Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Juggernog
I really dont watch any of them but I do go to foxnews.com and drudge for news.
When I used to work early shift, I did prefer to watch MSNBC's Morning Joe over the blond idiot on Fox News.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

I didnt like Minka or Mika or whatever her name is though.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

That would be Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of the liberal icon Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who helped Carter destabilize our relations with Iran.

Carter was President in the 50's? Who knew?

CJ

Because no other network is as terrible as Fox when it comes to accuracy. And that is a statement of fact, not opinion. The other networks you mention may be biased, but Fox goes beyond that. To quote the founder himself, Fox news is not about giving people the news, but about promoting an ideology. You show me another owner who has said that about the news they give to millions of Americans everyday. Fox, by its own admission, misleads people.

These other networks do not falsely report, they just report in a certain way, that supports their agenda...But even still, they give accurate news. Fox on the other hand is not like that at all, and should not even be allowed to be considered media in this country. It should be termed a political tabloid.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Juggernog
I really dont watch any of them but I do go to foxnews.com and drudge for news.
When I used to work early shift, I did prefer to watch MSNBC's Morning Joe over the blond idiot on Fox News.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

I didnt like Minka or Mika or whatever her name is though.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

That would be Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of the liberal icon Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who helped Carter destabilize our relations with Iran.

Carter was President in the 50's? Who knew?

CJ

Regardless what happened in the 50's, Carter and Brzezinski had their hand in it. And Kissinger too.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Juggernog
I really dont watch any of them but I do go to foxnews.com and drudge for news.
When I used to work early shift, I did prefer to watch MSNBC's Morning Joe over the blond idiot on Fox News.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

I didnt like Minka or Mika or whatever her name is though.

edit on 11/17/2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)

That would be Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of the liberal icon Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who helped Carter destabilize our relations with Iran.

Carter was President in the 50's? Who knew?

CJ

Regardless what happened in the 50's, Carter and Brzezinski had their hand in it. And Kissinger too.

Regardless of what happened? Like overthrowing a democratically elected leader and installing a brutal dictator? Got it.

CJ

I hate all of them. I guess that would just make me a misanthrope.

I always find it funny how so many people who complain about partisans are in fact the same damn thing.

Spare me.

I think the fact that fox considers themselves to be "entertainment," or that they won a court case regarding their right to LIE on the air, shouldn't be as conveniently ignored or talked around as it seems to be by most blind fox supporters.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
To quote the founder himself, Fox news is not about giving people the news, but about promoting an ideology. You show me another owner who has said that about the news they give to millions of Americans everyday. Fox, by its own admission, misleads people.

And for the record, isn't the owner in question a FOREIGNER? Why are so many americans so willing to listen to the agenda and opinions of a foreigner? And before you try to argue that the "journalists" and opinion people do express their own ideas, do consider that nothing would ever make it to air that the owner did not want or agree with. Didn't that one reporter...or was it two(?)... actually get fired for refusing to lie, or change a story...?

I'm not normally one for limitations on freedom, but I don't think a foreigner should be allowed to even own a "news" outlet that large, broadcasting into this country.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So you are calling a woman on a news channel you do not know a sexually promiscuous person? In the workplace that could be a lawsuit in progress.

Good thing we're not in the workplace. And I'm not sure the word was wholly unwarranted, either. Did you see the pictures that other poster was drooling over just a page or two back, or some of the other tight-fitting outfits they make these women squeeze into? And if you imagine that some of these women are chosen for their merits as journalists over their physical appearance...well... I guess at this point I can no longer really be shocked by anything coming from ultra-conservatives or faux news fans.

Not a big deal, just asking ATS for a little help.

I'm sure everybody can find fault with every network, but I've been looking for a while and can't find anything resembling a thorough study of accuracy in news broadcasts. I have found sites where they list five or six errors made by whatever source the're criticizing, but nothing really substantial.

Anybody have such a study?

P.s. Objecting to foreigner owned news? Is that a call to shut down RT, AlJazeera, and PressTV?

Originally posted by charles1952

P.s. Objecting to foreigner owned news? Is that a call to shut down RT, AlJazeera, and PressTV?

Great question. To that I would say not entirely. One of the problems I have is I suspect a lot of americans don't realize fox is owned by a foreigner, whose best interests may not be what is best for this country... or otherwise they don't consider this while eating that which they're being fed. And Fox, for a foreign-owned station seems to be very "patriotic" and tries to seem like the representation of middle america.

And I did use the word "major" (or was it "mainstream"?) for a reason. I mean BIG outlets, like fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I would be content to have the station named in a way which described the foreign ownership, or a disclaimer at the beginning of each commentary (including after commercial breaks) announcing that the station is owned by someone in X country. That way there is no ambiguity or confusion.

Al Jazeera, for example (and didn't that one start out foreign?) I don't think anyone will be confusing Al Jazeera for a western-based organization.

I can't speak for everybody else, but I dislike Fox News and other 'news' agencies that I have witnessed their repeated lying. I used to love reading Fox, WND, InfoWars and other such e-tabloids b/c the headlines were sensational. It was very entertaining stuff. And I believed what they said b/c I was naive and lazy. Then something happened in my life where reality became relavent. When I started to take 'information' a bit more seriously, I worked hard to certify the information I ingested and it didn’t take me long to realize Fox News actively twists and distorts truth.

My experience tells me Fox News worked very diligently to earn their reputation as an unreliable source of information.

I don't know about CNN or any other agency you mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were just as bad as Fox. At the end of the day, they all answer to the bottom line.

Originally posted by steve1709
Her comment was along the lines that it was incumbant on Obama to bend to make things work. To me, this was the epitome of arrogance. Obama won the election, the dems are in power and she, the spoilt little rich girl cheerleader (as I see her coming across) expects the person with the popular mandate to be the one to be conciliatory. The sheer arogance of this stuck up little b!tch.

Maybe I have a skewed view on things, but imo, if the people of the USA have voted Obama in over the other bloke, then shouldn't the other party capitulate and allow their elected leader do his thing?

Journalists can editorialize however they want. Most people can see that for what it is. One person's opinion. The person may be right or wrong.

Opposition parties in parliamentary governments never capitulate but they are usually forced to accede to the government's wishes because they are out voted on every bill.

Under the US system the President's party would have to have a majority in the House and Senate for this to occur. At present they still have to deal with a Republican majority in the House and it is the House that is supposed to control the nation's purse strings. The President has to make them see reason or to compromise with them on spending bills. That's just the way it is for the most part, in the US.