• 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!

Is The Fox News Channel The Mouthpiece For The GOP?

Is The Fox News Channel The Mouthpiece For The GOP?

  • Total voters
    60
cpwill said:
I was listening last night on my drive to glenn beck play a tape of an interview Hillary did last summer with NPR. Even with NPR she was struggling.
Click to expand...

Grand set of qualifications and performance for the next president. Yeah, I'm thinking not.

Just by the feel of what you posted there, and Hillary's pretty much ditching the journalists, and hand picking her conversation companions, makes me think that she's got some sort of underlying medical problem (perhaps something left over from her concussion?) which is seeming to plague her.

But then, on the other hand, she seemed to deliver a pretty good performance in her presser at the UN about the email and server issue.

Hmm. Guess we'd need to keep an open eye out on this.
 
Fenton said:
Your criticisms fall under the typical leftist tripe thats posted here on a daily basis.

As you claim not to be biased you went straight to a Liberal talking point narrative to justify your highly subjective opinion that Fox News " distorts the facts ".

Again, you should change your pseudonym and be done with it.

I have more respect for a Lib who throws out lies and misinformation in a attempt to justify his ideology than someone who misrepresents themselves as " unbiased ".
Click to expand...

So nothing that actually refutes it , just a claim that it is biased because it dose not fit your narrative.

I gave an example and what you give is that it's just leftist tripe not even touching upon the point. Fox news Stated that in Paris there were no go zones when it was demonstrated to be false and fox news even admitted it being wrong in that regard.
I've demonstrated fox distortion , what do you have to back up your claims

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-corrects-apologizes-for-no-go-zone-remarks/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-city-is-nogo-zone-for-muslims-10041057.html

Another site stated it http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/media/paris-fox-lawsuit-muslims/


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/20/paris-mayor-plans-to-sue-fox-news/
And on the fox news site


Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France,” Fox News anchor Julie Banderas said.

"To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country, and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion."
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Grand set of qualifications and performance for the next president. Yeah, I'm thinking not.

Just by the feel of what you posted there, and Hillary's pretty much ditching the journalists, and hand picking her conversation companions, makes me think that she's got some sort of underlying medical problem (perhaps something left over from her concussion?) which is seeming to plague her.

But then, on the other hand, she seemed to deliver a pretty good performance in her presser at the UN about the email and server issue.

Hmm. Guess we'd need to keep an open eye out on this.
Click to expand...

You thought so? She read a prepared statement that was beyond plausibility, got caught in blatant lies almost immediately, and faced no tough questioning.
 
cpwill said:
You thought so? She read a prepared statement that was beyond plausibility, got caught in blatant lies almost immediately, and faced no tough questioning.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of not struggling to deliver in the presentation, standing up there and clearly and effectively speaking the words, an eye more towards physical or mental infirmity. Would it be fair to say that it seems to have left by the time she was on NPR? Or not?

The content? No question. As bogus as a $3 bill. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion, at least in my mind.
 
Kobie said:
All Fox News' ratings prove is that there's a market for right-wing lies and GOP shilling. Doesn't surprise me. Conservatives often trend more toward self-affirmation than liberals do. That's a generalization, of course, not a truism, but it's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that is why MSNBC to heading "right" to stop pumping out leftist lies that everyone knows are lies.
 
rocket88 said:
What's funny about this cartoon is that it inadvertently backs up the premise of the poll. Are your feelings hurt that there aren't more mouthpieces? Maybe the government should regulate it...can't leave it to the market clearly.
Click to expand...
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who piss bitch and moan about FOX news.
 
eohrnberger said:
In fact, the legitimate position can be substantiated that the MSM pushed forward more positive coverage and less negative coverage on Obama, and the reverse for the GOP candidate. This clearly demonstrating their bias.
Click to expand...

Former New Jersey Governor Jim Mcgreevey is a perfect example of liberal media bias. Instead of being a dirtbag for having an affair on his wife he referred to or called a brave man for coming out of the closet.John Edwards a well known presidential candidate is another example.He barely got any coverage for having any affair on his sick wife while a barely known republican was on the news for allegedly soliciting sex in a airport bathroom. Shooting stories are also an example of liberal media bias.Anytime someone shoots up a place full of white people it gets news for weeks or even a month or two, the media plasters that shooter's face all over the media.The media tells us the gist of what his suicide note says.The media will tell us what type of guns he has, where/how he got them and they give a soap box to anti-2nd amendment trash.But if someone uses a gun to stop a criminal there is little to no mention of the incident.
 
eohrnberger said:
In a way it is an example of MSM bias.

The MSM has a history of pretty much ignoring Huck, so he ends up on Fox, who'll give his the time of day.

Were the MSM less biased, wouldn't they consider covering him and inviting him to appear on their shows?
Click to expand...

The media is not going to promote any of the candidates who they feel hasn't have the support it takes to win. The media likes to promote the horse race narrative because it sells. I predict a Clinton vs. Bush matchup.
 
Fox is really two news organizations. The first is hard news and on the hard news side both Republicans and Democrats are fairly equally split.

The opinion side of Fox is decidedly conservative and guests are heavily weighted toward Republicans. One reason for this though is that Democrats are often reluctant to serve as a counterpoint to guys like Hannity. To represent the left, the opinion side of Fox uses so called Democrat strategists. Media matters would not track them because that would interfere with their prejudice against Fox, which by the way is by far the most popular cable news org.
 
pbrauer said:
So? They don't have personal appearances by candidates like Fox News does all the time. Fox News has already had Cruz and Rubio. Just watch as each Republican declares their candidancy for POTUS, Fox News will have them on as guests.
Click to expand...


on their "news" shows?

or on shows like hannity, and the rest of the editorial shows that they have?

and if on the editorial shows, why do you care?

you dont think Hillary is getting enough air time?
 
gdgyva said:
on their "news" shows?

or on shows like hannity, and the rest of the editorial shows that they have?

and if on the editorial shows, why do you care?

you dont think Hillary is getting enough air time?
Click to expand...

Oh I care, but not in a way you might think. I think that because they do this the Republicans will not nominate a good candidate. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney are evidence for my theory. I just love it when they swoon over candidtes such as Cain, Bachmann and now Carson.
 
pbrauer said:
The media is not going to promote any of the candidates who they feel hasn't have the support it takes to win. The media likes to promote the horse race narrative because it sells.
Click to expand...

It's not up the news media to promote any one candidate over another. The media should be reporting on all candidates in a factual basis, with even handed analysis and / or commentary.

The idea that the news media promotes any candidate is already off the mark where they should be.

pbrauer said:
I predict a Clinton vs. Bush matchup.
Click to expand...

You might very well be right on that. We'll just have to wait with baited breath, or our deepest scorn (as is applicable), until it further unfolds.
 
pbrauer said:
Oh I care, but not in a way you might think. I think that because they do this the Republicans will not nominate a good candidate. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney are evidence for my theory. I just love it when they swoon over candidtes such as Cain, Bachmann and now Carson.
Click to expand...


you care about the pubs nominating a "good" candidate?

and in your opinion, who might that be?

who "should" the right nominate to defeat your candidate Hillary....
 
jamesrage said:
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who piss bitch and moan about FOX news.
Click to expand...

So it's hypocritical if the left bitches about Fox, but OK if the right bitches about MSNBC?
 
rocket88 said:
So it's hypocritical if the left bitches about Fox, but OK if the right bitches about MSNBC?
Click to expand...
I do not bitch about MSNBC being the mouthpiece for the DNC.
 
sawdust said:
Fox is really two news organizations. The first is hard news and on the hard news side both Republicans and Democrats are fairly equally split.

The opinion side of Fox is decidedly conservative and guests are heavily weighted toward Republicans. One reason for this though is that Democrats are often reluctant to serve as a counterpoint to guys like Hannity. To represent the left, the opinion side of Fox uses so called Democrat strategists. Media matters would not track them because that would interfere with their prejudice against Fox, which by the way is by far the most popular cable news org.
Click to expand...

What is a democratic strategist? What role do they play in the DNC?
 
Hatuey said:
What is a democratic strategist? What role do they play in the DNC?
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong guy. You could call Fox and ask or you could watch, take down names and look them up. The only ones I can remember by name are Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. You could look them up if you wish.
 
sawdust said:
You are asking the wrong guy. You could call Fox and ask or you could watch, take down names and look them up. The only ones I can remember by name are Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. You could look them up if you wish.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what a democratic strategist is, you just know they provide balance to the conservative content at FOX? :lol: There is nothing in Juan Williams bio anywhere that seems to describe him as a democratic strategist, so I'll ask again, what do they do?
 
Hatuey said:
So you don't know what a democratic strategist is, you just know they provide balance to the conservative content at FOX? :lol: There is nothing in Juan Williams bio anywhere that seems to describe him as a democratic strategist, so I'll ask again, what do they do?
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong guy. You could call Fox and ask or you could watch, take down names and look them up. The only ones I can remember by name are Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. You could look them up if you wish.
 
sawdust said:
You are asking the wrong guy. You could call Fox and ask or you could watch, take down names and look them up. The only ones I can remember by name are Juan Williams and Bob Beckel. You could look them up if you wish.
Click to expand...

Well, I also asked you: If you don't know what they do and you don't know who they are, how do you even know they present an important opinion when examining DNC matters? How do you know that they provide balance? You're basically telling me that you listen to a guy because he was given a fancy title like 'Democratic Strategist'. I think you believe that a 'Democratic Strategist' presents a response which balances what the other person is saying. However, my questions are basically asking you: How? Explain the role of a democratic strategist in the DNC? What do they do during elections?
 
eohrnberger said:
In a way it is an example of MSM bias.

The MSM has a history of pretty much ignoring Huck, so he ends up on Fox, who'll give his the time of day.

Were the MSM less biased, wouldn't they consider covering him and inviting him to appear on their shows?
Click to expand...


They'll cover it, but unlike on Fox it'll be "Mike Huckabee announced he's running for President. In other news you actually care about..."

If he becomes a front runner, they'll cover him. If he says something (or many things) really stupid they'll cover that. Otherwise they aren't going to sit there and talk about Huck while their ratings start dropping.

Isn't a "liberal bias," thing either, they'd barely talk about Webb, O'Malley, etc. too until one of the above happen.
 
Hatuey said:
Well, I also asked you: If you don't know what they do and you don't know who they are, how do you even know they present an important opinion when examining DNC matters? How do you know that they provide balance? You're basically telling me that you listen to a guy because he was given a fancy title like 'Democratic Strategist'. I think you believe that a 'Democratic Strategist' presents a response which balances what the other person is saying. However, my questions are basically asking you: How? Explain the role of a democratic strategist in the DNC? What do they do during elections?
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not lifting a finger to provide you with answers to your questions that you have the capability of answering for yourself. If you are genuinely interested, watch Fox opinion programing and get the answers to your questions. You can hear what they say, get their names, look them up if you are that interested. Frankly if I hear that someone claims to be a democrat strategist, I assume they are either intellectually or ethically challenged.
 
sawdust said:
Look, I'm not lifting a finger to provide you with answers to your questions that you have the capability of answering for yourself. If you are genuinely interested, watch Fox opinion programing and get the answers to your questions. You can hear what they say, get their names, look them up if you are that interested. Frankly if I hear that someone claims to be a democrat strategist, I assume they are either intellectually or ethically challenged.
Click to expand...

Questions I have the capability of answering myself. Well, sure. However, we're questioning why and how you think they provide balance. You seem to be sure that they do. I'm asking you: Why and how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom