Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: What is your opinion of Fox News? [Re: NuperSova]
    #3896203 -

Actually, Hannity and Colmes is a conservative show, but Hanity is SOOO far to the right, they have to occasionally balance him with a polite centralist, to take a bit of the Hannity edge off.

To be fair, Hannity and Colmes has never pretended to be more than it is: A Big Loud Right Winger with his Moderate friend, who keeps him in check from time to time.

Imagine Hannity on FNC w/o Colmes and you'll see what I am getting at.

O'Reilley is MUCH closer to the Center than Hannity.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Edited by Rose (03/10/05 02:40 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is your opinion of Fox News? [Re: exclusive58]
    #3896514 -

exclusive58 said:
No, there are no biased TV news here in France, and that's probably because there are only 5 channels available if you don't have satellite or cable.
Objective TV news reports is like a social acquired fact here.


OMG!! I can't believe you're so naive... Although I fully agree that reporting in France isn't as bad as in the US, you have to be blind to not see how biased it is. The commercial channel completely tends to the needs of its shareholders, and the public channels just reflect the government's views.
Quote:
And it's not like you can "agree" with objective reports man. You can only agree if opinions are given, which isn't the case here. Get it?


If you weren't there, how can you tell if the facts are reported "objectively" ? (BTW, true objectivity is impossible to achieve) And also, selection, i.e. not reporting something, or reporting it extremely briefly, is also a form of bias. So is choice of specific vocabulary in an otherwise "objective" and "factual" report.

Oh, come on, I'm not going to give you a crash course in media criticism, but you should read some Serge Halimi, Pierre Carles and Pierre Bourdieu to get a clear view of the French media's problems.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Faux News. [Re: Aldous]
    #3903009 -

THERE HAS BEEN AN EMERGENCY. WE ARE NOW ON RED ALERT. STAY IN YOUR HOUSES, DO NOT COME OUTSIDE. WE HAVE MOVED YOUR CHILDRED TO A SECRET LOCATION. CO-OPERATION WILL ASSURE THEIR SAFETY. SOON WE WILL MOVE YOU TO FEMA CAMPS TO PROTECT YOU FROM TERRORISTS. THE DEFINITION OF TERRORIST IS ANYONE WHO DOES NOT DO WHAT WE SAY. WE CONTROL THE FOOD SUPLLY. WE CONTROL THE MONEY SYSTEM. WE CONTROL WHAT YOU THINK. RESISTANCE IS TERRORISM!

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER.


--------------------
I have 29 Strains as of current.. I LOVE TO TRADE. See my bio for the strains I currently have.

I seek: Strains I don't have, exotic species, Edibles, Vacutainers, A accurate scale, chicken manure, worm castings, worms for making my own worm castings, plastic lids for mason jars, light malt extract, Kelp Meal, A Ph Tester, A microscope.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Faux News. [Re: prototypical_man]
    #3903303 -

I dislike Fox as well as every other major news source because they all are ran by major coporations, usually multi-nationals. Their intended audience are republicans, so they show what republicans want. Other news sources that lean towards the left feature program that is intended for democrats. I think the term "liberal" is over used entirely. Most of the democrats in this country are not liberal at all. I suggest alternative/independent media which is ran by people and not by coporations. Just my opinion, not a fact.

Edited by trick (03/11/05 04:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Fox News [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3910000 -


To me, Brit Hume is a consumate professional and the best it gets. I could get all my news from Brit Hume. He is a conservative, but he is also a fair and reasonable man. The segment of his show where they bring out the "Fox All Stars" for a pannel discussion is the my favorite part of any news/opinion/debate on any network today. I highly recommend it.

Fox News Watch is also an interesting show because the whole design is to cover how networks actually report (and not report) the news. It is an interesting show and it is actually fair and ballanced.

Brit Hume is king. I know that most people here don't have a favorable perception of Fox because it is largely conservative. But what do you guys think about Brit. He is my main man.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3910009 -

Brit is good and balanced, until Sunday afternoon.

Watch him tomorrow, and tell me the same thing.

Come Sunday, he is a Christian shill.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: Rose]
    #3910100 -

Are you talking about Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace? I have seen that only a handfull of times and it seems to be a pretty good show.

Also, I think that Brit's participation on that show is part of a debate panel. His role in that aspect is one of debating and opinion. You have a resonable expectation of bias from everyone on the panel, and it isn't hidden. The fact that they let that be known makes it more honest and fair in my opinion.

I like Chris Wallace and the few times I have watched that show I thought it was pretty sound.

And what is the difference between a Christian shill and just being a Christian? Is Brit Hume a bible thumping maniac in your opinion? I think the guy has some solid takes. He is reasonable, honest, and is a man of integrity. Of course, I am a huge fan. Please clarify what program you are talking about and why you think of Brit that way. I will try to watch tomorrow.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: Rose]
    #3910104 -

Brit has been on Sunday often (tell me another impartial news anchor, that sits on a panel as the conservative OR liberal swing)... but Chris Wallace isn't exactly evil incarnate.

I mean on Sunday, Brit becomes a Christian shill, instead of Fox's primary news anchor (M-F).


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3910113 -


To me, Brit Hume is a consumate professional and the best it gets. I could get all my news from Brit Hume. He is a conservative, but he is also a fair and reasonable man. The segment of his show where they bring out the "Fox All Stars" for a pannel discussion is the my favorite part of any news/opinion/debate on any network today. I highly recommend it.

Brit isn't too bad. He isn't an ideological blowhard like Hannity or O'Reilly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: Rose]
    #3910134 -

Cervantes said:
Brit has been on Sunday often (tell me another impartial news anchor, that sits on a panel as the conservative OR liberal swing)... but Chris Wallace isn't exactly evil incarnate.

I mean on Sunday, Brit becomes a Christian shill, instead of Fox's primary news anchor (M-F).


He is a conservative. I don't see anything wrong with him being on a panel and expressing his views. And Geez, you ever hear Bill Moyers give a speech? I have read some transcripts and they aren't pretty. All these anchors have their own bias. If Brit is on an opinion panel of a pretty good show, he is expected to give his opinion.

I actually wish I watched the Chris Wallace show more but Sunday is family day and I rarely have the time. I like Chris Wallace.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3910260 -

Good stuff about Fox News.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is your opinion of Fox News? [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3914414 -

(CNN + FOXNEWS)/2 = close to what could possibly be true.


--------------------
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. ~ Niels Bohr

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3914548 -

Psychoactive1984 said:
Good stuff about Fox News.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


good, reply source. FAIR does indiscriminate research.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: trick]
    #3914592 -


FAIR does indiscriminate research.

FAIR's Left bias is about as big as my dick. Believe me....that's big.

But seriously, I read the link and I agree with a decent amount of what FAIR said in the essay.

Edited by RandalFlagg (03/14/05 03:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is your opinion of Fox News? [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3915514 -

RandalFlagg said:
Well....what do you think of Fox News?  Do you like it?  Hate it?  Respect it?  Don't respect it?  Why do you feel the way you do about Fox News?


Fox News reminds me of that scene from Robocop 2:

Newscaster 1: "A nuclear reactor exploded into the Amazon Basin today.  Environmentalists called it a disaster."

Newscaster 2: "But don't they always, Kent?  :lol: "

:nonono:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3915685 -

Without his make-up, Dan looked like hell warmed over: old, defeated, yet angry. And he told our television audience something that just blew me away. American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions about George Bush or his wars.

?It?s an obscene comparison," Rather said, "but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people?s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."



Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps US reporters in line. ?It?s that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often.?



Silence as patriotism. He admitted, ?One finds oneself saying, ?I know the right question, but you know what, this is not exactly the right time to ask it." It was making him ill and he was ready to say, basta, enough. Suddenly, there was fire in those eyes.



"It's extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted and I'm sorry to say that, up to and including this moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that."



Of course, Dan said all these things to a British audience. But back in the USA, Dan had promised America he would be a good boy, a trained press puppy who would poop on the paper set down for him. He told his US audience, "George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where."



But CBS' million-dollar man was about to step out of line.



In 2003, BBC Television questioned George Bush's career as Viet Nam era Top Gun fighter pilot. In the British broadcast, I held up a confidential letter from Justice Department files stating that Poppy Bush had put in the fix to get Junior Bush out of 'Nam and into the Texas Air Guard. George could spend the war protecting Houston from Viet Cong attack.



A year after the BBC broadcast, the I'm-going-to-be-a-real-journalist-now Rather decided to run the same story on 60 Minutes. And just as he predicted, the press-police at the network and in the White House seized him and lit the tire around his neck.



What was Dan's mistake? Yes, yes, he shouldn't have embellished the story with a document he couldn't fully source. But that memo (not the one in the BBC report) was about a side issue, not the key accusation, that Senior Bush got Junior out of the draft. Despite not a jot of evidence that the main story of draft-dodgin' George was wrong (BBC never withdrew it), CBS cited Rather's insistence on the veracity of that report as grounds to crush his career and his reputation.



Rather was convicted by a corporate kangaroo court. Dickie Thornburgh, who had been Poppy Bush's Attorney General and owed his big salaries and career to the Bush family, ran an "independent" investigation which concluded -- surprise! -- the Bushes had done no wrong. It was Dan that committed the evil. That whacky conclusion went along just fine with the diktat of Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, CBS' owner, that a "Republican administration is better for media companies."



In "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler explained why old Communists, brought up for trial by Stalin, still sang the system's praises -- just before they were shot. To do otherwise would have been to cast doubt on the cause to which they sacrificed their lives. Now, Dan Rather, like those soon-to-be executed victims of Stalin, has bowed his head in silence in the face of the evil purge. To do otherwise, I suppose, would be to acknowledge that his career has been a path of increasing salaries and celebrity bought by increasing toady-dom.



Imagine if Edward R. Murrow, after having exposed Joe McCarthy, replied to criticism by bowing his head for the noose-man.



Rather died as a journalist years ago by accepting the evil gag orders of the media moguls. Still, I applaud his attempt with the Bush story to kick his way out of his professional coffin. Unfortunately, his current silence simply gives aid and comfort to the censoring corporate news-killers.



Tonight, Rather read off his last "news" broadcast, if you can call it that. To Dan the newsman, and to American journalism, all I can say is, rest in peace.

www.gregpalast.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions [Re: CJay]
    #3917578 -

Right. I got it. He re-established his journalistic integrity by falsifying a story. I get it now. It really is too bad he was hung by the nuts for telling a compensatory lie. I love prairie oysters


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: American journalists, Dan Rather said, simply may not ask tough questions [Re: CJay]
    #3917676 -

Quote:
What was Dan's mistake? Yes, yes, he shouldn't have embellished the story with a document he couldn't fully source. But that memo (not the one in the BBC report) was about a side issue, not the key accusation, that Senior Bush got Junior out of the draft. Despite not a jot of evidence that the main story of draft-dodgin' George was wrong (BBC never withdrew it), CBS cited Rather's insistence on the veracity of that report as grounds to crush his career and his reputation.


Of all the justifications i have seen for running this fake story, this has to be the absolute worst. This was falsified evidence implicating the president of the US in criminal activity during an election. What if this happened to your candidate? Would you think the smae thing? The burden of proof is not on the accused, it is on the accuser. That is one of the most important things to remember in your future debates and arguments.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: trick]
    #3917689 -

trick said:
Psychoactive1984 said:
Good stuff about Fox News.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067


good, reply source. FAIR does indiscriminate research.


Fight :fire: with :fire: :lol:

It's the whole left vs right deal... unless you know of an objective news source.... heh, objective news...

/end rant


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Fox News [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3918506 -

JesusChrist said:
Cervantes said:
Brit has been on Sunday often (tell me another impartial news anchor, that sits on a panel as the conservative OR liberal swing)... but Chris Wallace isn't exactly evil incarnate.

I mean on Sunday, Brit becomes a Christian shill, instead of Fox's primary news anchor (M-F).


He is a conservative.  I don't see anything wrong with him being on a panel and expressing his views.  And Geez, you ever hear Bill Moyers give a speech?  I have read some transcripts and they aren't pretty.  All these anchors have their own bias.  If Brit is on an opinion panel of a pretty good show, he is expected to give his opinion.

I actually wish I watched the Chris Wallace show more but Sunday is family day and I rarely have the time.  I like Chris Wallace.


Moyers is not an anchor during the week. As an anchor, Hume does a pretty good job of keeping things balanced (better'n most at Fox). The problem is, he spends the weekends offering opinions. Dan Rather did that ONCE. He went to a Democratic fundraiser... on HIS OWN TIME... OFF HOURS. Ever since he did, he was trashed by the Right for being biased ("NEWSCASTERS SHOULD NEVER EXPRESS THEIR OWN POLITICAL OPINIONS!" Cried many... even when he wasn't being biased at all Rather was trashed by the Right. This was the Right wing's smoking gun, proving Rather biased.

I think the Right (in Rather's case) and the Left (In Hume's) are both correct. A newscaster should keep their opinions to themselves. It gives people on both sides a chance to hear the story without being tarnished by the newscaster's opinion. Leave the opinions to Bill O'Reilley and Al O'Franken. They get payed to have opinions. Rather and Hume are/were NEWSCASTERS. They read the news. It is not their job to have opinions. Opinion taints their job.

That is the difference between Moyers (not an anchor), Rather (less biased than Brit) and Hume (professional TV editorial anchor). Don't get me started on Hume's WRITTEN editorial work.

As for Chris Wallace, I think he does his job very well. I don't agree with where he stands a lot of the time, but I think he is classy, smart and professional. I feel the same about Cal Thomas but to a lesser degree.

Fox's Sunday lineup definitely caters to the after church crowd (For those that didn't know, these are the people who were upset about Janet Jackson's boob). Fox also shows more news on Sunday than the other 24 hour cable networks. They have a very conservative lineup on Sunday and virtually no competition. They use that time to allow their anchor to offer his Right-leaning opinions. There was a time when this was simply not allowed in Television journalism.

I am a Liberal, but I enjoy watching Fox. I know the shows, I know the anchors. They ARE biased, but that's ok... it gets ratings :wink: . I just wish they drew a clearer line between news and editorial. Same goes for MSNBC and CNN.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* THE ANTI-ANTI-AMERICANS wingnutx 1,811 17 08/27/03 03:49 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* American Education= conspiracy?
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 4,060 20 07/18/03 01:50 AM
by CeeEssGee
* RACHEL CORRIE ****After all Americans Are HEROES******
( 1 2 all )		 trev 3,312 25 05/13/03 09:52 PM
by trev
* the Project for a New American Century
( 1 2 all )		 iglou 3,595 26 05/02/03 10:53 AM
by Madtowntripper
* Why Don't We Have Answers To These Questions?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Autonomous 3,775 41 09/15/03 04:53 PM
by Anonymous
* An American view of Europe
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 1,837 24 11/17/02 02:44 PM
by GazzBut
* Why is the military killing international journalists? RadioActiveSlug 690 1 04/09/03 07:37 AM
by PsiloKitten
* Will Attacking Iraq Make Americans Safer?
( 1 2 all )		 EchoVortex 3,928 30 02/01/03 01:58 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,859 topic views. 3 members, 77 guests and 64 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.