# Fair and balanced



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Fox is fair and balanced for the first time, and unexpectedly at that.

http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=7819


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

good debate, but crappy argument. give me a break lady.

as for the network. foxnews is fair and balanced. just because they actually show schools getting built in iraq and people shaking americans hands doesn't mean they are biased. i think there are more cases against the media for them leaning left rather than right. there are numerous examples, rathergate being the largest... i think all the other networks hate them for slaughtering them in the ratings.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree with parts, but had problems with other parts of the ladies points. I guess her rudeness put me off, and I took her less serious.

First I think they could have done it more cheaply, but wasn't most of the expense security. Who pays for all the parties? I don't think those are all taxpayer funded.

I forget the ladies name but she jumped from the expense of the inauguration to HumV armor. That rang of political agenda on her part. More importantly she is wrong. As soon as that soldier complained to the vice president the company in Florida stepped up production. I think there is only one company that produces armor for that vehicle and they are putting everything else on the back burner until they catch up with the armor work.

I think Fox News is the first to give us fair and balanced in the last 50 years. It doesn't appear that way because America is not familiar with anything but liberal slant. Hearing conservative views from our media is an entirely new experience. Conservatives are elated, now they can be heard. Liberals are depressed because now conservative viewpoints get on the news. Why do you think Canada tried to keep them out?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> First I think they could have done it more cheaply, but wasn't most of the expense security. Who pays for all the parties? I don't think those are all taxpayer funded.


Regardless! They could have put said money towards arming our troops properly or helping to pay the deficit, or searching for alternative fuels. They could have held the party at the white house itself, had a modest gathering and celebrated all the same while using hardly any money. The conservatives of today are not close to the level of fiscal responsibility that they were based on, and it will soon come to bite them in the ***.



> I forget the ladies name but she jumped from the expense of the inauguration to HumV armor. That rang of political agenda on her part. More importantly she is wrong. As soon as that soldier complained to the vice president the company in Florida stepped up production. I think there is only one company that produces armor for that vehicle and they are putting everything else on the back burner until they catch up with the armor work.


That's a load of crap, they could have contracted most any steel or vehicle company to do the work as well, they just don't want to spend the money.



> I think Fox News is the first to give us fair and balanced in the last 50 years.


Of course you do, because it's fair to your side and balanced to your side. I think MSNBC the only watchable news station, it allows both sides on a subject to be spoken freely, and have very little stilt towards either side.



> Liberals are depressed because now conservative viewpoints get on the news.


They have been getting thru with direct mailing since the Reagan inauguration. They have simply migrated to television as another medium. Unfortunately they don't carry on with half of the stuff they preach, and as previously stated when push comes to shove and people realize we are worse off than we were 8 years ago it will be time for a liberal to come in and clean up the mess.



> just because they actually show schools getting built in iraq and people shaking americans hands doesn't mean they are biased.


You are still biased if you only show the good side of an argument. They don't show anything bad about the war, as if it is a cakewalk or something. They don't do the soldiers justice.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:


> Regardless! They could have put said money towards arming our troops properly or helping to pay the deficit, or searching for alternative fuels. They could have held the party at the white house itself, had a modest gathering and celebrated all the same while using hardly any money. The conservatives of today are not close to the level of fiscal responsibility that they were based on, and it will soon come to bite them in the a$$.


Yes they could have done it more cheaply. That bothers me about the current conservatives also, they are acting like liberals. Well, not that bad.



> That's a load of crap, they could have contracted most any steel or vehicle company to do the work as well, they just don't want to spend the money.


Actually not, the fabrication as I understand isn't that simple, and other companies are not tooled up for it.



> Of course you do, because it's fair to your side and balanced to your side. I think MSNBC the only watchable news station, it allows both sides on a subject to be spoken freely, and have very little *stilt *towards either side.


Stilt ?????????? Do you mean a wading bird?

I disagree, until now the news media has been strongly tilted left. I like Hannity and Colmes, one conservative one liberal. Have you noticed the poor manners of the liberals? A conservative has a hard time making a point. The liberals constantly interrupt, maybe they should all go to charm school.



> You are still biased if you only show the good side of an argument. They don't show anything bad about the war, as if it is a cakewalk or something. They don't do the soldiers justice.


I think it is biased when CNN is in the sack with Al-Jeezerah (however you spell that). In a post you told me I wouldn't believe a soldier if they talked about Iraq. That's funny because when I told you what soldiers had to say you wouldn't believe it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. I would far believe the soldiers coming back before I believe the TV news.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

"You are still biased if you only show the good side of an argument. They don't show anything bad about the war, as if it is a cakewalk or something. They don't do the soldiers justice."

thats just not true. they show all the casualties as top stories almost daily.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Yes they could have done it more cheaply. That bothers me about the current conservatives also, they are acting like liberals. Well, not that bad.


It seems that in this day and age words from the majority means more than facts from the minority. This country is in a sick state.



> Actually not, the fabrication as I understand isn't that simple, and other companies are not tooled up for it.


You are willing to tell me that they can make new tools for producing new cars, yet they are unable to create those to produce armor. You must be trying really hard not to see the truth here.



> I disagree, until now the news media has been strongly tilted left. I like Hannity and Colmes, one conservative one liberal. Have you noticed the poor manners of the liberals? A conservative has a hard time making a point. The liberals constantly interrupt, maybe they should all go to charm school.


The news media is majorly owned by staunch republicans. The reporting reflects this ownership. Do you really believe that the liberals dominate the media, or do you just want to believe it? Charm is the quality you look for? That explains how you tend to miss the facts on just about every subject.



> In a post you told me I wouldn't believe a soldier if they talked about Iraq. That's funny because when I told you what soldiers had to say you wouldn't believe it.


It was a hypothetical situation when I asked you. I have no doubts that the soldiers are telling the truth, more like half of it but the truth none the less.



> thats just not true. they show all the casualties as top stories almost daily.


Then they are thus no better than the other supposedly liberal news orginazitions that you criticize. 
[/quote]


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

as a watcher of CSPAN, particularly where there is live coverage of committee hearings, and comparing that to coverage on ANY of the networks (ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN), I find all of them to add a particular spin to their respective coverage by using quotes out of context, paraphrased quotes that do not reflect the message, quotes only from one side or the other, and usually a talking head interpretation of what they heard. It is endemic in so called news reporting. 
As an additional note, there was a live CSPAN broadcast about politics and the media about 4 weeks ago. Various media chiefs and commentators were there including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. According to all the networks, they had found from their own listener surveys that a large majority people that watch their talking head programs (e.g. Cross Fire, Hannity and Colmes, or any other flavor), were actually reporting factual news instead of providing commentary. 
Fox news chief reported at that conference that they were going to drop Cross Fire and scale back other programs like Hannity and Colmes because it was damaging their credibility on accuracy and fair and balanced reporting. Other networks indicated they were going to follow Fox's lead. I agree with this sentiment and it begs the question, At what point does the general public confuse the information presented in the shouting debates on the networks with news and facts?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Fox news chief reported at that conference that they were going to drop Cross Fire and scale back other programs like Hannity and Colmes because it was damaging their credibility on accuracy and fair and balanced reporting.


EXACTLY!

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12

As to CSPAN, I completely agree. I enjoy watching the Washington Journal above any other news program.


----------

