Whovian
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,153
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- dimensionally transcendental
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh jeez PB has a twin.
i smell a sock puppet...
Oh jeez PB has a twin.
Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased.
Why would I want to see Olbermann associated with a news agency? He was with MSNBC and I made it clear that I see MSNBC in the same light as I see Fox, only they lean left.I have a funny feeling nothing short of hiring Olbremann and turning the News Room over to the NY Times would raise Fox's credibility with you.
Do you really think you need to keep reminding me that you don't understand what I'm talking about? I get that, you can stop now.What you are MAD about isn't "Fox News' credibility, it's pretty clear you just don't like the network. What has you upset is that these politicians were given public visibility via their work with Fox News.
Wow. I'm impressed. I've never had my opinion decimated by an endless stream of non-sequiturs before. Kudos to you and your delusional brain that sees victories where none exist.Let's just cut the bull eh? I've already decimated every point you've made.
This is where your position gets derailed. Those people could have remained embedded in "public discourse" without joining a purported news agency. Once again, you demonstrate you really have no idea at all what I'm talking about as I don't care if they're in the public daily. Palin has (or had) her own reality TV show, I couldn't care less. If you knew what I was talking about, you would have realized my problem is with Fox no longer even attempting to conceal its bias by hiring potential presidential candidates. Regretably, you don't; probably never will.Let's get down to brass tacks. By working with Fox, Palin, Huckabee, Newt... are able to "stay in the public discourse", and that irks you.
That's funny. You probably really do believe the examples you cited were similar.I was using SIMILAR situations because you are being dishonest as hell.
Impressive. Educated by someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. Who knew such things were even possible?Class dismissed!
(that means I'm through schooling you, feel free however to rant on, who'll listen to you now?)
That's pretty unfair. Just because the men may decide to run for president they are kicking them off the air? What if they eventually change their minds and decides not to run?
They should have let both of them stay on.
As you’ve probably heard by now, Fox News has suspended the contracts of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for sixty days. They will have to tell Fox News within sixty days whether they intend to run for the presidency or their contracts will be terminated.
Contracts for Governor Palin and Mike Huckabee were not among the contracts suspended. Huckabee’s contract was not suspended because his “present intention is to sell books.” Governor Palin’s contract was not suspended because “he hasn’t yet shown a serious intention to form an exploratory committee.”
All 4 were likely. All 4 were considering the option but it was too soon to declare their candidacy.OK< Which presidential candidates did Fox News hire? The fact is they didn't hire any.
They were likely candidates when they were hired. They were dismissed when they became serious candidates.You seemed to have missed the news that as soon as there was a possibility that these people were likely candidates, they were dismissed.
I don't see the ratings as telling that at all. For one, Conservatives seem to gravitate towards 1 network, Fox, more than any other; whereas Liberals tend to be more diverse, gravitating towards ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. For another, there are roughly twice as many people in this country who identify themselves as Conservative as they do Liberal. And finally, while Fox easily beats its cable competators, it pales in comparison to network news. I do not see that as an indicator that they are better.By the ratings and the fact that several of their commentators are possible presidential candidates. There is simply no comparison.
Ok, so far we have one example (CNN hired Buchanan). But the format was different and less biased. What examples do you have of other news agencies hiring likely presidential candidates?what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
FOX is not a credible news agency, because people who contribute on air run for President? I hope you hole ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. all to that standard.
That must smell nasty.i smell a sock puppet...
Well I don't think Fox news is trying to cover up any bias, nor are any of the other cable media, so I'm not so sure why you're against it. Although, un-biased media would be nice, it's just as equal if you have both sides on the air, as we do today.Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased. Someone earlier mentioned CNN hiring Pat Buchanan. That, I believe, is almost as wrong as what Fox is doing now. The only difference being that at least CNN hired him in a format which pitted left against right, so it's hard to find bias when both sides are presented in the same show; it was still wrong for the same inherent reason, but not as blatantly biased as Fox is being about it.
Oh? How did I do that?
Ok, so far we have one example (CNN hired Buchanan). But the format was different and less biased. What examples do you have of other news agencies hiring likely presidential candidates?
If others engaged in that practice, yes, I hold them to the same standard as Fox. Am I to take your reply as you have no examples to cite?I did not say others did or did not hire possible Presidential candidates. I said I hope you whine and complain when they do, or you risk being labeled a hypocrite.
i smell a sock puppet...
Moderator's Warning: |
Then contact a mod, don't derail a thread with personal crap. |
I asked you for examples of other media bias. What do you see?Well I don't think Fox news is trying to cover up any bias, nor are any of the other cable media, so I'm not so sure why you're against it. Although, un-biased media would be nice, it's just as equal if you have both sides on the air, as we do today.
All 4 were likely. All 4 were considering the option but it was too soon to declare their candidacy.
They were likely candidates when they were hired. They were dismissed when they became serious candidates.
I don't see the ratings as telling that at all. For one, Conservatives seem to gravitate towards 1 network, Fox, more than any other; whereas Liberals tend to be more diverse, gravitating towards ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. For another, there are roughly twice as many people in this country who identify themselves as Conservative as they do Liberal. And finally, while Fox easily beats its cable competators, it pales in comparison to network news. I do not see that as an indicator that they are better.
Ok, so you prefer biased news. I do not.When they have several commentators who are possible Presidential candidates, while the others have none, I think that speaks well of their professionalism and credibility.
Ok, so you prefer biased news. I do not.
First, you have to demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about.This should be good:
Name your news sources.
First, you have to demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about.
Ok, so you prefer biased news. I do not.
This should be good:
Name your news sources.
I find ABC most centered.Good for you.
Now which news organization do you feel is most free from bias? Who do you trust to bring you the straight goods?
I find ABC most centered.
I find ABC most centered.
Like I said, I'm impressed with someone who has no idea what I'm talking about but actually thinks he's defeated me in debate. Maybe if you say that another thousand times, it will be one of those things that if repeated enough, convinces a few people that it's true? Just a suggestion, mind you.Twist away my little friend, you are beaten, when will you realize it?
I'm sure every news agency has isolated incidents of bias. With Fox, it's systemic.Sorry I missed that. But there does seem to be some interest in finding a completely reliable and unbiased news source.
I probably won't be familiar with it.