Faux News

---

I just read this and laughed, so now I'm sharing because I'm a good boy  Quote: In 2008, some 50 per cent of the Faux News viewers were over 63, the oldest demographic in the cable-news racket, and the majority of viewers of Hannity's and O'Reilly's shows were men. Yep, that's the Fox News demo – the cranky old guy who stormed out the front door and shouted at you to quit playing outside his house. He's still angry. Except right now he's angry about Obama.

Haha that's funny!!

LOL...the "old guys". Yep...the ones who were around before the liberals began the brainwashing of the populace through the education system in this country. Now the liberals like Obama have threatened to shut down the station...or at least certain personnel there. Interesting...liberals 35-45 years ago were all for freedom of the press...now they wish the networks not on their payroll (owned by other flaming liberals) would go away. What happened the idea of the "freedom of the press" they used to talk about? It became no longer convenient for them. They want only their own songs sung on TV...a complete monopoly on what the public sees. Seems I've heard that line somewhere before.Make no mistake...there are no more democrats or republicans...there are only liberals and the rest of us. And todays liberal is nothing more than a thinly-veiled socialist. So was Hitler and Stalin...who together were responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 of their own people. The writing is on the wall for those who are not blind and their heads not (yet) in the sand.Thank you for bringing this up Mr u...keep 'em coming.

Originally Posted By: Rad

Originally Posted By: thor

LOL...the "old guys". Yep...the ones who were around before the liberals began the brainwashing of the populace through the education system in this country. Now the liberals like Obama have threatened to shut down the station...or at least certain personnel there. Interesting...liberals 35-45 years ago were all for freedom of the press...now they wish the networks not on their payroll (owned by other flaming liberals) would go away. What happened the idea of the "freedom of the press" they used to talk about? It became no longer convenient for them. They want only their own songs sung on TV...a complete monopoly on what the public sees. Seems I've heard that line somewhere before.

Make no mistake...there are no more democrats or republicans...there are only liberals and the rest of us. And todays liberal is nothing more than a thinly-veiled socialist. So was Hitler and Stalin...who together were responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 of their own people. The writing is on the wall for those who are not blind and their heads not (yet) in the sand.

Thank you for bringing this up Mr u...keep 'em coming.
I can tell you what happened to Freedom of the Press:
The right abused it. Told too many lies. Became domestic terrorists, rather than honorable opponents.
While it makes me very sad to even think about the prospect, if this domestic terrorism does not stop, I see no other alternative. You are not allowed to say just anything you want under free speech and, unfortunately, it's not limited to truth.
But, you are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater and it should not be slanderous or libelous.
But, the right doesn't care. Fox makes lies a network policy. Anything, ANYTHING it takes to bring down the opposing party.
How long do you expect domestic terrorism to be allowed under the guise of Freedom of Speech?
I know, I know!!! You'll say it's me lying and you telling the truth, but I do believe statistics do back me up.
Whether it's severe enough to take action? I don't know, but I fear it's getting to that point!
So, it's the right that is brainwashed and being subversive to the US government.
So, that's what has happened to freedom of the press.
Thank you, thor, for bringing it up for discussion for the 50th time.

So...now a liberal says it's OK to take rights away when the situation warrants it. And who determins what kind of situation that might be...the people? Apparently not. Sounds like a military state...certainly different from the liberal attitude of the '60s. One step closer to dictatorial socialism, to be sure.

As a reminder, one more question...whom is it that has said they would like to prevent freedom of speach for certain folks...a right guaranteed ALL by our Constitution?

Quote:Now the liberals like Obama have threatened to shut down the station...or at least certain personnel there source please

Quote: LOL...the "old guys". Yep...the ones who were around before the liberals began the brainwashing of the populace through the education system in this country.well, I'm a little older than you but that's neither here nor there. Here's what I see has happened to both the media and American conservatism over the past several years. I admit, I still haven't reached my final conclusion on the chicken vs the egg yet.There was a time when conservative had this quaint, old fashioned sense about it. A granny, shaking her head at "these kids today with their rocking and their rolling" and the quiet hope that none of those darkies will move in next door. Or the WASP heading off to work in his IBM suit, coming home to a ready roast beef dinner, a jug of martinis, knock the wife around a bit then off to bed. There was always a darker, more extreme side but they tended to hide behind white hoods and occasionally badges.Then there was a change in the US media. Prior to 1984, the FCC regulated "public affairs" content for broadcasters. Often referred to as the 5-5-10 rule, broadcasters had to air a minimum of 5% local, 5% information and 10% non-entertainment content during the day.With a mandated minimum NEWS content on every station, the public had the opportunity to stay informed about world events, should they choose to tune in.The FCC dropped that regulation in 84 and the content of NEWS began to drop off in favor of content that would better sell advertising. Many may actually remember FOX as being one of the first networks to have no NEWS programming whatsoever.But people like the NEWS and were still looking for it. What they started to receive, however, was less NEWS and more opinion and punditry dressed in a NEWS format. All you have to do is watch CNN for an afternoon to see how little actual NEWS is aired (and how many commercials)Now, John Q Public, who used to have various information services upon which to base his opinions, has less information and more of other people's opinions on which to for an opinion. Now his view of the world is filtered though someone else's view of the world. He must accept the "facts" as they are presented by pundits and politicians. This is why, sadly, so many Americas were left after 9/11 wondering "who are these people and why do they hate us?".Enter Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Riely, etc. All presenting their radically conservative ideologies in a "NEWS" format, out in the open, hoods off. It is now their eyes through which many conservatives see the world. They've gone so far as to try to paint the purveyors of just "plain old NEWS" as being the "liberal media"So the modern neo-conservative is either a product of this media shift or, more likely, a victim.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Quote:Now the liberals like Obama have threatened to shut down the station...or at least certain personnel there source please It's been literally all over the net for several weeks now. But because you said "please", here's an example: Obama aide: Fox News is biased ...and another (just for fun): Obama vs Fox News While you may not agree that Fox News is fair and balanced (and if you've been brainwashed/liberal you most certainly will not), one can't deny the inappropriateness of the Obama administration in handling thier own desires to allow the public to see only what Obama & Co. wants us to. As was pointed out in the second link, excluding access to the Whitehouse is a Constitutional violation...not that Obama cares about any such thing.

This excerpt from another link rings all too true:Can you imagine the outrage that would have ensued had former President George W. Bush declared off-limits those media outlets he thought (correctly) treated him unfairly? Heck, the left declared him a dictator simply because he led a war on Iraq that Congress approved. He never tried to shut down his critics. He rarely even objected to their abuse. But liberal politicians have been spoiled with mainstream media favoritism for so long that they believe anything other than sycophancy is mistreatment. Their selective outrage is as hollow as it is risible. In fact, Fox News seems much more conservative than it is because no other television network over the past half-century has been anything but decidedly liberal. When the media norm is liberal, liberals equate liberalism with objectivity and deviations from it as bias, just as liberals preach tolerance toward all ideas — except conservative ones. Their self-delusion is surreal. Obama's War on Fox...

and in which of those two articles do we see the threats to "shut down" anyone?

It also seems that the reference to a "fairness doctrine" in the second article is made without any knowledge of broadcast history or changes in the FCC. In 1987, the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine, which required broadcasters "to air controversial issues of public concern and provide a fair representation of opposing views". Not exactly as stated in your article on BayouBuzz where it's described as "to silence talk radio and shut down another source of opposition to the Obama agenda"

bias? what bias?

Quote:

Can you imagine the outrage that would have ensued had former President George W. Bush declared off-limits those media outlets he thought (correctly) treated him unfairly?

he did! he refused to appear on BET, remember?

Thor, I agree and back you on this one. The gov't has been getting too on the news lately, and not in the good way.U: Really, the silencing, or rather, proposed silencing of Fox has been quite literally everywhere, but it's been dying down lately.  Quote:to silence talk radio and shut down another source of opposition to the Obama agenda"bias? what bias? This bias is alive and well, and I feel it should be said, if you can't see it, although you have different media outlets than we do, then you're turning away from it.

well, you just re-quoted my quote from the article without the original verbiage of the FCC regulations as juxtaposition, which means you just removed all context from my statement. Did you even understand it?second, all I've heard is the administration's objection to the Fox bias and nothing about silencing it... unless that information is being presented through the right wing, pseudo news organisations as I described in my post on the changes in media. You should read it.

as Faux News has been a bee in my bonnet lately, I've been looking a little deeper.ya know, they don't even describe themselves as being a serious news source. They state that only 6 hours a day is dedicated to actual news. The rest is opinion. Quick math - 3/4 not news. Glenn Beck doesn't claim to be a journalist. He doesn't even claim to be a pundit. He's a comedian and in his own words, he is a "rodeo clown"Oh, and all the big names that we associate with Faux News, Hannity, O'Riely, Beck, etc., are not part of the 6 hours of news. They are the 18 hours of opinion, though they are often quoted as "sources say" during the little news bits. That's cute

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedas Faux News has been a bee in my bonnet lately, I've been looking a little deeper.ya know, they don't even describe themselves as being a serious news source. They state that only 6 hours a day is dedicated to actual news. The rest is opinion. Quick math - 3/4 not news. Glenn Beck doesn't claim to be a journalist. He doesn't even claim to be a pundit. He's a comedian and in his own words, he is a "rodeo clown"Oh, and all the big names that we associate with Faux News, Hannity, O'Riely, Beck, etc., are not part of the 6 hours of news. They are the 18 hours of opinion, though they are often quoted as "sources say" during the little news bits. That's cute OK...now, if you wish to be considered serious and not just another liberal blow-hard, you have to do the same research for the other news networks; CBS, NBC, ABC etc. Other than Fox, they're all pretty much alike...so pick any two.

if you'd taken a moment to read my post on the changes in the FCC and it's effect on news in general, you'd see that I have done the research.Editorial bias has been an issue since the first news paper was printed. Don't assume that my criticism of fox is a defense of the others. But if you turn to fox as a source of information, you should be outraged at their insult to your intelligence

Conservative engaged to member of the "liberal" media  Quote:Defence Minister Peter MacKay to marry CTV news executive awww, there's hope for all of us! Oh, and some of the comments added at the bottom of the article are priceless!

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedif you'd taken a moment to read my post on the changes in the FCC and it's effect on news in general, you'd see that I have done the research.Editorial bias has been an issue since the first news paper was printed. Don't assume that my criticism of fox is a defense of the others. But if you turn to fox as a source of information, you should be outraged at their insult to your intelligenceI feel the same way about the other networks. Seems more and more people are agreeing with me, too...after having their "intelligence insulted" by the other networks for far too long, they're turning to Fox. This article also states how Fox gives airtime to Dems (a verifiable fact), while the other networks...well, you can read the comment in the article for yourself. The pro-Fox Democrats I'm not saying Fox is perfect and doesn't engage in the game of "opinions". I AM saying that they do a better job than any of the other flamingly liberal networks at telling the whole truth. When all you've heard comes from the other networks, it seems centrist...making Fox look conservative. It is...but is really much closer to center than any of the other networks.

Originally Posted By: thorIt is...but is really much closer to center than any of the other networks. Its much closer to your centre, but not really to any logical centre. FOX is far more biased than most stations but by no means am I saying that its alone. All of the major American "News" stations have succumbed to the very personal, one-on-one, having-a-chat kind of news presentation. They aim their broadcast at demographics instead of just giving the news. MSNBC is quite obviously a "left wing" channel, Keith Olbermann's show especially.HERE is a news report from RTÉ News, Ireland's main news program. It takes about a minute, shows images and gives the facts and reactions by locals. Nothing more. No blaming the incident on officials' lack of actions or the President's stance on smoking.BBC is starting to suffer from acting like American news programs, adding opinion polls and viewer input into issues that don't involve them one single bit. Sky News also fell into the same trap a few years ago.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousSky News also fell into the same trap a few years ago. The Sky was falling?

I haven't been able to find the information on CRTC regulations like I was on the FCC ones, but there is a definite difference between US and Canadian newscasts. I get most of my news from CBC, CTV and the local CTV affiliate for local news. The primary US network I check in with is CNN.There's something odd about CNN. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems like they are in love with themselves and their gadgets rather than the news. It's almost as though it a constant commercial for itself, if you know what I'm trying to say.I think US news has suffered. Fox and MSNBC are defiantly symptoms of the problem. I've been a political watcher for years and it's only in the last decade or less that there has become such a nasty polarization in the US. I really can't remember the level of hate-speak from conservatives back in the Reagan years, that's for sure. And it was most certainly not presented as "news"I used to often by buy 2 newspapers at once, the conservative Globe & Mail and the liberal Sun, just to compare the stories (and to see the Sunshine Girl ) But who has time to read a pair of papers every day?

That is the most laughable crock of shit I have read since I visited the site last week and read your moral conservative ramblings.