Fox News Attacks Environmentally Conscious Games

[NoOne852]

Fox News: single-handedly justifying my failure to subscribe to cable.

I'd love to hear their explanation of how solar and wind power are less clean than nuclear. Yes, there's a certain level of unwarranted fear surrounding nuclear power, and no, wind and solar aren't without their costs, particularly to the spaces they must occupy to generate electricity. But nuclear waste isn't exactly something you can trivialize.

I understand this is a later post and I might as well be beating a dead horse, but most the reason wind and solar is expensive is because we haven't set it up yet. We know how to make it, we do have some already, but in order to transfer to these resources, it will cost a few pretty coins. However once we set up, those expenses will fall and will most likely be cheaper in the long run.

Now to actualy reply to the topic of this thread, Fox News (Faux News) rarely reports anything worth listening to because most people know its just a load of bull. However, they unfortunatly have a large audience hanging on their every word that take it all for facts, which makes it difficult to simply just ignore Fox News. This is yet another example of just how ridiculous the media can contort something into meaning something else.

 

[Callate]

I understand this is a later post and I might as well be beating a dead horse, but most the reason wind and solar is expensive is because we haven't set it up yet. We know how to make it, we do have some already, but in order to transfer to these resources, it will cost a few pretty coins. However once we set up, those expenses will fall and will most likely be cheaper in the long run.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I referred to the "costs" of nuclear power vs. solar and wind power, I was referring, vis-a-vis the Fox News report, to the environmental costs of such projects, not the financial ones. Not to say the financial aspects aren't worth consideration, it's just that that wasn't the angle of Fox News' attack.

As far as the financial costs go, I think the only strong argument against solar and wind power is that the technology, particularly in the solar field, shows a tremendous potential for making enormous strides in the next few years and it would be unfortunate to undertake a major project now that might not be easy to retrofit to the new technology.

 

[BleedingPride]

Fuck fox news. I've had enough of their facism

 

[mental_looney]

I don't understand how they get to pass that off as "news"

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Sloooooooow news day, then?
For serious, though, these guys are fast becoming cartoon villains, uch like the ones on say, captain planet.

 

[X10J]

I think it's adorable that Fox News think all video games are only for children.

 

[boholikeu]

You're right, but I think it's a little misguided to say that your point absolves Fox News, or even that people are wrong when they say Fox News lies. Even if all of the lies on the station are made by guests and opinion hosts, Fox News (the station) is still the one giving those people a voice, and they are quite manipulative about how they present the difference between fact and opinion. That's the problem.

I don't know if you've ever taken a mass communications or journalism class on bias, but Fox News is essentially a textbook example of how to portray opinion or flat out lies as fact without the station itself (IE its reporters) stating something that isn't true. And this isn't even taking into account the allegations that the station actually coaches some of its guest "experts" into making some of the crazy claims that they do.

So yes, while you're right that Fox's reporter have never actually lied on screen, that doesn't mean that the network as whole isn't extremely sneaky and underhanded about how they portray world events. You seem to acknowledge this yourself in your earlier posts. Why anyone would continue to watch the network (even if it is just their news programs) despite all that is beyond me.

By that logic, you shouldn't watch CNN, CBS, and most certainly MSNBC. Spin happens on every news network on TV. Saying Fox News is "the only one" or "the biggest offender" is quite incorrect. I have personally seen more lopsided arguments come from CNN and MSNBC than Fox. (Obviously I'm not watching the networks at all hours of the day, but I have seen more evidence of bias, spin, and assumptive language come from CBS and MSNBC) People typically overlook any kind of spin on the network they prefer since usually it's spin they agree with. Conservatives tend to view Fox as the god of networks, while liberals either love CNN or MSNBC, depending on their devotion to their political beliefs. Point being, quit calling out Fox as "a conservative propaganda machine" when it is simply not true. (As stated before, prove me wrong) They spin just like everyone else, just in a different direction. The real question is, how dizzying in the spin, and from what I've seen, Fox's spin is certainly not the worst.

There may be a fine line between spin and flat out deception, but Fox News has gleefully strode far past that point long ago.

Also, I don't think I ever said that the other networks were innocent. I willing to believe that they can be just as manipulative as Fox, but I personally haven't seen anything that comes close. Like you, I'm not watching the networks at all hours of the day (and I almost never watch MSNBC) so if you have some dirt on them feel free to post some links. I'll get some stuff from Fox's own hall of shame and we'll see who fares worse. As of yet though, really the only show I've seen that is as blatantly biased and misleading as the worst of Fox's shows is the Daily Show, which is a bit sad considering the latter is a comedy.

 

[Callate]

By that logic, you shouldn't watch CNN, CBS, and most certainly MSNBC. Spin happens on every news network on TV. Saying Fox News is "the only one" or "the biggest offender" is quite incorrect. I have personally seen more lopsided arguments come from CNN and MSNBC than Fox.

Really.

The network that set the legal precedent for the right of the media to lie to its audience.

[link]http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/[/link]

No worse than any of the others. Better than some.

...

I think I'll take that opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Kinguendo]

O'Reilly hosts a good, strong, fair debate on his show every night. He often plays Devil's Advocate for either side of the aisle so long as he doesn't wind up having to interview idiots and loons from either side. He's given Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and even Sarah Palin the what-for whenever they've tried filibustering and bloviating on his show. So his ire is not entirely served to the Left. Note that I'm talking about the more mature O'Reilly of post-2008, not the old Republican firebrand he was during the Bush years.

Not to mention the fact that Fox still has great hard news in the form of Shepard Smith, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace(though the latter two do mix in punditry).

You don't know of a single center-left person? How about Juan Williams? Bill Schultz? There's even hard-left guys like Alan Colmes and Bob Beckle, among MANY other contributors to the network.

Also, if you want to level your ire at Fox, then why don't you be fair and level it at MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and every other left-leaning outlet that distorts the truth just as, if not more so, than Fox?

No, not good, strong or fair debates. He yells over people and cuts their mics, hes an ass. Maybe if you didnt nod along with everything he says you might notice his flaws... check his conversations with any Atheist or about Atheism. Pure, unadultered ignorant bullshit.

Shep Smith is the ONLY decent human being on FOX "news", he actually does his job.

Contributors? So, you are just counting anyone that goes on the channel rather than people who are employed enforce the channels propoganda? Do you remember Hannity & Colmes, when Colmes was actually employed by FOX? He was just there to be yelled at.

And you want to know why we are discussing FOX? Have you checked the topic of the thread? Do you want to know why we arent discussing bacon too? Why arent we talking about Dead Island? Why arent we talking about the way that snow Foxes jump up into the air and dive into the snow? See how ridiculous that last question of yours was? We arent talking about the other American news networks because thats not the topic.

And you appear to be confusing "fair" with being on the fence. I am not on the fence about my political ideology and I am not on the fence about telling the truth, the actual news programmes in America lean left because the right-wing are in the business of lying. How do I know this? Because some right-wing idiot actually said that the BBC has a liberal bias... the BBC is easily one of the most trusted news organizations on the planet and for them to dismiss it because they dont like how truth sounds is just ridiculous and ignorant.

 

[SickBritKid]

O'Reilly hosts a good, strong, fair debate on his show every night. He often plays Devil's Advocate for either side of the aisle so long as he doesn't wind up having to interview idiots and loons from either side. He's given Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and even Sarah Palin the what-for whenever they've tried filibustering and bloviating on his show. So his ire is not entirely served to the Left. Note that I'm talking about the more mature O'Reilly of post-2008, not the old Republican firebrand he was during the Bush years.

Not to mention the fact that Fox still has great hard news in the form of Shepard Smith, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace(though the latter two do mix in punditry).

You don't know of a single center-left person? How about Juan Williams? Bill Schultz? There's even hard-left guys like Alan Colmes and Bob Beckle, among MANY other contributors to the network.

Also, if you want to level your ire at Fox, then why don't you be fair and level it at MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and every other left-leaning outlet that distorts the truth just as, if not more so, than Fox?

No, not good, strong or fair debates. He yells over people and cuts their mics, hes an ass. Maybe if you didnt nod along with everything he says you might notice his flaws... check his conversations with any Atheist or about Atheism. Pure, unadultered ignorant bullshit.

I've seen O'Reilly cut the mic of a guest ONCE since Barack Obama was inaugurated(which was when I started watching him and when he shifted to a center-right position as opposed to being the hard-right Republican firebrand of the channel) and that was when a dumbshit immigration lawyer went and compared Arizona Bill 1070 to Jim Crow laws, slavery, and antisemitism. That is IT!

The rest of the time, he allows basically every single one of his guests, even those he disagrees with INCREDIBLY(like that dumbshit Bill Maher, for instance), to get their word in and provide a good counterpoint to him. I've even seen him give right-leaning guests a hard time when they've presented opinions he didn't agree with, like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and John Stossel.

He's also provided an excellent foil for Glenn Beck, as well, oftentimes showing Beck that things are clearly not as bad as he likes to portray them.

You clearly do not watch his show.

Shep Smith is the ONLY decent human being on FOX "news", he actually does his job.

I didn't know that it HAS TO BE EVERYONE'S JOB to be an objective journalist. Of course, that would mean silencing dissenting opinions, which is something that liberals like yourself are strongly in favor of.

Contributors? So, you are just counting anyone that goes on the channel rather than people who are employed enforce the channels propoganda? Do you remember Hannity & Colmes, when Colmes was actually employed by FOX? He was just there to be yelled at.

You do realize that Colmes is still employed by Fox, right? Just because you're not in the lineup everyday does not mean they're not paid by FNC.

Not to mention the fact that Bob Beckle is one of the hosts of the Five, as well, and Juan Williams fills in for O'Reilly every now and again when O'Reilly's out.

And you want to know why we are discussing FOX? Have you checked the topic of the thread? Do you want to know why we arent discussing bacon too? Why arent we talking about Dead Island? Why arent we talking about the way that snow Foxes jump up into the air and dive into the snow? See how ridiculous that last question of yours was? We arent talking about the other American news networks because thats not the topic.

You literally just compared bacon to a new organization discussion.

Left-leaning networks have gone after video games, too, y'know, that's why I brought them up.

And you appear to be confusing "fair" with being on the fence. I am not on the fence about my political ideology and I am not on the fence about telling the truth, the actual news programmes in America lean left because the right-wing are in the business of lying. How do I know this? Because some right-wing idiot actually said that the BBC has a liberal bias... the BBC is easily one of the most trusted news organizations on the planet and for them to dismiss it because they dont like how truth sounds is just ridiculous and ignorant.

...right. So ONLY the left-leaning news tells the truth, but anything that dissents against them can ONLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY be lies, period, end of story.

You're obviously not someone worth debating with.

As Foamy says:

"No matter what you say, they'll always think you're wrong."

 

[Kinguendo]

*snip*

I wrote out a reply to all of your points but then the post screwed itself out of posting and I really dont see worth in replying to that extent twice... so I will just say this, if these are the juvenile tactics that you are going to employ you really have no right claiming this is even a debate regardless of any other persons worth.

And if you are going to cop out of the debate by saying I am not worth debating then that is all you need to reply with, you dont debate and then say that I am not worth debating. especially given that your entire debate is based on your own... I dont want to say stupidity as that is too harsh, I think wilfull ignorance explains your reply better.

Oh and dont forget... I am not worth debating so dont go back on your word.

If you dont make good on your word then what good is your word?

 

[SickBritKid]

*snip*

I wrote out a reply to all of your points but then the post screwed itself out of posting and I really dont see worth in replying to that extent twice... so I will just say this, if these are the juvenile tactics that you are going to employ you really have no right claiming this is even a debate regardless of any other persons worth.

And if you are going to cop out of the debate by saying I am not worth debating then that is all you need to reply with, you dont debate and then say that I am not worth debating. especially given that your entire debate is based on your own... I dont want to say stupidity as that is too harsh, I think wilfull ignorance explains your reply better.

Oh and dont forget... I am not worth debating so dont go back on your word.

If you dont make good on your word then what good is your word?

ITP: Disproving all of your opponent's ignorant points = copping out.

 

[Kinguendo]

ITP: Disproving all of your opponent's ignorant points = copping out.

Well, now we know exactly how much your word is worth...

And no, thats not what I said is it? I told you exactly what I meant by copping out right after I said "cop out". This is just another example of the wilful ignorance I already mentioned in my last reply, you didnt disprove anything... you just pretend that I was saying something that I wasnt, like you are right here.

 

[SickBritKid]

ITP: Disproving all of your opponent's ignorant points = copping out.

Well, now we know exactly how much your word is worth...

And no, thats not what I said is it? I told you exactly what I meant by copping out right after I said "cop out". This is just another example of the wilful ignorance I already mentioned in my last reply, you didnt disprove anything... you just pretend that I was saying something that I wasnt, like you are right here.

You did nothing to disprove what I said. In the slightest.

Instead, you went and spewed dated nonsense about Fox News that hasn't been valid for quite awhile, now.

You've also yet to address the fact that Colmes, Williams, and Beckle are three strongly liberal guys(though Williams is more center-left), are employed by Fox News and featured on Fox News programming daily. This, among other things, you didn't address, and instead said I "copped out", focusing everything on the last paragraph of my response as opposed to the other ones.

THAT is copping out, my friend.

 

[Kinguendo]

You did nothing to disprove what I said. In the slightest.

Instead, you went and spewed dated nonsense about Fox News that hasn't been valid for quite awhile, now.

You've also yet to address the fact that Colmes, Williams, and Beckle are three strongly liberal guys(though Williams is more center-left), are employed by Fox News and featured on Fox News programming daily. This, among other things, you didn't address, and instead said I "copped out", focusing everything on the last paragraph of my response as opposed to the other ones.

THAT is copping out, my friend.

Is English your first language? If not then I understand your complete disregard for words that I write that I expect you to read before replying.

All you have to do is go back to that post and read it again and all of your questions will be answered... then we can get back to the reply you are supposed to be responding to here, not that is matters as we have already established that your word means nothing.

 

[SickBritKid]

You did nothing to disprove what I said. In the slightest.

Instead, you went and spewed dated nonsense about Fox News that hasn't been valid for quite awhile, now.

You've also yet to address the fact that Colmes, Williams, and Beckle are three strongly liberal guys(though Williams is more center-left), are employed by Fox News and featured on Fox News programming daily. This, among other things, you didn't address, and instead said I "copped out", focusing everything on the last paragraph of my response as opposed to the other ones.

THAT is copping out, my friend.

Is English your first language? If not then I understand your complete disregard for words that I write that I expect you to read before replying.

All you have to do is go back to that post and read it again and all of your questions will be answered... then we can get back to the reply you are supposed to be responding to here, not that is matters as we have already established that your word means nothing.

I already addressed each and every point you brought up with my own.

It was you who disregarded them and narrowed your viewpoint to a single dismissive statement I made to justify your myopic hatred of Fox News.

 

[Superabound]

I have one question. Most of the time--now unlike you I actually watch the network, so I can safely say--most of the time, a Fox News program will have one guy arguing one side, and another guy arguing the other side.

So everybody, please tell me one thing; how does the stupid, reactionary, racist opinion represent what Fox News says, but the other side that The Escapist might agree on does not?

Now this particular example is an exception, sure. But it's not like it matters. I remember another Fox thing Escapist make a pissy fuss about, the "should someone get a grant to make Call of Duty??!" thing. There was another guy, on that show, saying what we all agree with. But what, he doesn't count? Well, he wasn't the host of the show, but he was still on the show.

Besides, there are times where the only people talking are on the left-wing side. Seriously, do you know who this is? http://www.mensjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/headshot_smith.jpg
This is Shepard Smith. He is mostly liberal. He is one of the biggest names on Fox News.

What about this guy? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nnNX4rkBg6U/Rhcz_BUmVUI/AAAAAAAAAHk/7GtI827c6eo/s400/Geraldo.jpg
Everybody knows Geraldo Rivera, probably for the big, dramatic failures and stumbles he's suffered. He's a right-wing nut, right? No, he more liberal than conservative, actually.

And what about this fucking guy??? http://www.wpsl.com/img/alan-colmes.jpg
Every time, every episode, for about fourteen years; Sean Hannity starts up with his right-wing opinions, and then Alan Colmes fights back with his left-wing opinions and full force. I even remember a book/audiobook he made, and the subtitle was: "Why left is right and right is wrong." He doesn't have a full time show anymore, but he still appears occasionally.
And there's plenty more liberals on Fox, those are just the most famous I can think of off the top of my head.

So, The Escapist community, tell me, why don't we cheer on these guys?

I'm going to have to be totally honest, this is not, AT ALL about politics. About who's on which side. It's about jumping to unreasonable conclusions. If the articles all said "Such and such newscaster (who happens to be on Fox News) says something stupid." And all the witty comments made jokes about THAT GUY, then there'd be no problem.

Shepard Smith is not a liberal, hes just far less of an outspoken insane racist/Tea Partier than the rest of his coworkers that he looks like one by comparison.

Geraldo Rivera is a registered Republican.

And as far as Alan Colmes goes, well, you said it best yourself: Him and the extreme right-wing Sean Hannity used to co-host a show together. Now Sean Hannity has his own show, and Alan Colmes doesnt.

And how many Republican Party candidates and former Bush officials does/did Fox News employ?

There isnt a single actual liberal on your list. There are barely any liberals on the major news networks period. Youre talking about extreme-right Republicans vs. moderate Republicans. If you started talking about MSNBC, wed be discussing right-wing Republicans vs. conservative-to-moderate Democrats. The only true left-wingers on MSNBC were Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and they fired Olbermann. They recently fired Cenk Uygur for speaking too far to the left. You have to remember, every news network is owned by a parent company. A multi-billion dollar, multinational company. All NBC networks were owned by GE (consistently one of the top 5 conglomerates and military contractors in existence) before it changed majority ownership to Comcast, a deeply-conservative company that has already begun moving MSNBC farther to the right. Now ask yourself this, why would any multi-billion dollar corporation want to actually promote left-wing views, when left-wing views are inherently at opposition and dangerous to multi-billion dollar corporations? The answer is they wouldnt, and dont.