Olberman / MSNBC and all it Leftest GE ilk controlled media outlets are so misleading. Go drink the Kool aid. Thank God there are clear thinking accurate fair and balanced news and commentary on FOX.

This is the kind of misleading "news" that fools the un intelligent and let them think they are correct.

The placing of the mosque anywhere near this area is an insult to America.


Hey nerunner do you even know what America is?

Is it Possible the real question is what percentage of the black population are conservative? If you are a conservative you would be more likely to watch FOX. From BlackDemographics.com it shows that 4% voted for Mcain. That's in the ball park of the Huffington post poll and not totally out of line from the 9% viewership that I listed above.

BlackDemographics.com


I think Shepard Smith of FOX News is Fair and Balanced. Beck is preaching history. O'reilly well he is off the wall like Ollbermann.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bobknight33" title="member since May 9th, 2009" class="profilelink">bobknight33 actually, you just made an awesome supporting argument for Colbert's point.
BET is clearly aimed at African American viewership -- it's even in the name -- and it still has a higher percentage of white viewers than Fox has black viewers (and BTW that the 1.38% comes from Nielsen, and I've never heard of your source).
So, the question is: Is Fox News explicitly trying to be White Entertainment Television? Or are they trying to be a Fair and Balanced news organization?
I comment, you decide.


It seems the 9% figure is for fox.com, not the TV channel. Don't know about the reliability. In any case, when comparing the BET and FOX demographics, keep in mind that African Americans constitute 13% (assuming Colbert's numbers are correct) of the US population, so without finding out what exactly the caucasian percentage in the US is, I'd say the BET and FOX numbers for each minority are in about the same ballpark. Your point still stands, of course, just being pedantic.

@bobknight33 actually, you just made an awesome supporting argument for Colbert's point.

BET is clearly aimed at African American viewership -- it's even in the name -- and it still has a higher percentage of white viewers than Fox has black viewers (and BTW that the 1.38% comes from Nielsen, and I've never heard of your source).

So, the question is: Is Fox News explicitly trying to be White Entertainment Television? Or are they trying to be a Fair and Balanced news organization?

I comment, you decide.

>> ^rebuilder:

Political advertising - it's as low as you can get.


Umm, okay. As a general statement, I'm with ya.

As a comment for this video? You've lost me.

How is accusing the GOP of wanting to re-enact the Bush policy agenda "low"?

For a political ad, this is almost naively fair and balanced.

Yes, the media has been fair in the aftermath of the G8/G20, but what about the rest of the time? Watching The National or CTV News is a combination of 1 or 2 deep, penetrating stories interspersed with 'human interest' stories about some teenager somewhere who won a science fair or something. Much goes unreported in our national media.>> ^Krupo:

Funny they call the Canadian media a source of propaganda - they've been remarkably fair and balanced - in the sense that they've clearly shown the police abuses and hammered after the police in press conferences.

Funny they call the Canadian media a source of propaganda - they've been remarkably fair and balanced - in the sense that they've clearly shown the police abuses and hammered after the police in press conferences.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'.

Is that perhaps the same "fair and balanced" news organization with hosts who routinely compare Obama to Nazis and Stalinists? The same news station that still says Obama hasn't released any birth records and criticizes his actions when he repeats something they praised a conservative for doing?

Just curious if that's the news source you're trusting, because it would certainly explain many of your political positions.

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you

Well with a rational argument like that, you’re fully qualified to be a journalist for the Washington Post. Send in your application today while it still exists.

Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

A person such as yourself looks at the vast swathe of center/left to hard/left media and thinks, “nothing wrong here…” From this radical position, any news story that doesn’t hew to a leftist ideology offends you. So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'. You say the media isn’t liberal. Facts dismiss your opinion as incorrect and confirm my statements as accurate.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

using another unrepresentative quote?

Unrepresentative? No. Totally representative. And know what? IMMA DOIN' IT AGAIN!

You said “I’m sure there’ll be sufficient oversight” and then made a few unsupported opinions related to this naïve assumption. There is no need to triple down in the repetition. It was a bunch of non-factual opinions based assumptions which deny reality and precedent. Every specious opinion about “sufficient oversight” was also made regarding the tobacco settlement. The bulk of that never reached the ‘victims’. Same for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and even the vaunted 9/11 Victim's Fund can't account for hundreds of millions of lost dollars. This'll be no different.

Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

1. Putting the fund under his pay czar is putting it ‘under the government’. 2. You can’t trust anything Obama says as far as you could throw a tar-soaked dolphin. 3. !I! was the one that said people can sue anyway. That’s the point. If people can sue, then let them go to the courts. That’s where this belongs. We shouldn't get into the BAD habit of creating government slush funds for every event that comes down the pike. That will just repeat the "failed policies of the past".

Oh - and just so you know - I won't get my knickers in a knot if you just use 'pull quotes' from my massive texts. That's common practice for brevity - nothing sinister. It would be a truly silly goofball who would take umbrage to that...

I was surprised that Glenn Beck would eat a "wiener" while commenting on their dispute. I can only assume that Bill'O served it up to him during a commercial break.

I was also surprised,that Bill'O didn't also serve up Glenny's Soy Crisps on the day of Wiener's interview just to balance things out. "Fair and balanced" must mean something else I'm not picking up..hmmm..something..Oh well ill get it someday.

*ban

Heh, nah, everyone makes mistakes and @lavoll has proven himself to the community time and time again. I say we let him discard this and someone else can pick it up. Rules are rules after all, but since that one siftup video which was also technically a self-link, there is an out if you have express permission from one of the admins. Ask @dag or @lucky760 for permission to keep it. I can't imagine anyone else objecting to their fair and balanced judgment in this.

this show secretes Fair and Balanced

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm not so fussed over Obama's agenda here. He ran his campaign with a "get rid of nukes" message mixed in. The Nobel committee gave him a peace prize for his no-nukes rhetoric. It made the NPP a stupid joke, but hey that's what they hung it on. Now conservatives are acting all amazed that he's doing it? Oh noes!
Even the reduction isn't that big a deal. He's just going back to basically the same stance that Carter and Clinton adopted. Fundamentally the policy isn't all that different from past administrations, so it isn't like this is something new and fantastic. It is stupid for conservatives to act like he's going to get rid of all nukes. It is stupid for the liberals to act like Obama has done anything significant or important. This is business as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along.


As the Daily Show pointed out he's doing the same stance that Reagan chose.

>> ^entr0py:

Despite the weasel words, she does have a point. If the new treaty is ratified by congress, it could reduce our number of deployed warheads to a mere 1,550. We all know that's enough to destroy all Multicellular life on earth. But what if Mars attacks? WHAT IF MARS ATTACKS?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8607985.stm


did NOT know where you were going with that.

Gay + Media = Unamerican Communist... everyone who watches the fair and balanced fox news show knows that's just a simple fact.

I'm just waiting for instructions from Fox on what the appropriate way to treat such unamerican traitors is...
I'm guessing they'll lean toward probably something like the Rwanda massacre...
After all it's not like their real people - apparently they're all going to hell anyway.