express our opinions with out being deemed a traitor of sorts?

I saw FOX cultivate the name calling and division everyday, with words, banners, innuendo and manipulation of the facts. FOX used their power and station to embarrass and quell opposition in order SOLIDIFY the position of a government it is supposed to be reporting upon.

such behavior only undermines the growth and stability of our nation.

I want people to be aware of what I have have concluded, those people are FREE
to make their own conclusions.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by mental modulator]

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in