Fox News: Fair and Balanced
 

Greatest comedy network on television.

Discuss.

At least they give Ayn Rand a chance...

While I hate Faux News, I don't see how CNN or MSNBC are that good either. All of them are extremely biased which is why I read my news from all three.

So just because they're an easy target means we're not allowed to discuss them?

It's the most popular news network in the world, it's not like they're some minority that has no impact on anything.

I have a horrifying feeling that Rush Limbaugh is prepping himself up for a run for congress. And that he could win.

Or if god really hates us, president. :(

What I really hate about Fox news is that they say, "NEWS WITHOUT THE LIBERAL SPIN."
Of course they don't give it a liberal spin, they give it a conservative spin.

Also, I used to have to watch Bill O'Rielly with my grandpa every night. Torture.
However if his program was more like this:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...essa/4chan.jpg
I'd watch it daily as if it were the Daily Show or something.

Boo Boo, what are your political beliefs exactly? I know you are anti-Republican, but are you just one of those cynical democrats who thinks that the rich man is oppressing the common man?

I don't understand why people don't like O'Reilly...

I'm a libertarian in a broad sense, though I'm obviously left of center in many ways.

I'm not a hardcore liberal by any means, I can take the piss on hippie douchebags and radical lefties with the best of them. Undeniably Keith Olbermann is just as much of a douche as Bill O'Reilly in many ways.

anderson cooper > bill o'reilly.

I was going to quote the folks I was addressing but the comments are too numerous to quote and direct my fury at.

first of all, you can't tell what bias a website has because thats obviously affected by your bias.

MSNBC is the leftier group
Fox is the right-leaning group.
CNN is in the middle of those two.

As for the "cynical democrat" comment, only a pro-survivalist would look at the current situation and say "no you know what, the rich man...he's doing alright by the little guy."

Where do you live? And do you meet people who don't have a ****ing pot to piss in? I work non-profit and as part of my job, i meet the worst this economy has coughed up on our doorsteps.

I just don't get this simplisitc "if you just live your life correctly, everything will be fine" mentality.

Save Mr. Lou "Blame the Mexicans for everything" Dobbs, I'd say CNN are very much in the tank for Obama.

Though they have also done their fair share of right wing scaremongering with their countless "how the internet is corrupting your children" and "the terrorists may be hiding under your bed" reports.

I don't even feel like discussing why this comment is so useless. Of course I have my own bias, but I would agree that MSNBC is more left and Fox is more right just as you listed below. So is my bias somewhat near yours because I agree with you? No, we just both see the general bias that each news station has because it is so easy to spot.

I would definitely say CNN is a little left of the middle, but I agree on the general idea.

A lot of rich are corrupt right now. The intervention in the economy has corrupted them, (though I do believe in free choice.) My problem is that you think doing the same thing which corrupted them, not allowing them to reap all the benefits of their work, is the cure. I am not for business men who find ways to cheat and steal. However, they aren't even allowed to pursue happiness and achieve their highest potential anymore so I completely see why they would do such a thing.

Awesome. I hope you have fun being a slave. I personally don't like it to much, so it would be pretty stupid of me to do it. It seems like you don't like it too much either since you are boasting about how many poor people you see at your job. Maybe you should quit...

That is because you believe in materialism. You probably believe, along with the rest of the democrats, that the poor man can never become happy until he has X amount of dollars. I believe quite the contrary.

I think Shepard Smith is mentally retarted.

Urgh no. Money is what corrupts rich people. Open a history book. No economic system is inherently moral, perfect and right. The robber barons of the world didn't pop up once the government started regulating. In fact a Laissez-faire system is what birthed them. Businesses and corporations are not "rational" and the people aren't guided by some sense of "objective ethics." They're guided by whatever makes them the most money; which involves screwing the proletariat over.

fox shmox
 

If i may, the foreign press look at us pretty hard i like the International Herald Tribune for staight forward stuff, hard to slant print,( that sounded naive) i mean music intros and code words to the "keep tuned in " press, i can read a hundred stories on line and guess what, they do get repeated, just by different journalists ? agency's,.. anyways (like i actually know anything) it's kinda like confirmation on the stories, Besides what the box is here to do is avert our attention from knowing what the real deal is and i'll tell ya'.....
it's not as bad as they want us to fear, it 's not a warzone out here, you don't have to tune in at 7 to find out what to fear next, just meet your neighbors, form relationships, trade in hope and serve someone every once in awhile, oh yeah... not everyone hates us, never believe that. the real work is done outside the media coverage and real change happens there. The left, the right and the middle wont come and help you or me look for our kids on a saturday night, and after the kid is born and until the kid can vote the child becomes the group to ignore and screw on a regular basis. If it weren't so no child would really get left behind. and that is where the real change must take place in the communities, where it's been understood for all time that it does take a village to raise a child( Hindu/Budist) and you cant preach in your own backyard( Christian) but the left , right and middle just want us scared and in our box watching our boxes scared to let our children onto the street, don't buy it. Fox news doesn't want you to know your neighbor, they want you to think it's a pedifile. Maybe if we spent more time outside we'd know when a home is being used illeagally in our own neighborhoods. what differance does a National news coverage really make, in most case it's just about the next "octomom", american tragedy and it's rarely any where near any one whom it may affect. It's just public opinion, at its worst. sorry that got very dark at the end, i think most of this is aimed at myself and was cathartic in nature, please don't be offended if you watch these shows, i do when i'm not in charge of the remote,i.e. bars, airports, friggen circle k now with the cnn on. ( hands in head) I'm such a hypocrite. I let myself get swayed so much i really find it hard to figure out my own stuff... i'm pissed, bitter, scared too. I've been conditioned on the media teat for as long as i can remember... and re-runs become our history. To be taken witha large grain of salt. whatever that means.

use punctuation capitalization or some other form of separating your posts into structured sentences like someone who's not a toddler so that the rest of us here can actually spend the time trying to figure out what the hell youre saying instead of running headlong into a clusterfuck of words

k?

I disagree. We have never had "Laissez-faire" in this country. During the times of the robber barons we had government "favoring" the rich. It was not fair at all and labor unions were banned and such. I am not asking for the government to favor the rich because that is intervention and that is what created these people. I want the government to not have an economic sector. I want their to be separation of the economy and the state for the same reason as the separation of the church and the state.

Oh Jesus Christ. How didn't we have one at one point? Because the government taxed? Anyway this notion that all this happened because the government favored the rich is absurd. A laissez-faire economic system favors the rich. It naturally creates a large underclass, monopolies and a nepotistic hierarchical society.

The laissez-faire system can't favor anybody because no one is doing anything extra for anybody. Think about what "favoring" is for a second. One group of people does benefit under laissez-faire, but to say that the underclass is stuck in the underclass is just another Marxist myth. Monopolies are created by government intervention. You claim that capitalism is something that will halt productivity and such, yet all the areas in history where the economy was more capitalist lead to prosperous times. The Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, and the times of the Robber Barons/Captains of Industry. More innovation and such occurred during these times. The government intervention is what lead to people experiencing all the trouble. Labor unions were banned at one point in American history. Technically, the businessmen who proposed this were not wrong at all though because anti-trust laws were forced upon them.

Now let's look at the communities who exhibited socialist characteristics. You have all of those utopias, USSR, and all the other communist countries. To be fair, none of them did socialism quite right either, except for the utopias. What did all of this lead to? The utopias fell apart, the USSR collapsed, and the only real successful communist country, China, became a powerhouse when it opened up the market. However, the government control that was required to create the country it is today violates tons of other rights that the people have. The reason socialism doesn't work is because it creates an artificial price for work that doesn't actually exist and in turn people aren't able to benefit individually for their own work. What incentive can they possibly have? The only incentive is the altruist morality that we are all slaves to each other. Brainwashing is the only way socialism will ever work in a large country whether it be with religion or with altruism.

I certainly don't believe in any of that Social Darwinism stuff or anything like it, which is why I support capitalism. I don't believe material such as money, houses, or cars are going to bring me to happiness. Happiness is found in putting my best work and reaping the true achievement of that work, whether that be money, cars, or such. What the left says is that no one can be happy without a little bit of money so we have to let everyone start off at the same base. In turn, the businessmen in society have a weird situation because their product is raped from them. Happiness is such a drive though that they feel that coercing those who (they believe) coerce them, the middle/lower class, is going to allow them to achieve what they want. They are merely defending their very goal of existence by doing this and I do not criticize them for it. However, they are still trying to achieve something by not putting the true work into doing it though, so I do not approve of their means.

I believe that if you thoroughly read the next sentence you would not have posted this:

Government created monopolies.

The Industrial Revolution was "prosperous times"?

Explain any of this. We had 8 year olds chained to poorly constructed machinery. Are you saying monopolies wouldn't be created if no one stepped in?

No one would have been chained to anything if the government did its job. If anyone initiates force in the form of chaining someone to something that would be considered a crime. However, if it is in the contract that you agree to be chained and such, then it is not wrong because you agreed to it. The government didn't enforce common laws against the businesses because Social Darwinism was so big at the time. I don't believe sweatshops or any of the sort is wrong in any way. If someone agrees to work ten cents and hour and work long days, then they agree to it. What am I violating?

At the time of the industrial revolution there were many advances in technology. Compared to times that were less capitalist, there was a substantial amount. That is what I mean by prosperous. People were able to rise to the top if they played their cards right. It still wasn't really capitalist though because you still had slavery going on and taxes and such.

Now to answer the question above, government created monopolies:

There has never been laissez-faire capitalism. Every time a monopoly was created it is because the government favored businesses in some way. Look at today with the insurance companies. There are so many restrictions on small business insurance companies that no one can really enter or do anything. That is what I am talking about. Of course there are really no true monopolies that I know of today, but some come very close.

I am not against labor unions or anything like that. In fact, I am strongly for labor unions because they can check the power of large businesses that can become corrupt. However, labor unions back then decided to turn to violence as their answer. This ruined the credibility of labor unions at the time. Then they were banned, which is turn favored big business.

Does someone want to explain to me how CNN and others ARE fair and balanced?

If you want to talk about myths, let's talk about Adam Smith's unseen hand. Manufacturers did rig the market place and monopolies were created. The government didn't regulate and their "intervention" (I love how vague you always are when it comes to talking about the intervention) had nothing to do with it. A laissez-faire society drifts towards bigness and fewness as only the most successful businesses succeed (and they usually end up monopolizing their respective industries.) A laissez-faire society also creates extremeness in terms of class position which are inherited, as the poor send their kids off to poor schools and the rich to rich schools and universities (and education does equal better job and success in life.) Your idea that a completely free market is oh so perfect and moral good just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the combination of human greed and ambition.

Man, this whole tea party thing has to be the most elaborate FoxNews hoax is in quite a while.

I can't believe Fox actually expects us to believe it's a grass roots movement when they have been hyping it 24/7, they even put their freaking name on it, yet they're "not" endorsing it.

Bush was too moderate, so were other Republicans in congress.

What the party needs now is a really hardcore super bigoted motherf*cker to round up their supporting base of white, church going southerners. Rush seems to be thinking about running at least, he has the biggest personality cult of all the right wing pundits, he's THE mouthpiece of the neo conservative dominated Republican party, and I wouldn't count him out.

No, but I have reason to believe he would be run (Pat Robertson did, so lets not count anyone out) and why wouldn't the neo cons back him? He's Rush Limbaugh. Would they care that he doesn't have any executive experience of any kind? Probably not.

People are really hyping Palin for 2012, so I don't think anything is too ridiculous for the republican party at this point. Moderates or traditional fiscal conservatives are certainly not gonna get the Republicans back into the white house.

First off, thank you for not insulting me.

And you make a good point, I'm just saying it's a possibility, I'm not saying anything is definite, I don't claim to know a lot.

Ron Paul??

RED EYE on fox news is an awesome show. Yeah, it's more for mind-numbing entertainment than it is for actual important news stories... but it is excellent. Good banter, hot females, excellent guests = success!

IMO that show is awful, I can't stand the host.

FoxNews is only funny when it doesn't try to be.

In order for someone to explain something to you, they need to know how you're seeing it.

If I don't think CNN is biased, how would I begin to explain that. All I can say is that Boo Boo said a few pages back that they were "in the tank for Obama."

With only that to go on, I'd say this...

1. Logical folks are in the tank for Obama, because if he fails the globoeconomic strucutre is absolutly screwed.

2. The press was absolutly abused by the Bush Administration. On a side note, whenever you're denying the press rights and access, its undoubtedly because you're up to some illegal activity. The last guy to treat the press like the enemy was Nixon.

If a new guy was in town who called me by name, and repudiated the actions of the last guy, I'd probably like him too.

3. There is this thing called a honeymoon stage. They give people a break when their just getting started. We're within the first 100 days.

4. I actually watch cable news quite a bit. I generally prefer Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow so I'm usually on MSNBC. But I eat lunch in a place that plays the other two stations regularly. I tend to see a favorability with philisophical leanings (especially in the context of the last 8 years) but I don't think their in the tanks.

Heres what they're out for blood on as I see it:

Bagram.

Wall Street Bail out and no auto company bail out (thats a fox news construct).

Refusual to reinstate the automatic weapons ban.

Secratary Choices

(I'm forgetting something I'll edit it later)

Again, in the first 100 days to have three consistent things their attacking him on is fairly average.

You're just so cursory its hard to take you seriosuly.

He made his name by lifting things? As if he did nothing else and there isn't a science and a discipline to "lifting things."

And how did Nixon "**** everything up?" He was one of the better presidents of the modern era.

counting this one? once.

Give what a ****ing rest?

I should give not taking you so seriously a rest?

That sounds antithetical to what you asked above really.

I don't want you to be, though i think you might already be there.

A certain scandal comes to mind. Also, he was sort of gung ho about the whole war thing.

So yeah, Christopher Hitchens is my new hero.





I remember watching the first clip with family when it was on TV, and they pretty much cheered Hannity on.

"Yeah Sean you nailed him"

Hannity is so full of sh*t, he pulls all of these dramatics because his fanbase loves it, but he's made it clear to me that the southern, christian neo-con definition of "nailing" somebody in an argument basically translates to being more loud and obnoxious than whoever you're arguing against, regardless of how much smarter the other person is.

This is how arguments are "won" at FoxNews. In fact, it's pretty clear that all of these pundits are hired strictly for their ability to be loud, obnoxious douchebags, they're neither required or expected to even know anything by the people that employ them, that would be boring, and that's why FoxNews has so many idiots on it's payroll, they may know nothing about politics but at least they know all the secrets to turning what should be a civil argument into a verbal wrestling match.

FoxNews is the WWF of news journalism. :laughing: