backtop


Print 229 comment(s) - last by Kurz.. on Dec 29 at 11:46 AM


So much for fair and balanced...  (Source: The Huffington Post)

Fox News' managing editor apparently believes that the Ice Age has been proven to have existed.  (Source: Media ITE)
Apparently Fox News needs to watch their own movie, Ice Age

Whether its scientists who butcher the peer review process to support their claims that man is causing global warming, or a university statistician who plagiarizes to make a quick buck from warming critics, there seems to be remarkably little unbiased research going on in the scientific, political, and journalistic community.

A perfect example of this bias comes courtesy of a memo sent by Fox News managing editor Bill Sammon.  The email is entitled "Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data..." and was sent out to Fox News' anchors.

It states:

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

The email was leaked by an internal source and sent to Media Matters, a progressive organization that monitors conservative media outlets.

Now anyone who's taken an introductory college climatology class knows that there's a wealth of evidence that every planet in the solar system, including the Earth, has warmed and cooled over a plethora of periods in their history (including the Little Ice Age often alluded to by critics of the theory that man is causing warming).

Of course whether man is causing warming is quite a different matter.  That debate is still a very active one.  But as the various recent incidents illustrate, precious few working on the topic -- regardless of their stance -- are approaching it from an unbiased perspective.

Conquering our planet's climate holds tremendous potential for the benefit of mankind.  To do that we must properly understand how the climate operates.  That will be impossible if the research, governmental, and journalistic communities continue to look at climate change research as a partisan debate and exhaust their energy trying to blindly prove their particular opinion.  It's time to return to true science and open debate.

Updated: Friday, 12/17/2010 7:04 p.m. --

A pair of quick notes.  The story has been fixed to reflect that 20th Century Fox was the distributor of the movie Ice Age.  Also a blog offering further analysis and clarifications on this topic and the points raised in this article has been posted here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fox News = Bias News
By SpaceJumper on 12/17/2010 9:27:35 AM , Rating: 2
I found Fox news is bias. I don't watch it anymore.




RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/17/2010 9:34:28 AM , Rating: 3
Hence Faux News.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/17/2010 9:46:14 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder if we can come up a catchy phrase for MSNBC and CNN.

Something that will ring with their bias as well.
All is fair right?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
They already exist...

MSNBC - More Shit, Nothing But Crap

CNN - Corrupt News Network


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/17/2010 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you I love these examples.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By phxfreddy on 12/17/2010 9:59:24 PM , Rating: 5
The author of this story is misleading you. Tagline of the article was

Fox News Tells Reporters to Deny Earth Has Ever Warmed or Cooled

...but that is incorrect. He said

we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.

...which is an entirely different approach than as characterized. The author is trying to make Fox look like they deny what common sense dictates must have happened. ....and what they really said was that global warming is a bunch of bunk. An eminently reasonable position.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By karlostomy on 12/18/2010 12:33:00 AM , Rating: 5
@ phxfreddy

quote:
...which is an entirely different approach than as characterized. The author is trying to make Fox look like they deny what common sense dictates must have happened. ....and what they really said was that global warming is a bunch of bunk. An eminently reasonable position.


I couldn't agree more!

Jason Mick.
This is shoddy and misleading journalism.
Fix it.
Nuff said.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By HoosierEngineer5 on 12/18/2010 7:00:02 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, but if Jason printed the truth, he wouldn't get as many page hits.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By GulWestfale on 12/20/2010 12:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
which is precisely the same strategy that fox and tabloid 'news'papers use.

this is also why i always feel free to leave a link to one of my sites on a mick post; yes, i'm pagehit-whoring, but so is the so-called journalist who authored the above article and then doctored the headline to pagehit-whore, too.

here you go:
http://whatsatrio.weebly.com/


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By GulWestfale on 12/20/2010 12:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
and remember:
118 billion DALLAHS.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/21/2010 8:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, but if Jason printed the truth, he wouldn't get as many page hits.

So why isn't Geraldo famous?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By omnicronx on 12/18/2010 1:40:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
what they really said was that global warming is a bunch of bunk
Pot meet Kettle?

Seems like you completely missed the point of the bolded paragraph you just posted..

"We should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

Translation : Don't take any side while reporting the news without pointing out that neither side can conclusively prove their theory.

That does not imply that those at Fox News have not chosen a side, it just implies that they are being told not to assert one..


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Targon on 12/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By SPOOFE on 12/18/2010 5:44:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So there was no "Ice Age" based on the bolded text

That interpretation is nothing short of idiotic.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Nfarce on 12/19/2010 9:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
PS: Fox is an illegal "news" channel as it was created by the NOT-AN-AMERICAN, Murdoch.


Congratulations on the most idiotic post so far, Belard. Read it and weep, idiot:

On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalised citizen in order to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own American television stations.


And where does that leave us with that billionaire liberal media whore hero of liberals named George Soros?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/21/2010 1:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
He "only" paid for this citizenship, after the creation of the FBC/NewsCorps... er, Republicorps.

He's not an American for the love of the country, he's an "american" for business. Not much difference then if Hitler re-Jewished himself to make him not be a Nazi.

#2 Owner of Fox is still a Saudi Arabian.

#3 guy, Aile's is an evil old fart ex-Nixon minion, Roger Ailes who specializes in propaganda.

Together - they are the most non-fact based "news" outlet that is designed and successful at brainwashing and scaring the crap out of the dumbest of Americans.

Seriously, if YOU really cared and used something like a DVR or other video recordings... the hypocrisy of FOX is very noticeable.

We have MSNBC as the only news that doesn't follow FOX's leads and assumes they are facts.

Congratulations, you're a scared white little racist man who has little understanding or care of what goes on. Gee... everything on FOX is PRO Republican, they work for republicans, they hire only republicans... hmm, yep, they ARE Fair and Balance! Thank GOD for Fox...

Take FOX balls deep, Teabagger.

Hence, teabaggers get the name they deserved and rightfully christened by FOX themselves... who, OH YEAH, created the fake grass-roots teabagger parties.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Nfarce on 12/23/2010 3:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
You really are an idiot. Why does a little mindless libtard drooler like you even get upset over FoxNews? By the way, when I watch O'Reilly, I note he has LIBERALS on his show, many times 2 with him being the only right-winger.

Watch PMSNBC and see how many right-wingers Maddow and Chris "tingling legs" Matthews has. Oh, I won't even ask about that libtard wretch Olberman.

I see you are a little media matters maggot, and that's fine. I don't have enough of a caring opinion for you libtards to give a rat's a-s-s what you like don't like, or are even indifferent about.

Now go back to your "scared white" libtard drooling, ya overgrown bedwetting child.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/21/2010 8:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And where does that leave us with that billionaire liberal media whore hero of liberals named George Soros?


If Soros did 1/10th what Murdoch has done your kind would be starting a civil war.

We know what Soros spent, you can't even conceive of what Murdoch has or will spend.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/22/2010 12:18:37 AM , Rating: 1
Sources please of what you are referring too.

You know, what your saying still doesn't change the fact that FOX/Newscorps is a NeoCon republican networking-political group, nothing more.

Their "reports" are contradicting - even on live shows in which a reporter said "yeah, a lot of people agree with such-and-such statement" - yet in reality, not many people clapped and the camera quickly panned and zoomed to the reporter, not the crowd.

It doesn't change the fact that FOX has a daily agenda for their tone for the day, which has nothing to do with facts or reality.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/22/2010 12:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
Just look at Faux's entire budget, as well as his sh1thole rags some believe to be newspapers.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By tharik on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By ZachDontScare on 12/17/2010 5:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the 90s CNN was the Clinton News Network.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By jhb116 on 12/17/2010 5:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm - Used to refer to CNN as the Clinton News Network

And to the top poster - duh! Fair and balanced in this day refers to Fox providing a major news source with a conservative bias versus the largely liberal bias of most all the other TV networks. It would be nice to have a network that just provided news with unbiased analysis of potential paths reasons an impacts. I don't watch any of them if I can help it.

The text provided in the article from the email is not a reason to bash Fox - yes there are plenty of reason to bash them. The basic message is that journalists are not scientists and they should not make statements regarding a scientific debate as if they are facts. The "any period" might be the bridge too far that pushes most people's buttons as there are well supported views that the Earth has warmed and cooled well before humans walked the planet.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By judasmachine on 12/19/2010 6:01:51 PM , Rating: 3
CNN - Celebrity News Network

Do we really give a rat's @%$ if Justin Bieber cut his hair? My god people!


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By MrBlastman on 12/22/2010 12:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
CNN - Commie News Network


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By tharik on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Chaser on 12/17/2010 9:52:50 AM , Rating: 5
For decades the TV network news sources were regarded as the holy grail of unbiased TV journalism. Then CNN came on along and the baton was passed to them as well.

All of them were sounding boards for liberal view points blindly accepted as "impartial".

Fox News fills another large niche, and rating wise destroys the other networks and news channels combined. But just like the others they have their slant too. Some people like to have a choice where that slant lies and Fox News was the first major source to offer it.

"Blind sheep" existed in much larger numbers well before Fox News came along.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Motoman on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By adiposity on 12/17/2010 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He's still 100x better than an idiot like Rachael Madcow.


While I agree that Rachael is an idiot, the idea that Glenn is 100x better than anyone is a little hard to swallow.

The man is completely crazy and paranoid. He can (and does) equate just about any action or decision to full-blown communism. Now, I'm not saying he doesn't make a good point here and there. But it is simply astonishing that someone like Glenn has a platform for his lunatic ramblings.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 12:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't really call people communists. He plays videos where they call themselves communists. Have you actually watched him or do you base your opinion on other antagonistic news sources, like NPR and Huffing Glue Post, that receive funding from György Soros?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By adiposity on 12/17/2010 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I have watched him. And yes, he does equate people to communists. And not just those that call themselves communists. He also calls them lots of other things...


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 1:12:32 PM , Rating: 3
If it walks like a Maoist duck and quacks like a Maoist duck, comrade, then...


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 3:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
People who attend meetings in support of communism or hang out with admitted communists have an extremely high likelihood of agreeing with them.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 3:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
FIT, have you ever been to The People's Cube? Take a look; it's rather entertaining.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/18/2010 6:44:51 PM , Rating: 3
How can she be considered an idiot?

She does actual research. She does show both sides. She does show the hypocrisy of anyone, Dems and Teabaggers.

Like McCain who is against DADT for the past year, she shows the video of him saying "if military says gays should opening serve, I will support it" - fast forward to the present... nope.

Or the cry-baby John Bainer, who on 60min was crying about the POOR children and their chance at the American Dream. Yet he has voted over and over again... against education and children. He'd full of crap.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By T2k on 12/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By RaggedClaws on 12/19/2010 3:49:00 AM , Rating: 4
I think Beck is absolutely brilliant at what he does, which is to generate a 30+ million dollar annual personal income by shrewdly matching his message to his target audience. He is to news what Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye were to religion, i.e., fraudsters and charlatans who have taken a good look at what people believe and made fortunes telling them what they want to hear. Ultimately, the problem lies with the appalling stupidity of the majority of American people. If people weren't so dumb, there would be no Becks or Bakkers.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/19/2010 9:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
Nods...

And they drive cars, owns guns and vote. :(


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/22/2010 12:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
And worse, they breed.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/22/2010 12:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Probably an offspring of PT Barnum.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By web2dot0 on 12/17/2010 11:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
Glen Beck is a ENTERTAINER. Nothing he says is based on facts.

What's with the whiteboard showing the "paper trail" of a bunch of "closet socialists"?
Does he really think that what he says makes ANY sense at all?

At times he's right? .... like when?

Rachel Madcow is one of the best ones out there dude. She asks tough questions and does her homework on all the issues. To say she's an idiot is a outrageous lie and make you look like a idiot .....

Don't hate on smart people .... yeah I know, it sucks, but plz listen to sound reasoning once in a while ...


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/2010 12:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
edit: you're


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By T2k on 12/18/2010 10:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
ROFLMAO - great post! That's exactly the average education level among you, redneck Faux-watching fucks... "your" vs "you're" is a challenge for you, losers.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By WW102 on 12/20/2010 10:45:48 AM , Rating: 3
I hope you realize Fox and Faux are not pronounced anything alike. From the context of your post I assume you don't realize that.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/22/2010 12:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile the gold company he endorses Goldline (more like GoldLying)is being investigated by attorney generals in half the states. Just Google "glenn beck gold scandal" for 222,000 hits.

More fair and balanced.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/22/2010 7:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
You're right... watching Beck *IS* being a Nazi to learn about Jews, America, Constitution, Bill Of Rights and anything else.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
If nothing else, the sheer fact that you also made fun of Rachael Maddow's name as I did shows that you know absolutely nothing about which you're speaking.

And yes when he does go through the documented history of certain individuals it makes perfect sense because it is based in nothing but facts. His commentary after going through the documented history of someone is what is not always spot on. Or are you going to say that the history of someone like George Soros or Van Jones is nothing but made up? Nevermind the video tape, newspaper articles, and other documents referenced...

But just go back to running an NPR IV directly into your arm.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Solandri on 12/17/2010 6:29:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Glen Beck is a ENTERTAINER. Nothing he says is based on facts.

I wish more people would remember that when listening to anything said by an actor or director or media celebrity. Their success and aptitude in the field of entertainment gives them zero credibility in a completely unrelated field like science.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Shadowmage on 12/17/2010 11:11:42 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachael Maddow is an idiot.

:rollseyes:


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By brshoemak on 12/17/2010 11:29:21 PM , Rating: 5
I have to assert that from your comment stating that 'Glen Beck..makes good points' that you are out of your mind. No offense intended.

Glenn Beck, at one time or another, has compared almost everything under the sun that he disagrees with to the Nazi Party in some way or another.

Anyone who compares political standing to the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews for the purpose of gaining ratings should automatically turn in their journalism card; hell, their decent human being card.

The problem is people are drawn to what they want to hear, what they agree with or hold as personal beliefs (ie. 'good points') - that in itself is fine, but the justification that supports such claims are insane in most cases. The viewing public doesn't talk about the 'good points' at face value - all they remember is a picture of Obama (or the target of the day) next to a large swastika.

They are being told/shown what to believe. The sad thing is that people who watch Fox News and CNN eat it up and act like the opinion of a news channel is fact.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 10:26:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I am aware of no TV news source that could be correctly labeled as "liberal."


You have obviously never heard of MSNBC then. Just look at their prime time offerings:

6:00pm: Ed Shultz - liberal commentator. From his own radio web page: Ed Schultz is the most listened-to Progressive radio talk show host in America.

7:00pm: Chris Matthews - liberal commentator; got a "tingle up his leg" when Obama won the Presidency. Was a Democratic staffer for four members of Congress. Ran for PA's 4th district congressional seat as a Democratic candidate, lost.

8:00pm: Keith Olberman - liberal commentator; was suspended for donating to Democrat candidates behind the scenes and smearing their Republican challengers on his show (2010).

9:00pm: Rachel Maddow - lesbian liberal commentator; radio show on Air America (liberal talk radio). Maddow herself said "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."

10:00pm: Lawrence O'Donnell - admitted Socialist. Said "I Am A Socialist. I Live To The Extreme Left Of You Mere Liberals!"


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mcnabney on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 9:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
And another moron who thinks anyone who is conservative is a racist.

But for the record, I absolutely hate that word. From anyone.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By retrospooty on 12/18/2010 7:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
Come on now... I think Fitcamaro is as just thick-headed as the next right wing loony, but where did he say anything remotely racist?

Its OK, to disagree politically not based on skin color. IF you recall, they all hated Clinton too.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/18/2010 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well clearly you weren't around when he joked about running down little black kids. His words, not mine. Unfortunately DT cutoffs comment history quickly, destroying evidence more efficiently than the Bush administration.

The fact that this local Jim Jones has followers here does not give him any validity. The drugs they take may make it seem so.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By retrospooty on 12/18/2010 7:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
Ouch... Well if he said that, then yes, I would guess he is a hat wearing shit kickin, truck drivin beer drinking ass scratchin trailer child "takkin 'bout whayt prayd"


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Solandri on 12/19/2010 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well clearly you weren't around when he joked about running down little black kids. His words, not mine. Unfortunately DT cutoffs comment history quickly, destroying evidence more efficiently than the Bush administration.

I don't really think much of him, but it's fairly trivial to do a Google search of this site:

http://www.google.com/#q=site:dailytech.com+fitcam...

I only went through the first few pages of results before giving up. I can't find his post you're referring to. Most of the search hits are of you talking about it. An exact search for "running down little black kids" returns only your post. Are you sure those were his exact words? Perhaps you can find the original so we can all see?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/19/2010 8:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
If you click on any person's name their history is very brief, regardless how long they have been here.

But besides that what remains is Jason's very strange sense of right and wrong. When anyone here makes false accusations in general on a group of people that's OK. The worst of the worst have done this; Nazi's, KKK, other hate groups. But when one makes a similar accusation about someone else here they are likely to be banned, if not for a day perhaps forever. Why did my remark stand? It wasn't escalated enough to bring the wrath of DT down on it, though I couldn't post for the rest of the day. But regardless DT should address what's really worse and what's acceptable. Or simply allow everything, either way, but the current position is absurd.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/20/2010 8:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Where the hell did I ever seriously say that?

I might have made a sarcastic comment in response to someone calling me a racist. But that hardly makes me one.

In the end, you can believe whatever you want. I hate Obama because of his beliefs. Not his skin color.

If I was racist, would I have supported Tim Scott and even helped out his campaign? The first BLACK representative ever from SOUTH CAROLINA's 1st congressional district.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By YashBudini on 12/20/2010 6:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where the hell did I ever seriously say that?

Oh now we're going to play the semantics game. Funny, you don't look like Clinton.

You claimed it was in jest, but who's to say?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By JonB on 12/18/2010 11:49:45 AM , Rating: 3
Or, you might have said, "Some of my best friends are racists" or "I had two racists over for dinner the other night."


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By dj LiTh on 12/18/2010 10:52:46 AM , Rating: 5
.....Negro and Ni66er have two diffrent meanings


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/29/2010 11:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
No they don't its just progression of the slang.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/29/2010 11:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
I mean they do have the same meaning. Its just progression of the slang.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Motoman on 12/17/2010 11:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have obviously never heard of MSNBC then.


Don't get that channel. On the face of it, I'll accept your assertion that they're ridiculous people.

On the other hand...the fact that I have never heard of any of them seems to me to make a point - they're not making nearly the same amount of noise as the radical conservatives.

And I am deeply disappointed that FIT would give Beck the slightest bit of support. Just as I am disappointed when anyone gives Michael Moore any support. Reality is someplace in the middle of all of these idiots - and the morons at either edge are nowhere even close to that reality.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By JediJeb on 12/17/2010 2:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to get the truth that lies in the middle ground is to listen to both sides and figure that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Because you are not going to get the actual truth from either sides extremes.

Overall though I do tend to watch more Fox than the others simply because they show more respect for our troops than the others by not going out of their way to try and point out the mistakes and bad judgments that might happen and leave out any positive news about them. But Fox will also report the bad side of the military, just not that side only.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By hathost on 12/18/2010 9:47:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry but the truth is not always in the middle. That is the grey fallacy. Just because one side says white and another person says black doesn't mean that the answer is somewhere in the middle i.e. grey. That is the result of sloppy and lazy thinking. Being able to listen to and pick a side at least shows some decision making. I choose to be on the right and another person chose to be on the left. You think your side is right because to do otherwise would be to admit you're wrong, I chose my side so it's in my interests to defend it because I don't want to be wrong.

Trying to attack the person as a racist, sexist, hateful, or stupid isn't a solution to arriving at the best answer. It doesn't prove anything other than your arguements for your own point of view are so weak that your only defense is to attack the person arguing with you rather than arguing the topic or the points.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think those who like him, and even Glenn himself, hope that he's a modern John Nash. Otherwise, were totally screwed.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
*we're* (since the spelling/grammar Nazi is watching today)


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Motoman on 12/17/2010 5:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, I hear about Glen Beck and his parade of retards because they make so much noise that their morony makes the news elsewhere...take for example Beck's rally at the capitol, jumping on his pulpit and raving about how we all aren't Christian enough to be worthy of his presence.

That kind of crap isn't what news reporters do - those are the antics of a whacked-out self-righteous overly-privileged attention whore. Which for the most part is pretty much what Michael Moore does...

Now, I am not familiar with the MSNBC folks, which as noted I am perfectly open to the idea that they're morons as well, precisely because of the fact that they aren't organizing massive "rallies" at capitol hill, or doing generally anything else that's going to get them coverage on Jim Lehrer, CNN, or whatever.

And as far as your point goes...no, I don't believe I get Fox News either. We're on the lowest-level DirecTV plan, FWIW. Which pretty much means we don't really watch much TV.

But the fact of the matter is that the wildly conservative media is so much louder than any liberal media that I don't have to watch any particular channel to learn that Glen Beck is a colossal douchebag, along with Bill O'Reilly and the rest of their band of spasm-inducing cretins. They get their douchebaggery all over everything...like a volcano spewing dust everywhere, so you can't avoid it no matter how much you'd really, really like to.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 1
I went to his Restoring Honor rally and it was nothing of the sort. I didn't go for him. I went for the troops.

Pretty clear that you listen to nothing but liberal commentators without ever having heard the man speak. Get your news elsewhere.

And why do you only hear about him and the other conservative commentators? Because the rest of the media is so largely biased the other way. I'm almost thinking you're getting your impression from Family Guy or some sh*t.

Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, have absolutely no respect for that man. He bends whichever way the wind blows.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Fritzr on 12/17/2010 6:21:28 PM , Rating: 1
Fox News is carried on OTA channel 28 here...so it is not limited to the Fox News Channel on cable. You need to remember that the Fox News Channel is a subsidiary of Fox Broadcasting, a company that considers itself to be a major broadcasting (as in OTA) company.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By CZroe on 12/17/2010 10:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only idiots think that a local news program on a Fox Network affiliate is "Fox News." No. Fox News Channel is a cable news network like THE Cable News Network, CNN.

For example, "Fox 5 News" is *Fox 5*, a local network affiliate's, LOCAL news. The network affiliation only provides programming and NOT news. The news is entirely independant. Due to anticompetitive/monopoly regulations, no national network is allowed to privately own a broadcast channel. They can only "affiliate" and provide some content as part of that affiliation.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Targon on 12/18/2010 6:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Then why does News Corp, which owns ALL of Fox own every Fox station across the country? In the NY City area, News Corp owns two broadcast stations, WWOR-9 and WNYW-5. They are directly owned, not an affiliate, which is why Cablevision could not just drop Fox 5 and negotiate with one of the other Fox stations, because they are ALL owned by News Corp.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By CZroe on 12/18/2010 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
"In the United States, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations limit the number of network-owned stations as a percentage of total market size. As such, networks tend to have O&Os only in the largest media markets (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles), and rely on affiliates to carry their programming in other markets."

Having two O&O (Owned and Operated) broadcast stations is not the same as "owning" the network of affiliates. Kinda like TBS was a private broadcast station that also resold it's content nationally on cable/sat as a "Superstation" even though they only owned a tower in the Atlanta area. TBS had no news even though Ted Turner founded CNN. Saying that TBS was CNN is about as far-fetched as saying that one of the few O&O Fox stations is Fox News. It's ridiculous. Fox News Channel is a 24hr cable news network... not a morning or nightly news program that can be carried along with other programming. The closest thing would be to carry a program or two, like Glen Beck and The Factor, which is still not what people keep implying every time they see a Fox logo on a local news program.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Fritzr on 12/22/2010 5:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
TBS and CNN had a common founder and completely different target markets. The Fox News that Fox affiliates carry is aimed at the same market that Fox News Channel on cable/satellite is aimed at. To be an affiliate of a network major or minor requires that the channel carry material supplied by the network. Local newsrooms may source local news locally, but they usually use the network feed for the national news. This practice is not limited to Fox. It is standard throughout the industry.

Saying that national news programs produced and distributed by the Fox News Network are not the product of Fox News is not something that is likely to make you sound credible.

The managers of the local stations also have to follow rules that are in their agreement with the national network. Failure to follow those rules can cause the network to cancel the agreement, leaving the local station without a network partner. The stockholders tend to get unhappy when a station manager threatens their investment.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By thurston on 12/18/2010 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
I had never heard of them till recently either, I don't think I have ever watched them. I get MSNBC but I never watch it.

quote:
And if you don't get MSNBC how do you get Fox News? Neither is a OTA channel and if your cable/satellite subscription gets Fox News it undoubtedly gets MSNBC.


I have Directv so I get both but the people around me that have cable get Fox but do not get MSNBC.

Glenn Beck is a piece of shit, (don't know about Rachael Maddow but she probably is too) God has reserved a special place in Hell for people like him.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By cruisin3style on 12/17/2010 3:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the morons at either edge are nowhere even close to that reality.


wow, there are reasonable people on dailytech's boards...wait, lemme check on the status of hell real quick...


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By wordsworm on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 11:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see where your confusion arises. You think that Democrats are liberal. They aren't. I hope that clears your confusion.

Stop jumping to conclusions. I never said that. There are conservative/blue dog Democrats as well. All of those that I mentioned in the previous post have advocated for bigger government - Single payer health care, redistribution of wealth, increasingly progressive tax systems, decreased military, and increased social services. All of those are the primary components of liberal beliefs. Not to mention that several of them in that list have stated themselves that are are liberals - Ed Shultz (advertised Progressive), Maddow (self admitted liberal), and O'Donnell (self admitted Socialist).
quote:
However, guys like Ron Paul continually promote liberal ideas despite being a Republican all his life.

Ron Paul does not promote liberal or Republican ideas. Ron Paul is a self admitted Libertarian who caucuses with Republicans for a voting base. Ron Paul wants smaller government - abolish the Fed, IRS, abolish all forms of government entitlements and welfare systems. I fail to see any liberalism there.
quote:
Do yourself a favour: pick up a dictionary or even go to Wikipedia (I wouldn't dare suggest a book) and read up on it.

It's obviously not me that needs to read up on the current political landscape, as you are seriously confused person. And its funny that you tell someone to pick up a dictionary while using the word "favour".


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By rcc on 12/17/2010 12:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol, talking to Wormy about politics is like talking to a duck about Relativity.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By wordsworm on 12/17/2010 8:48:47 PM , Rating: 3
Liberalism is about personal freedom. It's about equal rights. It's about education. These are just several of the cornerstones.

Ron Paul recently defended Assange, as a case of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This is liberal. Hell, he's the most liberal politician in American politics. He's more liberal than any Democratic politician. When you can't read someone's politics by their speeches and actions, and rely exclusively on what colour their flag is, then you're a political moron and as much as a problem to politics in America as the politicians themselves.

Ron Paul also supports sovereignty over one's own body. His ideas on drug reforms are a huge instance proving this. He believes in the legalization of drugs. Can you imagine that doctors now control what medicine I can and cannot take into my body? They hold me hostage with their incredible influence over the government. If I need a medicine, then I also have to see a doctor to get that medicine. That is absolutely retarded. What Democrat is there that advocates the same things that Ron Paul is on this issue? None! They're just as bad as the majority of the republicans! Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. Though, Bush was a lunatic and Obama seems to have a head on his shoulders.

Most folks like you don't even know what socialism really is, and would object if it was taken away altogether. I refer of course to such things as the military, police, fire departments, hospitals, road construction, education, etc., etc. All of these are socialist constructs. Are you ready to pay for your own police? Or will you admit that certain socialist services paid for by the people is necessary? Of course, most Republicans want to throw most people into jail for no good reason at all. Ron Paul is one of the very few who does not. He is, as I said before, the only real liberal (and maybe his son is as well, I haven't really looked too deeply into his politics) that I know of in American politics.

As to spelling, mdogs, I'm guessing you didn't use the dictionary to look up the word 'favour'. You'll find that in England, where English comes from, that's how they spell the word.

American politics is mostly deception, cloak and dagger garbage. Don't believe everything you see and hear. Whether it's 'Democratic news' or 'Republican news', it's all propaganda and designed to put fear into the hearts of Americans so that its puppet masters may better control the population. Maybe if you'd listen to me, you might be able to cut the strings and free yourself. But, while you can lead an American to truth, you cannot make him drink.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By SPOOFE on 12/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Skywalker123 on 12/18/2010 1:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't want single payer, progressive tax, or redistribution of wealth, but I'm all for cutting the military, except for national defense.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Nfarce on 12/17/2010 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You think that Democrats are liberal. They aren't. I hope that clears your confusion.


^^That's^^ probably one of the more inane and mindlessly myopic posts I'll read here today. Not all Democrats are liberals, but we can definitively conclude that most liberals are Democrats.

Easy enough for ya to handle, worm?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By foolsgambit11 on 12/17/2010 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
In America, we've simplified things down so that the Democratic platform = liberal and the Republican platform = conservative, but really, both sides are a blend, depending on the issue. Republicans are generally economically and fiscally liberal, and socially conservative, while Democrats are generally the opposite. Although I see the Republican party drifting towards conservativism on some economic issues, like free trade, which they are less in favor of than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Either way, though, common usage dictates the moniker of liberal to Dems and conservative to Republicans, no matter what their actual stance on issues is.

As for the political stance of news agencies, we have to separate out the commentary-type shows from the actual news programs. Rachel Maddow, Glen Beck, et al. have political commentary shows that don't advertise themselves as unbiased news sources. When you look at the actual news coverage from these 24-hour news channels, the bias is much less pronounced (though still present in some cases).


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Nfarce on 12/17/2010 4:07:35 PM , Rating: 1
Worm's alleged point was that Democrats are not "liberal." But if you look at policies of the Pelosi/Reid Democrat Congress, it is very evident that their fiscal policies are about as liberal/socialist as they could get. I mean, Dems ramming through Obamacare that comprises 1/6 of the US economy (or more) and telling Americans you'll find out what's in it only after it's passed? And hence, the fallout after the November 2 Mid-term election.

Actually a more accurate method of measurement instead of Lib vs. Con is far left (Michael Moore), left (Rachel Maddow), moderate (Indiana Dem Senator Evan Bayh who can also be called a conservative Democrat), and far right (Glenn Beck), right (Bill O'Reilly), and moderate (Maine Senator Olympia Snow who can be called a liberal Republican).


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Penti on 12/18/2010 1:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Liberalism would be center/right in Europe, yes even in the shape of the democrats. Liberalism is something right wing parties associate to, as it's the embodiment of individual freedoms and market economics, neoliberalism just exactly as the whole political spectrum in the US. In fact here most center, right wing or right wing conservative parties are add-hearing to social liberalism here. That's why it's all so skewed, looking at you, even our tax haven nations have universal health care with government run hospitals, even though taxes are less or equal to the US, more doctors and so on, but that means the benefits are lower as they are already payed just as you already pays more then Sweden for health care through taxes, and then pays twice because you pay the same amount one more time through health care plans. The cost for taxes and benefits ends up more expensive then the cost for taxes and benefits in welfare states. The republican party belongs to the same international as UK's Conservative party (tories) and the moderate leading party of Sweden. Both of them add-hear to liberal conservatism and accepts many values of social liberalism, i.e. they are actually closer the the democrats. (But the moderate party was against implementing health care in Sweden 60 years ago). But we just don't put activists and anti-war people under the same label, or parties, therefor we can say or hear things like "liberal warmongerer" in countries like Sweden. In Europe it was countries led by left and center-parties in addition to the conservative countries who sent soldiers to Iraq.

Health care is already more then 1/6 of your economy, in Europe it stays mostly at around 1/10. It's broken. Mind you it was to a large extent social democratic or centre government who implemented monetarist policies and so on here. But so it was in the US too. Centre-right parties have more in common with US democrats then conservative, we don't really categorizes the US parties that way though. Centre-left have nothing else to relate to then US democrats and conservatives as you have so narrow field. But centre-left would of course be closer to the progressive movement then liberal conservative parties. But in all you could categorize most democrats as conservative from over here. As that would be centre-right, right wing conservative here, it's not an ideological fit. It's amusing to see you accused your own people of being extremists of some sort though. However policies between countries are more in tune. US is fully supported by centre-left governments even when your led by the republicans. Centre-left parties what you would dub left-wing parties have a history of anti-communism here. Illegal registration of political affiliation or sympathy or suspected thereof and stuff like that. Of course we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of suspected communists like your other allies. That were right-wing dictatorships. Measuring political spectrum is usually done in 2 axes though, left/right axes and authoritarian/libertarian axes. Not that the right-wing liberal conservatives aren't critics of the welfare state and support workfare. But the ingredient of social liberalism and social conservatism changes how it looks. They are workfare proponents in states that are suppose to arrange all those social bits. But so was Stalinist communist countries. It's not about doing what's best for the tax dollar. Europe has many years now taking in ideological considerations above most else, the liberalization (privatization, anti regulation) has gone fast and in US they have made you inefficient and broken down. There it's rather that you can't reform anything. Economies and social conditions and system change. And yes it's often left-wing political parties that have had to sanitize government spending here. And many countries are in balance. That has nothing to do with the left-right spectrum, it's the right wing that continues to spend money you don't have and stops any reform and blames it all on China, though your problems started before your trade with China picked up... Many countries in Europe with economic troubles are also ran by right-wing parties, or was. They don't tend to be pragmatic and true to the conditions that are. Government regulated business is no less in the US then in Europe, it's mostly larger and more inefficient. But I guess it's better to take the hands off approach! You get more left in your wallet living in countries with government run hospitals and so on. And you can still have your business profits in overseas island tax heavens :) Just look at Ikea or anything. That doesn't mean they don't pay all the local taxes though, but profits escapes.

Michael Moore probably wouldn't be far left here at all, people like George Galloway is far left and that's more a label for extremists of some kind, like far right is fascists of different sorts here, neofacists, neonationalist, neonazis and on. Being a socialist doesn't constitute being far left here. You can be a socialist even though your centre-left. Leading governments and so on. Just like we don't call the right-wing Ayn Rand ingrained magazines fascists. Far left is usually different kinds of semi-violent anarchists here, maybe Trotskyist and other people that stands outside of the parliament/democratic arena, activism in the extreme form, not excluding groups that use violence/destroys property. (Not that all activism is extreme). If Michael Moore where far left he wouldn't only criticize the two party system, he wouldn't support anybody in it really. He wouldn't be populist.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By wordsworm on 12/19/2010 9:55:47 AM , Rating: 3
I might be convinced that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans. However, for most issues, they are just as Republican (in the Puritanical sense of the word) as any of the Republicans.

I find Republicans often use lies to obfuscate the slightly more enlightened Democrats. Obama is somewhat liberal. However, if he is liberal, he's being very cautious at it. He is certainly more liberal, and far more intelligent than Bush was.

One of the words you used, "Obamacare" implies that he did it for himself. It doesn't seem very likely that a rich man requires federal help for his medical care. Especially since his health is a matter of government spending in any event. Doing something for yourself would be more like Bush II in his effort to secure Iraq's supply of oil and investments in weapons companies as the basis of war in Iraq II.

Health care, on a universal basis, is certainly a liberal issue. The idea is that the health of the general population is too important to put it in the hands of the individual to choose whether he or she will use health care facilities. I do know that there are considerable problems with the way it is now. However, I do believe that Obama's intention was to ram it through and worry about the details later. As far as I can tell, his own Democratic party might find he leans a little too far to the left for their own comfort.

However, he still goes to church. The drug war is still going on. Freedom of speech is style an American myth. Education is still set up in a way that seems to favour only the banks (massive student loans) and elite. He seems to have done nothing about this. However, I can understand it is not easy for a president to do good things. It seems to be easier to declare war for a president than it is to declare an end to unnecessary suffering in the forms of hunger, housing, and economic security, to name a few.

I do think that Obama is liberal. I do not believe his party is, however. Just as I believe that Ron Paul is further left than Obama. Even if he would knock down government health care, he also seems to promise deregulating health care to the point where it would become affordable for the average American rather than continue in the ridiculous state that it was in, where, only the very wealthy, the elderly who sacrificed the inheritance(s) of their descendants, and those willing to sacrifice all, were capable of receiving health care.

I live in Korea, where medical care is the right of every Korean and even foreigner. Furthermore, it's competing on equal footing with the traditional healers (Chinese doctors) while those types of doctors have been virtually eliminated in the west.

You shouldn't assume that liberals believe in massive spending. Many of us do not like debt at all. Where Orwell talked about how bombs were created to destroy wealth, I say debt is doing the very same to us today. The Liberal government of Canada had actually reversed the record breaking fiscal irresponsibility of the former Conservative Party led by Brian Mulrooney by paying down the debt. However, within two years of retaking parliament, the Conservative Party has managed to outspend in a single session the previous Conservative Party to it, setting a national record. Yet, the Conservatives still somehow blame liberal parties for the current state of things.

The Conservative Party is as much into funding socialist housing (called prisons). They are spending more on police than ever before and more on prisons. They are making laws harder and stricter. The Conservative Party is turning Canada into a police state. They also support government sponsored medical care. Yet, they are a Conservative party with many socialist bents. So, how is it that we can call them 'conservative' in the fiscal sense (which allegedly believes in less government and less subsequent spending). The current governing Liberal Party in British Columbia is just as right wing as the Conservative government is.

No, liberalism and conservatism is something you have to find in the individual politician rather than the party.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By bernardl on 12/20/2010 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In America, we've simplified things down so that the Democratic platform = liberal and the Republican platform = conservative, but really, both sides are a blend, depending on the issue. Republicans are generally economically and fiscally liberal, and socially conservative, while Democrats are generally the opposite. Although I see the Republican party drifting towards conservativism on some economic issues, like free trade, which they are less in favor of than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Either way, though, common usage dictates the moniker of liberal to Dems and conservative to Republicans, no matter what their actual stance on issues is.


If you consider the worldwide standards of what is liberal vs conservative, it is fair to say that both the US Dmocratic and Republican parties are both pretty far to the right end of the spectrum.

Now, more importantly, you've got to wonder what the odds are that something resembling a democracy can be enforced with only 2 parties when the press is mostly owned and controlled by large corporations tightly linked with the said parties and legally allowed to fund them. Banana republic is what comes to mind first is it not? :)

Cheers,
Bernard


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By CharonPDX on 12/17/2010 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
And none of those sell themselves as "news", they sell themselves as "commentators".

I don't decry Fox for Beck and O'Reilly. They are openly "commentators", not news analysts. The problem with Fox News is when the commentary infiltrates the news.

MSNBC has been guilty of this from time to time (having Olbermann as an election-day "news analyst",) but not to the constant day-to-day extent of Fox.

And what does Maddow's sexual orientation have to do with anything? Is somehow the fact that she's lesbian a "liberal smear"? There are plenty of people who don't consider "socialist" to be a dirty word, so while I'm pretty sure you meant it as a smear, it is in this case merely a factual statement of O'Donnell's liberalism. But Maddow's orientation has no direct bearing on her liberalism.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By web2dot0 on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kurz on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 3:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Michael is that you?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By zBernie on 12/17/2010 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 3
Well said! Considering that the other 95% of the media is attempting to brainwash people into thinking they are doomed by global warming, It's refreshing to have a point of view slanted right. That applies to more issues than global warming. Over the years, I've read numerous stories on Fox News regarding global warming dissent, which are never mentioned at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, The NY Times, etc. So as slanted as they all are, Fox News does provide balance to the news.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Belard on 12/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By GaryJohnson on 12/17/2010 2:02:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
large niche

that's an oxymoron


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
"Fresh Frozen Jumbo Shrimp" is the best oxymoron, second only to "Good morning!" (unless I'm still sleeping in...)


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By kyleb2112 on 12/17/2010 7:12:35 PM , Rating: 3
So, ignoring Climategate = "Unbiased".
How dare Fox News acknowledge that East Anglia actually happened.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By WW102 on 12/20/2010 10:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, Faux is not pronounced like Fox. Its pronounced FOE. It's French retard. You call it a FOE Pau, not a Fox Paw.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Kanazozo on 12/17/2010 9:59:19 AM , Rating: 3
All media outlets are bias. Its a business plan (because thats what the media is, a business) that goes back to the dawn of time - find a niche and fill it. The Liberal left was well spoken for prior to Fox, leaving Centrists and Conservatives in the cold so to speak. So in swoops Fox news as the voice of these two groups.

Since then, both sides have become even more polarized, leaving level headed Centrists in the cold again.

I will admit, I am Conservative by and large, but even I am getting a bit worn out on the games played by Fox. Give Obama credit for moving towards the center for goodness' sake (on tax bill) - positive reinforcement is the way to get what you want, not this mindless toeing the party line BS that both sides are playing at.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Chaser on 12/17/2010 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed. And I am also. I don't like it when Fox News show hosts do "exclusive interviews" of each other. Just to prop up lower ratings.

And once you are on the Fox News money machine gravy train like Sarah Palin boarded a while back it's over. Insta millionaire. I've grown to dislike Palin and Glen Beck's doom and gloom tear jerking Chicken Little exposes.

But I happily watch FN as my choice over MSBNC in a heart beat. I can't last 2 minutes listening to Matthew's or Maddow's sickening whining.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 10:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give Obama credit for moving towards the center for goodness' sake (on tax bill) - positive reinforcement is the way to get what you want, not this mindless toeing the party line BS that both sides are playing at.


While I'm glad the tax rates are staying the same, I am not happy with the bill passed. They took a bill to keep tax rates lower (its not a tax cut to keep tax rates where they've been for 10 years) and loaded it with other BS like extending unemployment benefits for a total of over 3 years. A move that will costs states more. And where will they get some of the money? Employers. Who potentially laid these people off months or years ago.

And then there's all the extra subsidies for ethanol and wind power producers in it. As well as a bunch of money for other special interests. I would rather the Republicans stood on the principles they claimed before the election and said "our way or the highway". They get a bigger voice in Congress in just over 2 weeks. If they didn't get the deal they wanted, they should have just sat on it until the new members of Congress get sworn in.

And I love it how its said the bill results in upping the debt. No over spending results in that. If anything I'm pissed at Fox for giving Obama too much credit and saying he IS moving to the center (as they did this morning). Obama doesn't care how much money gets spent or taken in by taxes. If the tax rates had gone up, they'd just spend even more money. And likely will anyway.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By The Raven on 12/17/2010 1:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are correct. It is right or wrong. Given our financial/economic situation.

Compromise on this subject is folly.

We can afford this crap or we can't. If Obama believes that his side is right, then he should stick to his guns. Same for those in the GOP. If there is no real agreement, then nothing should be done. There is no point in passing stupid laws just to get something done. For the GOP not lowering taxes is a failure and extended unemployment is a failure. The opposite would be a failure for the Dems. So in essence, this was a victory for the Dems.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 2:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. They got far more of what they want. More spending on things we can't afford. NOT causing tax rates to go up is not spending as Obama and the Democrats like to make the case that it is.

What I love is how when conservatives want something, we are supposed to compromise on it. And if we try to stick to our guns, we're criticized for it. And when the Democrats try to block it, they're made to be heroes of democracy.

When the Democrats want something and don't want to compromise and conservatives try to block it, they're called "obstructionists".

I just love being called crazy for wanting an unobtrusive federal government that abides by the powers our founding document gives to them. Instead I get one that makes the case that not buying something results in interstate commerce so they have the power to force us to buy it.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Quadrillity on 12/17/2010 3:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
You are 100% correct on this.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By nstott on 12/17/2010 4:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like somebody needs to do some unwinding with the TSA.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 6:04:12 PM , Rating: 4
Don't touch my junk bro.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By sleepeeg3 on 12/17/2010 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 1
While I agree with you on the news, Obama moving to the center? Have you been reading liberal Reuters again?

Republicans will soon have a majority in the House and near to be able to passing a simple majority vote in the Senate. Obama piled on as much crap as he could, before the Democrat's majority was minimized. There were earmarks for ethanol, solar/wind and 13 months of unemployment extensions that is going to result in more government debt. That's over 2+ years people have been allowed to live off the dole. He and his ilk can't stop spending.

On top of that, all it gave us was a 2 year extension of too high taxes. 100 years ago, there was ZERO income tax. Now the top bracket gives over 1/3 of what they make to pay for government excess. What happened? What essential programs have been added in 100 years?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Quadrillity on 12/17/2010 1:42:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
On top of that, all it gave us was a 2 year extension of too high taxes. 100 years ago, there was ZERO income tax. Now the top bracket gives over 1/3 of what they make to pay for government excess. What happened? What essential programs have been added in 100 years?


What's even more of a crying shame is that I bet you 90% of this county doesn't know the truth that you just spelled out in black and white.

The U.S. government is getting way too big, and is quickly becoming big brother.

1) Term limits should be posted for congress AND the supreme court (although the SC justices should have longer tenure)

2) Public Office should be a middle wage job (~40K), and should reflect the nature of the job; aka a public service worker should be making millions under the table due to the legislation that they pass.

3) Lobbying should be ILLEGAL.

4) Congress should vote on ONE ISSUE AT A TIME. Line item pet projects should be totally illegal.

5) The power in the US needs to RETURN TO THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES. I'm so sick of everyone thinking that the federal government is supposed to be in charge of everything. That kind of mentality is totally opposite of what this country was founded on.

6) Free handouts need to end. Support and charity should be exclusive to your own surrounding community. I'm sick of half of my paycheck going to lazy degenerates that refuse to work.

These are very simple fixes, but it's a start.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By JediJeb on 12/17/2010 3:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) Public Office should be a middle wage job (~40K), and should reflect the nature of the job; aka a public service worker shouldn't be making millions under the table due to the legislation that they pass.


A little correction there but I do agree with all you said above. To add to this point I believe that congressional salaries should be set to whatever the medial income is in the US, that way they can only get a raise if they raise the prosperity of the working class citizen. Also there should be no retirement for serving in congress, let them put money into a 401K like many of us have to because our employers can't afford a structured pension plan, and let them have regular insurance like the rest of us get. Being a Representative or Senator was never intended to be a full time occupation or career, serve your time with distinction then move on.

Also the government is still supposed to be run by the people, problem is the government has taken teaching the populace about government out of the schools so in a few years the people will not have any idea how government works. The people still have the means to take control of the government, if only we will have the guts to do it.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 3:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of those in public office don't give a crap what they make. They already have a successful business or two that provides them with the income they need. Or they're just straight up rich.

I guess Al Franken is an exception. That worthless pile of crap probably spent all his Baby Huey SNL money on drugs and classes to try and be funny.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Quadrillity on 12/17/2010 3:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, thanks for the correction. (DT WE NEED AN EDIT BUTTON!)

quote:
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin


quote:
The people still have the means to take control of the government, if only we will have the guts to do it.

I hate to look like the zombie plan wielding, or doomsday loony, but
quote:
"the south will rise again"
is quite an eerie quote when you think about the current condition and trend of the U.S. government. I hope we correct this mess before it comes to that, but I swear I don't see it being fixed by a non-revolutionary method.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By AmbroseAthan on 12/17/2010 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
2) Public Office should be a middle wage job (~40K), and should reflect the nature of the job; aka a public service worker should be making millions under the table due to the legislation that they pass.


While I agree they should not be making millions, $40k is VERY little money in some places. I am also assuming we are referring to Congress (etc), not a small town councilor, etc.

I made a little more than 40k in my first year out of college (2005) as an Admin Assistant in NYC. And at that pay rate I needed to live with roommates and had to keep myself on a very tight budget. It would be very hard to be from an area of a higher cost on such a salary while raising a family, not to mention travelling costs, etc.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that even right now they are actually raising families on their salaries. This couldn't be further from the truth. Lets look at a few things:

1. Most congressional politicians are not the average family living on average dollars. They are usually people who have made millions in the private marketplace through businesses or investments, or they are trust fund babies. Seeing as how they already have their own money, they could care less what the tax rates are - because they are not living off their salary income any longer.

2. While a politician may be making $200,000 a year, what they get as "favors" and "kickbacks" is probably 5x that amount, at least. They get deals under the table from political activist groups, unions, lobbyists (etc) for political voting favors and pork projects.

Lets look at Harry Reid for example. He came into office not being rich, but he was an average lawyer. He starting making about $100,000 per year and is now up to about $200,000 per year. His net worth is now estimated to be as high as over $6,000,000. So tell me - how does a man with 5 kids and making about $150,000 per year on average over his working career worth over $6,000,000? Do you really think its by just investing about 30% of his after tax income for most of his working career?

We could pay these people absolutely nothing, and their wealth would continue to increase exponentially. Don't get me wrong - I am a staunch capitalist and believe its every man/woman for themselves and if they make a lot of money then good for them. But when it gets to the point that some rich yuppie thinks they should be able to tell me what I have to do with my money (pay more for social services that i don't want to begin with, forced to buy health insurance, etc), then I have a big problem with it.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Solandri on 12/18/2010 4:16:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really disagree with you, but I don't think this suggestion is conducive to a solution. If we operate under the premise that it is inevitable that these types of people - corrupt and using the position of power to money - will always control politics, then yes cutting their salaries makes sense.

But if we operate under the premise that the corrupt can be voted out and replaced by better, honest people who will do this job for the good of the country and not to exploit their positions for wealth, then the jobs need to provide them with an adequate salary to pay for rent and groceries in Washington DC.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Quadrillity on 12/18/2010 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
And to fix that, we need to re-establish eligible voters. Since 50% of this nation already doesn't pay taxes, I'd say a good start is that you must pay a certain percentage of taxes per year?


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By HrilL on 12/17/2010 11:17:33 AM , Rating: 2
They may be biased but so is every other news network. I've yet to see unbiased news anywhere.

But Fox News does have the highest ratings so that has to count for something.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/10-year-chart-...


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By kjboughton on 12/17/2010 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 5
So, let me see if I understand what the author of this article is trying to illustrate. If I understand correctly "...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled)..." is grammatically and otherwise functionally equivalent to "... Deny Earth Has Ever Warmed or Cooled..." (the assertion made in the title of this post).

Huh? Are you slow?

So now not asserting something as true is the same as denying the same? I don't think so.

Just because I don't instruct my fellow reports to claim something is true doesn't mean I'm telling them to claim it's false either. This is a perfect example of the classic non-biased, subjective reporting I expect to see when I watch the “news.” Hence the 'We report, you decide.' They tell you about two conflicting opinions and YOU can decided what you want to believe. From the quote given, the lead editor is simply stating that Fox News has no official position on the matter and will neither confirm nor deny the existence of man-made global warming…

…and like a good leftist, because Fox News doesn’t tow the party line, in your mind they’re suddenly guilt of biased reporting. Meanwhile, all the other new outlets can’t stop telling us what they so desperately want us to think: THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING! GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL! AHHHH! Whatever.

Whoever wrote this is disingenuous at best and a snake at worst. Intentionally twisting the words of others does not a good reporter make.

P.S. In the history of the Earth, I know of no account where slightly elevated global temperatures ever caused a mass extinction or the destruction of a species due to lack of food. On the other hand, global ice ages have gone a long way to cause just that on many occasions.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By sleepeeg3 on 12/17/2010 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
6


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By safcman84 on 12/20/2010 5:37:47 AM , Rating: 1
As Jason points out, the memo tells reporters to refrain from saying cooling or warming has ever happened, without calling out the data as questionable. This is rubbish, as global cooling and warming is a scientific fact (as far as science can be a fact).

If the memo had said

"..we should refrain for asserting that the Earth has warmed due to human activities ..."

Then the memo would of been valid.

As for the general debate on Fox News:

Fox news will be receiving internal memo's saying "refrain from asserting that Evolution has occurred, as the data has been called into question" soon....


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Jeffk464 on 12/17/2010 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Holly crap Sherlock, how long did it take you to come up with that conclusion.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Nfarce on 12/17/2010 1:04:09 PM , Rating: 3
Hence, why I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, read the New York Times, or listen to NPR.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By rika13 on 12/17/2010 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why I don't watch every other news channel, they are all liberal propaganda outlets.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By Hiawa23 on 12/17/2010 4:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
the only shows I watch on Fox News are Bill Oreilly, & Jeraldo, the rest of those cats like Hannity, Glenn Beck, I really can't stand to watch.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By gorehound on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News = Bias News
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/17/2010 8:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
so is cnn or anything else you watch. Maybe you should grow up and take responsibility. Maybe do your own research instead of following people like sheep. Believing everything your liberal bias say.

Why do you hate fox news? everything they say and do is the same crap all the other stations do. They all lie so get over yourself.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/17/2010 8:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
all news = bias news however foxnews has a good point because there is a lot more data to suggest "global warming" was a scam than there is data that proves "global warming".

"global warming" = crazy conspiracy that mankind caused our planet to be destroyed even tho the planet is completely fine.

compared to

global warming = natural phenomenon which keeps the planet habitable. because without it we would all freeze to death.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By dld542004 on 12/18/2010 10:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
Good for you , go back to the kool-aid sipping CNN MSNBC and the rest.


RE: Fox News = Bias News
By fteoath64 on 12/21/2010 8:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
Fox is blatantly bias and most times twisted. Stop watching all the popular channels and get the real source from the Net.

All the major news companies are controlled by 5 people who are part of the elite. so they are doing massive propaganda for years that belittle what the Soviet Union had in the past.


Seriously Jason.
By SlyNine on 12/17/2010 10:06:12 AM , Rating: 5
Your Title is misleading to say the least.I think all news agencies should send out that memo.




RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 3
I also think Jason is trying to say the memo means that the guy from Fox is saying that the Ice Age never happened and other points in the history of the Earth.

Which is not what the quoted memo says. The periods the guy is talking about, in my opinion, is recent history. No one argues on climate change about whether the Earth has gone through several Ice Ages.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By kattanna on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 10:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it does leave it open to interpretation. "Any given period" could be within an hour, a week, a year, a decade, a century, or a millennium.

But hey the guy is from Fox News so he must be some ultra right wing nut job who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, the dinosaurs didn't exist, and more.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By kattanna on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 2:47:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yes because its not like Katie Couric goes to Tea Party events and says that because the crowd is a) against Obama's agenda and b) predominantly white that they're all racists.

Oh wait....

By the way the guy I just helped elect to Congress is named Tim Scott. A conservative Republican who's skin just happens to be *GASP!* black! Furthermore he rejected an invitation to join the Congressional Black Caucus because he doesn't believe the color of one's skin should impact their priorities and beliefs about what is good for America.

Would love to know what moron you tried (and hopefully didn't succeed) in getting elected this past voting cycle.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By rdawise on 12/20/2010 6:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way the guy I just helped elect to Congress is named Tim Scott. A conservative Republican who's skin just happens to be *GASP!* black! Furthermore he rejected an invitation to join the Congressional Black Caucus because he doesn't believe the color of one's skin should impact their priorities and beliefs about what is good for America.


So you want a cookie for voting for a black man? LOL This equates to "I'm not racist, I have black friends!!!". I find it very funny that someone who seems to be crying skin color shouldn't matter point out the skin color of who he voted for. You sir...too funny....


RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/20/2010 8:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
You sir...too stupid.

I don't care that he's black. He is a conservative who believes in limited government. That is what matters.

Your argument that I am a racist though does not hold water because if I was, I would have judged him only on the color of his skin. Not the message of limited government and low taxes he presents.

If not for being constantly told I am a racist, I would not even bring up race. Because for me it is a non-issue. But idiots like you constantly force me to defend myself and bring it up.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By rdawise on 12/20/2010 6:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You sir...too stupid.


Ouch...I think I just cried a little. You want to go with the "I'm rubber, your glue" comeback next time?

Anyway, notice that there is no place in my post where I label you a racist. I simply point out that for someone who cries "I am not a racist" you seemed to place emphasis on race. You seem to keep wanting to bring race to the forefront my friend, not I.

Please let us know, with proof not anecdotal evidence, these people who are labeling you as a racist. You don't have to defend yourself when someone is not attacking you....unless you know you should be attacked I guess...


RE: Seriously Jason.
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 4:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because i know there has to be a good chunk of honest people working in their news depts, but they are way over shadowed by the likes of glen beck and such.

And there lies your problem kattanna. Glen Beck, Bill OReilly, Sean Hannity are not, and do not advertise themselves as, NEWS shows. They are political commentary shows.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By robbase29a on 12/17/2010 11:44:21 AM , Rating: 4
YOU're incorrect, kattanna, read the freaking memo again. why are you quoting a PARTIAL sentence? Oh I know, it's becuase you read what you WANT to read... not what's really there.

The quote correctly states, "...refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question ." It never says to deny global warming.

There are reasons for punctuation... one of them is to denote the end of a phrase. You (and JASON MICK) obviously put a period where there was none. Which is why this whole editorial is bogus.

or... why don't journalists just continue to use "facts" which have since been exposed as lies? Oh wait... CNN and MSNBC does that for us already. Go ahead - keep drinking the koolaid and show us your ignorance.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing that morons like this can vote isn't it?


RE: Seriously Jason.
By kattanna on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 4:15:56 PM , Rating: 1
All news today is hypocritical at one point or another. The question is how often and where do they generally stand on things. News programs sole purpose is to make money. Just like any other business.

People's job as citizens is to take what they hear on the news and discover the truth of it. But I think Fox does a far better job of actually reporting on what actually happened than other programs. Sure they might overblow things Democrats do at times. But that's better than completely not reporting on stories that make Democrats look bad as the other networks have done since Obama took office.

And as others have mentioned Fox typically far more supportive of American values and our troops than the other stations. Who until Obama took office made our troops out to be crazed maniacs with guns hell bent on killing civilians. Then Obama takes office and its like the war stopped unless we're talking about actually stopping the war. They gave credit to Obama for the surge working after both he and Biden heavily criticized it and voted against it. Which was what made it possible for most of our troops to leave Iraq (of course most people probably think we have barely any troops in Iraq when we still have I believe its 40,000).

I'll gladly take news that takes a minor thing and blows it into "they're taking away your rights!!" over news that tries to justify why I should just shut up and agree with everything the government wants to do since otherwise I'm a bigot or racist because the color of my skin differs from that of our failure in chief.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By rdawise on 12/20/2010 6:33:51 AM , Rating: 3
You first paragragh was spot on, then you had to keep going....
quote:
People's job as citizens is to take what they hear on the news and discover the truth of it. But I think Fox does a far better job of actually reporting on what actually happened than other programs. Sure they might overblow things Democrats do at times. But that's better than completely not reporting on stories that make Democrats look bad as the other networks have done since Obama took office.


Really? Fox took a picture from CNN then turned it around and stated no other news networks covered the Tea Party rally (which the were blatantly promoting). Fox news, without ever touching the subject at hand, attack Mass Effect for being "pornographic". That's just faulty journalism. I could go on and on, but to say the do a better job of "reporting" is laughable and purely biased.

Your last paragraph summarizes a lot of people like you:
quote:
I'll gladly take news that takes a minor thing and blows it into "they're taking away your rights!!" over news that tries to justify why I should just shut up and agree with everything the government wants to do since otherwise I'm a bigot or racist because the color of my skin differs from that of our failure in chief.


So because you are not the same color as our President, you assume everyone thinks you are racist because you disagree? Yeah you're not biased at all....


RE: Seriously Jason.
By FITCamaro on 12/20/2010 8:37:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So because you are not the same color as our President, you assume everyone thinks you are racist because you disagree? Yeah you're not biased at all....


No I HAVE HEARD ever other news organization STATE that people like me are racist because we disagree with the president.

Now does that mean everyone does? No. But every news organization other than Fox tries to make the case that people who disagree with Obama and agree with the Tea Party are racists. They get morons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to come on sputtering their tired lies that not wanting to spend trillions of dollars on entitlement programs, which statistics show go mostly to black and hispanic people, makes you a racist.


RE: Seriously Jason.
By rdawise on 12/20/2010 7:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No I HAVE HEARD ever other news organization STATE that people like me are racist because we disagree with the president.


Again, please let us know who these people are with proof. Not anecdotal evidence.

quote:
Now does that mean everyone does? No. But every news organization other than Fox tries to make the case that people who disagree with Obama and agree with the Tea Party are racists. They get morons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to come on sputtering their tired lies that not wanting to spend trillions of dollars on entitlement programs, which statistics show go mostly to black and hispanic people, makes you a racist


Again you claim not to care about race, yet you bring it to the forefront...but I digress

Statistics show that a higher percentage of blacks and Hispanic receive aid, but that does not mean that it mostly does to those races. In fact please look at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY20... (table 21). I know it's actually figures so please don't be alarmed. This shows that in 2008 35.2% of TANF was received by whites. That's followed by 35% blacks and 23.3% Hispanic.

Again if you truly don't care about race, then don't make it an issue. Then I wouldn't have to point out these hypocrisies...


Wow Jason...
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 9:26:37 AM , Rating: 5
Talk about an entirely hypocritical article written out of hate for Fox News.

Fox news says:
quote:
...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.


Which basically says to not allow people to just say that Global Warming IS happening without pointing out the other side of the argument and the the facts that back up the other side.

Then YOU come out and say:
quote:
Of course whether man is causing warming is quite a different matter. That debate is still a very active one. But as the various recent incidents illustrate, precious few working on the topic -- regardless of their stance -- are approaching it from an unbiased perspective.


So you're admitting that there is still debate on whether its really happening or not and that there are few people who report on it in an unbiased fashion. Yet you purposely write an article bashing Fox News for making sure that people employed by their network do not report that it is settled science and point out the other side of the arguments.

Jason, you're just as biased as Media Matters.




RE: Wow Jason...
By Flunk on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason...
By DougF on 12/17/2010 9:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
MSNBC just campaigns openly and actively for the Democrats, along with their spiritual leader, Katie Couric.


RE: Wow Jason...
By The Raven on 12/17/2010 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
Couric is no longer with NBC, let alone MSNBC.

She look so skeletony... <Flashes "Blue Steel">


RE: Wow Jason...
By mdogs444 on 12/17/2010 9:54:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
To be fair to Mick, this is an editorial. He's not claiming to be "Fair and Balanced".

Nonsense. He is accusing a news network of bias (for making sure that all sides are pointed out in debate), while writing a completely biased article, and using sources who are admitted biased and liberal activists (Media Matters).

Only a complete moron who is purposely trying to take the memo out of context can actually think that the memo was referring to not accepting that we've had ice ages. The memo was clearly referring to statistical temperature data that is being cited by global warming activists that is being questioned - such as the Mann tree ring data which leads to the hockey stick, the data compiled from temperature sensors installed on blacktop, and the admissions of "hiding the decline".

Whether its happening or not is not settled, no matter which side you're on, its clearly wrong to allow a news network (any network) to advertise it as such. Debate is healthy, and if you're a journalist, your JOB is to find information - ALL THE INFORMATION - for the story, not just the selective information that you want to put out.


RE: Wow Jason...
By GaryJohnson on 12/17/2010 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether its happening or not is not settled

Many critics believe it is settled.


RE: Wow Jason...
By SPOOFE on 12/17/2010 4:22:30 PM , Rating: 3
Many critics huff paint.


RE: Wow Jason...
By Arc177 on 12/17/2010 2:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Mdogs you've pretty much nailed it. Jason is a liberal tool. Suffering from what I refer to as a pronounced manifestation of the HFRG- High Functioning Retard Gene (semi-credit Charlie Murphy). Only a lib/progressive/commie/marxist could deliberately and ironically write such nonsense.

And for the tools on this forum that think man made global warming/climate change/disruption is happening as a result of mankinds CO2 emissions go find a plot of dT/dCO2. If you don't understand what the plot demonstrates go take some engineering classes and some physics and some chemistry and a control systems class and sit down and stfu you lose the debate. If you don't like the science to bad. It doesn't require a consensus of anyone to be right, it only requires being right.


RE: Wow Jason...
By JonB on 12/18/2010 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 3
He wrote a Headline that got you to read his article.

Journalism 101


RE: Wow Jason...
By ssjwes1980 on 12/17/2010 9:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
Dont see how people dont get it they must not actually read the artical and just go with the headline not sure why your rated down


RE: Wow Jason...
By YashBudini on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason...
By kattanna on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason...
By rcc on 12/17/2010 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
now with that letter they are denying the earth's climate has EVER changed. LOL


Ok, I browsed the material and didn't see anything about denying ice ages. What I see is essentially a directive to report the news, with a disclaimer that Fox reporters are not qualified to judge the accuracy of the information and that there may be differing points of view.

Bet you a nickel that if the ice age(s) became news again for some reason that the disclaimer would be left off.

As far as I'm concerned, the news organizations should report facts and news, and leave interpretation to me. If they want to have a separate show that "interprets" the news for those that agree with the networks management on what's happening, fine, but bill it as such.

As far as I'm concerned, none of the networks provide news, they provide their opinions on the news. As long as that is going to be the case, then having networks that represent all the varying views is a good thing.


journalists who know their place.
By dgingeri on 12/17/2010 12:47:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.


as I see it, this is a perfect example of journalists being told to know their place. They are not supposed to support one side or another, and just report the facts. Since the "facts" about global warming are in question, they are being told by management to not take sides. That is exactly what they are supposed to do, as journalists.

Far too many new agencies report this as fact, one way or another, (mostly to the liberal side) and it is they who are in error.

I'll continue to watch FoxNews and know that they are, indeed, reporting as intended, and not fudging things to their viewpoint, unlike the other news agencies.




By Breathless on 12/17/2010 1:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: journalists who know their place.
By GaryJohnson on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: journalists who know their place.
By SPOOFE on 12/17/2010 4:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wouldn't it be better just to not say anything at all?

The legislation stemming from the asserts of the pro-AGW movement can potentially cost trillions of dollars over the years. Conversely, the relative inaction insisted upon by critics of that movement - should their doubts be unfounded - could cost similarly large amounts of money, not to mention lives and livelihoods. Either way, it's significant information for their target audience, and staying quiet on the issue would probably be worse than mentioning it without taking sides.


By dgingeri on 12/17/2010 6:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After they "IMMEDIATELY point out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question," shouldn't they then "IMMEDIATELY point out that the questions being raised by those critics have also been called into question"?


exactly my point. nobody knows anything, positive or negative, about this. The only thing we know for certain is that there has been a light increase in average temperature in many parts of the world. We can't say it is caused by CO2 because there is nothing to compare it to. We can't say it is not, either. (Calling it "carbon" is misleading, also, considering CO2 is 2/3 oxygen. Plus, methane is worse as a so called greenhouse gas, and it is only 1/5 carbon. Blaming "carbon" is just flat out wrong there.) This planet's time of most abundant life was also a time when the CO2 levels were 7 times what they are today. It also happened to be much warmer on average. Scientists can't even say for sure the warming will be bad or good for us, overall. We know parts will be good for us, like longer growing seasons and larger area where humans can comfortably live, but there could be bad things as well. (I've seen claims of both more and less bad weather.)

The debate is still very much alive, and many that claim it is caused by man and is going to be bad for us are going more on faith rather than proof than the whole Christian religion. they even act like the old Christian religious leaders by branding people with heresy for disagreeing and blacklisting them from certain jobs.


Say wha..?
By Cybercat on 12/17/2010 9:53:50 AM , Rating: 5
Pixar's Ice Age? I didn't know Pixar bought out 20th Century Fox.




RE: Say wha..?
By CZroe on 12/17/2010 10:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. FAIL. Blue Sky has never even been comparable to Pixar.

What was he smoking?!


RE: Say wha..?
By lamerz4391 on 12/17/2010 2:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. That was, by far , the most important point in this article.


What bias?
By GenKhan2 on 12/17/2010 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, in this instance, Fox News has done the scientifically responsible thing. They have created a policy that allows them to present any opinion on climate change so long as they also comment that such opinions are open to debate and are not necessarily absolute truth.

As a scientist myself, I never present my opinion on a scientific matter, no matter how much evidence I may have, as absolute truth. I always denote any gaps, untested possibilities, or outside long-shots. This is the most fundamental aspect of scientific responsibility: acknowledging you are presenting opinion, not fact, as the observer. The observer interprets facts but presents opinion. A very important distinction.

In this scientist's opinion, the Fox News directive is "fair & balanced" like they claim. Of course, Fox News could be terribly biased everywhere else. Incidentally, I just practiced what I preach.




RE: What bias?
By YashBudini on 12/17/2010 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incidentally, I just practiced what I preach.

Somebody had to be first.


RE: What bias?
By knutjb on 12/17/2010 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly many reporters and wanabe journalist grab that snipet of rough information and imply their conclusion as fact.

Over simplification of this extraordinarily complex issue of Climate Change (is that still the current terminology or did it change again?) and all of its theories lead to wide and varied partial arguments, most of which in my opinion, are fallacious due to their implied conclusions from cherry picked data. So many of you want to buy into these conclusions because someone made it sound good. Go on and be that useful idiot.

What I see Bill Sammon attempting is to reign in reporter based conclusions as fact from their network. If more networks were actually honest and really did provide both sides of an argument we probably could have a sensible discourse on the subject. No, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Without the ability to accept that one could be wrong and truly exploring that possibility we would still think we are center of the universe orbiting in glass spheres rather than the speck floating around in it. And yes, we could be wrong with that too. This ability is woefully lacking in both the media and the subject in general.


sounds reasonable to me
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 12/17/2010 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 3
"...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

This sounds like a reasonable thing to say. Better than telling half truths and ignoring that the data these theories are based upon has been destroyed before others can examine it.

Now, what seems shady is your headline. I don't see the word "ever" in the context of warmed or cooled and the context of the headline is not in line with the context of the memo. Hence, your article is nothing more than a hit piece subtly twisting what was said to what you wish to accuse them of saying.




RE: sounds reasonable to me
By Hulk on 12/17/2010 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
I mean it would be CRAZY to present both sides of an argument! Why let people know that climate data showing cooling/heating trends is somewhat suspect.

To think that they're talking about denying that planets and other celestial bodies heat and cool upon formation and other parts of they're natural lifespand is ridiculous.

Fox new is obvously talking about the current global warming debate. i.e. Is the planet warming? Over what time span? According to which data? And it is natural (perhaps sun activity) or man-made?

It's easier to simply call anyone looking into these facts as nuts than to actually look at the science. The libs will have no debate these days. If they say it we're supposed to follow like sheep.


RE: sounds reasonable to me
By BZDTemp on 12/19/2010 7:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's easier to simply call anyone looking into these facts as nuts than to actually look at the science. The libs will have no debate these days. If they say it we're supposed to follow like sheep.


Debates are fine but then they must be based on facts not as it is now where it's science on one side and feelings on the other. If you're not in agreement with the many scientists saying there is a man made global warming do the science to dispute it (and I mean real science not just looking out the window).


I don't see the problem
By Breathless on 12/17/2010 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
"...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

What is so wrong with this statement? Isn't it to say that journalists shouldn't be biased about the whole global warming debate? This article seems like a failed attempt to bash Fox.




RE: I don't see the problem
By Jeffk464 on 12/17/2010 12:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well there is irrefutable proof that the earth had an ice age. All you have to do is go to Yosemite in California to see the valleys that were cut by glaciers. This is the same ridiculous argument religious types use to deny the age of the earth, etc. If we don't get off this anti science kick the US is going to get left in the dust. Science and engineering is what keeps an economy like ours competitive.


RE: I don't see the problem
By Breathless on 12/17/2010 2:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, and you really think that is what he is saying... you think he is referring to the ice age? WOW


Rupert Murdoch...
By croc on 12/17/2010 5:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
...left Australia because he couldn't get the leaders HE wanted elected. Left GB for much the same reasons, with a little prodding from the GB government thrown in for good measure.

Now he's found the perfect home, America, where there are people naive enough to actually LISTEN to his junk, and who WILL vote in the leaders HE wants.

So far, he's left a trail of biased (and just bad) journalism in Australia, and made a shambles of the UK networks as well as newspapers... What will be the legacy of his 'triumphs' in the US of A? Well, our gain (Australia) and your loss. Please keep him happy...




RE: Rupert Murdoch...
By Penti on 12/18/2010 1:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how Murdoch owned newspapers abroad were the ones criticizing people like Saakashvili prior to the war with Russia. But mostly everything he owns is mostly catastrophic.


RE: Rupert Murdoch...
By Fritzr on 12/23/2010 5:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry we have a history of coming out ahead by supporting people like Rupert Murdoch.

America made a real profit from William Randolph Hearst. One of his major accomplishments was the Spanish-American war. Remember the Maine! -- Sunk by a coal dust explosion though you would never know that from the newspaper reports.


Where is it being denied?
By blakhama on 12/17/2010 9:58:49 AM , Rating: 3
The comment just suggest do not take a stance on the issue because the facts are questionable. I see NOWHERE where it says to deny, it just says do not assert any one stance. Is that not being balanced? That is reporting, not forcing a particular belief. C'mon man...

"It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies. " ...exactly, it's like reading an opinion article about economics from NYTimes written by an english major...




RE: Where is it being denied?
By MeesterNid on 12/17/2010 10:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly! All he's saying is that they should report the news instead of interpreting and spinning them like most other "journalists" and "news networks" do.


Idiot
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 10:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conquering our planet's climate holds tremendous potential for the benefit of mankind.


Unless we develop the technology to actually control the weather, we will never "conquer" our planet's climate.




RE: Idiot
By kattanna on 12/17/2010 11:23:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unless we develop the technology to actually control the weather, we will never "conquer" our planet's climate.


and thats exactly what he is getting at with the rest of that paragraph

quote:
To do that we must properly understand how the climate operates. That will be impossible if the research, governmental, and journalistic communities continue to look at climate change research as a partisan debate and exhaust their energy trying to blindly prove their particular opinion. It's time to return to true science and open debate.


all i can say fit is that today seems for you to be the wrong day to stop sniffing glue


RE: Idiot
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

First of all, the chances of the human race ever creating technology that can actually control the weather even in the next 100 years is EXTREMELY slim.

Second, I am not against scientific research towards that goal.

Third, I pray to God we never figure it out because I don't trust anyone with that kind of power.

Fourth, Jason was most likely referring to understanding how it works. Not towards the goal of actually controlling it. But knowing how it works so we don't harm it. For the topic of this article, man-made global warming, there is zero scientific evidence of the theories that we are causing the planet to warm other than the fact that its a) been hotter at certain times over others (which was the case long before fossil fuels were being burned) and b) flawed computer models (of which there has been evidence were intentionally made to show a desired result).

If I'm sniffing glue, then what are you on?


The Huff
By CZroe on 12/17/2010 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 3
"So much for fair and balanced... (Source: The Huffington Post)"

LAWL! "The Huffington Post?" SRSLY?




RE: The Huff
By nstott on 12/17/2010 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Huffing Glue Post, now funded in part by György Soros:
http://24ahead.com/huffington-post-investigative-j...


Idiot
By LancerVI on 12/18/2010 11:56:53 AM , Rating: 3
Jason Mick. You're an idiot.

Your title doesn't match the facts.
Talk about bias.

Lancer VI




RE: Idiot
By Hotdogah on 12/18/2010 12:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. This is a bit far out there.


oh. and btw
By LancerVI on 12/18/2010 12:09:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm black, extremely conservative and didn't vote for Obama. Am I a racist??

Further, when the second civil war occurs,like John Titor said it would, (lol) I can't wait to shoot socialists and their ilk! I look forward to it! They deserve nothing less for attempting to destroy the USofA.

I'm not a racists, but I do hate people's ideologies like liberals, socialists and communists. Move to Europe, China or found your own country else where. Get the hell out of the US.

Lancer VI




RE: oh. and btw
By Belard on 12/21/2010 5:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not all republicans are tea-baggin nut-jobs.

But all Teabaggers are republicans.

Just like not all men are black people, but all black men are people.

Liberals is what allowed laws to be fixed to allow YOU to vote. And the "get out of American" is typically stupid and should only be reserved for blacks, whites, asians... anyone who is NOT Native American.

The dumbest of Republicans (teabaggers) are foxheads.


This story has been sensationalized by DailyTech
By zBernie on 12/17/2010 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 3
The title of this story "Fox News Tells Reporters to Deny Earth Has Ever Warmed or Cooled" is completely misleading. Actually, what Bill Sammon said is correct -- There is a lot of evidence contradicting global warming. The majority of the media outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, who are intent on brainwashing people that they are doomed by global warming, should take his advice. The aforementioned media outlets seldom if ever show any dissenting opinions, but rather are global warming alarmist cheerleaders.




By Jeffk464 on 12/17/2010 12:32:40 PM , Rating: 1
An unbiased report would give equal time to both side of the argument, I guess? But, they should also bring in people with true expertise on the subject and give their credentials so people can decide who to believe. To listen to Rush on the topic of global warming is insane for instance, he has absolutely no background in science. Its like listening to a preacher on the subject of evolution.


Mick lied people died...
By nstott on 12/17/2010 11:56:35 AM , Rating: 4
Jason, your headline is dishonest to say the least. The memo does not tell them to "deny" climate change. It tells them not to state climate trends as definite facts since the data is currently in dispute, especially in light of Climate Gate and how the Mann-made data didn't match other data that was intentionally truncated to remove data trends that did not fit the story that the climate scammers want to push. They are journalists, not scientists, and this is called journalist integrity, unlike the other news outlets that push AGW as being proven and not subject to further debate. Furthermore, you are also engaging in the typical demonization of skeptics by using the word "deny" as in "global warming deniers" which is meant to invoke "Holocaust deniers." Why are you still a natural process denier when it comes to the climate, Jason?

I will give you that most reporters at FNC by and large are AGW skeptics and that, right or wrong, they are biased on the topic. However, News Corp chief Rupert Murdock, who is actually left-of-center, has pushed FNC to report more AGW-as-fact and pro-green stories over the past few years, especially on the FNC web site, and the change was noticeable. (The president of FNC, Roger Ailes, is strongly conservative, and I think Murdock is somewhat hands-off since FNC makes him a lot of money as the cable news rating champ by double to triple the number of viewers over the competition.)

In general, Jason, I would advise you to avoid politically charged topics since your bias is so strong that you come off as manipulative and uninformed.




Misleading headline!
By ppardee on 12/17/2010 12:10:22 PM , Rating: 4
Refraining from asserting does NOT equal denial. Any unbiased reporter should be reporting the facts. If you assert (state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively) something, you need to back it up with facts. Since we have no facts that can be used by anyone who cares about the truth to assert that the Earth has warmed or cooled, no reporter should state it as fact.

For a planet that is 4,540,000,000 years old, taking a sample of temperatures for 100 years and making an assertion about the future of climate is like taking a sample of temperatures for 6/10th of a second and making an assertion about the climate for the next year. It is asinine!

The climate is cyclical. It gets cold, then it gets warm again. Then, oddly enough, it gets cold again. Then it gets warm... See a pattern? It happens every day, every year and every 200,000 years or so. Each of these embedded cycles play off each other. (Think of a signal riding on a carrier signal riding on another carrier signal.) Plus, the 11 year solar cycle affects these cycles. CO2 emissions don't. If they did, we would see a dramatic increase in temperature and we would be dead.




Stunned
By Dorkyman on 12/17/2010 6:31:00 PM , Rating: 4
Jason, I'm just stunned by your outright bias. Your headline is not at all what was stated.

I've regarded your writings in the past to be reasonable.

Not now.

Extremely disappointed that you would take a cheap shot like this.




bad even for mick
By johnsonx on 12/17/2010 6:33:59 PM , Rating: 4
Mick, this article is below even your usual low standards. Nothing in the fox news memo is in any way similar to your grandiose headline, to say nothing of the absurd extremes you reach in your commentary. I had a very low opinion of your journalistic integrity already, yet I find myself stunned that you would stoop this low.




Perfect Example of Slanted Reporting
By jeepga on 12/18/2010 10:32:47 AM , Rating: 4
This article is a perfect example of the slanted reporting that has driven me away from mainstream news. Clearly the intent of the memo is pointing towards an unbiased approach to global warming (which to my knowledge no other network has taken). However, the author of the article has decided to take it out of context in an effort to smear Fox News.

I'm not going to stand up and say Fox News is the perfect balanced news organization. However, they are fair and balanced compared to the likes of MSNBC, CNN, et al. And there have been studies to show that their content is balanced on both political spectrums (at least in the main news programs).

Some people would say that I'm not "informed", because I don't watch mainstream news. But, those people are kidding themselves if they think they're being "informed" by the so-called news organizations that are out there right now.




As opposed to DailyTech
By sleepeeg3 on 12/17/2010 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 3
...which never stops pushing it. Give it a rest.




Next they'll say the Earth is flat
By BZDTemp on 12/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Next they'll say the Earth is flat
By bdunosk on 12/18/2010 8:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
When you say to watch the Daily Show, I'm pretty sure you're not a fan of Fox News. :P

Guys, you need to understand that the basic tenet of science is that we re-test our hypotheses and theories. The term scientific fact is an oxymoron. Fox News is being responsible in this situation by presenting both sides of a story.

I'm not a climatologist, but I am a scientist; while I don't dispute that humans have an impact on our environment and we may be causing long-term climate change, there just isn't enough data out there at this point to say yes with certainty. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to lessen our negative impact on the world around us.


By BZDTemp on 12/18/2010 9:13:02 PM , Rating: 1
If only Fox News were telling both sides of the story but the thing is they are not. Fox News claim to be fair an unbiased while in reality they are one sided and manipulative.

It's like there is a lot of scientists saying something but it has gotten okay to say we feel differently and what we feel matters more.

You're doing it right now. First you acknowledge to not to be a scientist working with the environment issues yet on the other hand you still dispute what thousands of people in the field is saying. At least you are then accepting we must do something to change how our way of life impacts the world but a lot of others including Fox News is changing nothing.
n
The "truth" Fox News is bringing is like the story some smokers use to defend why they smoke. They all have an uncle or something which lived to the age of 90 while he smoked every day. Most everyone accept that smoking is bad for ones health but it is easier to say differently if you're a smoker. Likewise it is easier to say the economic crisis is because of Obama rather than that Bush guy which you voted for back then. Or that accepting living a consumer life in the fast lane may be using more resources than the Earth can handle.

In a way I actually like Fox News but that is because they say so many crazy things. Only when I remember many people only get news from Fox it gets to be a horror show. It's like Palin where on the one had I think she should be the republican candidate for the next president since it would ensure a democratic president. Only what if then by some horrible twist of fate she then becomes president!


By Randomblame on 12/19/2010 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 3
If you had actually read the email it asks that reporters not give their opinion on the matter because they are not qualified to do so. Fox news recognizes the fact that their reporters are not scientists and should stick with the facts only and interview qualified witnesses to discuss the ongoing debate. This is what is known as "objective journalism" - Something Jason Mick simply cannot fathom.

- by the way your theory is just amazing maybe you should call CNN and let them know that you've cracked this one.