Poll: Fox News
- Thread starter GeorgW
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't care about bias. Everyone has a bias, whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla, or COD or Halo, but Fox takes its bias, not just to the commentary of the facts, but the facts themselves. They will look for sources, and will keep going until either, they recive some information from an anonymous source that they agree with, or they make something up themselves.
Fox tends to stand out. Honestly they remind me of Mussolini and other fascists when they constantly point the finger and give their viewers what they want to hear, and motivate their audience to do stuff. They're not violent like the fascists were but they tend to be just as annoying and act similarly. Even funnier I seem to recall O'Rielly saying "...we must see the similarities of the Nazi's and Obama....." or something along those lines.F-I-D-O said:
Even funnier Conservatives tend to expect lib's to call the Tea party racist but forget that they also called Obama racist as well from a bunch of bad interpretations of what he said.
...wait are you serious?!!! That is seriously the exact opposite of what the Bible says! Although, I guess that's what Bill O'Reilly does: finds a moral stand point and sticks by it, providing a source to back it up which he hasn't actually read more than two pages of.Woodsey said:
Seriously, I knew Fox was bad, I've always disliked them because of what little I've seen on the internet (I live in Australia) but I just saw a tralier for that documentary "Outfoxed" and...argh...so...retarded...we HAVE to do something.
The problem is when nearly every channel is owned by the same evil old man.AutobotDecepticon said:
You don't think that's slightly scary that one man owns that many areas, and can report in any way he likes; because - who's gonna stop him?
That's not to say anything of his private dining arrangements with Obama, Cameron, Rudd and Harper.
Michael Eisner doesn't even appear on the top 1000 Billionaires list. Murdoch is at 117th.
I really REALLY want to do that but unfortunately, there are too many people who love FOX news wholeheartedly. The thing is, when you express an opinion, however untrue, someone will like it and defend it harder than you. Than someone else sees how hard they're fighting and believe the point they make. They then defend it harder and someone else does the same. This continues in a viscious cycle until someone is standing on a soapbox, pushing this "opinion" regardless of who throws what at them. It's infuriating and a little depressing. The problem with FOX is they start somewhere in the middle of the cycle so what they believe is already hyped to an annoying extent and they have a rather large viewership, so the next step in the cycle is amplified millions-fold.superbatranger said:
OT: While most news stations do show a fair amount of bias, FOX provides their points, which are worse sourced than other news stations, with such gusto and close-mindedness that people believe they must know what they're talking about and so believe it.
I see Fox news reporting style as a symptom of the sensationalism that is spread throughout the media. While Fox may be the worst offender, it is by no means the only one. My biggest complaint is not about bias but the sensationalist rhetoric that new agencies use. Look at how opinion shows like Glenn Bleck and O'Rielly color people who oppose their ideas similar to Nazis, Communists while Tea Party members are portrayed as redneck hillbillies or frothing at the mouth anti-government fanatics. If you don't acknowledge that someone of an opposing viewpoint is a rational being then it is impossible to reach any sort of accord.
I don't think Fox News chooses stories about Mass Effect or BulletStorm because they are ignorant so much as they know that those stories will generate readers just by the sensationalist wording.
It is a sad day for Americans when my most trusted source for news on American politics comes from the British (Thank God for the Economist).
I don't think Fox News chooses stories about Mass Effect or BulletStorm because they are ignorant so much as they know that those stories will generate readers just by the sensationalist wording.
It is a sad day for Americans when my most trusted source for news on American politics comes from the British (Thank God for the Economist).
Well... as a republican...
I can't say I agree with Fox News at all. I admit they are very biased in many of their reports, and I especially dislike when they bring religion into their "facts".
Now, it is people like their half witted reporters (I am not saying every single member of the crew is an idiot; mainly the people who start the video game related bullshit) that make out us republicans to look like slow brained idiots.
I can't say I agree with Fox News at all. I admit they are very biased in many of their reports, and I especially dislike when they bring religion into their "facts".
Now, it is people like their half witted reporters (I am not saying every single member of the crew is an idiot; mainly the people who start the video game related bullshit) that make out us republicans to look like slow brained idiots.
Fucking Politics. STOP FOLLOWING ME.
Ehem.
OT: I don't watch any political program. Fox's Mass Effect story made me rage, let it go in like 15 minutes. Occasionally have to listen Glenn Beck and the gang's crap when I go over to my friend's house. (His Mom loves Faux News) Meh.
I don't completely agree with left or right. I don't know enough to side with either and don't care enough to know enough.
Ehem.
OT: I don't watch any political program. Fox's Mass Effect story made me rage, let it go in like 15 minutes. Occasionally have to listen Glenn Beck and the gang's crap when I go over to my friend's house. (His Mom loves Faux News) Meh.
I don't completely agree with left or right. I don't know enough to side with either and don't care enough to know enough.
Jaranja said:
Your kidding right?
Alright let me explain the basics of this entire point of view which a lot of liberals like to pick on. It's not something I paticularly agree with, but it's not that far out there.
Okay, let's start with the basics. The big differance between Jews and Christians is over whether or not Jesus Christ is the son of god, and the savior. Jesus was a Hebrew, but obviously people who are JEWS and follow the religion do not believe he was anything more than a prophet at best, or in some extreme cases a dangerous pretender. Where Christians are waiting for the second coming, Jews are still waiting for their messiah to appear.
A lot of this division is based around the idea that when Jesus appeared, he wasn't the avenging force of divine payback that the Jews wanted or expected. They expected this all powerful dude to show up with a giant chariot, produce massive armies, and pretty much lay waste to their enemies while forging a giant Hebrew empire. To a Christian his apperance as a habinger of peace is exactly the point, to a Jews that means that it wasn't him. This is a simplistic version of things so don't jump on me for it.
The whole "Jews Kilt Jesus" thing is based around the idea that seeing him as a dangerous pretender, the semitic community either rallied to have him killed as a pretender to the throne and were the ones who crucified him, OR were involved directly in the betrayal of Judas who was merely the front man for a conspiricy.
Now, if your not a religious person or don't follow this kind of thing it's kind of pointless to you. If you are a religious scholor, it's one of those things where a case CAN be made for it, but there isn't any real proof (like a lot of things). The problem is that the theory is used largely to inspire anti-semitic sentiment and justify violence. After all if your a hardcore christian and a group of people were responsible for the death of your savior... well you can put it together.
I'm one of those people who while a Christian doesn't see the whole thing as that big a deal. If you look up "Jews Killed Jesus" there are a number of explanations on the subject. It can mean a few differant things depending on the speaker, but the bottom line is always that the Jews (who do not accept Jesus becoming Christians) played a role in his death due to not being happy with the savior that was sent, a "prince of peace" can be disappointing when your looking for high octane divine vengeance.
People might correct me, but that should be more or less correct. I hope it deals with the confusion for when you hear it again. More of an informative thing than anything.
It was a hard toss up between the 'burn in hell' and the 'they're hilarious' options for me. I ended up going for the burn in hell one.
The reason is is that an accurate and unbiased media is a fundamental ingredient in an effective democracy. Without it we may as well all be living in a '1984' style totalitarianism.
Fox News has almost single handed lowered the tone of political debate in the US so that their political system is almost completely a farce. Allowing their politicians to get away with the most petty acts of political propaganda and sabotage. Fox News's fact checking, research and investigation departments are almost non-existent, which saves them a lot of money. At the same time the lack of any journalistic integrity and pandering to the basest fears of the populace has been a ratings winner and proved hugely financially successful.
They have a business model that is successful and destructive. They are the 'grey goo' of the media world and it is eating it's way through our democracies. Anywhere where the news media is owned and run by companies trying to make money they will be facing the same pressures to lower themselves to fox news model. Travesties of the media like the 2000 Presidential election and the second Iraq war will continue until the media is strengthened and removed from the pressures of the commercial world.
Here is nice example of a very important but difficult issue that needs to be addressed yet action on the mater is stalled because Fox News (among many others) has muddied the debate with baseless political pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
The reason is is that an accurate and unbiased media is a fundamental ingredient in an effective democracy. Without it we may as well all be living in a '1984' style totalitarianism.
Fox News has almost single handed lowered the tone of political debate in the US so that their political system is almost completely a farce. Allowing their politicians to get away with the most petty acts of political propaganda and sabotage. Fox News's fact checking, research and investigation departments are almost non-existent, which saves them a lot of money. At the same time the lack of any journalistic integrity and pandering to the basest fears of the populace has been a ratings winner and proved hugely financially successful.
They have a business model that is successful and destructive. They are the 'grey goo' of the media world and it is eating it's way through our democracies. Anywhere where the news media is owned and run by companies trying to make money they will be facing the same pressures to lower themselves to fox news model. Travesties of the media like the 2000 Presidential election and the second Iraq war will continue until the media is strengthened and removed from the pressures of the commercial world.
Then who is the worst? If they owned by Murdoch it may as well be the same thing.F-I-D-O said:
Here is nice example of a very important but difficult issue that needs to be addressed yet action on the mater is stalled because Fox News (among many others) has muddied the debate with baseless political pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Are you kidding me? Nearly every news outlet out there is run by a massive international corporation. Corporations are by their very nature conservative.Genesis_Man said:
Hell, during the build up to the war in Iraq, Jon Stewart did better reporting of the facts than every mainstream news organization out there. And it's not because they were all liberal in their bias, it's because they were all biased towards the government.
@Woodsey:
First off, I hate to say it, but if one is to follow Christian lore, the jews kinda did kill Jesus Christ. I don't believe it one way or the other, but if the beckster believes it, that's on him.
And (if I may quote history) while I may not respect what they say, I will defend to the death their right to say it.
Fox News, MSNBC, all of them including John Stewart (of whom I am a big fan) have as much of a right to their opinion as anyone. Also note that the Beckster, O'Reilley, Hannity, and the other pundits are NOT journalists. They are social commentators. They can get away with saying things that are not true, because they are not reporting news. They are talking about the news as they see it.
And as for the use of the term "hate"... I hate Hitler. I hate child molesters / abusers. I hate that despite the fact that the White Sox are the better team, a majority of Chicagoans are Cubs fans. But hate a TV station? That's just plain ridiculous.
First off, I hate to say it, but if one is to follow Christian lore, the jews kinda did kill Jesus Christ. I don't believe it one way or the other, but if the beckster believes it, that's on him.
And (if I may quote history) while I may not respect what they say, I will defend to the death their right to say it.
Fox News, MSNBC, all of them including John Stewart (of whom I am a big fan) have as much of a right to their opinion as anyone. Also note that the Beckster, O'Reilley, Hannity, and the other pundits are NOT journalists. They are social commentators. They can get away with saying things that are not true, because they are not reporting news. They are talking about the news as they see it.
And as for the use of the term "hate"... I hate Hitler. I hate child molesters / abusers. I hate that despite the fact that the White Sox are the better team, a majority of Chicagoans are Cubs fans. But hate a TV station? That's just plain ridiculous.
I'll be honest in saying that as someone who is more right wing than left, I tend to wind up agreeing with Fox news more than I disagree with it. I think the criticisms of it are generally unfair, because really it's no worse than networks on the other end of the spectrum. If you get two news network fanboys on the opposite ends of the spectrum they can both tear each others "major" network Fox or say CNN to pieces based on mistakes, screw ups, and pure ridiculousness. You go over any network looking to tear it up and it's not hard. Being a set of forums mostly populated by people on the left, or far left side of the spectrum, it's not surprising that Fox news is really unpopular.
That said, I do disagree with it on video games, obviously as I am a gamer. However I will say that on some levels it's not being treated fairly overall. I think it messed up more on Mass Effect than it did on it's more recent criticisms of Bulletstorm, because if you actually read what was said most of it was from the perspective of kids getting their hands on the game. I'll be blunt, the game IS messed up for a 9 year old (their example) to be playing and could probably have warping effects. With the bad parenting in the country I don't even disagree that we're going to see that happen. I do on the other hand disagree with the implication that this is a huge problem though, because it's adult entertainment marked for adults, and I think adults have a right to play video games made for them. You can't blame the game or the industry for bad parenting, when reasonable precautions are
being taken.
Fox News itself did not say that the game would make people into rapists or anything. Rather one of the sources they interviewed who was a book author, said that they thought that the affect video games has on minors was related to a rise in the number of rapes in the US. If they asked her, and she answered, what were they supposed to do? Censor her? They already include a disclaimer that the people they give time to don't represent their opinion. If that's her startement, that just speaks for her.
On the other hand though, there was backlash saying that she was wrong about the rising number of rapes. It's true that there are articles saying that we have the lowest rate in the last 20 years, but with a quick search (which I put the links up in response to the escapist article on the subject) I uncovered a lot of information which implies that the number of rapes in the US is under a lot of dispute. Probably because even if we are dealing with the lowest rate of rapes in the US in 20 years, we are still dealing with an insane number of them. We're ranked like #9 in the world for the number of rapes in proportion to our population (Canada and Australia are ahead of us though), and #1 in overall number. According to a rape crisis site it was being claimed that like 3 women are raped every minute in the US. There are exagerrations on all sides, but the point is that if she did research it's quite possible she could have come to the conclusion about a rising rate, and could probably even defend it. If I was to take either side of that discussion I could probably argue to a standstill because the statistics are just a giant mess.
The point is that I think she's cracked about video games causing an increase in rape, because if you look back before video games, the stats were still ridiculously staggering, I had one paper linked to from like 1996 giving some massive numbers, and while gaming was around then it was hardly as big as it is now. She is not however easily dismissed simply for saying that there is an increase in the number of rapes in US, which is what a lot of the anti-Fox critics were doing.
Fox is hardly perfect, but let's be honest, it's being demonized by this crowd. I consider it pretty average, and really all of the major networks to be on a similar level allowing for their spin. Left and right wing hate each other's "slanted" networks, both demonize the ones from the other side, life goes on.
I think we can pretty much leave it as "Fox did a thing on Video games and I disagree with it" for the most part, especially with Bulletstorm. There doesn't appear to be anything truely horrible, or any massive sensationalized lies involved in it. It's just their opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I can actually see their point of view. I think they're wrong, but not due to anything paticularly insane.
That said, I do disagree with it on video games, obviously as I am a gamer. However I will say that on some levels it's not being treated fairly overall. I think it messed up more on Mass Effect than it did on it's more recent criticisms of Bulletstorm, because if you actually read what was said most of it was from the perspective of kids getting their hands on the game. I'll be blunt, the game IS messed up for a 9 year old (their example) to be playing and could probably have warping effects. With the bad parenting in the country I don't even disagree that we're going to see that happen. I do on the other hand disagree with the implication that this is a huge problem though, because it's adult entertainment marked for adults, and I think adults have a right to play video games made for them. You can't blame the game or the industry for bad parenting, when reasonable precautions are
being taken.
Fox News itself did not say that the game would make people into rapists or anything. Rather one of the sources they interviewed who was a book author, said that they thought that the affect video games has on minors was related to a rise in the number of rapes in the US. If they asked her, and she answered, what were they supposed to do? Censor her? They already include a disclaimer that the people they give time to don't represent their opinion. If that's her startement, that just speaks for her.
On the other hand though, there was backlash saying that she was wrong about the rising number of rapes. It's true that there are articles saying that we have the lowest rate in the last 20 years, but with a quick search (which I put the links up in response to the escapist article on the subject) I uncovered a lot of information which implies that the number of rapes in the US is under a lot of dispute. Probably because even if we are dealing with the lowest rate of rapes in the US in 20 years, we are still dealing with an insane number of them. We're ranked like #9 in the world for the number of rapes in proportion to our population (Canada and Australia are ahead of us though), and #1 in overall number. According to a rape crisis site it was being claimed that like 3 women are raped every minute in the US. There are exagerrations on all sides, but the point is that if she did research it's quite possible she could have come to the conclusion about a rising rate, and could probably even defend it. If I was to take either side of that discussion I could probably argue to a standstill because the statistics are just a giant mess.
The point is that I think she's cracked about video games causing an increase in rape, because if you look back before video games, the stats were still ridiculously staggering, I had one paper linked to from like 1996 giving some massive numbers, and while gaming was around then it was hardly as big as it is now. She is not however easily dismissed simply for saying that there is an increase in the number of rapes in US, which is what a lot of the anti-Fox critics were doing.
Fox is hardly perfect, but let's be honest, it's being demonized by this crowd. I consider it pretty average, and really all of the major networks to be on a similar level allowing for their spin. Left and right wing hate each other's "slanted" networks, both demonize the ones from the other side, life goes on.
I think we can pretty much leave it as "Fox did a thing on Video games and I disagree with it" for the most part, especially with Bulletstorm. There doesn't appear to be anything truely horrible, or any massive sensationalized lies involved in it. It's just their opinion, and while I don't agree with it, I can actually see their point of view. I think they're wrong, but not due to anything paticularly insane.
..Holy fuck. Doesn't leave a lot of room for anything else in terms of media, does he? Bastard.The_root_of_all_evil said:
OT: I just don't listen to televised media, save local news. Local news tends to be safer, and less full of your standard BS. As towards Faux News.. I hate it and MSNBC. Both give me nothing productive, and only a raised blood pressure.
Hold on a second, I think he actually touched on a bit of sense in the first video (the shock from hearing it required my girlfriend to administer an emergency tracheotomy with a pen since I swallowed my own tongue). He said that being an atheist requires just as much of a stretch as being a believer and personally I think he is right (nearly). There is absolutely no irrefutable evidence that a god, in one form or another, does not exist. Now I know there are virtually mountains of evidence poking holes all current faiths, but that doesn't mean there is no god. Being an atheist is a belief based on no hard evidence. It's just unscientific.SantoUno said:
Sadly though, O'Reilly loses any tiny amount of admiration I might have gotten for him with the second video. He's still a complete fuckwit. I might even e-mail him just to tell him Mars actually has two moons. See if I can get a rise out of him.