-
Follow the money!!!
-
Where's the "rolls eyes" emotican when you need it?
-
This may be a rolls eyes thing except that FOX commentators go exceedingly out of their way to avoid mentioning Al-Waleed bin Talal. They are the ones who have made the big deal about him yet they refuse to say his name, apparently, I assume, do to him being the second largest owner of FOX, and refer to him only in the abstract. If they think he's such a threat (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) then they aught to be able to say who "he" is, in fact I think that the "responsible journalist" should.
The issue is not that he owns a large part of FOX, the issue is that the FOX commentators won't say the name Al-Waleed bin Talal while reporting that he is funding "terrorist activities" around the world.
FOX, along with every other new outlet, certainly had no problem saying the name Valerie Plame. However, when it comes to a part owner in their company, even though they believe him to be funding terrorist activities, they can't say his name on the air. Doesn't that raise some ethical questions about them?
-
Yep...already knew this. The real reasong could possibly prove to be very interesting, but likely we'll never know the truth of the matter...especially when "the truth" for most folks is fed to them by the liberal media. (Folks then spit it back up all over the web, you know.) I wish the reality to be known, but I won't be holding my breath.
-
Well now that Thor has chimed in, I'm throwing my hat in with Bob and Scott!
(Seriously...I wasn't questioning the story. I'm just getting a little tired of all the contortions people are putting themselves through to come up with a "gotcha" story. Beck and Hannity do it. The liberal commentators do it. And I hate it.)
-
Originally Posted By: damien
(Seriously...I wasn't questioning the story. I'm just getting a little tired of all the contortions people are putting themselves through to come up with a "gotcha" story. Beck and Hannity do it. The liberal commentators do it. And I hate it.)
I have to agree with you here. The link that I posted is to the Huffington Post, a well known liberal publication that I (surprisingly) had never taken the time to read. I only ended up on it because I had seen the show in question but couldn't find a video to link to due to Comedy Central's zero-tolerance attitude to copyright infringement so I settled with an article about it.
I decided to go browsing through it and it really is no better than the conservative media crap, but it just happens to be aimed at liberals like myself. Take THIS ARTICLE for example. Catching Glenn Beck out on a lie isn't hard to do, but the lie that they mention in this article is so insignificant that I honestly cannot comprehend the reasoning behind writing the article. It is so ridiculously pointless and is just an attempt to put the words "Glenn Beck" and "Lie" in the same headline.
-
I agree with you about that article, bob. I don't think I would say that I held something in my hands when in fact it was put in front of me and I wasn't allowed to touch it, but it's rather a non-story.There's always a problem, I think, when you decide what your conclusion is going to be before you start researching.
-
Researching? What's that? I would take even biased research over what we see and read most of the time these days.
-
I didn't read the article either I saw the show and my comments were generated from that. I will concur that I find the media's salacious, ratings driven, pimping to news junkies, distasteful at best and destructive at worst. News as entertainment I believe can set a dangerous tone.