Aug 11 police shooting of unarmed young male.

Quote: terapined

On the flip side, do you really consider Foxnews "fair and balanced" Thats the lie of the century.

No, no. it's completely true.

Having gone too far in one direction hardly ever criticizing Bush, they now balance in the other direction criticizing Obama almost all the time.

Ok. That may not be fair (if you're on the wrong party), but it's certainly balanced.

Quote: AZDuffman

I consider them fair and balanced. They have both strong liberal and conservative personalities on their opinion shows. And their news coverage is very even. If they were unfair hacks their ratings would be low, like MSNBC. Instead they are #1 by a very wide margin. That many people must watch for some reason other than the great infobabes.

I always wait for someone to show biased coverage. I never get an answer.

John Stewart makes fun of the biased coverage just about every night.
The Benghazi channel.
They are under orders from the owner to not cover the UK phone hacking scandal.
They refuse to cover any scientology abuse story because of Greta.
Strong liberal personality? Roger Ailes was reported as saying "If I have to have a liberal on my network, I'm gonna find the dumbest one"
Its the pro bush anti Obama channel.

By the way MSNBC sucks, right up there with Fox.
I don't trust CBS, I really really don't trust Fox

I made a point of Watching Fox 2012 election night. The numbers are in , Obama won, and instead of reporting that news, they show Karl Rove blubbering about how Obama has not won. They cant even report who won due to pro bush bias.

Quote: terapined

John Stewart makes fun of the biased coverage just about every night.
The Benghazi channel.
They are under orders from the owner to not cover the UK phone hacking scandal.
They refuse to cover any scientology abuse story because of Greta.
Strong liberal personality? Roger Ailes was reported as saying "If I have to have a liberal on my network, I'm gonna find the dumbest one"
Its the pro bush anti Obama channel.

So Benghazi isn't news? I guess neither was the Watergate break-in and the networks should have just let that go.

So you are saying all the other networks are covering scientology but FNC is not?

Williams and Beckel to name two liberals they keep on-air.

It is not the "anti-Obama" channel, it is the "not all-pro-Onama-all-the-time" channel.

Not really pro-Bush, FNC broke the election-eve DUI non-story story. That is hardly pro-Bush.

Quote: AZDuffman

So you are saying all the other networks are covering scientology but FNC is not?

He thinks that Scientology is earth shattering news but that Benghazi is nothing. *facepalm*

Quote: terapined

John Stewart makes fun of the biased coverage just about every night.

Jon Stewart wouldn't even have a show if it wasn't for Fox News. Shows what a no-talent imbecile he is. lol...

Quote: terapined

The numbers are in , Obama won, and instead of reporting that news, they show Karl Rove blubbering about how Obama has not won.

You must be reading The Nation or something. Rove never said that. *facepalm #2*

I watched post election news coverage and all I remember hearing was "what went wrong?" over and over again. The Karl Rove thing does seem a bit familiar but not sure.

Fox News is fair and balanced for the most part during the news shows. They do swing to the right during the OPINION shows in the evening but most of them also include at least some input from the other side. Contrast that with MSNBC--they are never fair and balanced and they most often skip the other point of view at any point.

NBC news should be ashamed to have a race profiteer on their staff, but they keep him around anyway.

Network news doesn't do investigative journalism anymore when it comes to the President. I am sure that they could have found one or two of the scandals not to be scandals at all AND PROVEN IT (just saying it isn't a scandal is not proof) and they would have found truth in some of the scandals. It is easier to ignore it than to do anything about it.

For example--they should have been all over the IRS email thing every night until the truth came out. It is a "good" story for them--everyone reviles the IRS, it is obvious someone is covering something up, and it "could" go to the White House. They dig around the edges but none of them went looking for a "Deep Throat" or anything because not being a scandal fit their narrative. Maybe NONE of the scandals, real or no, goes to the President....the press should be proving that, too. There are always bad apples in the bunch; the press can help get rid of them...if they want.

Doesn't it say something that Stewart is ONLY popular because he goes after Fox News? They do get stories wrong (like everyone else) and their evening commentators are conservatives...but his whole shtick is going after the most popular cable news network. It is good to have a watchdog but he never points out when they get it right; so he isn't really a true "watchdog"...he just draws in all the haters of Fox.

Quote: 1nickelmiracle

I watched post election news coverage and all I remember hearing was "what went wrong?" over and over again. The Karl Rove thing does seem a bit familiar but not sure.

Karl Rove was a commentator that we all knew was on the Republican side. He did think that there was a shot for Romney long after everyone else had called the election. He did wonder "what went wrong"...the same way that guy over at MSNBC reported that he "had a tingling in his leg" when President Obama was elected. Neither of them were really reporters at all and everyone knew where they stood long before the election.

Quote: RonC

Fox News is fair and balanced for the most part during the news shows. They do swing to the right during the OPINION shows in the evening but most of them also include at least some input from the other side. Contrast that with MSNBC--they are never fair and balanced and they most often skip the other point of view at any point.

NBC news should be ashamed to have a race profiteer on their staff, but they keep him around anyway.

Network news doesn't do investigative journalism anymore when it comes to the President. I am sure that they could have found one or two of the scandals not to be scandals at all AND PROVEN IT (just saying it isn't a scandal is not proof) and they would have found truth in some of the scandals. It is easier to ignore it than to do anything about it.

For example--they should have been all over the IRS email thing every night until the truth came out. It is a "good" story for them--everyone reviles the IRS, it is obvious someone is covering something up, and it "could" go to the White House. They dig around the edges but none of them went looking for a "Deep Throat" or anything because not being a scandal fit their narrative. Maybe NONE of the scandals, real or no, goes to the President....the press should be proving that, too. There are always bad apples in the bunch; the press can help get rid of them...if they want.

Doesn't it say something that Stewart is ONLY popular because he goes after Fox News? They do get stories wrong (like everyone else) and their evening commentators are conservatives...but his whole shtick is going after the most popular cable news network. It is good to have a watchdog but he never points out when they get it right; so he isn't really a true "watchdog"...he just draws in all the haters of Fox.

+10000

Mods, we can close this thread now :-)

Quote: chickenman

+10000

+100,000

All media the way we knew it profits not from their work but from distracting people and getting them to think the way they want. Anyone making any money in it makes it for their masters. None of them are independent from influence. It's all lamestream excluding none.