what news channel do you watch?

[mk 11]

MORE!!!!Specific Examples of FOX News Hosts Conservative BiasBrit Hume -November 8, 2001Network news outlets have reported stories about civilian casualties in Afghanistan with caution, often noting that Taliban claims are nearly impossible to verify. But many outlets show no inclination to be equally careful when evaluating the Pentagon's line on casualties.The host of Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume" (11/5/01) recently wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said Hume, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?"The idea that civilian casualties have been "big news" in the U.S. is questionable, but the Fox pundits more or less agreed with Hume.If journalists shouldn't cover civilian deaths because they are a normal part of war, does that principle apply to all war coverage? Dropping bombs is also standard procedure in a war; will Fox stop reporting airstrikes?Fox's marketing slogan is "We report, you decide," but these Fox pundits have decided for you that some deaths aren't worth reporting. Then again, being honest journalists might not be the first order of business at the Fox News Channel.This policy of consistently burying the facts about the impact of the war on Afghanistan must make the pundits at Fox proud. But journalists who care about the principles of the profession should be embarrassed.--------Bill O'Reilly -September 21, 2001As the news media prepare for war, some prominent journalists have been advocating military strategies that violate the laws of war and mirror the strategies of terrorists.Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, the channel's most popular host, declared on his September 17 broadcast that if the Afghan government did not extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S., "the U.S. should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble-- the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads." O'Reilly went on to say:"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."O'Reilly added that in Iraq, "their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.... Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam." If Libya's Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, "we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand."His tone remained the same a few nights later (9/19/01), as he recommended bombing Afghanistan "in strategic ways and hope that the people themselves would rise up and throw the Taliban out." Acknowledging that Afghanis "are starving as it is," O'Reilly recommended that the U.S. intensify civilian suffering by knocking out "what little infrastructure they have" and blowing up "every truck you see" to make sure that "there's not going to be anything to eat." >p>Then Mr. no spin did some spinning himself after these comments, on his September 25 show, when guest Phil Donahue called him on this bloodthirsty plan, O’Reilly denied that he had ever threatened civilians: "I never said bomb a civilian. I would bomb military targets. I would bomb military targets.... I'm not talking about civilians."It's unclear how O'Reilly is able to reconcile his claim that "we should not target civilians" with his calls for decimating the infrastructures of at least three countries and starving their populations.People sent hundreds of letters to O’Reilly after his September 17 program, urging him to consider the ramifications of his rhetoric--and the fact that bombing civilian targets and using starvation as a weapon are war crimes. Could that activism have led O’Reilly to spin away from his earlier bloodthirsty scheme?The Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1, Part IV, Chapter III, Article 54) are very clear that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." They specify that "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including water and food supplies, are not legal military targets. Violating these strictures, which are legally binding on the U.S., would constitute a war crime, and might be considered a crime against humanity.The Geneva Conventions state that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives" (Part IV, Chapter I, Article 48).If actually carried out, the proposals made by people like o'reilly would almost certainly result in civilian deaths totaling in the millions. Suggesting that killing large numbers of civilians is an acceptable political strategy only legitimizes the logic of terrorism.-------John Gibson -December 20, 2000Several news organizations have begun the process of evaluating the disputed ballots in the state of Florida. Reporters intend to use a variety of methods to help answer lingering questions about who might have actually won the vote in the state if a hand recount had not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.One prominent journalist at a national news outlet, however, advocates a different approach. John Gibson of Fox News Channel (12/15/00) would rather not know what really happened in Florida: "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them?"Journalists are supposed to criticize government officials for suppressing information or destroying evidence-- not advocate such actions. If journalism is to contribute to a democratic society, it must frequently expose the country to unpleasant truths. But for Gibson, guest-hosting Fox's popular "The O'Reilly Factor" program, the point of journalism is to preserve the legitimacy of those in power: "George Bush is going to be president. And who needs to know that he's not a legitimate president? Al Gore? Jesse Jackson? His political opponents? How does it do any good for the country to find out that, by somebody's count, the wrong guy is president?"Gibson did suggest that the pursuit of truth could merely be delayed until it no longer mattered: "How about, if you want to do this thing, we lock those ballots up until George Bush is not president, so nobody can go use these ballots to undermine his position, to undermine the position of this country, to throw this country into chaos. If you want to know, if historians want to know, fine. Know some day in the future. You don't need to know now because he is president now."Looking at public records is a crucial aspect of newsgathering-- a right that media outlets and journalists go to court to protect and preserve. It's distressing when a prominent journalist thinks the public's right to know should not infringe on the prestige of the president-elect.While Fox News Channel strenuously disputes the idea that it has a right-wing tilt, Gibson's comments do seem to put the political health of a Republican office-holder ahead of normal journalistic principles. It's hard to imagine Fox suggesting that embarrassing facts about Bill Clinton should not be reported because they might make him seem less "legitimate."--------Fox News on The Clinton Vandalized The White House and Air Force One StoryMay 21, 2001During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration.An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied months ago by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:--Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."--Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."--Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."--Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."--Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."--Tony Snow (1/28/01): "When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life's just too short to fret over such things.""A little bit steamed" is putting it mildly: As the Kansas City Star reported (5/17/01), one of Snow's syndicated newspaper columns was nearly a case study in dishonest reporting. Snow wrote that the White House "was a wreck" and that Air Force One "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister."

[phlegm 6]

And the other stations r the democratic partys talking point station so wats ur point?

[ShakeZuma 585]

Have you been practicing this or something?

[mk 11]

Another specific example:Fox Freudian slip: Asman asked Lott why a compromise was needed when "we" had the votes for the nuclear optionSummary:Responding to Sen. Trent Lott's (R-MS) suggestion that Senate Republicans had the necessary votes to invoke the so-called nuclear option and that such a step was necessary, Fox News anchor David Asman asked Lott why Republican senators had compromised on the issue. Why compromise, Asman asked, "if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it." Asman clarified that it was "you guys in the Republican party" who had the votes.From the May 25 edition of Fox News Live: ASMAN: You're the chairman of the rules committee. Did Senator [bill] Frist [R-TN] have the votes to end the filibuster? LOTT: I believe that he did. It would have been very close. We would have probably gotten a 50-50 tie vote, with the vice president breaking the tie. Perhaps we'd have had 51 before it was over. I do think it's a rule that should be in place because what the Democrats have been doing is not, you know, protecting a rule, they have been causing something different. The filibusters on a serial basis, federal judicial nominees to the appellate courts, was unprecedented for 214 years. So, to put that rule in place saying that it only takes 51 votes to confirm these judges was something I thought we should do. Remember now -- ASMAN: So, Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party did -- then why did you need a compromise? LOTT: Well, you know, I would argue that we probably should have gone forward with the vote, all things considered.

[custom36 4]

And the other stations r the democratic partys talking point station so wats ur point?

It's intelligent, coherant statements like this that make Fox News viewers more informed than everyone else.

[mk 11]

This is my Bill O'Reilly impression. I turned off your microphones!!!!Shut up!!Shut up!!

[mk 11]

Fox "Supreme Court Analyst" declares it's "our job" to make sure Bush nominee isn't "vilified by the left"Summary:On Fox News' Dayside with Linda Vester, Fox News "Supreme Court Analyst" C. Boyden Gray said that it is "our job" to make sure that whomever President Bush chooses to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S Supreme Court is not "vilified by the left." Though Vester did not mention it, Gray is the chairman of the Committee for Justice, a group he founded in consultation with White House senior adviser Karl Rove to build public support for the confirmation of Bush's judicial nominations. In addition to Dayside, Gray appeared on Fox News numerous times on July 1, including during the 11 a.m., 12 p.m., and 2 p.m. ET hours of Fox News Live, to discuss O'Connor's retirement.From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Dayside with Linda Vester: VESTER: I was just polling people in the audience about who they think the president is likely to pick and who they'd like to see, what characteristics they would like to see. So let's just let you hear from some members of the audience. What do you think, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think the president will pick a pretty strong conservative, which will tend to have a polarizing effect on the whole process. VESTER: What do you think? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think he should pick a centrist, because the centrist would be less predictable and less polarizing. But I don't think that's what's going to happen. VESTER: Boyden, your assessment? GRAY: Well, I think the president will pick someone who, as he put it in his press conference this morning, someone will interpret and not make up the law. Now if that, in this gentleman's view, is someone who is a conservative so be it. But I think that's what the president is going to do. And I don't think that the individual who just spoke is going to find the nominee to be someone offensive. I think it will be a person of the highest caliber who will command respect across the board unless vilified by the left, and our job is to try to help to make sure that doesn't happen. VESTER: Thank you, C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

MK why do you post all that shit? I'm not going to read all that after you start with Special Report with Brit Hume. That's not a news show that's a Show by a conservative commentator, same with O' Dumbass and Hanity and others. Show me a report from a NEWS show.BTW Fox commentators make a point of letting you know what there viewpoint is something no other network will do.

[mk 11]

FOX's Kerry-bashing real estate agentSummary:On the July 30 edition of FOX News Channel's weekday business show Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, host Neil Cavuto introduced a panel that included Tom Adkins, who was introduced simply as "Tom Adkins of Remax Services." In fact, Adkins -- whose appearance on Your World was his fourth in as many weeks -- is a RE/MAX real estate agent from Pennsylvania who has made a career of attacking Democrats for numerous conservative media outlets. Adkins's columns have appeared on right-wing websites AmericanDaily.com and David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, as well as on CommonConservative.com, of which he is publisher.Attacking the Democrats is a hallmark of Adkins's columns -- which he has variously used to compare Senator John Kerry and former President Bill Clinton to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin; to call the United Nations "hostile to American survival"; and to propose, "The Left is vulnerable. The America [sic] Right can crush their socialist Utopian dreams by mounting a take-no-prisoners assault. Terms like 'Treasonous,' 'Un-American,' and 'Traitor' should be used in every sentence." A statement on the CommonConservative.com home page reads: "Conservatives: Always knew Bush would be great? Think Gephart [sic], Daschle and Clinton are screaming commies? Common Conservative.com is for you."Adkins has used each of his regular appearances on Your World to launch vitriolic attacks against Democrats under the guise of economic analysis. FOX News Channel offers no information about Adkins to indicate why the network thinks he is qualified to provide such analysis.On the July 30 edition of Your World w/ Neil Cavuto, Adkins appeared as a member of a panel that purported to "take the market's temperature" and included FOX News business contributor Stuart Varney, ChangeWave research chairman Tobin Smith, and Parkway Advisors CEO Clay Peterson. Following are some of Adkins's contributions to their discussion: ADKINS: I thought he [senator John Kerry] was -- I was listening to Jimmy Carter. Not only was he [Kerry] weak, and foolish, and plain old stupid on economic policy, he was frighteningly scary on international policy. This guy, he essentially said 'I want to add 40,000 troops and then run like hell.' Now, how's that going to inspire the stock market when you can't ensure our national security? [...] ADKINS: The market has no confidence right now. This market is undervalued, I think, and the reason why it is is because this market is scared to death of a John Kerry presidency. [...] ADKINS: Something else here that I think just has to be said. I think the Democrats have done a fabulous job of essentially just lying to America about the state of the economy. This was not an awful recession where like, you know, half the nation was out of jobs. CAVUTO: I'm just saying, why is the market doing squat? ADKINS: Because -- two things. One, people are listening to Democrats, because Democrats once again are successfully lying about the state of the economy.

[mk 11]

Shut up!!FOX News doctors AP reports to mimic White House terminologySummary:Since April 2002, FOX News has consistently doctored Associated Press articles featured on the FOX News website concerning terrorist attacks in the Middle East to conform to Bush administration terminology. Without any editorial notation disclosing that words in the AP articles have been changed, FOX News replaces the terms "suicide bomber" and "suicide bombing" with "homicide bomber" and "homicide bombing" to describe attackers who kill themselves and others with explosives. In at least one case, FOX News actually altered an AP quote from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to fit this naming convention, and then revised it to restore the quote without noting either the original alteration or its correction.The Associated Press noted in April 2002 that FOX News first began using the term "homicide bombing" in its own reports immediately after Bush administration officials -- such as then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer -- adopted the term. While other news organizations continued to use the term "suicide bomber," the AP reported, "Dennis Murray, executive producer of [FOX News'] daytime programming, said executives there had heard the phrase ["homicide bombing"] being used by administration officials in recent days and thought it was a good idea."But Media Matters for America has found that FOX has applied the "homicide" terminology not only in its own original reports, but also in the AP reports that it publishes on its website. Readers are led to believe that the AP itself uses the "homicide" terminology, when in fact it does not. According to a Media Matters search, the AP has used the terms "homicide bomber" or "homicide bombing" when referring to terrorist attacks in only one article, published on May 7, 2004. These terms have otherwise appeared in AP articles only in quotations.FOX News website Associated Press2/20/05 (Google cache): "The fact that you have these homicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton told reporters.2/22/05: "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton told reporters. (The article was revised to accurately quote Senator Clinton. Though the article was otherwise unchanged, FOX News changed the article's date of publication and made no admission of error.) 2/19/05: "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton told reporters.1/4/05: The homicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a U.S. mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student, an Arab newspaper reported Monday. 1/3/05: The suicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a U.S. mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student, an Arab newspaper reported Monday.12/30/04: Fourteen U.S. soldiers died Dec. 21 when a homicide bomber walked into a mess tent in Mosul packed with soldiers having lunch. In all, 22 people were killed and dozens wounded in the blast. 12/30/04: Fourteen U.S. soldiers died Dec. 21 when a suicide bomber walked into a mess tent in Mosul packed with soldiers having lunch. In all, 22 people were killed and dozens wounded in the blast.12/23/04: The U.S. military was re-examining security measures at bases across Iraq on Thursday, a day after saying an attack that killed 22 people at a camp near Mosul was likely carried out by a homicide bomber who may have had inside information. 12/23/04: The U.S. military was re-examining security measures at bases across Iraq on Thursday, a day after saying an attack that killed 22 people at a camp near Mosul was likely carried out by a suicide bomber who may have had inside information.9/6/04: A homicide bomber sped up to a U.S. military convoy outside Fallujah and detonated an explosives-packed vehicle on Monday, killing seven Marines and three Iraqi soldiers, U.S. military officials said. It was the deadliest day for American forces in four months. 9/6/04: A suicide attacker sped up to a U.S. military convoy outside Fallujah and detonated an explosives-packed vehicle on Monday, killing seven Marines and three Iraqi soldiers, U.S. military officials said. It was the deadliest day for American forces in four months.4/21/04: A homicide attacker bombed a security police building in the Saudi capital Wednesday, killing at least four people and wounding 148. The attack had the hallmark of an Al Qaeda operation, officials said. 4/21/04: A suicide attacker bombed a security police building in the Saudi capital Wednesday, killing at least four people and wounding 148. The attack had the hallmark of an al-Qaida operation, officials said.1/15/04: Scores of Israelis have died in homicide attacks, most of them blamed on Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. On Wednesday, a Palestinian homicide bomber blew herself up at the major crossing point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, killing at least four Israelis and wounding seven other people. 1/14/04: Scores of Israelis have died in suicide attacks, most of them blamed on Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. On Wednesday, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew herself up at the major crossing point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, killing at least four Israelis and wounding seven other people.10/7/03: The military said the closure is among measures to keep Palestinian attackers out of the country. Security was intensified after a weekend homicide bombing in the Israeli city of Haifa in which 19 people were killed. 10/7/03: The military said the closure is among measures to keep Palestinian attackers out of the country. Security was intensified after a weekend suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Haifa in which 19 people were killed.5/22/02: A homicide bomber killed himself and at least two other people late Wednesday in the Israeli city of Rishon Letzion. 5/22/02: A suicide bomber killed himself and at least two other people late Wednesday in the Israeli city of Rishon Letzion.

[mk 11]

SHHHHhhhUUUUUUTTTTT UUUUUPP!!!!!! BBB!!FOX's Garrett repeated bogus suggestion that Dems are perpetrating voter fraudSummary:FOX News Channel general assignment reporter Major Garrett falsely suggested that Democrats were perpetrating voter fraud in Philadelphia. On the October 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, Garrett concluded a report about Republican allegations of fraudulent voter registration by echoing, without challenge, a bogus Republican concern about the rise in Philadelphia's voter registration: GARRETT: There's been a phenomenon going on that the Republicans have found to be quite curious. For example, in 2000, Philadelphia had an astonishing rate of registration among adults: 99 percent, one of the highest rates in the country. And, Republicans note, in Philadelphia the number of registered voters keeps rising even though the population in that city keeps declining. But there is a simple explanation that Garrett did not report: Even as Philadelphia's total population declines, thousands of new residents arrive each year and register to vote. Voters' names are removed from the rolls more slowly, however, because of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter." The act makes it more difficult for authorities to remove from the rolls the names of voters who have not voted in recent elections, most likely because they left Philadelphia. The Department of Justice website explains that Motor Voter forbids authorities from removing voters from the rolls for failing to vote and places restrictions on removal based on changes of address.In February 2001, The Committee of Seventy, a nonpartisan organization that monitors governance issues in Philadelphia, published an article addressing the phenomenon that Garrett and Republicans find so "curious." The article explained how Motor Voter had caused Philadelphia's voter rolls to swell even as the population has shrunk: [R]egistration is up by more than 176,000 voters while the VAP [voting age population] is down by 81,000. Looked at another way, in 1995, registration was approximately 75 percent of the VAP, while in 2000 it was almost 99 percent. Additional registrants are only one reason. The other is that before Motor Voter, the Board of Elections could remove people from the voter registration lists for a variety of reasons. Under prior Pennsylvania election law, election officials could remove voters who had failed to vote in five consecutive elections. Motor Voter requires that inactive voters remain listed as eligible for 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years after designation. In addition, under the old law, election officials would verify each and every voter's residence once every four years by mail and, when necessary, by personal investigation. Garrett accepted Republican "curiosity" about voter registration at face value despite his opening declaration, "Democrats say Republicans are obsessed with enforcing election rules," and his later remark that "Republicans say election rules are synonymous with fairness." Given their apparent concern for the rules, one might expect Republicans to be familiar with Motor Voter and its implications for registration in the important swing state of Pennsylvania.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

As a journalism and mass communications double major, there's three basic, fundamental truths, I've learned in my time as both a writer and an editor on newspapers and interning at a local television station.1. No matter what, you will always piss someone off and someone will always feel slighted.--That's just a fact. If you do a story about the rights of Sex Offenders to live whereever they want, you'll piss off parents groups. If you do a story about a law that's being passed to limit where Sex Offenders can live, you'll piss off advocates for the poor and disadvantaged.2. The perception of bias is just as, if not more, damning then actually having a true bias.--A journalism professor once told me, "Lose your credibility and you lose your paycheck." No one will take you seriously, no one will believe you--you're fucked.3. Statistics lie--and if you don't believe me, I'll find a statistic that proves you wrong.--The key with statistics is the source. Are you willing to believe them? Were they taken from a large, diverse sample size? Statistics are worth about as much as the ink they're printed with. The key is to think intelligently.

[phlegm 6]

Yea it takes real intelligence to go on line ,find some long winded liberal tripe, cut and paste, then pass it off as ur own.

[mk 11]

Fair and Balanced!!!!FOX aired significantly less of Dem convention speeches than other cablesSummary:During the Democratic National Convention, which took place between July 26 and July 29, Media Matters for America monitored coverage by FOX News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC and calculated the amount of time each aired convention speeches live. FOX News Channel aired one hour and 16 minutes less of speeches from the convention live than did CNN and one hour and 47 minutes less than did MSNBC.LIVE CONVENTION SPEECH AIRTIME FOX CNN MSNBCJuly 26 0:41 1:10 1:07July 27 1:05 1:23 1:39July 28 0:42 1:08 1:05July 29 1:12 1:15 1:36Total 3 hours, 40 minutes 4 hours, 56 minutes 5 hours, 27 minutesThe disparity in airtime on FOX News Channel versus CNN and MSNBC was attributable, in large part, to the difference in time given to speeches by the following Democratic leaders: * Former President Jimmy Carter: FOX News Channel aired just over four minutes of Carter's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired almost 14 minutes. * Former Vice President Al Gore: FOX News Channel aired 45 seconds of Gore's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 13 minutes. * Senator Edward Kennedy: FOX News Channel aired a little more than four minutes of Kennedy's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired 25 minutes of his speech. * Ret. General Wesley Clark: FOX News Channel aired none of Clark's speech; CNN aired about two minutes and MSNBC aired almost 11 minutes. * Reverend Al Sharpton: FOX News Channel aired two and a half minutes of Sharpton's speech live; CNN aired almost 20 minutes, and MSNBC aired almost 17 minutes. * Reverend Jesse Jackson: FOX News Channel aired none of Jackson's speech; CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 10 minutes.On the July 31 edition of FOX News Watch (FOX News Channel's weekly news program that "cover the coverage"), panelist Cal Thomas (who is a FOX News Channel host and a conservative syndicated columnist) said that conservatives would "scream and yell" if FOX News Channel covers the Republican National Convention in the same manner and noted that, in order to be "fair and balanced," the coverage should not differ: THOMAS: If cable networks do the same thing at the Republican convention and interrupt or not cover Republicans, I think the conservatives out there, especially those who are fans of this network are going to scream and yell. So if you're going to be fair and balanced, I think you have not to cover at least as much of the Republican speakers as you've not covered of the Democratic speakers.

[mk 11]

FAIR AND BALANCED!!!!!Frustrated by GOP guest's response, FOX's Jarrett answered his own leading questionsSummary:FOX News Channel anchor Greg Jarrett practically pleaded with his Republican guest, Craig L. Fuller (chief of staff under former Vice President George H.W. Bush), to repeat a Bush-Cheney '04 attack on the Democratic National Convention: that the public face Democrats will present at the convention is an "extreme makeover" of the party's true nature. When Fuller didn't take the bait, Jarrett picked up the slack and repeated the RNC line himself.Jarrett began his interview on the July 26 edition of FOX News Live with guests Fuller and Howard Wolfson (former communications director for Senator Hillary Clinton) by quoting from a July 25 article by Washington Times chief political correspondent and columnist Donald Lambro, who wrote, "The Democratic strategy [at the convention] will be to portray the candidates as political centrists to appeal to independent, swing voters who are uncomfortable with their leftist voting records on national security and domestic-spending issues." (Lambro has made misinformation a habit, as Media Matters for America documented on July 16 and May 3.)After quoting Lambro, Jarrett asked Wolfson, "[A]ssuming that is true, is this an extreme makeover in the form of a hard right turn to the center by John Kerry?" Wolfson rejected Lambro's analysis, which Jarrett had immediately adopted, asserting instead that "there is no extreme leftist voting record to make over" and insisted that Senators John Kerry and John Edwards "come from the middle of our [Democratic] party." But when the GOP's Fuller similarly declined to give Jarrett the answer he sought, Jarrett asked him a second leading question: JARRETT: And Craig, let me stay with you for a moment before I go back to Howard. Howard just said there's no evidence that John Edwards and John Kerry are liberal. Uh, would you like to take a different view?When Fuller again did not take the bait, Jarrett interrupted him to inject the Bush-Cheney '04 talking point himself: JARRETT: I thought you were gonna name the two prominent Democratic groups that gave John Kerry the most liberal rating in the U.S. Senate, and I think Edwards came in fourth.As Media Matters for America has documented, the Republican National Committee -- aided by conservatives pundits -- has labeled Edwards the "fourth most liberal" U.S. senator based on a National Journal rating of only his 2003 voting record; according to National Journal, Edwards's lifetime voting record places him squarely in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.As Sarah Binder, Thomas Mann, and Alan Murphy of the Brookings Institution wrote in a July 26 op-ed in The New York Times, Republicans have mislabeled Kerry as well. Binder, Mann, and Murphy cited an analysis of Kerry's lifetime record revealing that while Kerry falls in the liberal half of his party, he is still "closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators."

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Congratulation you can use the internet and pull articles from liberal websites. Well done. :clap: :clap: :clap: The only way to prove your point is to post one specific instance at a time with the transcript (not some biased edited crap from a leftwing website) with your own expressed opinions not some click and saved crap with someone else thoughts and then we will discuss it together.Otherwise you are wasting time.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

And the other stations r the democratic partys talking point station so wats ur point?

It's intelligent, coherant statements like this that make Fox News viewers more informed than everyone else.

As opposed to quoting Fox News Commentators--not anchors, the television equivalent of editorial writers--out of context and at great length when attempting to prove a point about the bias of the news?

[mk 11]

Here's what you conservatives all need to understand. Your perspective has become so skewed that unless something is dripping with conservative bias, you cry, "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!" which means if something is ACTUALLY fair or balanced, you think it's slanted to the left, and you view things that are OOZING with conservative bias as fair and balanced.As the genius Stephen Colbert said, "It's the facts, John, that are biased."

[insano 0]

It's funny how liberals always try to prove a point by slamming large amounts of biased evidence into someone's face in order to try and prove a point.Look, CNN and other networks lean way left. Fox News leans way right. Big deal.Conservatives have 1 channel, liberals have the rest. Fox News isn't even NEARLY as biased as some of the other networks. Do you want me to paste some search results of the bias of Dan Rather and Ted Copple? I didn't think so.

[mk 11]

As opposed to quoting Fox News Commentators--not anchors, the television equivalent of editorial writers--out of context and at great length when attempting to prove a point about the bias of the news?

Is Brit Hume not a news anchor? Is Neil Cavuto's show not a news show? Do they not pass themselves off as newsmen?Are you kidding yourselves?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Here's what you conservatives all need to understand. Your perspective has become so skewed that unless something is dripping with conservative bias, you cry, "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!" which means if something is ACTUALLY fair or balanced, you think it's slanted to the left, and you view things that are OOZING with conservative bias as fair and balanced.As the genius Stephen Colbert said, "It's the facts, John, that are biased."

[mk 11]

And if Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume are NOT supposed to be newsmen, doesn't that show a bias due to the lack of any shows (news or editorial in nature) hosted by liberals?

[mk 11]

Look, CNN and other networks lean way left. Fox News leans way right. Big deal.

Sam didn't want to acknowledge this. I provided some examples for him.

[mk 11]

The only way to prove your point is to post one specific instance at a time with the transcript (not some biased edited crap from a leftwing website) with your own expressed opinions not some click and saved crap with someone else thoughts and then we will discuss it together.Otherwise you are wasting time.

Pick one and let's discuss it. I posted a bunch of transcripts.

[mk 11]

None of you will read any of it anyway. I was just trying to be funny with an O'Reilly impression."A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."