FAUX News & others practicing "pseudo-journalism"?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

[Guest hunger4unger]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

That WAS sarcasm..right?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

That WAS sarcasm..right?

Because something you don't know CAN'T possibly exist, right?

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

That WAS sarcasm..right?

Funny, the same question could be asked about all your posts.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

That WAS sarcasm..right?

Because something you don't know CAN'T possibly exist, right?

-=Mike

If independent media confirms that there was Al Queda ties in Iraq then i'll eat my hat. To suggest that the entire WORLD approves of the invasion is just plain ridiculous.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What do you consider "independent media" to be?...

[Guest thebigjig]

What do you consider "independent media" to be?...

CNN is a HELL of alot less slanted than FOX

 

but as for a truly independant news organization... there's no such thing, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be

[Guest MikeSC]

Ummm.... an Al-Qaeda connection HAS been demonstrated and the world DOES approve of the invasion. Where do dumbass news editors who are completely blind get their news?

That WAS sarcasm..right?

Because something you don't know CAN'T possibly exist, right?

-=Mike

If independent media confirms that there was Al Queda ties in Iraq then i'll eat my hat. To suggest that the entire WORLD approves of the invasion is just plain ridiculous.

God knows the beloved BBC is just impartial as heck, right?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber, don't even ATTEMPT to portray Arabic TV coverage of this war as being even remotely as fair as the US coverage.

 

To do so would only serve to make you appear to be a dolt.

-=Mike

Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Arab News, an English-language newspaper in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, withheld publication of the most disturbing of the Abu Ghraib prison photos. "They're distasteful. I don't want to inflame passions, '' he said. "I don't want to see the whole American nation condemned for what only a handful of people did, just as we don't want to have the application of collective guilt on all Saudis because 16 of the 19 (Sept. 11) hijackers came from here."

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG966IMLD1.DTL

[Jobber of the Week 0]

ABC World News Tonight 54.8

Drudge Report 44.1

Arlen Spector (R-PA) 44.0

House Median 39.0

Senate Median 36.9

Okay, first, this is basically saying Drudge is liberal. heh. I think the point is proved right there.

 

And Stephen, while what you say about Fox might be true, it doesn't mean that their tactics is good journalism. see also: the overly aggressive interview.

 

Anyway, I used to watch Fox daily when it first launched, back then I had no clue about media bias. It was alright, though I was really too young to be interested in the news to that level and just stopped eventually. Some years later, I was reading a review of MSNBC that claimed it walked the line somewhere between CNN's left and Fox's right bias. Keeping that in mind, I went back when Clinton was leaving office and holding a speech just out of the blue one day and the host was checking to see if anyone had anything nice to say about the situation, and everybody kind of burst into chuckles because nobody at the table had anything positive to say about Clinton. Then someone started talking about "the people who believe in this man" like he's a cult leader or something.

 

I think I went back to non-news from there. Fox was ok, but the propaganda ramped up a lot higher once W started running, I think. Keep in mind I never watched O'Reilly or anything at that time, so I had no opinion of that.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I think I went back to non-news from there. Fox was ok, but the propaganda ramped up a lot higher once W started running, I think. Keep in mind I never watched O'Reilly or anything at that time, so I had no opinion of that.

Not trying to "one up" you or anything regarding this subject, but your story reminded me of this chick that was on CNN (she was a teleprompter reader) who would look all dreamy-eyed when doing a story about Clinton, but then practically would go into a scowl when talking about the next story, which involved Newt.

 

No, I'm not yelling "OMG LIBERAL BIAZ," (this time) -- I just thought it was funny...

[Vyce 0]

What do you consider "independent media" to be?...

Moveon.org?

[Guest MikeSC]

Jobber, don't even ATTEMPT to portray Arabic TV coverage of this war as being even remotely as fair as the US coverage.

 

To do so would only serve to make you appear to be a dolt.

            -=Mike

Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Arab News, an English-language newspaper in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, withheld publication of the most disturbing of the Abu Ghraib prison photos. "They're distasteful. I don't want to inflame passions, '' he said. "I don't want to see the whole American nation condemned for what only a handful of people did, just as we don't want to have the application of collective guilt on all Saudis because 16 of the 19 (Sept. 11) hijackers came from here."

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG966IMLD1.DTL

Well, ain't that mighty white of him?

 

Too bad Al Jazeera and EVERY OTHER ARAB PUBLICATION out there has no problem doing otherwise.

 

And, quite frankly, I don't buy his crap, either.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Well, ain't that mighty white of him?

 

Too bad Al Jazeera and EVERY OTHER ARAB PUBLICATION out there has no problem doing otherwise.

 

And, quite frankly, I don't buy his crap, either.

-=Mike

Racist...

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, ain't that mighty white of him?

 

Too bad Al Jazeera and EVERY OTHER ARAB PUBLICATION out there has no problem doing otherwise.

 

And, quite frankly, I don't buy his crap, either.

      -=Mike

Racist...

Intentionally so there.

 

I thought everybody used that phrase for somebody who spoke so insanely disingenuously.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

A rebuttal from the CEO of a certain cable news network that makes us all laugh out loud in the year 2004.

 

Elite, Arrogant, Condescending

The L.A. Times' editor is terrified of Fox News. How pathetic.

 

BY ROGER AILES

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

John S. Carroll, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, recently gave a speech at the University of Oregon, in which he attacked Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel and me, the chairman of Fox News. However, Mr. Carroll obviously did not feel particularly restricted by facts, truth or sources. In an effort to use guilt by association, he compared me to Sen. Joseph McCarthy without evidence, sourcing or analysis. An old, cheap trick used by weak writers and thinkers.

 

Mr. Carroll essentially announced that the reason Fox News Channel is the No. 1 cable news network and is gaining viewers is because the American people are stupid and gullible. In addition, he deliberately confused our highly rated news analysis and opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly with our hard news coverage. Mr. Carroll cites not a single example of what he calls "pseudojournalism" from our actual news coverage. He cites only Bill O'Reilly's opinions and an old push poll that purports to show that more Fox News viewers believed things that were not true about Iraq and the War on Terror than did viewers of other outlets. But he cites no instance of our having reported any of these things.

 

What the audience at the University of Oregon was not informed about are the many firsts and exclusives that Fox News has reported. Fox News is the network that broke George W. Bush's DUI four days before the election. Greg Kelly rolled into Baghdad ahead of any other reporter, on the back of a M-113 armored personnel carrier--video of which was requested by news organizations world-wide. Steve Harrigan ventured into danger zones from Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia and the Congo, to report on a genocidal war largely ignored by other media. Jim Angle scooped the rest of Washington on what Richard Clarke had said about the administration while he was there, as opposed to what he wrote later in his book. Fox called every Democratic primary race in 2004 first and accurately, and was praised by the Congressional Black Caucus for partnering with them on producing two Democratic primary debates. We have been the only network seriously reporting on the Oil-for-Food program, where a corrupt U.N. appears to have paid for anti-Americanism all over the world.

 

Our hard news at 6 in the evening with Brit Hume, one of America's finest journalists, followed by Shep Smith at 7 p.m., a talented anchor, is linked to breaking-news coverage throughout the majority of our 168 hours on the air weekly. And of course, Mr. Carroll wants to talk about Bill O'Reilly only because Bill O'Reilly has criticized John Carroll and the Los Angeles Times for its well-known and admitted biased journalism.

 

Mr. Carroll's pathetic attempt to smear Fox News Channel will only drive his paper's circulation down, as it should. Fox News Channel's audience in Los Angeles is increasing daily. The Los Angeles Times is becoming less relevant in people's lives, so Mr. Carroll is trying to flog health back to a newspaper by attacking television news. Most Americans, of course, get their news from television. In fact, the Fox News Channel today has 53% of the audience share of cable news. CNN and MSNBC divide up the rest. According to Mr. Carroll, that proves most Americans are therefore stupid and gullible. It's that elite, arrogant, condescending, self-serving, self-righteous, biased and wrongheaded view of Americans that causes viewers and readers to distrust media people like John Carroll.

 

He owes the fine journalists at the Fox News Channel an apology for his insulting comments. However, we will never see that. He treated Fox News Channel worse in his newspaper than he treated the terrorists who recently beheaded an American. But of course, he sees Fox News as more dangerous.

 

Mr. Ailes is chairman and CEO of Fox News.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If I hear one more time about how a certain cable news channel "broke" Bush's DUI story I'm going to puke.

 

And I don't like the new music/videos for Brit Hume's NOT-SO-SPECIAL REPORT (lol2004)...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mr. Carroll essentially announced that the reason Fox News Channel is the No. 1 cable news network and is gaining viewers is because the American people are stupid and gullible.

 

That was about the only thing I agreed with.

 

The thing about O'Reilly that gets to me is the stupid shootouts where he starts losing ground and yells over the other person to "win." That and he goes around calling people scared or lazy to come on his show even if they are willing to come on his show but can't make it or didn't find out about.

 

Also:

 

In an effort to use guilt by association, he compared me to Sen. Joseph McCarthy without evidence, sourcing or analysis. An old, cheap trick used by weak writers and thinkers.

We have been the only network seriously reporting on the Oil-for-Food program, where a corrupt U.N. appears to have paid for anti-Americanism all over the world.

 

*shakes head*

[Guest Cerebus]

Mr. Carroll essentially announced that the reason Fox News Channel is the No. 1 cable news network and is gaining viewers is because the American people are stupid and gullible.

 

That was about the only thing I agreed with.

 

The thing about O'Reilly that gets to me is the stupid shootouts where he starts losing ground and yells over the other person to "win." That and he goes around calling people scared or lazy to come on his show even if they are willing to come on his show but can't make it or didn't find out about.

 

Also:

 

In an effort to use guilt by association, he compared me to Sen. Joseph McCarthy without evidence, sourcing or analysis. An old, cheap trick used by weak writers and thinkers.

We have been the only network seriously reporting on the Oil-for-Food program, where a corrupt U.N. appears to have paid for anti-Americanism all over the world.

 

*shakes head*

Jobber, proving Mike right since 1998

 

-=Cerebus

[TheBigSwigg 0]

We have been the only network seriously reporting on the Oil-for-Food program, where a corrupt U.N. appears to have paid for anti-Americanism all over the world.

 

That doesn't make them seem conservative at all.

[Firestarter 0]

Mr. Carroll essentially announced that the reason Fox News Channel is the No. 1 cable news network and is gaining viewers is because the American people are stupid and gullible.

 

That was about the only thing I agreed with.

And you were the one disclaiming that article about Democrats' disdain for the American people? Saying it was unfair to claim that Democrats broadly considered the "common" man stupid?

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is JotW.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber, proving Mike right since 1998

 

-=Cerebus

Care to expand on that?

[Guest Cerebus]

Mike loves to spew out crap like 'Liberals are out of touch" or "elitist" or "arrogant." Having known several liberals on this board (NoCal and Tyler for starters) and more than a few in real life i never bought into that. But by YOU making an idiotic blanket statement about millions of Americans being "stupid and ignorant" for daring to watch a cable news network that has a conservative twinge just proves Mike that much more right.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And you were the one disclaiming that article about Democrats' disdain for the American people? Saying it was unfair to claim that Democrats broadly considered the "common" man stupid?

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is JotW.

I said that one guy didn't speak for a group as a whole.

 

I think it's obvious that programming to the lowest common denominator has been very successful, especially for television. Care else to explain how the regular Fox network decides to run shows like "Glutton Bowl" and "Man VS Beast" and "World's Most Explosive Police Showdowns"?

 

I still don't mind watching FNC in the daylight hours, but as the sun goes down the hosts become more and more confrontational until somewhere around O'Reilly it becomes a verbal streetfight. This draws plenty of gawkers and lookey-loos. It has for years.

 

I never said that Fox draws the stupid by being conservative. In fact, that statement had nothing to do whatsoever with it's political bias. I do think it draws easily amused people in with it's arguements and shoutfests. These easily amused people don't necessarily have to be conservative, they could liberal or moderate, too.