• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House attacks worry moderate Democrats

How do you explain his, and other partisan fox commentators, offering opinions during what Fox claims is the "news" portion of their daily schedule?

And NBC and others don't do this, ever? Fox is the only one who ever has people give their opinion as they, also, report the news?

I've never tuned into Fox and expected to get a traditional rundown of the news. I want to hear opinions (regardless of the fact that I don't agree with 1/2 of them) for the same reason I don't demand and expect people to ONLY quote FACTS in a debate forum - I, also, want opinions. Because it's more engaging that way and gives me more to talk about.

If I want traditional news without ANY inferred opinion I will tune, not to CNN or NBC, but I will tune to my local stations at 5:00, 9:00 or 10:00 where they deliver news without any opinion or bias - just the facts.

The deal, here, is that all these "24 hr" news stations have to report 1 hours worth of news over a 24 hr period - leaving them no choice but to have to fluff-up the content and alter the method in which it's delivered by other people.

So, some shows are journalism-based. Others are a mix of journalism-opinion and others are pure opinion.

It's up the viewer to decide what's acceptable and what isn't - if someone doesn't want Miller chiming in on what he *feels* then they don't have to watch him when he's on - and if he's on too often then they don't have to watch that channel at all.

However - according to Rachel at NBC this isn't even the "beef" with fox - the beef with fox is that they're not supportive of the president.
In the same way that NBC and everyone else were on a manhunt for Bush's head. . .talk about hypocrisy.
 
I offered a link for this claim, here it is again

The link says nothing at all about being "insulated" nothing at all.


In fact it does say "Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective."

Objective does not in any way equal insulated.

Now as I asked before; can you as an adult tell the difference between commentary on a news story and the actual news story?

If you can't, we probably have nothing left to debate.
 
Last edited:
I will say that I don't know of any other news station who actively sought out people to attend Tea Bag protests. That's new to me.

Fox has no credibility, IMO. NONE.
 
The link says nothing at all about being "insulated" nothing at all.



In fact it does say "Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective."

Objective does not in any way equal insulated.

Now as I asked before; can you as an adult tell the difference between commentary on a news story and the actual news story?

If you can't, we probably have nothing left to debate.

"insulated" was my word. Call it what you will, Fox claims that its news and opinion are separated. They are not.
 
"insulated" was my word. Call it what you will, Fox claims that its news and opinion are separated. They are not.

So what. There is no law against it and other channels do the same, but are on the other side of the ideological spectrum.
 
So what. There is no law against it and other channels do the same, but are on the other side of the ideological spectrum.

Yes, there is a "law" against it. It's called news policy, and for those in the business, the rules about what you can say and how you say it are very strict. Every legitimate news organization prints a policy book which is religiously followed, the penalty for breaking rules is immediate dismissal. You would be surprised how strict those rules are, and why Fox's irresponsible attitude is especially nauseating to professional journalists.
 
Yes, there is a "law" against it. It's called news policy, and for those in the business, the rules about what you can say and how you say it are very strict. Every legitimate news organization prints a policy book which is religiously followed, the penalty for breaking rules is immediate dismissal. You would be surprised how strict those rules are, and why Fox's irresponsible attitude is especially nauseating to professional journalists.

All these channels that peole are always referencing and comparing do it, though - so, by this definition, they're all in violation.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep the rhetoric civil.

Moderator's Warning:
Let me re-iterate this clearly. Any further incivility in this thread will result in thread bans and possibly more.
 
Yes, there is a "law" against it. It's called news policy, and for those in the business, the rules about what you can say and how you say it are very strict. Every legitimate news organization prints a policy book which is religiously followed, the penalty for breaking rules is immediate dismissal. You would be surprised how strict those rules are, and why Fox's irresponsible attitude is especially nauseating to professional journalists.

That's a law? It seems Fox News as a channel creates programming that includes the oinions of someone like Hannity on their new program. Don't news programs often have panels or guests who express their opinions? I still don't see the problem.
 
Over the weekend I made a new friend whom surprised me by saying that he was surprised that the Obama Administration had started up this entirely new practice of engaging the media.

I was kind of astonished. I informed him that the previous administration had a feature on its website called "Setting the Record Straight" where it did just that, constantly. It's primary target was the NYT, of course.

The thing that is new about this current "tit-for-tat" is that the WH response is suddenly newsworthy to the sensationalist Fox News.

I'm always surprised when more energy is spent looking at the reaction rather than impetus, and when the "same old" is treated as something new.

This new friend of mine surprised me even further by using the example of what's-her-name saying that Fox wasn't a real news organization as an example of how the Obama Administration is as bad as anything we've ever had. I wanted to bring up native American genocide, CIA interventions, testing nukes on our own troops, ... but I just let it go. Yeah, Obama is just ... "terrible."
 
I never said uneducated conservatives were "retards" or that educated liberals "see the light". My only point is that people with post-graduate degrees tend to be liberal; and if MSNBC was looking to hire "smart" reporters as Griffen alleges in his interview; then he would probably see more impressive resumes from liberals than conservatives. For instance, if Griffen saw Hannity's resume (a college dropout) and Maddow's resume (Phd from Oxford); Maddow would probably get the job. If Olberman (Ivy League graduate) and Palin (difficulty graduating from small school); Olberman would get the job. Hannity and Palin are not "retards" but they would not be competitive in jobs that place high value in educational backgrounds. That is how MSNBC ended up with so many liberal anchors.

You may not have called them retards, but that's exactly how it came across. Journalism is a liberal profession, that much is clear. Not surprisingly, most people working in that industry are liberals. The problem arising from that is that the conservative portion of the population feels under-represented, misunderstood, mis-represented and sometimes mocked or even demonized by a large majority of those liberal, supposedly "smart", media personalities.

Is it really ANY wonder that FoxNews rose to such popular levels? There was a huge need for such a network. There was a need for that under-represented conservative base to have a voice in the media landscape. The fact that you think they are not educated enough and apparently not worthy of reporting their own version of current events is irrelevant. There is no need to have a postgraduate degree to be a good journalist. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the sharpest and most efficient ones don't have a postgrad. It's absolutely not a guarantee for success.
Also, most, if not all of the Fox anchors, started and/or established their careers in the liberal networks. If they were good and respectable enough for CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, they should be good enough for Fox too.

You probably don't know this but in America the term "right-winger" is not distasteful because of their educational achievements; but this movement has been associated with racial bigotry by prominent leaders such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. At their March on Washington, tea-baggers held signs that said: "the zoo has an African Lion; and the Whitehouse has a Lying African". They have historically nominated openly racist candidates for high office: Nixon, Reagan, Jessie Helms, Storm Thurmond. Not every conservative is racist but some of the public faces of the American "right-wing" bear the ugly scars of racism. So the term "right-wing" has some unique American connotations that has made the term derogatory.

So let me get this straight. You're upset that I dared call you a right-winger, which in your liberal circles is obviously perceived as a major derogatory term. Then, you proceed to use the term "tea-baggers", which in conservative circles is perceived as an equally derogatory, elitist term. But it's okay whern YOU do it, am I rite? :doh

Europe enjoys leftist administrations and broad social safety nets but I wonder how much of your good life was paid for by American taxpayers. Over the last half century much of our bloated defense budget was spent protecting Europe. This freed European countries from an enormous burden and they were able to use their treasury to improve the lives of their citizens. Europe stroked the ego of American conservatives. Guys like Reagan would then spend all of our money to over-militarize. But when those conservatives got drunk with power and began to unilaterally invade other countries on a "pre-emptive" basis; Europe became angry at America. But I hope that you guys at least admit some responsibility for creating this monster.

I agree with you completely, except for the last sentence. You are responsible for your own decisions and your own actions. I don't recall Europe ever putting a gun to your head. Sorry, the "Look what you made me do!!" is falling on unsympathetic ears here. I'm a big believer in the conservative motto of "personal responsibility" in this case.
 
"insulated" was my word. Call it what you will, Fox claims that its news and opinion are separated. They are not.

I am going to ask you for the third time...

Can you as an adult tell the difference between commentary on a news story and the actual news story?

Fox does not claim they are insulated or separated, they claim the news reports are "OBJECTIVE" in that particular time slot.

Please stop being intellectually dishonest about the words you are choosing.
 
I will say that I don't know of any other news station who actively sought out people to attend Tea Bag protests. That's new to me.

How did FOX seek out people to attend a tea party? They were not the organizers for any tea party's. So I am curious how you have come to that conclusion?

Fox has no credibility, IMO. NONE.

I have a feeling taking into account your posting history and leftist partisanship, it never had.
 
Last edited:
10thJustice said:
Now I have to ask you the Barney Frank question: "on what planet do you spend most of your time". It was well documented during the last election that the educated population are overwhelmingly liberal.

So did the dumbest voters...

Non High School Graduates: Obama-63% McCain-35%

So I guess you point is, well.... pointless.
 
So did the dumbest voters...

Non High School Graduates: Obama-63% McCain-35%

So I guess you point is, well.... pointless.

people that don't graduate from HS aren't always dumb. people that vote for a Dem aren't always "liberal." bringing up a separate statistic doesn't refute anything.
 
people that don't graduate from HS aren't always dumb. people that vote for a Dem aren't always "liberal." bringing up a separate statistic doesn't refute anything.

But it does undermine this moronic notion that uneducated people are decidedly Republican or that Democrats and liberals are mostly educated.

All either statistic proved, when looked at together, is that a butt load of people across the spectrum got bamboozled by that thug sitting in the white house. :shrug:
 
But it does undermine this moronic notion that uneducated people are decidedly Republican or that Democrats and liberals are mostly educated.
the original claim wasn't about uneducated people. what if we were talking about thin people? and along came this comment to "refute" it, about what fat people do. it wouldn't make any sense, and neither has Gill, speaking about the 4% from this last election in response to the whatever it was, of different kinds of people, from the election before that.

All either statistic proved, when looked at together, is that a butt load of people across the spectrum got bamboozled by that thug sitting in the white house. :shrug:
"bamboozled," ... interesting perspective.

elections differ from straight sales pitches. an election is a choice. a choice between candidates.
 
the original claim wasn't about uneducated people. what if we were talking about thin people? and along came this comment to "refute" it, about what fat people do. it wouldn't make any sense, and neither has Gill, speaking about the 4% from this last election in response to the whatever it was, of different kinds of people, from the election before that.

It most certainly was:

You refuse to admit that Republicans have mislead the uneducated masses of the midwest into supporting policies that harm their own communities.

He is clearly saying that the uneducated "masses", which is a condescending term, are mislead by Republicans and vote for them. I clearly showed that he has it backwards and it is obviously the Democrats that mislead the uneducated.
 
It most certainly was:



He is clearly saying that the uneducated "masses", which is a condescending term, are mislead by Republicans and vote for them. I clearly showed that he has it backwards and it is obviously the Democrats that mislead the uneducated.

I was going by what you quoted in your post, which was different. obviously y'all are mixed up, and I've learned to stay out of it from now on.
 
I was going by what you quoted in your post, which was different. obviously y'all are mixed up, and I've learned to stay out of it from now on.

Good idea if you haven't read the whole thread.
 
I was going by what you quoted in your post, which was different. obviously y'all are mixed up, and I've learned to stay out of it from now on.

Blame it on someone else that you did not know the context of a particular post. :cool:
 
Blame it on someone else that you did not know the context of a particular post. :cool:

You guys are too much. I was going by the context of a particular post, exactly. That Gill and/or 10th Justice contradict themselves is not my problem.
 
You guys are too much. I was going by the context of a particular post, exactly. That Gill and/or 10th Justice contradict themselves is not my problem.

Next time, keep up with the conversation and you won't embarrass yourself. No one contradicted themselves except for you.
 
Next time, keep up with the conversation and you won't embarrass yourself. No one contradicted themselves except for you.

and I contradicted myself, when? how is someone, also no one? and if I am allegedly the only "no one," why did you quote 10th saying "educated" and also, later, "uneducated?"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom