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 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.

On 16 Mar 2005 09:02:57 -0800, wrote:

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.

So you waste your time with a channel (s) that make *no* attempt to present the
full picture. I'm not talking about pundits. I'm talking about the news.

If all the Democrats who've appeared on Fox have been only moderate to poor
(your words) speakers, then who are the good speakers? Hell, Byrd was on the
other night! McCauley (sp?) has been on dozens of times, and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al Sharpton
numerous times).

Is it just easier to complain and make up stories?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al
Sharpton
numerous times).

**********

Bingo!

Al Sharpton is an extremist. The fact that you sincerely believe he
accurately represents the "liberal side" shows how well the strategy
works.

On 16 Mar 2005 18:09:12 -0800, wrote:

and their is always
someone representing the liberal side on Hannity and Colmes (Al
Sharpton
numerous times).

**********

Bingo!

Al Sharpton is an extremist. The fact that you sincerely believe he
accurately represents the "liberal side" shows how well the strategy
works.

Where did I say I 'sincerely' believe *anything* about Al Sharpton? He is one of
many. Besides, what's wrong with having an extremist liberal on the show? Isn't
Kennedy an extremist? What about Reid?

Listen to what you're implying, "Fox news is biased to the right because those
representing the liberal point of view are extremists (or poor speakers)."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 16 Mar 2005 09:02:57 -0800, wrote:

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.


Funny, change the sides and the network and you've just described how
the mainstream liberally biased media "reports" its "news".

It's funny that you disparage Fox for showing the other side, while
remaining strangely silent on the very same tactics that are used by
the established media, who have had years to indoctrinate us according
to their slant.


Fox News is merely the flip side of the same coin. Take the two
sources and then filter out the propaganda driven adjectives, and you
might arrive at a fairly clear picture of the truth.

Dave