|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:32:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and forced the principal to remove the filters. The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader: "But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged national guard documents"? He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. Sadly true -- in all cases Most especially the 'mainstreamers', who play to only one party. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote:
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... DSK If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think you're making it up. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote: Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the impression that water is wet. NOYB wrote: He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment. That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate... DSK If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think you're making it up. -- He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
P.Fritz wrote:
He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK |
Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they
can compare. You've spent your life seeing one side. -- John H ************ I see both sides very clearly. One side says I am my brother's keeper. The other says I am my brother's employer, if not his master. He darn well better learn to "keep" himself, and at miniwage if I can con or force him into accepting it. One side says that all of life's values can be reduced to money. The other side says that the most important aspects of life are not for sale. One side measures success by the amount of wealth it can accumulate. The other measures sucess by the amount it can afford to share. One side says we are stewards of the earth. The other side says it is our responsibility to wring all useful resources from the planet at the fastest possible rate. One side makes lists of people who should be shunned or excluded. The other makes lists of people we should reach out to include. The fact that I choose one side with reasonable consistency doesn't mean I can't see the other. Quite the opposite. I see it more clearly than many who embrace it. |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:02:36 -0500, DSK wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK You are the one making the accusations. It seems only reasonable for you to provide the proof. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:02:36 -0500, DSK wrote: P.Fritz wrote: He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as michael moore. By your own logic, if the things Al Franken said about Rush Limbaugh were not true (for example, that he was on welfare for a while), Limbaugh would have sued him. You certainly can't dispute that he is a drug addict, and by his own publicly announced moral standards should be behind bars for life... but hey, a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone, right? In any event, look up some of Rush Limbaugh's interviews, and some of the things his producer(s) have said about his show. Do you know how to use Google? DSK You are the one making the accusations. It seems only reasonable for you to provide the proof. But with liebrals.....it is simply the seriousness of the accusation........not whether they have any proof. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
If you don't watch a channel that shows both sides, how do you ever see
the other side? ************* I don't learn about comparable values by "watching a channel". If I wanted to watch programming that showed both sides, I wouldn't waste my time with Faux News. I've sampled it from time to time. If Faux News wanted to show "both sides" of some issue where they have a clear bias, they would do so under conditions specifically chosen and controlled to cast a favorable light on their own foregone conclusions. Example: Lets say that Faux News decided to (appear to) show "both sides" of the situation in Iraq. Under the Faux News model, they would go about it like this: First, they would find the most polished, well-spoken pro-war spokesperson available and give that person ten minutes to read from the a carefully scripted pro-war, pro-Bush gospel. The same 30-second footage of the single Iraqi ever to throw candy and flowers at US troops (without a grenade in the bouqet or without first soaking the Tootsie Roll Pops in aresenic), would play repeatedly during the almost uninterrupted monologoue. (The non-existant studio audience would "applaud" at regular intervals). At the end of the speech, the pro-war spokesperson would take calls from "randomly selected viewers" and 90% of them would be "atta-boys!". (One anti-war caller would be allowed through if one could be found to speak incoherently enough, and if an anti-war caller could be put on the air who sounds as though he or she might have been drinking- or smoking- heavily, all the better). To present the "other side" and appear "fair and balanced" they would recruit some moderate to poor speaker to present the anti-war position. The person would be given three and a half minutes, and not allowed to read from a prepared script. If possible, the anti-war person selected will be somebody who recently lost a political contest or was not-quite-so-recently involved in a messy scandal. During the anti-war person's speech, footage of the Daniel Berg beheading or similar video-taped atrocity, (one of the other side's atrocities, of course), would play continuously. The non-existant studio audience would be strangely silent, or there might be a few people heard clearing throats at an unnatural volume. At the end of the short speech, calls from randomly selected viewers might be taken on the air. 90% of the callers allowed through or invented by the screener will disagree with the anti-war position. If another slobbering drunk can be found, (or invented), to call in some "support" for the anti-war postion, he will be elevated to the top of the que and put on the air to create the appearance of fairness and balance. There you go. "Fair and Balanced". PT Barnum and George Goebbels would have loved it! How sad that such tricks sucker so many, and so completely. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com