On 15 Mar 2005 20:09:09 -0800, wrote:

Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they
can
compare. You've spent your life seeing one side.

If you don't watch a channel that shows both sides, how do you ever see the
other side?

--
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.