Fox “news”

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I have read many comments at ATS about MSN. However, MSN’s inaccuracies are miniscule when compared to fox “news” lies that occur on a daily basis.
www.thedailyshow.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Fox “news” is about as legitimate as
en.wikipedia.org...
Here is an example of “fox” news bat boy math!
thinkprogress.org...

edit on 29-7-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


Comment irrelevant since the premise of the thread was changed.
edit on 29-7-2012 by CompisMentis because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2012 by CompisMentis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

All the MSM is biased, but Fox News takes it to a whole new level.

If you want some lessons on propaganda just tune in to Fox News



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


Fox is the only MSM source that has been to court that I am aware of, to address the issue of truth in reporting.
The ruling is quite clear , " There is no law , rule or regulation that clearly states that any MSM source has to report the truth." So the courts have ruled on the issue , MSM can lie on any issue at anytime and never have to answer to anyone or anything, because there is law, rule or regulation preventing it.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
These constant attempts to spin Fox as "liars" is so pitifully lame.

Why don't you give examples? I have yet to hear a valid reason for these claims.

And please don't site Glen Beck or Shawn Hannity. They are opinion shows.

You do know the difference don't you?

And don't site an example where the data they received and reported was later retracted.

Why are you so obsessed that you must parrot this nonsense without knowing what you're talking about?

thank in advance



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Sorry about the typo. I changed it. In the original OP I said, " MSM." I meant "MSN."
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-7-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 


I don't think they are liars as they do report the news

Only they put a slight spin to it :p



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


No doubt they have a bias, some shows more than others.

Who does not?

But these constant claims of "liars" is ridiculous and transparent as all get out.

Fox's bias is that they report... and discuss... items that other MSM won't even touch because of their bias.

This infuriates people on the left who would rather sweep inconvenient truth under their dirty rug. imho



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 


Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
An example of one of the problems with opinion vs fact, but the problem is opinion too sways minds, and this loophole is an avenue for sensationalists crap and hyperbole.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Any idea that Fox News is the enemy, the great evil haunting the left of this country is off base. Fox News is right leaning. CNN is left leaning. The point is, this is a game. A ratings game only.

Most importantly, it must be recognized that the right/left paradigm is a facade. A control mechanism.

Bush passed education reform working with Ted Kenedy and grew the Federal Goverment more than any President before Obama. Obama is waging illegal war and airstrikes across Pakistan and the Middle East.



They are the same. Puppets of a powerful dictatorship, attempting to take over the world.

By the way - They are winning. We are losing



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I hope there is enough here to prove the point, if not do your own research.

www.foxbghsuit.com...

www.sourcewatch.org...


bklim.newsvine.com...




The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.



ceasespin.org...
edit on 29-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
“These constant attempts to spin Fox as "liars" is so pitifully lame.
Why don't you give examples?”
2XOHsurf
I did. However, I agree that Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck etc lie all the time, but should not be included because they are not part of the straight “news” at fox. However, I gave plenty of examples of lies at fox “news” that is not part of Hannity etc.
Fox “news” outright lies and it has been proven over and over.
en.wikipedia.org...
This is going to be easy. I’ll be back with many more examples of lies committed by fox “news”.
I am not talking about "spin" I am talking about outright lies.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
they really should have their broadcasting license revoked.

I Understand that a little show biz is part of the game. They are just outright opinion Nazis. They create hostile and tense situations. They honor people with no credentials beyond a nice face and the right things to say. They are unprofessional and rude to guests that offer an opinion contrary to theirs. They deal in opinion selling and entertainment.

I think to the Iraq war and how much they made it possible by letting the DOD run the show for them. They never asked what their "experts" had as far as credentials and forced a lie down our throats.

I can not express how many arguments they are responsible for thanks to the outright Dis-info they offer like it was fact.

They are a disgrace to their profession. I honesty feel as though the conversations that go on in their studios would make me go into a rampage breaking false smiles and punishing snide remarks from jackasses.

The day they are off the air...so help me god......I will celebrate. I kid you not. I see them as the prime example of what has gone wrong with journalism in my country.

Horrible and irresponsible people. They know its lies and they still defend them tooth and nail.

Please make them go away. So bad. So lame. So ......crappy. ect ect.

jerks.

edit on 29-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
I hope there is enough here to prove the point, if not do your own research.

www.foxbghsuit.com...

www.sourcewatch.org...


bklim.newsvine.com...

ceasespin.org...


So let's examine this, piece by piece. Forgive me for not know how to insert my responses to make this more readable.

#1 "Steve decided it was time for a change after Fox news managers and their lawyers pressured him to deliberately distort a news story-and then fired him after he resisted. He and his investigative reporting partner Jane Akre fought back with a landmark lawsuit against Fox Television."

What was the lawsuit regarding? Was it regarding the Ford switch case? So what is your premise? That Fox wants people to die in their cars. That they hate Ford? WOW that sure doesn't qualify as calling an entire network liars. Could it be possible there was a supervisor that had a problem with the employee? sheesh! On the grand scale of things, this is really really lame imo.

I would think that with such a strong and outright claim of "Fox lies" you could find an example with some meaningful substance. At least one, but there should be dozens, right?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


What about ABC news??? You know, the ones who said the Colorado shooter was a Tea Party member???? The ones who called up the guys mother and took her words out of context and made it sound like she knew her son did the shooting????

They all have an agenda and not a damn one of em can be trusted!!!!

Nice try at partisan BS when most of us know that they all lie!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Looking again I guess it's that same example keeps showing up over and over.

Oh,,, except Fox wants babies to die too. So they "killed" this groundbreaking story. omg!

Since Fox is apparently obsessed with reporting about Obama, and face it this is what really pisses off the left, why not give examples purely on those reports?

And please don't cite a misspelled graphic where the numbers don't add up. OMG, Fox wants us to add incorrectly? Even if you report the correct numbers of THE RASMUSSEN POLL, the results are still the same.

lame lame lame
edit on 29-7-2012 by 2XOHsurf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
then people want facts....lets give them facts...



Studies and reports

The “2011 State of the News Media” Report by the Pew Center on Excellence in Journalism found that in 2010, Fox News Channel had average daytime audience of 1.2 million and nighttime viewership of 1.1 million, higher than its cable competitors but down 11% and 9% respectively from 2009. Fox's cumulative audience (unique viewers who watched at least 60 minutes in an average month) was 41.1 million, coming in second to CNN with 41.7 million. For 2010, CNN's digital network continued to lead Fox's digital network online; CNN with 35.7 million unique visitors per month, compared to Fox's 15.5 million. For the first time Fox outspent its competitors, with a total news investment of $686 million. 72% of this investment went to program costs, reflecting their focus on high profile hosts. They also increased their revenues 17% over 2009 to $1.5 billion, well ahead of second-place CNN at $1.2 billion.[38][39]

[edit] Content analysis studies

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[36] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[40]

The documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism claims that Fox reporters and anchors, rather than citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, use the phrase "some people say" to include unattributed conservative opinion and commentary into reports. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like Fox's evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.

A 2006 University of California, Berkeley study cited that there was a correlation between the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets.[41]
wiki



Bill O'Reilly; Fox News Channel; May 22, 2003

Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact.

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn't a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn't on the war, and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war). It's interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view. I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.]

March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

[Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.]

March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?]

March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.]

March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements."

[In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.]

April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's assertions to the contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. [I'm perplexed. Where's the huge crowd?!]

April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. [In the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.]

April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.]

April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a "bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts."

[This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found in Mosul. A week later it is briefly conceded that the tiny truck was probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real ones will pour forth from the landscape continue. The second phantom lab, a large tractor-trailer truck was discovered around May 2 by Kurdish fighters.]

April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [Because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again, because it's so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his proudest achievements.

But all that's an eternity ago for Imperial Conservatives with a 20-second attention span. The Fox newscasters rename Jacques Chirac "Jacques Iraq"(yuk, yuk, yuk – what a side splitter!) and keep going.]

April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as well.]

April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."

[My favorite Fox war commentator is definitely Colonel David Hunt. From my canvassing of all the cable network war coverage, it's hard to find an analyst who is more dogmatic. When coalition forces weren’t greeted with hugs and kisses like he predicted and instead encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces in Basra and other places, Davey was all denial. Everything’s going perfect. Rummy is God, hallelujah and praise Dubya! There's not a problem in Iraq that can't be solved by blowing some Iraqi's brains out.]

April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured – far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins' speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked. [Impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.]

April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard to tell what happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.]

April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."

April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq.

[Whoa, O'Reilly. I thought we promised the Iraqis that we were going to implement democracy, not democracy that gives the U.S. the election results it wants. That's not democracy, now, is it? By now it's quite clear that despite the spinning on The No Spin Zone, Iraq is descending into chaos.]

April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. [This is the same Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad in the Washington Times on January 7.] O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble. O'Reilly promises to explore the issue a month later. [Cool, let's hold his feet to the fire on that promise. On an earlier show he said that U.S. credibility would be "shot" if no WMDs were found. ]

May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. He also claims that France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies although it's apparent that's where Vallely got his information].

May 11: On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of WMDs, but Folbaum hints that what’s important is that the trailer could have been used to make them. [Hmmm. I thought we went to war for actual WMDs, not for the ability to make WMDs.]

May 16: Special Report with Brit Hume. Muslims, citing Islam's ban of alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their Christian owners. Under Saddam's secular regime, Christian names were banned and schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol were freely available; there was tolerance for Iraq's 1 million Catholic and Protestant Christians. In New and Improved Neocon Iraq, there's a letter circulating in Baghdad threatening violence to even the families of women who refuse to wear the traditional Muslim head covering. [The report is yet another interesting and reluctant concession of unintended consequences.]

May 19: O'Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g., France supplied Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons, French companies sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes and helicopters, France possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers). Recall this last charge was made by Major General Paul Vallely on May 8 on The O'Reilly Factor. Again, the Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway thinks it's obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them. O'Reilly claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don't turn out to be true. O'Reilly refers to documents that prove that the French government was briefing Saddam right until the war started. [Briefed on what?]

May 20: O'Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer. "Somebody is lying," he states. He says that if the U.S. military has concocted a fraud, then it will be a terrible scandal but if the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing will happen to them. He says he is skeptical of the BBC and Scheer.

To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt. [Geez. Transcript here.] Over and over, Hunt calls the allegations of staged rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the world." He claims that the ambulance with Lynch in it that drove up to a Marine checkpoint was never shot at, its drivers demanded $10,000 for information on Jessica, Saddam Hospital was guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen, Jessica's life was saved, and coalition forces didn't trash the hospital. What were his sources for this information? The special ops members on the raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues. Over and over Hunt kept saying, "They're the best soldiers in the world, they're the best in the world. Why would they make this up?"

[What followed next was an exchange that's priceless and one of many that goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:]

Hunt: In my opinion it's an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and women in our service, it's an assault on Jessica, it's an assault on these great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a minimum we should no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer buy the Toronto Free Press, and shut the BBC off. It's a government to government issue...this is calling into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it's uncalled for, it's absolutely unbelievable."

O'Reilly: If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to Scheer...he'll just go along blithely printing his lies and living his life and getting paid for it.

[To the Colonel: U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that assessment that particular actions taken during the raid were not excessive and unjustified? How is the BBC's story an assault on Jessica?! What do you mean when you mention a "government to government issue" given that the U.S. government now controls Iraq?! Is the Pentagon the most effective check on its own possible misdeeds? How convenient if you're suggesting that it is. Who is your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom Jessica? Why hasn't this allegation made its way into any other news reports?]

[To O'Reilly: If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there'll be no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and the Pentagon will assert just the opposite and allow yet another embarrassment to slide into the Memory Hole. This is exactly why your demand for accountability from the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow and hypocritical. Instead of plumbing the U.S. military to investigate itself, why don't you interview Iraqi doctor Harith al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the story was first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually saved Lynch's life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have jeopardized it? The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an ambulance that had to return to the hospital because it was shot at by Marines. Why would he lie? You say you automatically trust the Pentagon. Why, when tales of Lynch's heroics in fighting off 500 Iraqi soldiers with one hand while severely wounded and tales that she had amnesia have already been proven bogus?]

May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged. King doesn't prove anything. He states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the day after the rescue, concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the hospital, and that he "was told " that the hospital was guarded by hostile forces but doesn't specify who told him. [The testimony of the hospital staff contradicts this last hearsay.]

May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon.

June 2: [Unfortunately for O'Reilly, Bush isn't candidly explaining anything.] A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush in Poland claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction. His evidence? Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly used as mobile bioweapons labs. [A June 7 article by the Times' Judith Miller reports serious doubts by some analysts that the two trailers were used as mobile bioweapons labs. Said one senior analyst about the initial CIA report, it "was a rushed job and looks political." Yes, they violated U.N. resolutions but this is another red herring to suggest WMDs.]

June 4: O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: [Surreal.] O'Reilly says that the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!]. The war was a just war because there's now great progress between Palestinians and Israelis and that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!]. Also the mass graves and other horrors discovered add to the case for war. The intelligence was either wrong or more time is needed to find the WMDs. [Again contradicting what he said on and before April 22.]

June 11: Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15 and wounding at least 100. [Looks like the real reason for war according to O'Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also disintegrated, but don't expect O'Reilly to admit it.

www.lewrockwell.com...


edit on 29-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: huge post....had to reduce some



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 



then people want facts....lets give them facts...


Polls are for people too damn stupid to make an educated decision on their own! Thus THE POLL! Sorry, I have NEVER been polled by anyone and I am 49 years old. So try again!

So what do you have to say about ABC and their lies?????? Nothing???? hmmmmmm



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 2XOHsurf
 


You cut and paste my post ,but did you read it ? All 4 links ?
Make more of an effort if you want to discuss the topic.

The court ruling in Florida effects all MSM sources.
The judges statement in his ruling clearly represents all media sources not just Fox.
THERE IS NO LAW , RULE OR REGULATION THAT REQUIRES ANY NEWS SOURCE TO REPORT THE TRUTH!

The court ruled on it , the judge stated it ! What more does anyone need to understand ?
The news media can lie !
edit on 29-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. When I try to 'quote' you the board goes all crazy, deletes half your words, and wont allow me to type.

You quote a "poll" that Fox is seen as "biased" and "conservative". WOW, that is pretty strong "evidence". And we all know how public opinion can never be wrong, right?

Where are the lies... again?

When you are the only station that reports conservative, then you pretty much stand out from the pack and perception is that you are different. It's unavoidable.

Where are the "lies" again? There must be hundreds... out there... somewhere?

No tengo tiempo para 'cut-and-paste catch me if you can' debaters. It's like being in the special Olympics.





top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join