Understanding The History and Purpose of FOX News

but it isn't the hateful agenda with hatefilled pundits like FOX.

I don't even know what your talking about there... But have you heard of Keith Olberman? or Chris matthews?

FOX is the MSM.

really? Just because they have the best ratings..that makes them the mainstream media? Hardly my friend... those other networks were in the bag for obama since the beginning.

Even if your ratio was correct and it was 6 to 1, in those 6 channels you wont fine one pundit acting like Hannity or Oreilly.

You must not watch any other stations..

Also, FOX news has a bigger audience

your words not mine.

FNC ranked #8 for all cable channels in 2006 and #6 in 2007.[36] The news channel surged to #1 during the week of Barack Obama's election (November 3–9) in 2008 and reached the top spot again in January 2010 during the week of the special Senate election in Massachusetts.[37] Comparing Fox to its 24-hour news channel competitors, for the month of May 2010 the channel drew an average daily prime time audience of 1.8 million versus 747 000 for MSNBC and 595 000 for CNN.[38]

reply to post by LeoStarchild


en.wikipedia.org...

And yeah, I have watched the other pundits. They will still let you finish your sentence before they berate you.

reply to post by TamaraChristine

From your source:

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization.

Here is the is the appellate court ruling.

In my own words:
Akre and Wilson did not show the necessary "preponderance of evidence" to justify any of their claims, so both courts ruled against them.

That's pretty simple, so even you should understand it! But in case you don't, here is a pretty damn good explanation.

I have not, nor do I intend to defend Fox News. I don't give a crap what ANYONE thinks of ANY of the networks, or what they may think of my viewing habits. I do, however, have a problem with individuals, such as yourself, that try to force feed me feces.

My source PROVES something.

Yep! It "PROVES" your obvious confirmation bias.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused

In my own words:
Akre and Wilson did not show the necessary "preponderance of evidence" to justify any of their claims, so both courts ruled against them.

I have no idea what nonsense you are reading or what you problem understanding this is. I said FOX won the case. You just said FOX won the case.
I stand corrected how?

Originally posted by LeoStarchild


really? Just because they have the best ratings..that makes them the mainstream media? Hardly my friend... those other networks were in the bag for obama since the beginning.

How does that make sense? You have to be in the bag for Obama to be MSM? So there was no MSM 4 years ago? Do you not understand the words
Mainstream
and
Media?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I really don't feel like the FOX "News" supporters on this thread are doing their side a great deal of justice, to be honest. I must concede they have made a few valid points, and so far I am at least thankful for having learned at least one new thing as a reward for having spent time here. I do enjoy learning new things.

At any rate, here is a conservative interview with Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, talking about the things he wanted to talk about, and the things that are important to him...

Interview with Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel
*(pay attention to counter mark 19:15 and see how Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, responds)

Originally posted by LeoStarchild

but it isn't the hateful agenda with hatefilled pundits like FOX.

I don't even know what your talking about there... But have you heard of Keith Olberman? or Chris matthews?

.... [snip]....

Even if your ratio was correct and it was 6 to 1, in those 6 channels you wont fine one pundit acting like Hannity or Oreilly.

You must not watch any other stations..

Dear LeoStarchild,

Can you please produce some video proof of Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews telling a guest on their shows to shut up? Because I couldn't find any. Thanks...

Bill O'Reilly telling President Jimmy Carter to shut up, along with a few other people:





Sean Hannity caught in a blatant lie


Big Time Hannity FAIL! He Claims to Have "Read the Entire Bill" then Lies About What's In It


Millionaire Sean Hannity Lies About Taxes


How Fox "News" Makes You Stupid


KEITH OLBERMANN AT HIS FINEST! Shut up or SUE, O'Reilly!

reply to post by ILikeStars

I watched it, and did as you said, so I'll bite:
What's your point?

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by TamaraChristine

 

If you insist on remaining ignorant,....

[size=20] ಥ_ಥ




Are you trying to hurt someone's feelings Milt?

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by ILikeStars

 

I watched it, and did as you said, so I'll bite:
What's your point?

See ya,
Milt

In reference to Wallace calling the Obama administration the biggest bunch of cry babies he's ever dealt with in Washington in 30 years and the right wing narrative presented by FOX "News"....

"Well, I don't think they are whining over nothing. I think they have .. look, there are legitimate complaints that they can have." - Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel

reply to post by TamaraChristine

You are just sitting pouting and calling me a liar without trying to convince anyone.

Not at all. I'm sitting here laughing at your immaturity.

See ya,
Milt

I guess understanding the history and purpose of Fox News would really call for a real history lesson. How about we start back in 1885. Yea thats a long time ago. Thats when Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch was born. He is a interesting person and was connected to world leaders and was sent on a mission to see what was going on with the war effort in Gallipoli. When he showed up to get the story he was told that he was only allowed to tell what they wanted him to tell. So they told him you have to foot the propaganda story the millitary was putting out. So he decided to write a story without going through millitary channels and he was caught and put in jail. When he got out of jail he rewrote the story and even exaggerated parts of the story and delivered it to the politicians who sent him. He then wrote more stories. It led to the withdraw from Gallipoli and gave Turkey a defeat of Allied Forces. Causing many to be demoted even Winston Churchill. This guy then went on to buy newspapers so he could run them. He then began to run stories to promote his republicans in office and ran stories against liberals. He later became Director-General of Information in Australia. The new job of propaganda for the party which was quickly shut down because of what it was. He bought news papers and radio stations and began what his son about ten years old at this time took over. Keith Rupert Murdoch. The one everybody knows. Followed by his son who was supposed to carry on the business James Rupert Jacob Murdoch. James still has some control but has been removed from heading anything because of the hacking scandals. Rupert has sold all shares that don't have controling power in his business.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(media_executive)

Definition of HOKUM:
1: a device used (as by showmen) to evoke a desired audience response
2: pretentious nonsense : bunkum
Merriam-Webster *Hokum*

KEITH RUPERT MURDOCH = HOKUM REPRICED TRUTH (anagram gif)


PRICED TRUTH RE-HOKUM is an anagram for KEITH RUPERT MURDOCH
(*Owner & CEO of FOX "News" propaganda channel) ...

anagrams:
Hokum Repriced Truth = Keith Rupert Murdoch = RIP Truth, Hokum Creed = Duh, Rich Kept Our Term

reply to post by ILikeStars

No... just conveying my opinion of the little game he, she, or it, was playing. Thanks for asking though.

In reference to the video:
Though I did just double check, I caught that the first time I viewed it. The man expressed the opinion that he didn't necessarily agree with Chris Wallace. I respect the honesty involved, though I don't find it strange. What's your opinion of his response?

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
What's your opinion of his response?

My opinion of his response was that it was him sharing his personal belief that indeed people who oppose FOX News as being a 100% factually legitimate news source were in fact legitimate with their complaints, at least in some cases.

To me this was the president of FOX News saying people who have complaints about FOX News may indeed have legitimate reasons for their complaints.

That's what it meant to me. I don't think he was specifically adressing the Wallace situation, as much as he was speaking about what FOX tolerates/projects in general.

Edit to add:

I'm probably going offline for the rest of the night. Going to go play some Skyrim, and do a little house cleaning.

Talk with you all later & have a good night/day ... where ever you are,
ILikeStars

reply to post by ILikeStars

That all seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

I felt he was admitting that the Obama Administration had legitimate complaints about the previous administration, and the current state of affairs. The question was not about FOX's credibility, but about Wallace's opinion of Mr. Obama's "whining".

I hope you have a good evening (or had one) too.

See ya,
Milt

PS:
I really am in Tennessee...

reply to post by ILikeStars

Though the anagram is clever, the really striking thing about it is that it fits both definitions of "hokum".

See ya,
Milt

Greta Van Susteren Draws Scrutiny Over Husband's Herman Cain Ties

Fox News' Greta Van Susteren is facing scrutiny for failing to disclose her husband's ties to Herman Cain on the air -- despite covering the presidential candidate and interviewing his wife.

Van Susteren got a major scoop when Gloria Cain broke her silence to discuss the growing sexual harassment allegations surrounding her husband. She has also covered the claim by Atlanta businesswoman Ginger White that she had a long affair with Cain -- the latter segment being notably on the critical side.

Not only was she notably soft on Cain and harsh on his accusers, which might be due to her husband's closeness to Cain, but apparently her husband is also close to Palin, which she's featured on her program a lot. Not exactly "fair and balanced".