Fair and balanced? Um ... no

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Oh christ is you being unable to see the difference between watching a station on a daily regular basis, and being familiar with it. Seriously, Zig?

oh, i said you must watch it on a regular basis? where did i say that? i just find it odd, if you take such umbrage, that you would ever watch...er, view it. like i told scuds, i don't even know who the woman is that he mentioned. unlike you, i don't watch/view them ever. i just find the whole thing odd.

i hate fox news, so i view them on occasion. why? why waste your time?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i said you must watch it on a regular basis? where did i say that? i just find it odd, if you take such umbrage, that you would ever watch...er, view it. like i told scuds, i don't even know who the woman is that he mentioned. unlike you, i don't watch/view them ever. i just find the whole thing odd.

i hate fox news, so i view them on occasion. why? why waste your time?

Wow. That's a long way to go. Well done.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i thought the thread was about a donation made.

The thread is about news organizations and the extent of their involvement in politics.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. That's a long way to go. Well done.

i could say the same. you sure jumped to conclusions and semantics, when in fact no one suggested you had a channel tuned to them 24-7.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i could say the same. you sure jumped to conclusions and semantics, when in fact no one suggested you had a channel tuned to them 24-7.

Not really. I was talking about the minutes of coverage Faux News gave to particular stories, especially final combat troop withdrawal, and you decided it was more important to change that topic to exactly how much time and in what manner I viewed Faux.

As I said, long way to go just to reach your end goal

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not really. I was talking about the minutes of coverage Faux News gave to particular stories, especially final combat troop withdrawal, and you decided it was more important to change that topic to exactly how much time and in what manner I viewed Faux.

As I said, long way to go just to reach your end goal

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

i know...i'm so ashamed. i mean, when she mentioned some stories she'd seen, i automatically assumed that meant she had watched it. but no, she'd only viewed it. i feel so silly. i need to work on my reading comprehension so as not to confuse the two.


edit~well...holy crap. i went back to the beginning of this thread to see where i got derailed, and found this....now maybe i found where i made my mistake, and dared accuse riot of 'watching' fox news. how did i err so badly?!

Originally Posted by Riot

Dan Rather is no longer an anchor.

On Wednesday, I was watching Shepherd Smith complain that the material creating disposable Sun Chip bags was noisy.

Shep, anyone would hire you. Run away, run away .... !

riot, i am so sorry i mistook what you wrote.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a perfect example of media-bias. It is not a journalist's job to take sides. They are simply supposed to report the story. If I was writing a story about the "Truthers", I would report on how many of them there are and what they believe. I would not report my opinion as fact. I would not say, "The Truthers incorrcectly believe that Pres Bush had something to do with 9/11". I would say, "The Truthers believe that Pres Bush had something to with 9/11". I would not speculate on the accuracy of the belief.

Yet in this article from ABC News about Obama, this is exactly what ABC News does. It is totally inappropriate and it shows their obvious bias. They report people's beliefs as "wrong" and "incorrect".

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/franklin-gr...ry?id=11446462

[Danzig]

by the same token, i don't know why any news organization would discuss birthers or truthers at all. news is based on fact, opinion is not fact-so why would they bother with it? the news should report things of importance that happen, not whether people have an opinion of something. that would be better left to non-news shows that discuss happenings.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, well you certainly got me on the right track by making sure i understood you don't watch fox, you view it. that helped immensely. had you said you viewed it to begin with, no doubt this tangent would never have happened. but since i don't share your superiour intellect, it flew right by me. i'll do better next time.

Yeah, 'Zig, that's exactly what I said. Right.

Yes, it truely must be too hard for you guys to understand: that there is plenty of info about Fox, and the minutes they devote (or not) to particular stories, in the news watchdog orgs (which is what I was talking about when 'Zig decided to introduce "this tangent"); and plenty of short videos of the Faux talking heads all over the political blogs - so no, nobody has to watch Faux News at all to see what they are putting out there - but it's easier for you just to be disingenuous, then insult me. Got it.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I expected better from you. After all, you have all your own teeth.

That was beautiful.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is a perfect example of media-bias. It is not a journalist's job to take sides. They are simply supposed to report the story. If I was writing a story about the "Truthers", I would report on how many of them there are and what they believe. I would not report my opinion as fact. I would not say, "The Truthers incorrcectly believe that Pres Bush had something to do with 9/11". I would say, "The Truthers believe that Pres Bush had something to with 9/11". I would not speculate on the accuracy of the belief.

But when there is no credible evidence, don't you think it's the media's job to report that, too? Why do you think 20% of Americans falsely - yes, falsely - believe Obama is Muslim when he's beyond obviously Christian?

[Danzig]

i don't think it's beyond obvious that he's christian. i think what i read on slate is correct, that he's really not religious at all. i think it's all overdone anyway. i don't care who someone prays to, i just care which direction they lead this country. at the end of the day, what does it matter at all what religion he is? i said the same about romney, when people said they wouldn't vote for him because he's a mormon. so what!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

There are multiple independent news watching organizations that do this. That is what this thread is about. Stations that do it on a daily basis, versus those that screw up occasionally. Guess which category Faux fits into?

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story? This article goes beyond anything that Fox News would do.

I still can't get over it. We all know that many politicians are not honest about their true beliefs. They're not got going to tell you their true beliefs if they think it will cost them votes. Obama claims he's a Christian. He may in fact be a Christian. But some Americans are skeptical. About 20% of Americans suspect that Obama may be a Muslim. I'm sure that plenty of politicians (both Republican and Democrats) are atheists but claim to be Christians just to get votes.

There is no way to truly know what any of these politicians really believe. Does Bill Clinton have a deep belief in God? Who knows. But just because he says he does, it doesn't mean that people have to believe it.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian. That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/franklin-gr...ry?id=11446462

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

at the end of the day, what does it matter at all what religion he is? i said the same about romney, when people said they wouldn't vote for him because he's a mormon. so what!

When the haters in this country are right now actively and aggressively ginning up hate for Muslims, yeah, I think it matters alot that some are spreading the lie that the President of the United States is Muslim.

And you are right about Romney, during the last election cycle it was spread with his name associated, that "Mormons are a polygamous cult!".

[Riot]

Are any of these "independent news watching organizations" going to point out ABC News' obvious bias in this story?

Yes, they do all the time. Some are far better than others, but plenty of "left wing" bias and falsehoods are pointed out, too.

Anyway, I don't know how ABC News can say that people are "wrong" and "incorrect" for not believing Obama is a Christian.

Probably because Obama himself has publically said he is a Christian.

There's also years of back-info and evidence about him attending Christian services.

That is totally unprofessional and shows an obvious bias on the part of ABC News.

Nonsense. It's reporting the truth. The problem today seems that many readily confuse truth with ... something else.

If someone has other provable information - not fear-mongering - that the President of the United States is lying, bring it on. So far that's been a pretty big fail on the part of many.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

But when there is no credible evidence, don't you think it's the media's job to report that, too? Why do you think 20% of Americans falsely - yes, falsely - believe Obama is Muslim when he's beyond obviously Christian?

It's not because they're misinformed. I don't think any of these people think that Obama claims to be a Muslim. They know he claims to be a Christian. They don't believe him.

I'm sure plenty of these people saw Obama's interview with George Stephanapolous where Obama mentions "my Muslim faith". I know that Obama may have just misspoke but it could have been a "Fruedian Slip" too.

The guy's father was a Muslim. In addition, I don't think any true Christian would have gone to Jeremiah Wright's church for all those years.

Despite all of this, I still think there is a good chance that Obama is a Christian. If I had to bet on it, I would guess he's probably a Christian, but I'm certainly not confident about it. I can totally see why people would be skeptical and would suspect he's a Muslim.

If ABC News did a story about this site, they would probably say that people on this site "wrongly" and incorrectly" don't believe that Riot is a Republican.