Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hatred That Many Have for Fox News is Simply Partisanship

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

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




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 





wild comment by some authoratative floozy (well she seemed to think that she was authoratative imo). They were talking about the "fiscal cliff",


I thought your post was deserving of a dictionary definition of the word "floozie". Here's one from the Free dictionary


A woman regarded as tawdry or sexually promiscuous

www.thefreedictionary.com...


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.
Also, authoratative = authoritative for those who are spelling challenged.

Now, about that fiscal cliff. People have been predicting the collapse of the economy for a while now. And Glenn Beck predicted we would be like Greece if we don't do something. We have to stop the spending binge of govt. Everything needs to be cut, not just a few trinkets.
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

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



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by johncarter
 


oh right because MSNBC is so full of truly authoritative, intelligent, balanced, and civic commentators.


liberalsinmedia.blogspot.com...

This post goes to everyone who thinks that their favorite news show is the best.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


So what is your point? Are you trying to prove that Carter and Brzezinski didn't trap a US ally and throw him under the bus?

At least Carter tried to beef up security in dangerous places where our embassies might come under attack.
Carter threw the Shah under the bus and supported Khomeini
www.canadafreepress.com...

Anyway, Carter and Brzezinski made things very difficult for our relations in Iran

Back to the topic of the thread, MSNBC, CNN, and abc are all pront to allowing their commentator to go a little bit nuts at times. Ed Schultz being the most vitriolic and rude, ratigan comes next in line. Maddow is clearly biased left but at least she has some self control(unless I just missed her ranting uncontrollably).
Here are plenty of examples of news bias
www.akdart.com...


Here is why I won't watch MSNBC any more (besides the rest of their biased coverage of 2008 elelctions)
Olbermann's bizarre rant about suiciding his Dad



It was so over the top and a bias toward Obamacare and doctor assisted suicide it made me sick to watch

and some of the comments for the vid are nuts too
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


OP you have a point which I can admit is very true for some people. There are cases when hating Fox News is partisanship and political hacks going off the rails.

Yet, I also understand that the mainstream media, while useful for sourcing and getting big stories out to the masses, are riddled with propaganda masters who lean toward favor for the capitalist class. Everyone who is involved in news reporting will engage in propaganda; that is the nature of media. A person`s own political learning, or personal beliefs, will effect the way a story is reported. Some people are better at including all the facts surrounding a story than others but there will still be propaganda placed into the story all the same.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
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?
edit on 18-11-2012 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Well of course it is because they keep trying to proliferate and expand the advocacy of their partisian positions. Whatever happened to the notion that our local media is supposed to be comprised of individuals with differing beliefs and opinions? The idea of having a completely unbiased media is a complete misnomer because their political, aka financial, puppetmasters steer the ship at the end of the day, so I would settle for just a bunch of couragous individuals who can provide some well-balanced food for thought...

TG



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


I am actually glad to see women dressing more femininely rather than the boring but very businesslike suits newsanchorwomen used to wear. (no more of that Betty Friedan communist attack on women being feminine and wearing lipstick and such) Greta is still always appropriate. But Floozie has a connotation which I think is stupid when making partisan attacks on a network.

And the attacks on Sarah palin were definitely over the top and inappropriate, but where are the libs in defending her right not to be harassed sexually? Oh yah they were all right there calling her names.
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 





And if you imagine that some of these women are chosen for their merits as journalists over their physical appearance...well


Are you trying to assert that Rachel Maddow is somehow more intelligent because she dresses like a guy? Or because she is practically a guy?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by iwilliam
 


I am actually glad to see women dressing more femininely rather than the boring but very businesslike suits newsanchorwomen used to wear. (no more of that Betty Friedan communist attack on women being feminine and wearing lipstick and such) Greta is still always appropriate. But Floozie has a connotation which I think is stupid when making partisan attacks on a network.

And the attacks on Sarah palin were definitely over the top and inappropriate, but where are the libs in defending her right not to be harassed sexually? Oh yah they were all right there calling her names.
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. What does the appearance of these news anchorwomen have to do with the partisonship of the media? I can understand your comments about their refusal to speak up in defense of Sarah Pallin (if you thought that they should), but what does their dress code have to do with any of this? Perhaps I'm missing something to your point?
edit on 11/18/2012 by timidgal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by timidgal

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by iwilliam
 


I am actually glad to see women dressing more femininely rather than the boring but very businesslike suits newsanchorwomen used to wear. (no more of that Betty Friedan communist attack on women being feminine and wearing lipstick and such) Greta is still always appropriate. But Floozie has a connotation which I think is stupid when making partisan attacks on a network.

And the attacks on Sarah palin were definitely over the top and inappropriate, but where are the libs in defending her right not to be harassed sexually? Oh yah they were all right there calling her names.
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. What does the appearance of these news anchorwomen have to do with the partisonship of the media? I can understand your comments about their refusal to speak up in defense of Sarah Pallin (if you thought that they should), but what does their dress code have to do with any of this? Perhaps I'm missing something to your point?
edit on 11/18/2012 by timidgal because: (no reason given)


You tell me? I was answering the guy who called Fox commentators floozies and I think it was quite sexist of him/her.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

I didn't see that post so I apologize for directing my comments to you instead of him/her. On behalf of all the woman participants here at ATS, thanks for standing up against such an ignorant insult and again, my apologies for selecting the wrong target...

TG



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

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.






top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join