• 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!

Fox News pulls Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum off the air …

ABC?

Okay folks, I think this ends the discussion quite well don't you?

Sheik, thank you for the reply, we shall let this stand as evidence of what this thread REALLY was all about. Just as I stated it was.
Wow, yet another one declaring victory, this time, with out even responding. You must have had that victory in your head. Too bad it never made it to the forum.
 
Wow, yet another one declaring victory, this time, with out even responding. You must have had that victory in your head. Too bad it never made it to the forum.

You slam Fox as false news for having Republican Conservative commentators for editorial pieces yet claim ABC, the same ABC News that hired Clinton's mouth piece as a Journalist is centered reliable news.

It's more then just amusing.

I think I like you. When was the last time we had one so easy to dismiss and mock as you?
 
This is nothing more than a Conservative whining that ABC is biased, but not actual evidence of it. Regardless, this is a specific incident that may or may not be bias. I'm not talking about specific incidents of bias. I already agreed with another gentleman that all news agencies suffer bouts of isolated cases of bias on occassion. I'm talking about systemic bias, which I believe is the case with Fox and I believe is the case with MSNBC.

What? It's ABC's fault that Palin made an idiot of herself? She thought the Bush Doctrine was George Bush's "world view." :roll:

This article is about Michael Moore, not ABC.

This is an article about ABC not being biased ... "I quit ABC a couple weeks ago partly because they didn’t like what I was doing. They viewed it as too biased…So I am going to Fox Business" ~ John Stossel

This is another example like your first, a Conservative whining that ABC is biased, but not actual evidence of it. And like your first example, even if you consider it biased, it's just a specific incident of a reporter being biased. It's not indicative of the network being biased systemically.



Just watch this one.

This was a valid citation on your part. This was a case where someone working for ABC confessed systemic bias from the network. But to his credit, he also worked to rid his news agency of what he called, "old media" bias.

Fox News not only flaunts its bias, it does nothing to rein it in.
 
Look at all the blogs and conservative sites calling ABC biased. The irony meter is pegged.
 
I'm sure there's bias on both sides, but isn't the issue of this thread really about a conflict of interest?

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Conservative or liberal, why is there any argument that Fox News should suspend these contracts? I don't know how this thread devolved into **** slinging like monkeys at the zoo...
 
Last edited:
I am a fan of the Lehrer News Hour. The news portion is pretty well presented, the people they bring in to discuss issues tend to be polite and intelligent even if they disagree with each other, which is a nice change of pace.

I don't care much for Lehrer but if you like him it really doesn't matter, and the same is true for Sheil Yerbuti enjoying ABC. The only thing I find interesting is that Fox News really inspires strong emotions from those who lean towards the Left, and their complaints usually tend to be non-specific.

To each his own, I reckon, and we can learn whatever we can from Jim Lehrer, ABC News and Fox News to better debate each other on these boards. That's when whatever we learned from whatever we've watched takes on more value.
 
I don't care much for Lehrer but if you like him it really doesn't matter, and the same is true for Sheil Yerbuti enjoying ABC. The only thing I find interesting is that Fox News really inspires strong emotions from those who lean towards the Left, and their complaints usually tend to be non-specific.

To each his own, I reckon, and we can learn whatever we can from Jim Lehrer, ABC News and Fox News to better debate each other on these boards. That's when whatever we learned from whatever we've watched takes on more value.

Funny, but I did not even mention FOX news, and in fact watch it on occasion.
 
Why were they even on the air in the first place? Is credibility not a prerequisite for being a Fox News contributor?
 
Why were they even on the air in the first place? Is credibility not a prerequisite for being a Fox News contributor?

They where pundits. The qualification for being a pundit is not the same as being a reporter.
 
You slam Fox as false news for having Republican Conservative commentators for editorial pieces yet claim ABC, the same ABC News that hired Clinton's mouth piece as a Journalist is centered reliable news.

It's more then just amusing.

I think I like you. When was the last time we had one so easy to dismiss and mock as you?
Regrettably, that you dismiss me and mock me is not an indication that you've figured out yet what I'm talking about. Case in point, the portion of your quote above that I highlighted -- I never said that. Yet you "dismiss me" and "mock me" for it.

Do you even realize what you're dismissing and mocking isn't even me, it's your own strawman?
 
Why were they even on the air in the first place? Is credibility not a prerequisite for being a Fox News contributor?

The credibility lies within what the commentators say and not necessarily who they are.

If you have a problem with the credibility of a commentator why not point out where they lied, misled, or otherwise tried to get one over on the viewers. That's the real credibility test.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
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.
What is your statute of limitations? How long before an election should FOX avoid having someone on the payroll if they 'might' run for President? 1 year? 2? 4? Never? Be specific.

Never did get an answer to this. Maybe because you simply don't have an answer???
 
Never did get an answer to this. Maybe because you simply don't have an answer???
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.

That aside, do you understand my belief that there needs to be a definitive wall separating the press from the government?
 
Regrettably, that you dismiss me and mock me is not an indication that you've figured out yet what I'm talking about. Case in point, the portion of your quote above that I highlighted -- I never said that. Yet you "dismiss me" and "mock me" for it.

Do you even realize what you're dismissing and mocking isn't even me, it's your own strawman?

I didn't use your exact words, OMG! Would you prefer I cut and pasted your silliness? You have a problem with potential GOP Presidential candidates getting paid by Fox news and others believing fox is a viable news source.

Yet you watch ABC News.

The amusement, is strong with this one.
 
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.

That aside, do you understand my belief that there needs to be a definitive wall separating the press from the government?

Yet you support ABC News.

You are reaching into troll country son.
 
Because I don't have a definitive answer and because it's irrelevant since Fox is hiring people who will be running for president in the near immediate future. I suppose within an election cycle though would be reasonable.

That aside, do you understand my belief that there needs to be a definitive wall separating the press from the government?

My point is... no news organization should have as hiring criteria 'Do you plan to now, or in the near future, run for President of the United States.' They should hire based on knowledge, credibility, ability to bring in viewers, etc. Possible future plans in politics should not be used as hiring criteria.
 
I didn't use your exact words, OMG! Would you prefer I cut and pasted your silliness? You have a problem with potential GOP Presidential candidates getting paid by Fox news and others believing fox is a viable news source.

Yet you watch ABC News.

The amusement, is strong with this one.

What is your primary news source?
 
My point is... no news organization should have as hiring criteria 'Do you plan to now, or in the near future, run for President of the United States.' They should hire based on knowledge, credibility, ability to bring in viewers, etc. Possible future plans in politics should not be used as hiring criteria.
Do you agree or disagree with me that the line between the press and the government should not be blurred?
 
What I'd like to know is how can Fox News be considered a credible news agency when it's very likely that most, if not all, of the serious Republican candidates next year will have at one time been on their pay role? How can they possibly be fair and balanced?

You know, I never really thought of it that way. Good point. :thumbs:

Of course, there is this counter-argument...

Whovian said:
My point is... no news organization should have as hiring criteria 'Do you plan to now, or in the near future, run for President of the United States.' They should hire based on knowledge, credibility, ability to bring in viewers, etc. Possible future plans in politics should not be used as hiring criteria.

Doesn't invalidate the question, but it does make it rather difficult to determine hiring based on future events none of us know anything about. Still, I think the bigger point is how can a TV/cable news entity be taken at face value as being "fair and balanced" when the majority of their contract commentators are of only one political party? Answer: You really can't.
 
Last edited:
Still, I think the bigger point is how can a TV/cable news entity be taken at face value as being "fair and balanced" when the majority of their contract commentators are of only one political party? Answer: You really can't.
Does Fox have any Liberal commentators?
 
Sheik,

I'm sure they do, but you'd have to ask someone who watches FoxNews more frequently than I do for a more definitive answer. From what I've observed of FoxNews, they don't have very many Liberal news commentators. (Of course, I suppose you could say the same for CNN, but I do know they do have Conservative commentators as regular contributors to their programming.)
 
Back
Top Bottom