Page 5 of 7 First 1234567 Last
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,047
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    US news agencies are pretty much all circuses. The only choice you really have is which flavor of bullshit you subscribe to.

  2. #42
    JohnnyCache's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,528
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Let's all stop pretendingus news outlets are equally bad.

    Perfect broadcast objectivity is an impossible ideal, but there is a huge difference between those who try and fail at objectivity (by varying degrees) and fox news.

    Fox news is every inch bullshit and working on purpose to mock the notion of a fact existing on US airwaves.


  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,573
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCache View Post
    Let's all stop pretendingus news outlets are equally bad.

    Perfect broadcast objectivity is an impossible ideal, but there is a huge difference between those who try and fail at objectivity (by varying degrees) and fox news.

    Fox news is every inch bullshit and working on purpose to mock the notion of a fact existing on US airwaves.
    Just read supreme court stories on arizona immigration laws on both fox and msnbc. Online stories, and sorry I can't link. Did not see the clear difference. Once again we might be talking broadcast only. But I think the burden of proof is on you to show fox irresponsible vs other outlets responsible. Straight news only, apples to apples.

  4. #44
    JohnnyCache's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,528
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Have you ever worked in print or television?

    Routine straight news is very mimetic. It's prepared by wire service stringers. It's not apples to apples, it's literally an intern at each network slightly re-typesetting the same apple.

    The issue with your proposal is you're saying "a certain amount of the content is empirical, show me where they lied about one of those things" -- that very seldom happens.

    You're saying "distill a Pepsi and a coke, then tell me which water is different"


  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,573
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    No media experience. Not sure if relevant, I am a media consumer and we are comparing the product.

    If I understand, your point straight news is not a major difference between outlets.

    So now we go to editorial slant, I don't think you are complaining about right wing or left wing bias. Editorial board can do what they want.

    So that leaves playing loose with facts in the context of opinion piece and editorial decisions on reporting and promoting stories. What are you accusing fox of doing? What is the difference that you are asserting?

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    205
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm sorry, everyday this week I have woken up to fox news, (My gf is watching whilst she works out when I wake up) including an hour ago, and Holy ****, this channel is on a whole new planet of bias. (its the only English Channel avaliable where I'm staying)
    Someone tune in now, it is unreal, to quote the anchor "So what if 99% of people are poor, what have you got against the 1% rich, are you saying that its bad to be successful?"
    Every time I turn it on he is either
    a) Picking a negative event in the news and trying to spin in so its Obama's fault.
    b) Glossing over the gap between rich and poor by saying that anyone who wants the gap to close is against people being successful.

    This channel is absolute drivel, (saying that I keep watching, I think its the primary colours).

    It seems harmless but in fact when it comes to presidential elections, support of Wars and other important such events, its scary to think how many Americans are actually influenced by stuff like this, I'm not sure what their viewing figures are, but I imagine they are pretty high and unfortunately not everyone is as informed as the people on this forum and a fair percentage probably take this **** just as it comes.

    I should add, the lowest of the low, the absolute gutter, the absolute **** stinker of all time, the poorest excuse for not only a journalist but a human being.....is this man..


  7. #47
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,092
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'd say that Rush Limbaugh is the bigger right wing asshat than Bill O'Reiley. They're both pretty awful though.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,573
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    I'd say that Rush Limbaugh is the bigger right wing asshat than Bill O'Reiley. They're both pretty awful though.
    Are they asshats because they have an opinion you find disagreeable , they play loose with facts, or they change news reporting? All of the above is an acceptable answer, but the second and third require citations. (not saying I support either)

  9. #49
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hilo Island of Hawaii
    Posts
    8,885
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    JC is The Correct.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	112.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	30.9 KB 
ID:	13362  

    "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez

  10. #50
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,092
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by mike321 View Post
    Are they asshats because they have an opinion you find disagreeable , they play loose with facts, or they change news reporting? All of the above is an acceptable answer, but the second and third require citations. (not saying I support either)
    One and two mostly, because they're not really news reporters; they're talking heads. But I'm gonna do something a little different than text citations that could be said to be from "liberal rag sheets". Especially when my key point is "Rush Limbaugh is an asshat", which has been done to death with all kinds of links to dumb **** he's said. So, in lieu of traditional text citations, I'll be using the cover artwork of his own newsletter to make my case of asshattery in a more visually hilarious way.

    Fun Fact: Rush's newsletter often has a glossy handpainted portrait of himself as the cover, one of which was him as Mel Gibson's character in the scene from the Patriot where he's charging with an American flag. Asshat. Just look at this goddamn asshole:

    OMG Rush, where's your cigar to complete your image? I'll bet you feel naked.

    Here's his brawny, muscular self working on his tan:

    Oh good, he found his cigar to smoke on the beach.


    Here he is militarily puppetmastering Bush and Kerry in a military uniform while somehow sucking in his double chin:

    Could there be any doubt that the man that had himself pained into the background of this picture is an asshat?

    Oh look, its Limbaugh as Paul Revere, along with his fucking stupid hubris-filled caption, America's Paul Revere (we already had America's Paul Revere, his name was Paul Revere)


    Here he is as Master and Commander, because his readers seem to love his delusions of grandeur:


    Is he an asshat? Why its elementary:


    This is the kind of stuff that people laugh at Steven Colbert for, but Limbaugh does this **** in earnest.

Page 5 of 7 First 1234567 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO