FauxNews
 

Many in here are under the delusion that anyone respects the "news" that FauxNews reports. I'm also given a lot of flak from those same people.

Here are some examples as to why FauxNews has *Zero* reputability when it comes to reporting political news.

I didn't know the adulterer was a Dem??
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...3457657567.jpg

Also was unaware that the child-diddling Foley was a Dem.
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...3523452345.jpg

A few more can be found here...
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/


Faux selectively changes the party of political figures to support their agenda. Why exactly should I believe anything that *anyone* from their programming states?

Why, exactly, should anyone believe anything YOU say after this display of silliness?

Just a frustration rant on his part. It's the only station left on tv/cable that isn't in bed with the left and it drives liberals crazy. Hell even Obama Jokes about having the media in his pocket. (see Obama's joke about Brian Williams sleeping in his bed with him). The bad news is, it absolutely CRUSHES every other news outlet on the dial. It sweeps every time slot round the clock in virtually every viewing audience. The Fox news numbers are staggering. Whats the other thing you hear the moonbats chirp about? Talk Radio. Talk radio is dominated by polarizing conservative talk show hosts who draw huge numbers and tons of advertising dollars due to their popularity. What was the liberal response? Attempt to start their own liberal radio outlets. What happened? Abject failure. What was their response to that? Attempt to re-introduce the "fairness doctrine." :jump:

I'm sorry, I didn't know complete fabrication of the news was a rant. I would never deny that most of the other news sources are on the Left, but I've never seen them actually change the news for their agenda.

What exactly is silly about it? Displaying that a news source which you and many others use as a reputable defense, decides to blatantly change the facts?

I won't deny that it tops in the news category, what with CNN having it's nightly "Breaking News" show about the Caley Anthony case and MSNBC having its..... even MSNBC doesn't know what they're reporting about.

However, ratings is no indication of quality. With garbage like "True Blood", "The Secret Life of the American Teenager", and "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! " being some of the top rated shows in June, you can hardly argue that ratings equals quality.

Also, Democrats are too busy being out feeding the homeless, hugging trees and making people get abortions to be at home watching TV.

I think FOX news ratings are high because they've done a good job of marketing themselves as "different" when most of the mainstream news they push is much the same as any of the cable networks.

They've also hired some big name talent which helped establish the brand early on.

As for liberal talk radio, it's not been as successful for a few very good reasons.

1) Primarily because Air America was the only serious national attempt and it was focused on the fringe which represents a fraction of the population.

2) Lack of big name talent.

3) A reactionary progressive attitude that doesn't sit well with main street. Many people (like CB) like their Rush Limbaugh telling them they're perfect and don't need to change anything.

-spence

Sounds about right.

A group of unknown talentless fringe progressives that believe they are perfect.

So where do you stand on the Fariness Doctrine? Do you think liberal talk radio should be forced on the listening public despite lack of ratings or advertising revenues. Or do you think a number of successful right wing based programs should be culled to make the radio dial a more "fair" environment?

You're really reaching to bash Fox here, Johnny. That "D" was up on the screen for 7 whole seconds. Then, it was correctly switched to "R". You clearly didn't see it, because you just picked it out of some internet site this morning. Fox even mentioned after fixing it that they had done the same thing back in 2006 with Foley. They didn't have to, but they did. Doesn't really seem to me like Fox is trying to secretly make viewers think that all bad politicians are Dems.

Have you even watched True Blood? I can understand if you think the other shows are garbage, but True Blood is very good compared to some of the other crap HBO tries to pass off as programming.

My roommates girlfriend watches each episode 2-3 times in our apartment. I have seen it, and think it is terrible. You're dead on with regards to the crap HBO tries to pass off. From what I've seen, Sopranos and Curb Your Enthusiasm are the only two good shows I remember them putting out (I'm sure there are a few others I've missed).

With regards to the Fox stuff, the reason I posted it was because I was watching a story about Sanford that had the (D) in two different places. Then did a little googling to see if this was an isolated case or if someone showed other instances of it happening.

Johnny, I think you meant to link to this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuNy...om=PL&index=50

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;698963]My roommates girlfriend watches each episode 2-3 times in our apartment. I have seen it, and think it is terrible. You're dead on with regards to the crap HBO tries to pass off. From what I've seen, Sopranos and Curb Your Enthusiasm are the only two good shows I remember them putting out (I'm sure there are a few others I've missed).
QUOTE]

Curb Your Enthusiasm is one of my favorite shows of all time. Deadwood was good. Entourage is pretty damn good, too. I used to like Six Feet Under, but don't really miss it now that it's gone. True Blood is good enough that I'll watch the episodes on demand, but I don't have to see it every week when it first comes on. I definitely wouldn't watch it more than once, though. I was a little disapointed in Hung's premeir, but I'll give it another chance to see if it gets better.

Never said that Faux was the only crooked network. But so many on here declare it as *the* only source for no-spin news.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;698929]
What exactly is silly about it? Displaying that a news source which you and many others use as a reputable defense, decides to blatantly change the facts? [ENDQUOTE]

It is silly to impute some political motive to mislabeling the party of a handful of politicians . . . as though that would accomplish . . . what? And in each instance the mislabel occured in a given story, but IN ALL OTHER STORIES about the same pols, they were labeled CORRECTLY. And, as one observer pointed out, in the 23,000 broadcast hours since the first such mislabel occured, there were only a handful of these suposedly "blatant" (certainly inconsequential) mislabels. And when you examine each instance, you'ld have to stretch credulity to believe it would have some negative effect. Mislabeling McCain and Specter as Dems was suposed to do what? Mislabeling Chafee as a Dem and his DEMOCRATIC opponent as a Republican was obviously a transpositional error. And, in a story about Pat Toomey ANNOUNCING HE WOULD RUN AS A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, he was mislabeled a "D"--this was supposed to be some brilliant, secret, trick to accomplish . . . what? And to label LONG TIME Republican Senator Stevens a "D" while everyone else labels and knows he is an "R"--what kind of inane, nefarious, political strategy is this? Can you explain in any reasonable way how any of these errors could accomplish anything other than to embarras Fox. Even the AP, hardly a right wing org., in covering the Foley scandal mistakenly listed him as a Dem. And as for media conspiracy, what about how ABC, CBS, & NBC often OMIT the "D" when reporting Democratic scandals but make sure to attach the "R" when Repubs err? At the same time as the Sanford scandal was breaking, Charley Gibson made sure to identify Sanford as "R" but, in another story, failed to mention that Detroit councilwoman Monica Conyers, who pled guilty to taking a bribe, is a Democrat. And when Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with felonies, neither did Gibson, nor CBS, nor NBC anchors mention he was a Dem. In a rundown of 13 political sex scandals, covered by ABC, of those that were actually identified as "R" or "D", only ONE was a Dem, SIX were Repubs. Of those that were UNIDENTIFIED, 4 were Dems, one was a Repub, the last was unclear. When the Spitzer scandal broke, NBC, ABC, CBS ALL failed initially to mention he was a Democrat. Are these left wing or right wing media conspiracies? I DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU! Your claim that Fox BLATANTLY changed the facts just looks like a silly attempt to find SOMETHING, other than your distaste for its programs, to make it a bogeyman.

I never said they didn't have talent. Rachel Maddow is very talented and love him or hate him Jerry Springer ain't no slouch.

Nor did I ever say they thought they were perfect, just the opposite really.

I think it made some sense in the past when people's primary source of information was often a single radio station, but the media age we're in today makes it completely unnecessary. I'd note that nobody is really pushing it and Obama opposes it.

Mostly it's just a right-wing straw man issue to drum up when you need to get the sheep into a huff.

-spence

When there's a need to get the sheep into a huff, Rush Limbaugh calls for the Honduran military to overthrow the US government.

The same people complaining about the cost of the Air Force One flyover, in addition to the recklessness, are now complaining because the Pentagon (well, Fox tries to blame Obama) has denied a fly-over request for a Christian event. Where is the list of PR approved fly-overs? I'm curious which ones are acceptable and which are not.

I can't wait to see how this hypocrisy is justified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxwb58XfZA

Come on, Johnny. While I don't think taxpayer money should be spent on this, I can see the enormous difference between this and what was done in NYC. This is a request, not a super secret flyover in a city that was attacked by terrorists using planes within the last decade. Do you think that if the flyover request was granted and carried out in this instance, it would cause panic in the streets. No, because it would have been planned and people would have been properly notified. It's a huge stretch to compare these two things.

Just because you hate Fox news doesn't mean that you have to try to make things up to fit your agenda.

Nope, but I would think that it is a huge waste of money. Which was my point. I'm not making things up, I'm just wondering where the line is. Also, I agree that the NYC situation was idiotic. However, my point was that many people (including Fox) also commented on the massive waste of money the "photo op" was.

Thus, my issue comes down to the hypocrisy. Really, my post is no difference than that entire "news" story - basically, complaining for the sake of complaining.

This flyover thing is about the weakest thing you've brought to the table here ever. You can't compare the NYC flyover to a request for a church group event to have one as a "patriotic gesture for our military personnel". Do you realize that a military flyover isn't the same thing as a single jet doing an unannounced flyover in a major city? Besides, this event has been approved for a flyover for the last 42 years. Is that not news? It certainly makes you think that someone might be sticking it to a conservative group.

Good. Criticize me then ask me for a favor?

I don't deny that the subject is ridiculous, but I see this stuff every single day on Fox. At some of the most ludicrous things, I can picture people shaking their heads going "yeah, they're right." The other day one of their guests brought up the Obama-Muslim connection (read: fabrication) again and the host (I forget which one it was now) started agreeing with them.

JD, have you watched the other networks since Obama was elected? Is the President's dog really more newsworthy than the state of the economy? Do I need to see Brian Williams with his head so far up Omama's rear end that the President could brush his teeth while doing his own?

You seem to have a hatred for Fox. If you don't like it, don't watch it. No one forces you to keep it on that channel. Fox is the lone major network that caters to conservatives. They run stories that will resonate with their viewers just as the more liberal networks do the same with their programming. It's funny how all the Obama defenders have such short memories. They don't remember how much Bush was bashed and ripped on the same news programs that now suck up to the new President. But, when one station dares to criticize the Chosen One, they are evil and liars and not worthy of being on the air.

I don't watch the national news programs much because they run too many puff pieces. I watch the local news shows at night because I want to know what's going on in my area. Sometimes I watch Fox, sometimes channel 7 - it depends on what time I want to watch.

I find a difference between blatant fabrications, like the supposed Obama-Muslim connection and criticism/speculation. I'd never deny that the other news stations are selling tickets to the "I Love Obama Show" and much of it I disagree with.

The media blows, the radio (and fox) is so far right the one sidedness is sickening, then TV is left to the nth degree, its' a no win.

BUT ......

Sookie is fine fine fine, with plentiful tt shots, I'm looking forward to next sundays True Blood.

If you like blatant fabrications, see the post above about Dan Rather. Or what about the NYT and kerry's "swift boat" incident. Plenty of liberal media ran lies about Kerry without fact checking them.

And even though Obama is not a Muslim, he was born to a Muslim father. And coincidentally, he used his middle name (which is a common Muslim name) when addressing the crowd in Cairo last month. Maybe he uses it only when he thinks it will get him in good graces with Muslim countries? So, you can easily draw connection between Obama and the Muslim faith. Not really a big leap for a news station trying to get their viewers riled up about something.