UltraHammer said:
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
People resent the network because most of their programming distort statistics,
How many distort statistics? Did you get statistics on this?
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
use inflammatory language,
What shows use inflammatory language?
I'm sure some nasty comments have surfaced sometimes, but can the home of MovieBob and Yahtzee really be preaching the gospel of clean tongues?
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
and sometimes outright lie about many things.
What are some of their outright lies?
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
Having some perceivable Lefties does not change the fact that the network is incredibly biased and has a very great deal of sway with their audience.
It doesn't change the fact that FN is biased? Okay, prove that fact to me in the first place. Show me a list of all the things Fox does recently. Prove to me that the right-wing people significantly outweigh the left-wing people.
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
They promote harmful stances, such as anti-environmentalism,
What exactly is the definition of 'environmentalism' here?
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
I'm not against any political view,
Except for anti-environmentalism.
KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
and are part of the horribly misguided Right Wing of American politics...the polarized, stagnant, ineffectual state of affairs in America are harming the rest of the world, and Fox is a part of that.
So what you're saying is, Fox News should not present extremely right-wing ideals or give them any voice at all. Or at least very little? What about extremely left-wing ideals?
Look at this:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
Now, I acknowledge that CNN has their own biases, but what is important is the statistics they are reporting on. 82% of the 3146 environmental scientists surveyed agreed that human activity has had "A significant impact" on global warming.
Now look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJDaPlCHzU
"A lot of scientists say it's this, a lot say it's that." No. 82% say it's man made, which means 18% are not on their side.
Distortion of statistics
There's also a difference between rude or foul language, and inflammatory language. A good example of inflammatory language is terms like "Liberal Agenda" or "Socialist" being used as epithets in order to debase alternative opinions. It is a similar practice to using the N-Word back in the day to annihilate a Black person's arguement. Plus, if you wish to lump swears and subversion in together, I didn't hire Yahtzee, and Movie Bob doesn't really go beyond what one could expect from contemporary, Western young adult conversation.
Outright lies? Well..."You get points for [act of violence]" in refference to video games never gets old.
Fox & Friends: 4 or 5 hosts, all of which have Right wing biases; Red Eye: Host is very Right, 2-3 panelists ranging from Middle Right to Far Right; Bill O'Reilly; 8/10 people to have hosted "The Five", with the Red Eye host as one of them, and Geraldo as one of the 2/10; Sean Hannity;
Mike Huckabee; and rather than going on name-by-name, a cumulative tally, wherein I used Wikipedia's chart of FNC's lineup as a guide, and I automatically threw out anybody who was as far as Center Right, I still came up with ~60% of all anchors, not shows, having a Right Wing bias. Couple that with the fact that almost all of the ~40% being outnumbered on their shows by representatives of the ~60%, the fact that they use hard-line Right Wing experts like Ann Coulter far more often than, say, a Bill-Mahr-type (who is just as hard line and unfair to Conservatism as she is to Liberalism), and the fact that their biggest draws are O'Reilly, Hannity, and the Fox and Friends crew, and it is a fair statement to make that the Rights outnumber the Lefts, and that the message of the network is biased.
"Environmentalism", in the typical Western political vernacular means supporting sustainability, conservationism, and the reduction of pollution, which they consistently speak out against using aforementioned points.
And no, I am not against anti-environmentalism as a political movement, because it is not a political movement (or at least if it is, it is a very small movement with no world exposure). Literally any ideology, from Centrism to Fascism to Anarchism, if properly implemented can have a positive effect. Even ideologies which I oppose, which funny enough typically fall on the Left, I will argue against, as I am not in their favour, but I will not argue that the ideology as a whole is invalid.
And no, News is not about ideology. John Stewart and the such are Moderate Left, but they are also entertainers. They make no bones about being biased, nor do they claim to be legitimate News. Fox, as a station which passes itself off as real news shouldn't have bias in their programming. They should have anchors simply report on the state of affairs, what is happening based on facts and data. Their more in-depth analysis of things such as politics should have Political Science experts talking about the impact an action of a politician will have on a demographic in terms of tangible fact, or as much evidence as possible to support projections.
NEWS. SHOULD. NOT. HAVE. ANY. BIASSES. LEFT. OR. RIGHT.