Jump to navigation

"Fox News: Fair and Balanced"

News and Politics

↑ Back to News and Politics + log in to reply
Poster Message
terminalterror
02 Oct '08 08:24:08
Just watch this video for proof!

The older woman in the background persuading her husband to change his mind also adds to the hilarity of the clip.
send message | log in to reply!
squarejawhero [mod?!?]
02 Oct '08 08:25:32
Fox News is a fucking joke.
send message | log in to reply!
blizeH
02 Oct '08 08:25:47
squarejawhero wrote:
Fox News is a fucking joke.
send message | log in to reply!
presh
02 Oct '08 08:33:47
Thank god that there are laws to prevent there being a Fox news in the UK.
send message | log in to reply!
Pike
02 Oct '08 08:36:40
presh wrote:
Thank god that there are laws to prevent there being a Fox news in the UK.


There are? Sounds like repression of freedom of speech and not like something positive, if it's true.
send message | log in to reply!
MrED209
02 Oct '08 08:37:33
That's hilarious! :D
send message | log in to reply!
nickthegun
02 Oct '08 08:37:57
No. Its that public broadcasting must be free of political bias. Its to prevent rich people forcing their opinions on the great unwashed.
send message | log in to reply!
Dougs
02 Oct '08 08:38:17
All to do with competition Pike. Murdoch already has one news channel, another might be a touch too much....
send message | log in to reply!
Xerx3s
02 Oct '08 08:40:04
Pike wrote:
presh wrote:
Thank god that there are laws to prevent there being a Fox news in the UK.


There are? Sounds like repression of freedom of speech and not like something positive, if it's true.


If you've done some research into the things that the powers behind puppets like fox do, you would know that any repression of these companies is a good thing and in no way a repression of speech (more and encouragement).
send message | log in to reply!
Pike
02 Oct '08 08:44:47
Xerx3s wrote:
Pike wrote:
presh wrote:
Thank god that there are laws to prevent there being a Fox news in the UK.


There are? Sounds like repression of freedom of speech and not like something positive, if it's true.


If you've done some research into the things that the powers behind puppets like fox do, you would know that any repression of these companies is a good thing and in no way a repression of speech (more and encouragement).


No, it's not a goddamned good thing to forbid news channels. Fox is biased and a bit crap, but it is clear with it's conservative stance and no one is forcing me to pay for it, unlike publically financed broadcasting monopolies.

Diversity of opinion is a good thing, even if you happen to dislike certain opinions and those who are behind said opinions.
send message | log in to reply!
mrblackett
02 Oct '08 08:45:38
Party political broadcasting is illegal unless it's within specific dedicated times. Anything that displays political bias can be construed as party political broadcasting so our news channels are not so blatantly biased as Fox News. It doesn't stop them completely, they're just far more subtle.

And don't get me started on Noels HQ.
send message | log in to reply!
mrblackett
02 Oct '08 08:47:31
Pike wrote:
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, even if you happen to dislike certain opinions and those who are behind said opinions.


No. News is the news. Opinion has no place in news reporting. Report the facts and keep your opinions on the facts to yourself. Let your viewers make their own minds up on the facts. Fox News is a disgrace to freedom of speech.

Edited by mrblackett at 09:48:13 02-10-2008
send message | log in to reply!
nickthegun
02 Oct '08 08:49:08
Its simply to stop people exerting political influence over a captive audience.

I agree, it does tread on free speech principles, but we arent america and our government like to interfere in everything.
send message | log in to reply!
Dougs
02 Oct '08 08:51:09
nickthegun wrote:
Its simply to stop people exerting political influence over a captive audience.

I agree, it does tread on free speech principles, but we arent america and our government like to interfere in everything.


What about the print media though? Every election, the rags will come down in support of whatever party and wuill use this to influence voters. Looks to me that most GEs are decided according to whomever The Sun put their weight behind...
send message | log in to reply!
Adam_T
02 Oct '08 08:51:38
BBC News is shit too. They tell one sided stories when they don't even have a clue about the full picture. Look at today's story about the teacher training in Spain. SCANDAL!! They havn't even said anything about the costs etc, just trying to get people worked up.

They are all as bad as each other imo. Today's standard of Journalism is 98% scaremongering / scandal to get people to buy papers / watch their channel. The bbc are just a little subltier(sp?) about it.

Reporting the facts is great but how often do they report the full facts from both sides before running a scandal headline / report.
send message | log in to reply!
Pike
02 Oct '08 08:52:27
Outlawing party political broadcasting sounds retarded. There is nothing wrong with political biased media sources. Despite what a number of elitists think people in general are smart enough to spot obvious political bias and value information from such a source accordingly. If media outlets are allowed to have an open political standpoint the bias only becomes easier to spot, which makes it even easier to value the information properly.

Just look at The Economist. a large part of it's stellar reputation comes from the fact that it is openly and explicitly free market liberal. This openness with the political standpoint of the paper only adds to it's credibility.

Also, saying that "news is the news" is beyond silly. All news reporting will be filtered and interpreted by reporters and editors. It's inevitable. Therefor I actually prefer if the bias is open instead of hidden.

Edited by Pike at 09:54:57 02-10-2008
send message | log in to reply!
glaeken
02 Oct '08 08:53:06
Post deleted by glaeken on 08:53:16 02-10-2008
send message | log in to reply!
X201
02 Oct '08 08:54:43
Dougs wrote:
nickthegun wrote:
Its simply to stop people exerting political influence over a captive audience.

I agree, it does tread on free speech principles, but we arent america and our government like to interfere in everything.


What about the print media though? Every election, the rags will come down in support of whatever party and wuill use this to influence voters. Looks to me that most GEs are decided according to whomever The Sun put their weight behind...


For the younger viewers on here
send message | log in to reply!
Load "$"
02 Oct '08 08:55:02
Top 5 words to include in headlines to sell papers and raise viewing figures.

1 Terrorist.
2 Credit Crunch.
3 Muslim.
4 Immigrant.
5 Paedophile.

send message | log in to reply!
FWB
02 Oct '08 08:55:47
Pike wrote:
Just look at The Economist. a large part of it's stellar reputation comes from the fact that it is openly and explicitly free market liberal. This openness with the political standpoint of the paper only adds to it's credibility.


I can see the point, but not sure I agree with it (RE: The Economist). It's seriously gotten worse over the years and can be found spouting some ludicrous views.

It's rep comes from it's prior history, when it wasn't as staunch right-wing. It's undergone some MAJOR restructuring in the last 10 years.
send message | log in to reply!
Pike
02 Oct '08 08:58:34
It's always been explicitly pro market. They have taken stands lately that I don't agree with at all, like supporting the invasion in Iraq and they might have slipped in quality a bit. However being open with where they stand isn't really the problem there.
send message | log in to reply!
Dougs
02 Oct '08 08:59:18
X201 wrote:
For the younger viewers on here


:) Think they did something similar for Noo Labour too
send message | log in to reply!
mrblackett
02 Oct '08 09:00:00
Nothing wrong with politically biased media sources? When Dougs mentions that the British General election is decided by The Sun newspaper, he's not exaggerating. The tabloid newspapers exert huge political influence. They can make or completely destroy politicians. Who owns The Sun? Rupert fucking Murdoch. This leads me to ask the question of who really decides who runs the country. Is it the people or some rich Australian.
send message | log in to reply!
Leolian'sBro [trouble]
02 Oct '08 09:00:56
Load "$" wrote:
Top 5 words to include in headlines to sell papers and raise viewing figures.

1 Terrorist.
2 Credit Crunch.
3 Muslim.
4 Immigrant.
5 Paedophile.



6 BEWBS
send message | log in to reply!
Pike
02 Oct '08 09:01:43
Political biased media is only a problem if you actually believe there is such a thing as unbiased media.
send message | log in to reply!
Gremmi
02 Oct '08 09:01:50
7 Diana (for the Express fans amongst us)
send message | log in to reply!
mrblackett
02 Oct '08 09:02:21
Pike wrote:
Therefor I actually prefer if the bias is open instead of hidden.


Open!? Open!? Are you high? Fox News: Fair and Balanced. They may be openly biased amongst the denizens of the internet but they're not openly biased amongst their viewers.
send message | log in to reply!
FWB
02 Oct '08 09:02:27
Pike wrote:
It's always been explicitly pro market. They have taken stands lately that I don't agree with at all, like supporting the invasion in Iraq and they might have slipped in quality a bit. However being open with where they stand isn't really the problem there.


I agree, but I was referring more to their "reputation". They're riding off their history and their views are becoming more and more extreme.

Fox News is not openly anything. It's blatantly got an agenda to you and I, but it still tries to portray itself as a neutral news source to morons.

Edited by FWB at 10:06:32 02-10-2008
send message | log in to reply!
glaeken
02 Oct '08 09:03:31
Pike wrote:
Outlawing party political broadcasting sounds retarded. There is nothing wrong with political biased media sources. Despite what a number of elitists think people in general are smart enough to spot obvious political bias and value information from such a source accordingly. If media outlets are allowed to have an open political standpoint the bias only becomes easier to spot, which makes it even easier to value the information properly.



I see you live in a parallel universe of some sort where humans are entirely rational. It sounds nice. Are there any other differences from our universe? e.g. blue chickens? pink sky?
send message | log in to reply!
Articulate-Troll
02 Oct '08 09:03:32
mrblackett wrote:
Nothing wrong with politically biased media sources? When Dougs mentions that the British General election is decided by The Sun newspaper, he's not exaggerating. The tabloid newspapers exert huge political influence. They can make or completely destroy politicians. Who owns The Sun? Rupert fucking Murdoch. This leads me to ask the question of who really decides who runs the country. Is it the people or some rich Australian.


You can't say for certain that media sources decide peoples opinion, or whether the media simply reflects the attitudes of the people. It's the old question: what came first, the chicken or the egg?
send message | log in to reply!
↑ Back to News and Politics + log in to reply

Page: 1 of 12 in total (Posts 1-30) | next 30 »

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

There are currently 273 registered users online.