|
CreativeDominant -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/17/2015 7:20:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Actually Joether, CNN was on the air in 1980...16 yrs before FOX. And yes, their political leanings were easily seen and remarked on long before 1996.
Fox 'news' started in 1985. Just five years after CNN (which started in 1980). As for the rest? I disagree. CNN like other news outlets was losing viewership because the audience had change with the creation of cable television. How advertisers sent messages to viewers also changed due to cable. Just how bad do you hate to be wrong, Penguin?
As I said, FOX News channel started in 1996, not 1985 as you state...wrongly.
[FOX 'news' started in 1985. We have a difference of perspective. I've a business guy. The company idea started in 1985. It first aired in 1996. Not every business starts operations on the same day it comes into existance. In the grand majority of instances, businesses do not start operations until after much of the legal paper work and other logistics are in place. A gardening care company has to acquire materials, tools, and equipment. It has to secure a business license and other legal information.
According to the US Government 'start' of operations and 'start' of the company are defined as two separate concepts. If you had stated "Fox News first airs in 1996', you would be correct. But stated it 'started in 1996', and that is incorrect!
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
BTW Penguin, even though you now have information from two sources that confirm I'm right, one of them IS a conservative source. That is why I provided the exact same information from a left-leaning source.
The name is 'joether', Creative. I dont call you 'eight ball' as that could be insulting.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Now, in case you think that Conservapedia is only lying to back me up and because FOX is conservative, hold on just a few. I'll show you that Conservapaedia is no fan of FOX.
The whole purpose of Wikipedia was to be an online encyclopedia on 'everything' known by mankind. And they try to keep things as apolitical as possible. Given all the hackers, con artists, and such; this is not an easy task to say the least! Conservapedia frames everything from a conservative 'slant'. In fact, they go out of their way here and there to almost a comical degree just to show it. The problem is, wikipedia often has a huge amount of sourced material. Conservapedia often does not.
Need an example? Read Wikipedia's understanding of President Obama. Then try Conservapedia. Wikipedia gives the President the benefit of the doubt that he was born in Hawaii. Conservapedia tries to slam the President and be insulting:
"Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii..."
Conservapedia is like Stormfront; a disrespectful organization that has many factual errors that are easy to spot. Which is why those 'liberal professors' downgrade student papers that cite the site. Not because its conservative, but because the sourcing information is often incorrect.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
You want to make an argument that CNN is politically neutral? Go ahead. But initially it feels like a 'knee-jerk' reaction to how I defined FOX 'new's change from 'journalistic' quality news reporting to 'sanitizing' and 'heavily politically opinionated' news reporting. I do not leave out the possibility that you might make a REALLY good argument; I just do not think its likely given history.
What history would that be, birdie? I've proven you wrong in the paragraph above as I've done on other threads.
Again, the name is 'joether', not 'birdie'. I show you the respect of your name; I expect the same in return. I'll get creative in my insults. Maybe use some 'Thieves Cant'.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Now as to your claim that FOX "changed its way of doing things"...what's your source, Joether? Can you cite a NEUTRAL one or one conservative one and one liberal one that backs your answer? Or is your opinion based on your own...admitted by you...liberal bias?
Go to You Tube. In the search field type 'FOX NEWS LIES'. Or head over to mediamatters.com. That site was created in response to FOX 'news' switching information around.
One Example Yes the guy calls himself 'liberalviiewer'. I didn't find the video due to that, but that I recalled both clips. The one FOX 'news' showed and the original format.
I created a thread on here "Lying Republicans and Organizations. In that thread's OP, I showed how one organization was accusing Planned Parenthood of selling body parts. That FOX 'news' showed the clip that was heavily edited to attack Planned Parent. And that I give the information for the three hour unedited video that parts were taken for that nine minute video. To which I asked 'If the 3 hour video awa freely available, why did FOX 'news' air the nine minute hatchet job?"
If FOX 'news' missed the three hour video, I would call bullshit. Because the video was around for a few months before it aired. They had....PLENTY....of time to vet all the information with Planned Parenthood. So what is the excuse for failing to produce good journalism?
And that I showed other conservative 'news' organizations doing the same thing as FOX 'news'.
I asked all the conservatives why they are not mad over things? Why they are perfectly accepting of a total lie that favored their political viewpoints? Not a single conservative on here could give even a half reasonable answer.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Perhaps your source is this:
"The Fox News Channel heavily promotes RINO Backers -- commentators who may appear to be conservative but side with RINOs just when it matters most. In the first major 2016 presidential debate, feminist Megyn Kelly of Fox News ambushed Donald Trump with irrelevant, out-of-context quotations to make it appear that he was somehow anti-women. Additional examples on Fox News include Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, who savaged Todd Akin for making a pro-life statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against pro-life Republican candidates.
Where do you get this piece of rubbish?
Megan Kelly is a feminist? That's pretty funny.....Not really true....but funny none the less. Yes, she does get annoyed when conservative talking heads put down women on her show; but she often walks a fine line given who pays her bills. That she can not behave to....moderate....let alone liberal when the men on her shows are being chauvinistic pigs. In that light, it shows that Mrs. Kelly has very little if any journalistic freedom.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Even pundit Sarah Palin is too conservative for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,[1] and then refused to renew her contract at the end of 2012. Fox negotiated a new contract five months later but generally pushed her off the air.[2]
Sarah Palin is not not to conservative for FOX New, she is to extreme. The problem FOX 'news' runs into often is coming dangerously close language that is of 'directly threatening nature' by the FCC. Sarah Palin has about as much common sense as most Darwin Award winners but lucky enough to stay just a tad ahead of the curve.
The funny part of Mrs. Palin's show was the moment she stated she was a good shot. Then a video of her trying to kill a moose at two hundred paces away. Round after round was fired. Not a single hit let alone a kill shot. That she was not aware of how much of an ass she made herself look, did her show more damage than good. And the moose? Oh he just stood there the whole time. She aparently couldn't hit the broad side of a moose [:D]
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
The Fox News Channel heavily favors neoconservatives and is particularly weak in criticizing the homosexual agenda and abortion. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative Republicans, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted John McCain and Chris Christie while excluding their more conservative primary opponents. It drifted further from the conservative movement by petulantly declaring that conservative Newt Gingrich would not be accepted back[3]."
They don't seem to think much of FOX and their 'weak RINO commentators like Hannity and Rush. Don't like them much more than you. And yet, that came from...
And this is political bullshit, not 'just the facts'. The site is not behaving in a manner that produces information without a 'bent'. Be it political or religious (the two biggies that are constantly monitored on Wikipedia updates). Conservapedia's audience is like FOX 'news': 'The Low Information Voter. Because the L.I.V. is often immature and uneducated adult that do not know they are bieng lied or manipulated.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
"Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets[4]. Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "mainstream media",(a RESPONSE, Joether...not the trendsetter in politicization)Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined."
Again, there are the facts, and the fantasy that your believing as truth. Why does FOX 'news' have such a wide viewership? Some watch it for the entertainment value. Some watch it because they have had a bad day/week/life and enjoy seeing someone else suffer in life. Some think its actual news. In fact studies have show a person whom watches no news coverage are often better informed than those that watch FOX 'news'. The ones that are the most informed? Those that pay attention to NPR....
FOX 'news' as also positioned itself as 'conservative news'. Which I find amusing. Because they are often again liberalis media. That's latin for 'liberal media'. But liberalis means 'freedom'. So FOX 'news' is against 'free media'. What sort of an organization is against free media in a metaphor? Why the Ministry of Truth from the book '1984'.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And...As I've pointed out...you'd be wrong about PMSNBC too, just as you were about CNN.
MSNBC basically started playing FOX 'new's 'game' but tried applying it to liberals. It really didnt work out as well. Liberals apparently seem to be above average intelligence, educated, and wary of large corporations that feed the public 'their view' not the 'free view' of events. Back in the 1980's, there were as many as fifty news agencies across the nation. Now, in 2015, there are six major news outlets. So if one company tried to lie to the public in the 1980's, the other forty-nine would attack them while giving the correct information to the public.
What happens if two of those six 'collude' behind closed doors and report 'less than truthful' information to the public? Before you answer that, consider too, that these two companies have conditioned their viewers to the belief that the other four are working in a conspiracy to undermine the whole nation for a 'liberal agenda'. That's kinda of the situation right now, except that FOX 'news' counts as those two companies in the above example. This doesn't worry you at all?
Rather than wade through your wall of text coming up wiwith sources while you come up with opinions, let me do this.
1. Need a source that FOX News Channel does not have higher ratings than the other channels.
2. Need sources other than your opinions on all that you've posted above...otherwise, it's just YOUR fantasies...not mine...that can't be backed up.
3. As for insulting you? You birdbrain...you insult me and any other conservative you answer every time you post...referring to us as low information voters...non-educated...etc., etc.. As for referring to me as an 8-ball, I am an 8-ball. The one you're behind so often.
4. As for FOX News and FOX News channel, I realize they are two different things. But your first post didn't clarify that...in fact your first post made it seem as if you were referring to the channel because why on earth would you compare print media to broadcast media...they're two different entities. And you were the one who then began comparing what was done on the channel to what was being done on the other chchannels. Let's face it, Joether...when people refer to FOX News on here, they're referring to the broadcast, not the printed version.
|
|
|
|
