How much effort was put into this "fakeout" when the dweeb who was there can so readily "expose" it?

Sorry gang, you can call this "trickery" or what-have-you, and even if you had a signed confession from Stossel that his intent was to dress up Bolton, what the libmedia does around the clock with manipulative rubbish, plus their backup Democratainment Wing (Vancouver nee Hollywood), you've still got a ways to go, removing the sequoia from thine own eye before the mote in FOX's.



>> ^dag:

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:
QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

Fairly? Media Research Center is pointing out liberal bias, aka plain old intellectual dishonesty.

In 2008, high gas prices were an easy way to blame Bush. The shills wouldn't DARE do it to the guy their one-sided reporting helped elect and covers for now.

Liberal "journalism" = agenda first, facts, distorted or not at all.

>> ^messenger:

Have you read those articles? They're not written fairly. They say things like, "[In 2008,] On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages." For that to be meaningful and show a media bias, it would have to be true that in 2012 reporters are NOT routinely showing photos of extreme pump prices, which of course they are, because it still makes a better photo to accompany the story. This is biased journalism.
Also, choosing the peak month of gas price reporting in 2008 and comparing it only with the most recent month of reporting isn't a fair comparison.
Finally, in 2008, it was a bigger story because price spikes were a relatively new thing, and it was still easy to scare people with horror stories of the world collapsing. But now we're used to them, and we know they drop off after a month or few, so it's just not as attractive to journalists any more.
In other words, those numbers may be accurate, but they don't represent that that article says they represent. Same goes for the handful of other articles I read there. They were all written with their agenda first, facts second, just like how Santorum selectively chooses his facts about College reducing faith.>> ^quantumushroom:
...here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

Have you read those articles? They're not written fairly. They say things like, "[In 2008,] On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages." For that to be meaningful and show a media bias, it would have to be true that in 2012 reporters are NOT routinely showing photos of extreme pump prices, which of course they are, because it still makes a better photo to accompany the story. This is biased journalism.

Also, choosing the peak month of gas price reporting in 2008 and comparing it only with the most recent month of reporting isn't a fair comparison.

Finally, in 2008, it was a bigger story because price spikes were a relatively new thing, and it was still easy to scare people with horror stories of the world collapsing. But now we're used to them, and we know they drop off after a month or few, so it's just not as attractive to journalists any more.

In other words, those numbers may be accurate, but they don't represent that that article says they represent. Same goes for the handful of other articles I read there. They were all written with their agenda first, facts second, just like how Santorum selectively chooses his facts about College reducing faith.>> ^quantumushroom:

...here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Agree. The unedited version doesn't help Fox. What applause there is is for te questioner - not Bolton.>> ^longde:

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.
Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

QM, Stossel's clip in your link is damning; it's clear he manipulated the video to drum up applause for Bolton.

Where's Schultz when you need him?
>> ^quantumushroom:

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012
/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0
No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.

BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.
-----------------------
This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.
Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.
Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

Stossel has responded and showed the whole unedited clip.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0

No chorus of boos for Bolton. Not much of anything.


BTW if you want bias, here's all the liberal "news" bias you can eat.

-----------------------

This guy might be telling the truth, who knows? He's shilling for his little Mike Moore wannabe film company.

Do you really think official US policy was to blackbag random civilians? For what measurable gain? We won the Iraq War by offering the Iraqis a chance for freedom.

Invading countries run by tyrants in order to kill them? Good work!

I didn't know about this site before (hat tip to DerHassittot).

"Fox News Bias" by LiberalViewer on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You
I've seen a video from this guy before, but didn't know about his utube page with over 150 vids.

Video proof presented in a calm and accurate manner of F%*&s News' bias.

Thanks, DerHassittot

>> ^pmkierst:

Wow, YT calling fox biased. Glass houses, all that.


Not so much calling them biased as much as calling them big fat liars. It's okay to have a perspective, and to express that perspective. What's not okay is to try to misrepresent yourself as something you're not.

Fox claims that they report the news without a political slant, when in reality they're engaged in an Orwellian attempt to distort the facts, misrepresent history, and even try to alter the very language we use, all to advance their political agenda.

That's way, way past mere "bias", that's propaganda.

Or that had Saddam not been so rutheless, he would have been dragged out into the streets by his "people" and chopped up into tiny pieces, then fed to his family... Of course, news just demonizes him... Of course, American propaganda...

Was Saddam evil? Sure, in our minds. But were the Iraqis set against him just as vile? Not in our minds---but sure.

>> ^Yogi:
"Propaganda. That's exactly what Fox News Channel does."
That's exactly what every news organization does. Take the war in Iraq...has anyone ever reported that Saddam committed his horrible crimes while on our payroll and with our consent? Seems like a big deal right...haven't heard CNN or MSNBC say that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Fox News Bias Exposed By Leaked Memos, propaganda, wikileaks, hannity, tyt' to 'fox news, bias, propaganda, wikileaks, hannity, tyt' - edited by xxovercastxx

KPFA, KQED, Democracy Now, to name a few

>> ^Yogi:

has anyone ever reported that Saddam committed his horrible crimes while on our payroll and with our consent?

>> ^Trancecoach:

if this woman isn't terrible, then the implications of her longevity on the public stage certainly is.


I'm going to throw out a small point which I will probably be bashed for later, but here goes...
Now I don't believe in or agree with anything Palin has to say but isn't putting a tag of "Terrible" extremely bias especially since it is invoked by only one person? I'm not arguing that she is not terrible I am simply remarking on the damage this does to videosift's integrity. I've seen many posts on the sift calling Fox News bias for telling their viewers how to think by preceding the video with bias remarks... isn't putting tags on videos such as this telling people how to feel before watching the clip the same exact thing?

With the exception of ideological outlets, like FOX, MSNBC and AM talk radio, news bias generally revolves around ratings, profit and ad revenue. The media MO is to appease the political status quo while trying to avoid controversial things that will piss off advertisers.

Most media advertisers are corporate, who generally support Republican corporatist economic policies, so in this respect, it's fair to say the media has a conservative bias.

When it comes to social issues that have no financial impact, the media is indifferent, and tends to support the more popular, less controvercial, liberal viewpoints - taking the path of least resistance. So when it comes to social issues, you could reasonably say the media leans left, or at least center-left.

It honestly isn't so much the bias, as it is the lies and deception. NPR, for instance, is undoubtedly run by liberals, but when it comes to broadcasting, they tend to be more fair, honest and well intentioned than any other media outlet I am aware of. I know plenty of Republicans that listen to NPR daily because of these qualities.

If FOX had the integrity that NPR had, there would be no problem. MSNBC needs to be careful they don't take the same path that FOX did for the last eight years.

I'd love to see a FOX news channel with integrity, or a libertarian news network, or a green news network. A bias is nothing more than a point of view, and the more points of view, the merrier.

A hefty # of sift vids point out Fox news bias. OK fine. Compare this to the ZERO vids pointing out the bias that routinely sluices from the orifices of NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, PBS, BBC, etc etc etc... ,

Feel free to post some yourself. I'm more than willing to watch the videos you are talking about.