Fair and Balanced? Get a dictionary, Fox.

*koalaty comment

>> ^JiggaJonson:

quality
I love how stupid the girl in pink sounds. Also "Fair and Balanced" means 3v1 + the anchor taking a side.

*quality

I love how stupid the girl in pink sounds. Also "Fair and Balanced" means 3v1 + the anchor taking a side.

Time and time again, I see conservatives struggle to understand that their general worldview is completely subjective. You see it in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' which is anything but. You see it in the Christian right's 'Moral Relativism' which comes with so many subjective assumptions. You see it in right wing 'Libertarianism' which assumes that a very narrow and specific political-economic worldview IS liberty. You see it in scripture, which is taken as law and revealed truth.

I think these conservatives are unable to empathize with anything they cannot directly experience themselves. "I'm white and experience little to no negative consequences because of it. Therefore, all people must experience little to no negative consequences due to their race." Then they find a quote from Larry Elder or Bill Cosby that confirms this bias and think, "See? All those other black people are just a bunch of whiners."

I think this is how blankfist is able to see the words 'cracker' and 'nigger' as the same thing, despite the vast historical, social and political differences between the two words. It's the same way he and other conservatives are able to see scientific consensus on global climate change and corporate anti-science PR as equitable. Fair and Balanced (not to mention he's been submitting a lot of FOX NEWS over the past year.)

I also find it interesting that as much lip service as blankfist pays to anti-authoritarianism, he fails to see the authoritarianism of whites, of males and of rich people in this country. It's extra ironic when you consider that the government for which we both loathe is comprised primarily of rich white males. Put the pieces together, my cracker!

Conservatives just have too much psychological baggage when it comes to racism (sexism, homophobia or other types of bigotry). Just to get to square one would require hacking through a million acre jungle of psychology with a machete. It's the kind of thing that will never happen unless an individual conservative has the will to make it happen for him (or her ) self

In short, this conversation is futile.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
Can't blame the "smart" people in the "news" for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, keep the drooling masses from changing the channel. That's show business for ya.
And my point is that's not what they're supposed to be doing.
News wasn't always this way. It used to be a public service, not purely an entertainment/corporate propaganda vehicle.
Mark it down as another one of the really nasty "unintended consequences" of making selfish pursuit of money the chief driving force of our society.


So it's the greedy people who are the problem, not the masses of idiots who throw their money/attention/viewership/trust etc at them and beg for more? What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?

I don't think the professional publication of "news" was ever a public service. News is a product. It's paper sales. It's radio and television advertising money. It was and still is a commodity that is sold through different vehicles of distribution. It's quaint to think back on the good ol' days, but they were just as happy to print salacious bullshit headlines in the newspaper's of decades past. Why? Because it sold. The only reason "journalistic integrity" even became a concept was because news sources were/are so generally full of shit to begin with that people started giving recognition to bits of news that were actually reported honestly. That, in turn, helped create a new branding scheme for the product. "fair and balanced" .. "fit to print" .. "blah blah we are the most honest!"

The bottom line is, I take issue with you blaming the business selling the product, instead of blaming the people buying it. We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

This is exactly how it all happened. This is not satire. It is fair and balanced.

>> ^bobknight33:

Need to added to lies.

This is such slanted how about having David Barton on to debate these accusations. That's right the left doesn't believe in fair and balanced.


liberals to admit a defeat immediate.

Need to added to lies.


This is such slanted how about having David Barton on to debate these accusations. That's right the left doesn't believe in fair and balanced.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

>> ^Tingles:

I wish clips like this could actually make a difference in regards to the millions that worship Fox News. They just seem to feed on Fox's crap, and believe Fox can do no wrong.

Unfortunately, it does make a difference: it reinforces people's belief in Fox as honest, "fair and balanced" reporting amidst crooked, manipulative, left-wing media powerhouses. Studies have shown that when people believe in a conspiracy, the more conclusively you show it to be false, the more adamantly they believe it. The less likely it is, and the more opposed it is, the more romantic the conspiracy becomes.

If FOX was fair and balanced they'd balance the volume on both microphones.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.


Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative. This isnt about right or left "perspectives" but about basic journalistic integrity, and basic respect for the truth. We see it again and again, FOX spews out some insinuating shit, and then gets debunked by other networks, but instead of acknowldging their mistakes and take steps to correct them, they keep up their lies.

FOX , for example, started the birther movement, the "Obama is a muslim" movement, and the tea party(based on the fictional idea that the original tea-party opposed taxes. They didnt, they opposed taxes to a foreign country). In addition, they keep fuelling lies about global warming ie: "climategate" consisting of a few misunderstood emails between scientists. This isnt journalism, this isnt "opposing views" this is dishonesty. and if it happened once or twice, you could blame sloppiness or mistakes, or maybe a biased reporter or two, but with FOX it is symptomatic and systematic.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts, they actually try to put things in its proper contexts and strive for honesty.

Fair and Balanced.

KnivesOut?

Ah - my mistake. It was a reference to your comment, BRP.

What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

No - I understood quite clearly what they were saying. Their central argument was that it is wrong to impute the harshest condemnation possible on a person when you know next to nothing about them. In other words - exactly what I said... "why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?"

Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us.

Christ's message in the New Testament is not complicated - and it is wholly void of instances where he marched up to someone he didn't know and told them they were eternally condemned. True Christianity (faith) does not involve such things. The guy was out of line, and out of step with true faith. That's a fact.

Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

Well - I don't (and didn't) presume to say that I had all the answers. I confined my comments about the caller & hosts to the topic at hand. In the end, I can think of no instances where Christ would have done what the caller did. It is far more likely he would have dropped a fantastic parable that encouraged repentance and good deeds in opposition to just relexively following dogma. In fact the parable of the watchtower comes to mind.

Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.