I'm not familiar with the other sources you mentioned, buy "Fox News" is a contradiction in terms.  Get a hold of a film called Out Foxed which demonstrates, using Fox clips, interviews with employees and former employees, and memos etc, how Fox slants the news, distorts facts, and in some cases manufactures the news.  It is a propoganda network that would give Joseph Goerbles (sp) not just an erection, but a climax.


I know this started in another thread, so I am making a new one.  This conversation started in the thread about Cat Stevens.  In short, I made a post, and was then challenged with sources.  I then listed 8 sources, only to have all of them discounted.

What I find amazing is that when I quote sources (and I do it a LOT), there are people in here who automatically dismiss them because of the source.  And in the latest case, I listed SEVERAL.  In face, some of them spoke quite warmly of the person in question, but they also gave quotes to him which I (and others) have talked about.

What I find disturbing is this trend to question things you (not meant as in you yourself, buy you as in anybody) do not like, and never question your own beliefs.  I question things every day, both things I support, and things I oppose.  Whenever I see any information, I question it, and challenge it.  I do not follow things on blind faith.

Now in this post and others, I have been told my information is not accurate.  I have been challenged many times to provide sources, and this time I provided a lot of them.  But notice, I can't remember ever challenging somebody else to provide their cources, no matter how fantastic the claims are.

In fact, I have witheld information in the past, simply because some people find the source uncredible.  I waited, and less then a week later, the major networks were breaking the story, with the same source.  SO much for some of my sources being "liars".

And yes, Fox News is biased.  So is ABC, NBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, BBC, NY Times, Washington Times, and Radio Moscow.  The difference to me is how it is slanted, and if this slant is acknowledged.

Fox News makes no secret of it's slant.  They admit to being "fair and ballanced", but with a conservative edge.  People like O'Riley lean towards Conservative, but also question and challenge them just as much as they do anybody else.  I defy anybody who saw any of his interviews with President Bush to claim he was throwing "softballs".  And then compare them with the interview that Dan Rather gave to President Clinton.

All news is slanted.  All sources are slanted.  This is just human nature.  But I look for "equal time", and the ability to play "Devil's Advocate".  I see shows like "Hannity And Combs" as a great example of this.  And quite often, both sides actually agree on things.  That show quite often shows 2 people with political differences trying to find a common ground, not trying to rip eith other (and their beliefs) apart.

Your post is true, Fox is slanted.  I admit this, so what?  What I find amazing is that I am supposed to believe this in toto, and at the same time a news reporter and author like Bernard Goldberg is totally ignored as being a kook.

Now I know that the people this is truely aimed at will only look at one or two lines of this, and then laugh me off.  This is how it always is here now.  I can write a long post with sources, and then be slammed for 1 or 2 misspellings.  I can write a post with lots of sources, and have it ignored because somebody finds my source "unreliable".  I can even write a post agreeing with a "Left Cause", and still be attacked because of how I phrase something.

Well, maybe Marx was right.  Maybe "Class Warfare" is inevitable.  I know that more and more, I find it thrust at me.  For one, I am sick and tired of myself, my race, my sex, and my beliefs being the scapegoat of the world.  I am sick and tired of being told that my sources are invalid, while at the same time that every far-left source as being "the Gospel Truth".

The more I see of politics, the more I am sure that a struggle may be at hand.  But the group that is trying to force this struggle wants the struggle.  Rather then trying to get along, form a common ground and work together, they want to rip things, people, and beliefs apart.  They do not want peace, they want a war so they can come out on top, after some kind of rightous struggle.

Well, there were some people like that once before in this country.  They thought that their rights were more important anything else.  What they believed in was so honorable, so right, that they placed the rights of individuals over the rights of the nation as a whole.  They also believed in "class struggle", with the rich industrialists controlling their way of life, and that their standing up for their "individual freedoms" was the correct and proper thing to do.

Of course, we all know what happened to South Carolina, and all of the other states that felt that way in 1861.

This will probably be my last post in here for a while.  Once again, I have just become to sick to continue.  The one-sidedness of most of the arguements is just to much for me to accept.  I honestly wish some in here (and this goes for both sides) would look at what they say and honestly think about it, not just lash out in a knee-jerk reaction.  Ironically, this "Conservative Christian Republican" agrees more often with Don Carlos then with GWBush2004.  But to a lot of people in here I am simply the "enemy", not somebody who disagrees in some areas, and agrees in others.  That is a shame to all of us.

This will probably be my last post in here for a while.  Once again, I have just become to sick to continue.  The one-sidedness of most of the arguements is just to much for me to accept.  I honestly wish some in here (and this goes for both sides) would look at what they say and honestly think about it, not just lash out in a knee-jerk reaction.  Ironically, this "Conservative Christian Republican" agrees more often with Don Carlos then with GWBush2004.  But to a lot of people in here I am simply the "enemy", not somebody who disagrees in some areas, and agrees in others.  That is a shame to all of us.


Sheesh you noticed too?  Every time you post something from a mildly conservative source like Newsmax or most recently the Center for National Security, the liberals here do a full-on blitz to discredit it an every possible way probably without even reading it or considering what it says.  Yet this same people quote me Bloomberg, the BBC (the worst of them all), and The New York Times.  But your post really makes me think, this board is very one-sided with people who say something I honestly believe they don't really believe.  Hope you come back soon.

Fox News makes no secret of it's slant.  They admit to being "fair and ballanced", but with a conservative edge.

Somehow this makes no sense to me. How can one be fair and balanced... but with a conservative slant? Conflict of interest there if you ask me. Also, I think that most of the right wingers take any criticism of Bush whatsoever by any network as being "liberal bias," when in fact, there is just as much criticism on any given channel toward Kerry. How can Fox News be fair and Balanced when they NEVER criticise the President, but ALWAYS criticise the left-wing? At least CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc... provide criticisms of both Bush and Kerry. Never all one, none the other, like Fox.

And next you're going to tell me that Al-Jazeera is biased toward the Arabic point of view... OF COURSE! It's an Arab language medium based in the Arab world... I think that sort of merits a bit of an Arab perspective on things. You expect them to sugar-coat the news where other Arabs are getting blown up? That would be like NPR saying "Well 100 soldiers were ambushed and killed today, but you know, it really is for the best..."

And for the gent who suggested that people here must not really believe the things that they are saying, and just merely reacting automatically... you are making yourself a perfect example of a psychological phenomenon among humans called "the false consensus effect." The latter is the common tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs and behaviours.

I see shows like "Hannity And Combs" as a great example of this.

Hannity and Combs is a farce! Of all the liberals in the country they picked the dumbest and ugliest of them all to match wits with the quick-thinking, handsome, All-American Sean Hannity. Ever notice how Combs never wins on anything, and it seems that he's just biting his tongue to make sure nothing that could jeopardise Hannity's victory will slip out... Ever see him stare off blankly just as this is occuring, as though somebody was telling him he better concede, or it's sackersville for him... I see that about, oh, every time I tune in to that waste of air-space!

Well, there were some people like that once before in this country.  They thought that their rights were more important anything else.  What they believed in was so honorable, so right, that they placed the rights of individuals over the rights of the nation as a whole.  They also believed in "class struggle", with the rich industrialists controlling their way of life, and that their standing up for their "individual freedoms" was the correct and proper thing to do.

Of course, we all know what happened to South Carolina, and all of the other states that felt that way in 1861.

Oh what a poignant observation. But alas, the two situations have nothing to do with eachother. You see, this is just a tight election season between two rival parties, and the other were a bunch of racist, right-wing nutjobs who wanted to continue to own people, and wouldn't listen to reason.... Are you honestly suggesting that our situation today would really go that far. Are you that afraid?

Oh what a poignant observation. But alas, the two situations have nothing to do with eachother. You see, this is just a tight election season between two rival parties, and the other were a bunch of racist, right-wing nutjobs who wanted to continue to own people, and wouldn't listen to reason.... Are you honestly suggesting that our situation today would really go that far. Are you that afraid?


OK, I just have to comment on this.  But once again, it shows how people both do not know their history, and will do anything to insult and offend others.  It shows how slander and attacks are (in their view) not only right, but proper.

If I may remind you sir, the Republicans came to power in 1860, and that set off the Civil War.  The Democrats were the party of the South.  The Republicans are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Right.  The Democrats are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Left.

So please tell me about the "right-wing" nutjobs who started the Civil War?  Obviously you mean the Right-Wing nutjob who won the election, President Lincoln.  Who was much different then his major foe in that election, Stephen Douglas, the Democrat.

"States Rights" has always been a call of the Left Wing, especially in the South.  I seem to remember that George Wallace used it in the 1960's.  And the last time I looked, Governor Wallace was not right-wing, nor was he a Republican.

Am I afraid, yes I am.  I am afraid of people who do not learn from history.  I am afraid of people who are so sure that "they are right", that they feel it is right to trample over everybody else.  I am afraid of being labeled a "racist", a "sexist", or some other absurd title, just because I do not agree with them.  And I do not speak lightly, because that has happened to me.  And anybody who has really read my posts knows I am not a racist.  But can you imagine how angry or sick to my stomach it feels, being labled as such, just becuase I disagree with a political stance?

I think the biggest difference is that I am against "Adversarial Politics".  I do not see people who disagree with me as an advasary, nor as an enemy.  They are just somebody who I disagree with.  As long as their view is not hatefull nor hurtfull, I can respect them and still dissagree.

Marx felt that class warfare and struggle was inevitable, and nothing could prevent it.  Myself, I feel that it is possible to prevent it, and that it should be prevented.  Our own Civil War could have been prevented, if not for hot heads on both sides who wanted a war.  Both were so sure they were right, they almost destroyed our country.

And as far as Fox News, I wonder how much you watch it.  I hear a lot of criticizm of Bush on it.  I also watch them interview both sides if an issue, much more then I see on any other network.

Here is a good example.  I have seen them talk about "Celsius 41.11" many times.  They have had on the air both people who support it, and people who oppose it.  Yet, I have seen almost nothing on this movie from the other major news networks.


And for the gent who suggested that people here must not really believe the things that they are saying, and just merely reacting automatically... you are making yourself a perfect example of a psychological phenomenon among humans called "the false consensus effect." The latter is the common tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs and behaviours.


Well I am sorry.  My main desire is to see respect towards all sides of an issue.  I respect the viewpoints of others, even if I do not agree with them.  I am sickened by people who "knee-jerk", and spout out a belief and get angry with any challenge of their belief.  I get upset when somebody demands that I acknowledge any source they list, but then turn around and tell me that none of mine is reliable.

If I make a false consensus of feeling that is wrong, then things are worse then I thought.

OK, I just have to comment on this.  But once again, it shows how people both do not know their history, and will do anything to insult and offend others.  It shows how slander and attacks are (in their view) not only right, but proper.

If I may remind you sir, the Republicans came to power in 1860, and that set off the Civil War.  The Democrats were the party of the South.  The Republicans are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Right.  The Democrats are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Left.

So please tell me about the "right-wing" nutjobs who started the Civil War?  Obviously you mean the Right-Wing nutjob who won the election, President Lincoln.  Who was much different then his major foe in that election, Stephen Douglas, the Democrat.

.


YES!  Someone should pull out of a history book, republicans ran Lincoln who was the anti-slavery republican candidate, and the democrats ran Brekinridge a southern democrat who VERY pro-slavery.  Brekinridge also got second place.  Thats the left in a nutshell, always on the wrong side of history, with the extreme left socialist Nazi party and the extreme left Baath party headed by Saddam.  The left-wing nutjobs have been the cause of almost every bad throughout history its sickening.

The Republican party of Lincoln and the Republican party of today are so vastly different, that to even begin to compare the two is ridiculous.  The members of the Democrat party, such as Strom Thurmond and the rest of the anti civil rights folks of the south, left the party in 1948 to form the Dixiecrat party.  When Strom lost his presidental bid, they disbanded the Dixiecrats and joined the Republican party. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

This is only one example of the positions of the parties changing greatly over the past century.  Looking to ancient history to define the current parties is a pointless exercise. The past 20-30 years is probably as far back you can go before the parties cease to resemble the current parties.

The Republican party of Lincoln and the Republican party of today are so vastly different, that to even begin to compare the two is ridiculous.  The members of the Democrat party, such as Strom Thurmond and the rest of the anti civil rights folks of the south, left the party in 1948 to form the Dixiecrat party.  When Strom lost his presidental bid, they disbanded the Dixiecrats and joined the Republican party. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

This is only one example of the positions of the parties changing greatly over the past century.  Looking to ancient history to define the current parties is a pointless exercise. The past 20-30 years is probably as far back you can go before the parties cease to resemble the current parties.


Yes! Will the Republicans once and far stop using "we were the party of Lincoln" as a slogan? Hello, open up your history textbook and realize that the Republicans and Democrats switched positions. The Republicans of 1865 are not the same as the Republicans of 2004!

Tanya

McDonald, Chucky, and Tanya made many of the same points I would have made here.

Bernard Goldberg isn't a kook.  He is a bitter cynic with a grudge.

The reason why I discredit many right wing sources is because I look at who funds them.  If your organization is funded by the Olin, Bradley, and/or Scaife Foundations you are beholden to the right-wing propaganda machine.  If you go out and tear a new one in the military-industrial complex, you will lose your funding.  If you investigate the malfeasances of Republican politicians, you will lose your funding.

The Cato Institute, for instance, owes its existence entirely to the petroleum industry.  Why should I believe a think they say about the environment or regulations on big business? 

All I had to do was take one look at those who fund the Center for Security Policy and I could tell right away what the goals of the organization are.  You can read the CV of Frank Gaffeny and look at the company he keeps, and you know where he's coming from.  The CSP's idea of "strength" and "security" not only differ from mine, I believe the CSP's mission is fallacious and cynical.

Right-wingers include NBC as part of the "liberal media."  Why?  General Electric owns that network.  Their paymasters can muzzle them if they get too close to the ugly truth about the military-industrial complex.

In fact, I see corporate-oriented, Wall Street-favoring bias on ALL commercial televison.  Who pays the bills?  Corporate advertisers.  That's just the way it is.

The far Right has got some of you so wound up in their bogus "find-the-liberal-bias" game, you are completely deceived on the real issues.  The right-wing gives corporate America a free pass with the dip Armey sentiment "the market is smart, the government is dumb."  Thus, you get guys like Mushroom voting Republican and thinking a $300.00 tax rebate is a great reason to do so.

I don't see it that way.


BTW, calling Newsmax "mildly conservative" is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer "slightly neurotic."

YES!  Someone should pull out of a history book, republicans ran Lincoln who was the anti-slavery republican candidate, and the democrats ran Brekinridge a southern democrat who VERY pro-slavery.  Brekinridge also got second place.  Thats the left in a nutshell, always on the wrong side of history, with the extreme left socialist Nazi party and the extreme left Baath party headed by Saddam.  The left-wing nutjobs have been the cause of almost every bad throughout history its sickening.


This is just so very much a distortion that one can hardly believe it.  The only truth in it is that the Democratic party (the party of Jefferson) was split in 1861, with southern Dems on the wrong side of the slaver issue, and so lost to the "leftist" Lincoln.  Their hairs are now Repubs, like Trent Lott. To equate a pro-slavery position to the "left" is the ultimate delusion (I'm choosing my words carefully Hair  ;))  Every "leftist" from before that time to the present has opposed slavery, from Sparticus to Marx to me.  Further, to suggest that the Nazi party, with claimed to be socialist, but allied itself with industrial capital in the form of volkswagon, krup, I.G. Farben, Bayer, and others, and supplied all of them with slave labor, really was socialist is lunacy.  This is sheer nonsense.

OK, I just have to comment on this.  But once again, it shows how people both do not know their history, and will do anything to insult and offend others.  It shows how slander and attacks are (in their view) not only right, but proper.

If I may remind you sir, the Republicans came to power in 1860, and that set off the Civil War.  The Democrats were the party of the South.  The Republicans are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Right.  The Democrats are, were, and will always tend to be the party of the Left.

So please tell me about the "right-wing" nutjobs who started the Civil War?  Obviously you mean the Right-Wing nutjob who won the election, President Lincoln.  Who was much different then his major foe in that election, Stephen Douglas, the Democrat.

"States Rights" has always been a call of the Left Wing, especially in the South.  I seem to remember that George Wallace used it in the 1960's.  And the last time I looked, Governor Wallace was not right-wing, nor was he a Republican.

Am I afraid, yes I am.  I am afraid of people who do not learn from history.  I am afraid of people who are so sure that "they are right", that they feel it is right to trample over everybody else.  I am afraid of being labeled a "racist", a "sexist", or some other absurd title, just because I do not agree with them.  And I do not speak lightly, because that has happened to me.  And anybody who has really read my posts knows I am not a racist.  But can you imagine how angry or sick to my stomach it feels, being labled as such, just becuase I disagree with a political stance?

I think the biggest difference is that I am against "Adversarial Politics".  I do not see people who disagree with me as an advasary, nor as an enemy.  They are just somebody who I disagree with.  As long as their view is not hatefull nor hurtfull, I can respect them and still dissagree.

Marx felt that class warfare and struggle was inevitable, and nothing could prevent it.  Myself, I feel that it is possible to prevent it, and that it should be prevented.  Our own Civil War could have been prevented, if not for hot heads on both sides who wanted a war.  Both were so sure they were right, they almost destroyed our country.

And as far as Fox News, I wonder how much you watch it.  I hear a lot of criticizm of Bush on it.  I also watch them interview both sides if an issue, much more then I see on any other network.

Here is a good example.  I have seen them talk about "Celsius 41.11" many times.  They have had on the air both people who support it, and people who oppose it.  Yet, I have seen almost nothing on this movie from the other major news networks.



Well I am sorry.  My main desire is to see respect towards all sides of an issue.  I respect the viewpoints of others, even if I do not agree with them.  I am sickened by people who "knee-jerk", and spout out a belief and get angry with any challenge of their belief.  I get upset when somebody demands that I acknowledge any source they list, but then turn around and tell me that none of mine is reliable.

If I make a false consensus of feeling that is wrong, then things are worse then I thought.


Right wing, and republican are not synonymous. Nor are left-wing and democrat. In other countries, a party is labeled "right-wing" if their ideologies are aimed at upholding die-hard national/ethnic traditions. In Germany, for example, the modern Nazi party is considered a far right-wing group, while the Christian Democrats (the nearest to the US Republican party) are considered moderate-right. The Socialists are far left-wing, and the Social Democrats are moderate-left. It was with this definition in mind that I called the racist slaveholders, who used everything from pseudo-science, to hard-line literal Biblical interpretation to justify their racism, right-wing. The early Republican party's anti-slavery was unique to a right wing party. The Democratic party, by that time had split in two over the slavery question. The Southern Democrats condoned it, and the Northern Democrats condemned it. In fact, I would attribute the Lincoln win to not only the newfound Republican voters (a small group) but moreso to the left-leaning Northern Democrats, since they far outnumbered the former.

    The issue of American slavery was unique when it comes to pointing out who stands where, because it was an issue that divided the Democratic party, and gave rise to the Republican party. I assure you that I do know my history quite well. It was only last semester that I received top marks in US History to 1877 with Dr. Richard Elam, a respected North Texas professor of History, and if you're familiar with this professor's work, American slavery is his area of specialty.

Right wing, and republican are not synonymous. Nor are left-wing and democrat. In other countries, a party is labeled "right-wing" if their ideologies are aimed at upholding die-hard national/ethnic traditions. In Germany, for example, the modern Nazi party is considered a far right-wing group, while the Christian Democrats (the nearest to the US Republican party) are considered moderate-right. The Socialists are far left-wing, and the Social Democrats are moderate-left. It was with this definition in mind that I called the racist slaveholders, who used everything from pseudo-science, to hard-line literal Biblical interpretation to justify their racism, right-wing. The early Republican party's anti-slavery was unique to a right wing party. The Democratic party, by that time had split in two over the slavery question. The Southern Democrats condoned it, and the Northern Democrats condemned it. In fact, I would attribute the Lincoln win to not only the newfound Republican voters (a small group) but moreso to the left-leaning Northern Democrats, since they far outnumbered the former.

    The issue of American slavery was unique when it comes to pointing out who stands where, because it was an issue that divided the Democratic party, and gave rise to the Republican party. I assure you that I do know my history quite well. It was only last semester that I received top marks in US History to 1877 with Dr. Richard Elam, a respected North Texas professor of History, and if you're familiar with this professor's work, American slavery is his area of specialty.

You may not be ready to write a doctoral disertation in history, but you know plenty, believe me!  A huge portion of the American population doesn't know when the Civil War was fought, or who our allies were in WWII!  You're doing just fine, McD!

You may not be ready to write a doctoral disertation in history, but you know plenty, believe me!  A huge portion of the American population doesn't know when the Civile War was fought, or who our allies were in WWII!  You're doing just fine, McD!


I would support that, and while not an Americanist, I am an historian, and somewhat well known in my own right.  You are certainly correct that the party labels used today cannot be applied to the Civil War era.  They just don't fit.  Just as they don't fit the reconquest of Spain or the wars of the Reformation/Counter Reformation.

Heres my thoughts....Fox News is fair and balanced.  The reason it is labeled conservative by the left is that they don't report liberal talking points as news.  When a news organization gives the republicans a fair break, its not fair.  I found this from Bill O'Reilly's talking points memos and I have to post it:

''A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (search) analyzed the second  debate, focusing on which news operations praised Kerry and which praised Bush. You'll remember most people thought the debate was a draw.

According to the study, ABC News, CBS News and CNN all praised John  Kerry about 20 percent more than President Bush.  FOX News, the fair and balanced network, thank you, was just about even. Our commentators praised Kerry 48 percent of the time and Bush 46 percent of the time in the post-debate analysis.

So all the left-wing nuts out there who think FOX News is biased right only have to look at this study to see we treated both candidates evenly.

But here's the crusher. We've been telling you that Tom Brokaw and his NBC News crew have been the most pro-Kerry TV outfit in the country. Now here's proof.  Ready? After the second debate, once again, a debate  most felt was a draw, NBC commentators praised John Kerry 74 percent of the time and President Bush 31 percent.''

--So a non-partisan group ranks Fox the most fair of the news groups that night?  Even then they still mildly went for Kerry, while all the news organizations that the liberals label as ''fair'' are so pro-Kerry its off the charts.  SPIN THAT!  All I can say is, anyone who still claims Fox isn't fair and CNN isn't a left-wing rag is full of cra*.

All I can say is, anyone who still claims Fox isn't fair and CNN isn't a left-wing rag is full of cra*.

It's a shame you don't get Private Eye over there - their regular "Hackwatch" section (in which they highlight ridiculous behaviour and/or hypocrisy in journalists, newspapers or other news media) in the current issue is about Fox News... I'm going to hold fire here until I've read it all.

To evan suggest that Fox is "fair and ballanced" is just so ludicrise as to be unbelievable.  I have tuned in to Fox after each of the debates and listened to their bull crap, shouting down there "liberal" guests while allowing the neocons to spout off without interuption.  Fox news is an oximoron.  Its Fox propoganda.

Thinking about Fox's "fair and balanced" approach to news reporting, I was wondering: how many derogatory lies about Bush have they been forced to retract?

Incidentally, Fox over here have been taken to task by the official regulator after their more-than-a-little-bit OTT coverage of the BBC's problems with the Andrew Gilligan/Dr Kelly brouhaha - so far, they are the only news channel to be reprimanded in this way.

Thinking about Fox's "fair and balanced" approach to news reporting, I was wondering: how many derogatory lies about Bush have they been forced to retract?

Incidentally, Fox over here have been taken to task by the official regulator after their more-than-a-little-bit OTT coverage of the BBC's problems with the Andrew Gilligan/Dr Kelly brouhaha - so far, they are the only news channel to be reprimanded in this way.

What goes around comes around.  Fox News was most vocal in calling the BBC far-left liberally biased because they didn't just kowtow to the Bush Administration's line on Iraq.

Thinking about Fox's "fair and balanced" approach to news reporting, I was wondering: how many derogatory lies about Bush have they been forced to retract?

Incidentally, Fox over here have been taken to task by the official regulator after their more-than-a-little-bit OTT coverage of the BBC's problems with the Andrew Gilligan/Dr Kelly brouhaha - so far, they are the only news channel to be reprimanded in this way.


I have only seen a few BBC broadcasts, but have been able to hear some very neutral, in-depth reports on public radio.  Some time back I was also able to see CBC's "The National and the Journal", and found their reporting to be much more accurate, much more informative, and much less slanted than US networks.  True journalism as opposed to showmanship.

IMO, the BBC is the archetype for news: the sort of standard others need to try and match.  For them to get it wrong, big style, as they did with Gilligan is a one-off that caused much soul-searching (not to mention the resignation of the Director-General and the journalist in question).  It helps that it is funded via the license fee (anyone who owns a television has to pay £120 or thereabouts per year), and has a very independent board of governers for whom political control is anathema, and an appropriate balance a very large part of the ethos, rather than a slogan to be ignored. 

What you end up with is excellent quality reporting that is in nearly all instances completely credible - there's no trying to read between the lines with a view towards working out how any particular report was affected by the proprietor's spin or the party bias.  Of course, some Tory right-wingers keep harping on about left-wing bias, and watch 000s of hours of news with their clipboards, checking off number of positive/negative items about whichever party - which have been so completely inconclusive, I reckon the Beeb are doing pretty well.


True journalism as opposed to showmanship.

Yes, I think they'd be pleased to hear you say that, and I agree 100%

Thinking about Fox's "fair and balanced" approach to news reporting, I was wondering: how many derogatory lies about Bush have they been forced to retract?




Fox News was the news network that broke the story about Bush's DUI 4 days before the election in 2000 and came within an inch of making Gore the President.  So pro-Bush I know....

Speaking of the BBC, I have noticed that thier website always has articles on the upcomming US elections.  I mean, this is a British newsmedia, why are they so interested in the US elections?

Reading the BBC online website for the past year I have noticed that they are very liberal. Like the run artilces about Africa and blame colonalism on the current problems (as opposed to the real cause: dictatorships). They also bemoan the right American have to own guns, and they refered to it as a "gun culture". The people who post on the "have your say" section of the website have a sexual level fasciniation with John Kerry.

Think about it the BBC like this.  If my memory serves me correctly, the British troops fighting in the War on Terror were so mad at BBC Broadcasting that they wanted to ban it and replace with another news organization.  They are one of the main reasons that most Europeans are so anti-American and pro-Kerry. 

Fox News was the news network that broke the story about Bush's DUI 4 days before the election in 2000 and came within an inch of making Gore the President.  So pro-Bush I know....



Reported the story?  If you say so. Broke the story?  Prove it.

Speaking of the BBC, I have noticed that thier website always has articles on the upcomming US elections. I mean, this is a British newsmedia, why are they so interested in the US elections?

I case you hadn't realized, who is president over there affects the rest of the world.  From your comment, I guess that means you think that all news should be parochial and not look at anything your own country?  Figures.

Compared to the rabid right-wingers of Fox et al, the BBC might come across as a liberal news channel, but it has a charter which forces them to be balanced and whenever that's been challenged, it's always been the challenger who ends up with egg on their face.


Think about it the BBC like this. If my memory serves me correctly, the British troops fighting in the War on Terror were so mad at BBC Broadcasting that they wanted to ban it and replace with another news organization. They are one of the main reasons that most Europeans are so anti-American and pro-Kerry.

Your memory does not serve you correctly.  As usual.

Your phrase "anti-American and pro-Kerry" is typical of the Busheeshe "with us or against US" rhetoric which has so spoiled relations between Europe and America.

When you know what you're talking about, please feel free to post a comeback; but at the moment, it is patently obvious from your posts that you don't.

Fox News was the news network that broke the story about Bush's DUI 4 days before the election in 2000 and came within an inch of making Gore the President. So pro-Bush I know....


Could you answer the question, please: how many defamatory lies against GWB have Fox been forced to retract?  Compared to their made-up Kerry quotes, the untruths and retractions... and you're comparing that to reporting something that was *true* about GWB?

When you know what you're talking about, please feel free to post a comeback; but at the moment, it is patently obvious from your posts that you don't. (to GWB)


And this surprises you???  Seems to me he gets more and more shrill, do you think?

Reported the story?  If you say so. Broke the story?  Prove it.


   It was scooped (on a tip) by a reporter from the local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine and first aired on same.

   It was scooped (on a tip) by a reporter from the local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine and first aired on same.


So are you saying that Fox DID break the story?  If so, I certainly apologize to GWB and acknowlegde his (unusual) accuracy IN THIS CASE.

So are you saying that Fox DID break the story?  If so, I certainly apologize to GWB and acknowlegde his (unusual) accuracy IN THIS CASE.


   Out of countless reports (they all state pretty much the same thing for the source of the scoop only, not necessarily the resulting conundrum) I'll submit this link - http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/print.php?story=04/07/25/7613749

   A local Fox affiliate, not Fox News Channel, per se.

Correction: According to the linked article, FNC was first to break the DUI story, not the local affiliate...

I listen to BBC news broadcasts almost daily, and I really look to catch any bias. I have found a strict balance between candidate coverage. I presume that when the right-wing accuses the BBC of bias, it is when they report an actual news story that is contrary to what the Bush camp WANTS you to believe, but is nevertheless, the truth.

I don't get CBC here in TX, but I did get to watch it on CSPAN during the last Canadian elections. They gave no partiality to any of the parties and there was no partisan commentary whatsoever. Merely some Canadian electoral history and projections for the when the next elections might take place.

Pew Media Research puts forth some interesting data about the credibility ratings of Fox News and CNN among viewers. Only 52% of Fox News viewers are Conservative-leaning...

Check it Out...

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215

Pew Media Research puts forth some interesting data about the credibility ratings of Fox News and CNN among viewers. Only 52% of Fox News viewers are Conservative-leaning...

Check it Out...

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215


Fox News...fair and balanced.

Pew Media Research puts forth some interesting data about the credibility ratings of Fox News and CNN among viewers. Only 52% of Fox News viewers are Conservative-leaning...

Check it Out...

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215


Very interesting.