REFRESHER on why FOX is NOT a reputable news source!

FOX NEWS is FOR LIBERTY and the AMERICAN WAY!!!

NO

NOT REALLY

heres a couple reminders -

Following the age old adage " a cheater always cheats and a lier always lies..."

note:

IF you PATRIOTS are serious for a real change - please watch this video and understand what
is feeding you information - you owe it to yourself and country, if truth is your true motivator feed your mind first and then make an informed decision.

Information is power... The bearer of the light is not the light itself.

Exhibit A:

MY link is dead, but PLEASE watch this video!

you might be very surprised... link on the bottom of vid works.

Google Video Link

Exhibit B:

admissions from the man, CHOSEN to be the sole communicator for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH
of the most powerful nation on the planet.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

"I've been here from the beginning, and have never seen a White House "talking points." -- And I don't know anyone else who's seen one either. I asked senior management if they have ever seen a White House talking points. No one had." Bill O'Reilly reacting to Dan Rather's accusation that FoxNews gets White House Talking Points. 12/06.

"There were (FOX) commentators and pundits who were useful to the White House." Former Bush White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, Hardball, 7/24/08

Talking Point: An idea which may or may not be factual, meant to provide the most effective attack to saturate discourse and frame a debate. When used politically, the purpose is to propagandize by continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.

Similar to how the Communist news outlet, Pravda, and Nazi propaganda chief, Josef Goebbels, offered information to the Folks™, Scott McClellan admitted that Bush White House used Fox commentators as their spokespeople feeding them what they wanted the Folks™ to believe. At least that's what Scott McClellan now has acknowledeged.

For those of you not as politically savvy as your typical FoxNews viewer, here's the technical way talking points work: The Bush White House told Fox News what to say and Fox News said it.

For example, let's say the Bush White House wanted to lead the Folks™ to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. They would send a note to Fox News and...

Exhibit C:

Even Ron Paul gets the shaft - when its convenient - here's AJ's news site...

www.prisonplanet.com...

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman's runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to "Paulites" flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, "FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results."

"As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent," writes Raposa. "Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the "Paulites" were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead."

Aiming to test Hannity's theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, "You have already voted on tonight's debate. Thank you for your participation."

(Article continues below)


Only one vote per cellphone was allowed, therefore Hannity's contention that Ron Paul supporters were "were simply dialing in over and over again" was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman's widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Here's the nuts and bolts in a You Tube clip.

HANNITY below helps kill RP's candidacy




Is FOX even news or is it the executive branch?



fair and BALANCED - just look how they set this lying little girl straight, she must have a political agenda? correct?



SO all of you who are angry and protesting... I get it...

What I don't get is that you chose to support and receive your information from this entity...

Weather or not you chose to see it, FOX is attempting to ride on the back of your hard work

1. in order to turn a profit via CORPORATE SPONSORS
2. capitalize on your grievances and misery
3. reestablish the same old GOP candidates and policies

YOUR viewership LINES their pockets and undermines your hardwork -

FOX's advertisers are the who's who of the PTB/NWO -

Think about it - please...

here are some good alternatives for your information

Walk the WALK - three are NOT CORPORATELY SPONSORED


EXHIBIT: AWESOME



www.npr.org...

www.pbs.org...

www.c-span.org...


BTW if anyone would like to protest other MSM TV stations feel free to start a thread here on ATS


EDITED TO EXCLUDE BBC as a reputable NEWS source so debate can flow better and so I do not have to point out the reason I THOUGHT BBC was a viable news source...OK?







[edit on 16-4-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mental modulator]

I'm not sure what is a reputable news source. My politics are left-leaning - to the point that I'm fairly sure a lot of Americans would describe me as a communist - but I don't necessarily buy into 'left wing' mainstream media such as the Guardian or the Independent. I read both papers but I'll also read the likes of the Daily Mail for different takes on the same stories - even if I don't necessarily agree with the analysis.

Even if it's not necessarily a strictly political agenda, it's interesting what gets covered and what doesn't get covered in all media outlets. For instance, the Independent - a paper that I can relate to an extent politically - who ran a couple of cutting pieces on the 'Innocent' brand of smoothie drinks 'selling-out' to Coca Cola also had a large advertorial (100 pages!) lifestyle magazine that came with the paper whilst those stories were running created by one of Coca Cola's biggest rivals, the owners of the Red Bull drink.

I'd read as much news as possible from a variety of sources and try and 'join the dots' as best as possible. I personally top that up with conspiracy outlets (but more for any investigative work or research rather than any particular conclusion as conspiracy writers are as subject to agenda as anyone else) as well as political and current affairs writing that is as equally scathing to all parties and institutions such as Private Eye.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Merriman Weir]

It is not simply Fox news alone, it is any mainstream media compromised by censorship from its owners. The suspicious matter is the concert of the media on talking points, regardless of subject matter over a period of time. Of course this is contradictory, but when attached to the false right-left paradigm it is consistent with creation of a controlled opposition. These people of MSM accept that a "critical mass," of people, possibly only a few percent will select the meme of a culture. Naturally the larger media has been doing this for years through such programs as project mockingbird. We have to face the fact now after years that everything about current events is more or less wrong, even without exception to the spin of factual reporting about things such as the weather, and the latest "crimes." We cannot be certain stories are not fabricated with over toned events created by brainwashing typical criminals to do their thing as a specific time and to be caught. All the rhetoric about hypnosis not being able to perform against a personal better set of intentions is subject to a long period of work through compromised professionals, psychologists and psychiatrists being the least thoughtful, prescribing expensive pharmaceuticals instead of gentle therapy in the spirit of the horse whisperer. Again it is not simply Fox News, but all larger media, and those persuaded by it who are compromised to this fraudulent viewpoint of reality.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I'm not sure what is a reputable news source. My politics are left-leaning - to the point that I'm fairly sure a lot of Americans would describe me as a communist - but I'd don't necessarily buy into 'left wing' mainstream media such as the Guardian or the Independent. I read both papers but I'll also read the likes of the Daily Mail for different takes on the same stories - even if I don't necessarily agree with the analysis.

Even if it's not necessarily a strictly political agenda, it's interesting what gets covered and what doesn't get covered in all media outlets. For instance, the Independent - a paper that I can relate to an extent politically - who ran a couple of cutting pieces on the 'Innocent' brand of smoothie drinks 'selling-out' to Coca Cola also had a large advertorial (100 pages!) lifestyle magazine that came with the paper whilst those stories were running created by one of Coca Cola's biggest rivals, the owners of the Red Bull drink.

I'd read as much news as possible from a variety of sources and try and 'join the dots' as best as possible. I personally top that up with conspiracy outlets (but more for any investigative work or research rather than any particular conclusion as conspiracy writers are as subject to agenda as anyone else) as well as political and current affairs writing that is as equally scathing to all parties and institutions such as Private Eye.

I'm glad you are an independently minded fellow

DID you watch outfoxed - the first video?

I think it goes very far to give context to all of things as of current...

What is Private eye BTW?

Originally posted by SkipShipman
It is not simply Fox news alone, it is any mainstream media compromised by censorship from its owners. The suspicious matter is the concert of the media on talking points, regardless of subject matter over a period of time. Of course this is contradictory, but when attached to the false right-left paradigm it is consistent with creation of a controlled opposition. These people of MSM accept that a "critical mass," of people, possibly only a few percent will select the meme of a culture. Naturally the larger media has been doing this for years through such programs as project mockingbird. We have to face the fact now after years that everything about current events is more or less wrong, even without exception to the spin of factual reporting about things such as the weather, and the latest "crimes." We cannot be certain stories are not fabricated with over toned events created by brainwashing typical criminals to do their thing as a specific time and to be caught. All the rhetoric about hypnosis not being able to perform against a personal better set of intentions is subject to a long period of work through compromised professionals, psychologists and psychiatrists being the least thoughtful, prescribing expensive pharmaceuticals instead of gentle therapy in the spirit of the horse whisperer. Again it is not simply Fox News, but all larger media, and those persuaded by it who are compromised to this fraudulent viewpoint of reality.

I agree I singled out FOX because I have noticed certain patterns -

After watching the first 30 min of the 1st VIDEO I felt very compelled to post this all
EYE opening to say the least...

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mental modulator]

Almost done with the first video OUTFOXED-

WOW -JUST WOW

I feel sorry for the protestors -

GOOD GOD

Here is more than you can possibly read containing specific examples of media bias. Enjoy!

www.newsbusters.org...

And yes of course it's a right leaning page. You think a liberal site would report on it's own media bias??

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Here is more than you can possibly read containing specific examples of media bias. Enjoy!

www.newsbusters.org...

And yes of course it's a right leaning page. You think a liberal site would report on it's own media bias??

GREAT!

Lets get all the BS out there!

And no liberals are not capable of such a thing that for sure

I think that Fox is a different sort of news source, but that does not mean people should not exercise their right to watch it. Yes, some people may just not understand that there is a world outside of Glenn Beck. Kind of the same way some people don't know there is a world of music outside of MTV. Unfortunately, Fox news preaches to be the "conservative" source, when in fact even though I am a liberal, I think that there could be a conservative source that is more reliable and honest than Fox seems to be.

Also, we need to remember, people watch what is available and what they grow up with. For right-leaning Americans, Fox seems to be a better alternative than perhaps MSNBC or CNN, even though they may not agree with it. And eventually they get accustomed to now things run on Fox and it becomes a reality. And also, the typical flag-waving, apple-pie-eating, rifle-owning middle-American -seems- to watch and listen to Fox news. That's just how it goes, and it's not a small minority of people either. That takes me back to my points of 1) some people don't understand that there is a world outside of Fox news and 2) it attracts people who are not quite liberal enough for MSNBC or CNN, the leaners. I consider CNN to be less liberal than MSNBC, but still too liberal apparently for many conservatives.

I also think that Fox does something unfair. They point fingers, call names, and they have pretty people as their newscasters. In a way, it's like entertainment. I watch Glenn Beck. I do. I really do. It's like an entertainment, primetime show. That's how it reaches me and that's what it looks like, with the camera placement, the clever pauses, the script. It's not a news show, to me. It's a "these are my ideas and your ideas and we will repeat them a hundred times and protect these specific rights for these reasons no matter the consequences but we don't respect the rights of gays or people who want abortions, etc, and we go to Church and this is who we are as an American political group."

I don't often watch Fox if I'm looking to see what happened with a news story. If I want to know what happened, I don't want to hear political commentary, I don't want people voicing their opinions, not until I actually know what happened.

But maybe conservatives who are short on time want to hear their own opinions being repeated back at them even during live coverage. Maybe the conservatives are craving reassurance.

But I think it would be a big gift to our country to acquire an honest conservative news source. And then, the people who watch Fox, will be the same people who watch Maury and who criticize the liberals and who have one set unchanging notion of what they think America should be. I don't think they're progressive and I think that over time, based on the beliefs of my generation I think, they will be phased out except in some very small towns in the middle of the nation. I'm not saying that they should, I'm just saying that they're not trying very hard.

To some, Fox is a reputable news source. And it's sad and it's an insult to our intelligence as a country, I believe. There is no reputable news source, and the best thing we can do is take an average of what we hear and do independent research on issues from sources NOT like mainstream media.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

I also think that Fox does something unfair. They point fingers, call names, and they have pretty people as their newscasters. In a way, it's like entertainment. I watch Glenn Beck. I do. I really do. It's like an entertainment, primetime show. .

HEY raven - thanks you know...

I started this thread because of all the Tea thingies - all these folks who are having their
message jacked by fox
anyhow IF you have time watch the first video

its 77 min by I swear to you it will open your eyes in a big way - especially being a liberal and all

I wouldn't BS you...

Originally posted by mental modulator
I'm glad you are an independently minded fellow

DID you watch outfoxed - the first video?

I think it goes very far to give context to all of things as of current...

No, whilst I'm genuinely interested in this, unfortunately my dial-up connection isn't.

What is Private eye BTW?

Private Eye is a fortnightly newspaper that's a mix of political satire and investigative journalism. It doesn't really have an editorial bias as such and is happy to write about any political party or corporation. There's always a different angle on news and politics that I never see in mainstream news and it makes connections between events and people without ever going into 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy territory.

It's the only 'dead tree' news that I actually still buy and I've been reading it off and on since the early 1980s. I once even started a thread on here trying to find out whether America or anywhere else had an equivalent.

I really can't recommend it enough to British* ATS members if they're not familiar with it already.

*It focuses a lot on British comings-and-goings (often digging into local governments that will mean nothing to foreign readers as with the 'Rotten Boroughs' regular feature) but it does cover a lot of the big international news stories too.

Edit to add: Wiki gives a good explanation of Private Eye

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by mental modulator
I'm glad you are an independently minded fellow

DID you watch outfoxed - the first video?

I think it goes very far to give context to all of things as of current...

No, whilst I'm genuinely interested in this, unfortunately my dial-up connection isn't.

What is Private eye BTW?

Private Eye is a fortnightly newspaper that's a mix of political satire and investigative journalism. It doesn't really have an editorial bias as such and is happy to write about any political party or corporation. There's always a different angle on news and politics that I never see in mainstream news and it makes connections between events and people without ever going into 'tinfoil hat' conspiracy territory.

It's the only 'dead tree' news that I actually still buy and I've been reading it off and on since the early 1980s. I once even started a thread on here trying to find out whether America or anywhere else had an equivalent.

I really can't recommend it enough to British* ATS members if they're not familiar with it already.

*It focuses a lot on British comings-and-goings (often digging into local governments that will mean nothing to foreign readers as with the 'Rotten Boroughs' regular feature) but it does cover a lot of the big international news stories too.

SORRY about the dial up my man...

Where can I perkier me one on them private eyes

very interested.

reply to post by mental modulator


I promise, promise that I will watch it tonight or tomorrow.
It looks good! Thanks for sharing the link. There are a ton of good videos out there on stuff like this, it's just tricky to find them.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I think that Fox is a different sort of news source, but that does not mean people should not exercise their right to watch it. Yes, some people may just not understand that there is a world outside of Glenn Beck. Kind of the same way some people don't know there is a world of music outside of MTV. Unfortunately, Fox news preaches to be the "conservative" source, when in fact even though I am a liberal, I think that there could be a conservative source that is more reliable and honest than Fox seems to be.

Also, we need to remember, people watch what is available and what they grow up with. For right-leaning Americans, Fox seems to be a better alternative than perhaps MSNBC or CNN, even though they may not agree with it. And eventually they get accustomed to now things run on Fox and it becomes a reality. And also, the typical flag-waving, apple-pie-eating, rifle-owning middle-American -seems- to watch and listen to Fox news. That's just how it goes, and it's not a small minority of people either. That takes me back to my points of 1) some people don't understand that there is a world outside of Fox news and 2) it attracts people who are not quite liberal enough for MSNBC or CNN, the leaners. I consider CNN to be less liberal than MSNBC, but still too liberal apparently for many conservatives.

I also think that Fox does something unfair. They point fingers, call names, and they have pretty people as their newscasters. In a way, it's like entertainment. I watch Glenn Beck. I do. I really do. It's like an entertainment, primetime show. That's how it reaches me and that's what it looks like, with the camera placement, the clever pauses, the script. It's not a news show, to me. It's a "these are my ideas and your ideas and we will repeat them a hundred times and protect these specific rights for these reasons no matter the consequences but we don't respect the rights of gays or people who want abortions, etc, and we go to Church and this is who we are as an American political group."

I don't often watch Fox if I'm looking to see what happened with a news story. If I want to know what happened, I don't want to hear political commentary, I don't want people voicing their opinions, not until I actually know what happened.

But maybe conservatives who are short on time want to hear their own opinions being repeated back at them even during live coverage. Maybe the conservatives are craving reassurance.

But I think it would be a big gift to our country to acquire an honest conservative news source. And then, the people who watch Fox, will be the same people who watch Maury and who criticize the liberals and who have one set unchanging notion of what they think America should be. I don't think they're progressive and I think that over time, based on the beliefs of my generation I think, they will be phased out except in some very small towns in the middle of the nation. I'm not saying that they should, I'm just saying that they're not trying very hard.

To some, Fox is a reputable news source. And it's sad and it's an insult to our intelligence as a country, I believe. There is no reputable news source, and the best thing we can do is take an average of what we hear and do independent research on issues from sources NOT like mainstream media.

What I have come to realize and now much more so - is that FOX and everything about it is designed for specific purposes.

Example

think straight news cast

Two thousand people protested the Iraq war today in DC "Some might think that those people are unpatriotic and against our troops" - the protestors demanded....

YOU see - that was FOX -

The " video" has many former employees who actually explain the purpose of every graphic, timing, music - It just propaganda - pure

the problem is many think it is actually news - when its closer to beef jerky

Originally posted by mental modulator
I agree I singled out FOX because I have noticed certain patterns -

That's nice. Have you also noticed patterns from MSNBC?

Since you seem to be so vigilant, how about one of these threads on MSNBC? That'd be really easy pickings.

BTW .. You might want to leave Scott McClellen off your quote list.
As a source of info on how FOX is so allegedly corrupt .. he's lousy.
He even admits that his book is unsubstantiated and just rumor.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by mental modulator

 

I promise, promise that I will watch it tonight or tomorrow.
It looks good! Thanks for sharing the link. There are a ton of good videos out there on stuff like this, it's just tricky to find them.

cheers

I promise you will be a little more skeptical about anything FOX from now on.

Any good vids send um my way.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mental modulator
I agree I singled out FOX because I have noticed certain patterns -

That's nice. Have you also noticed patterns from MSNBC?

Since you seem to be so vigilant, how about one of these threads on MSNBC? That'd be really easy pickings.

BTW .. You might want to leave Scott McClellen off your quote list.
As a source of info on how FOX is so allegedly corrupt .. he's lousy.
He even admits that his book is unsubstantiated and just rumor.

BTW if anyone would like to protest other MSM TV stations feel free to start a thread here on ATS

did you ready fire aim there FF - I got you covered - tis from the bottom of my OP.

Anyhow you really should watch that vid - I am certain it would NOT change your views
but it is fascinating. If FOX news wasn't so evil in my eyes I would nominate it for
an award of slick genius - makes Bubba look like sandpaper.

BTW he's lousy???

I know its early so...

Get some cwoffeey

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mental modulator
I agree I singled out FOX because I have noticed certain patterns -

BTW .. You might want to leave Scott McClellen off your quote list.
As a source of info on how FOX is so allegedly corrupt .. he's lousy.

So ( BUSH ) chose a liar to do all the speaking on behalf of the most powerful position on EARTH? I would think such a position would be awarded to a rather pristine feller wouldn't you. Cause I think you're trying to say Scott is a dud and a lop...



Tell me the truth now - did FOX tell you this...

Anyhow link it up here and lets do it!

BTW that first line.. I learned the FOX formula - turns things around good huh.

try this

"Some people might say that the protesters who met on the north law are unpatriotic
terrorist lovers, but as they chanted the words "no more war" repeatedly..."


YOU SEE

thats so cool

thats FOX - its not black magic after all

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by mental modulator
BTW he's lousy??? I know its early so... Get some cwoffeey

McClellen admitted that he has no proof about his Fox Network allegations. When the book came out he tried to weasle both ends of the audience. In other words .. he got caught stepping in a pile of crap. His allegations may or may not have been true, but the tool just mumbled through and said he couldn't prove anything. It was really pathetic.

So yes, he's a lousy source. By his own admission.

As for FOX .. yep, it's skewed to the right.
As for CNN .. yep, it's skewed to the left (but not as much as it used to be).
As for MSNBC .. yep, it's BEYOND REPAIR.

The reason why I suggested that YOU start a MSNBC thread was because you seem so gosh darn vigilant this morning and I just know you'd love to expose MSNBC for the corrupt organization it is .... being the fair and balanced person that you are and all.

reply to post by FlyersFan


To be fair, I think that both Fox and MSNBC are skewed beyond repair.

And it's true that I'm not picking on CNN just because Anderson Cooper is my crush.