More proof that fox news misleads its readers.

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

More proof that fox news misleads its readers.

Post #1

Post by nygreenguy »

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... nt=671&lb=


A breakdown of the lies:
* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/st ... age=entire

So why does fox news exist if it clearly does a poor job of reporting the facts? Could it be that people care more about hearing what they want to hear vs. what is actually happening?

cnorman18

Post #41

Post by cnorman18 »

micatala wrote: I somewhat agree, but am less sanguine that there are no consequences to deceptive practices on the part of the media or politicians.
Where did I say that there are NO consequences? I said that we will survive them, meaning as a republic. The 55,000 or so soldiers who died in Vietnam did not survive the deception of the Tonkin Gulf Incident, but the nation did.
Arguably in 2000, and pretty clearly in 2004, falsehoods turned the election. Without the Swiftboat lies, Kerry very well may have carried Ohio, and thus the election.

If Gore had won in 2000, would we have gone into Iraq? Would we have passed huge and unpaid for tax cuts? Both of these actions have created very significant and long term consquences that we are now dealing with and will be probably for at least another decade.
Well, not to refight either of those battles, but I don't think either can be chalked up to plain "lies," and certainly not to deceptive media. Freedom of the press applied there too, and both sides were pretty thoroughly aired in the press (unlike the Tonkin Gulf thing, or many other pre-Watergate deceptions). I wasn't disturbed by the doubtful claims of the Swiftboaters, but I WAS disturbed by the fact -- and it was a fact -- that in his incarnation as an antiwar activiist, Kerry routinely portrayed the average American soldier in Vietnam as a brutal war criminal. I don't think that was justified, and neither did a lot of very reasonable and nongullible people, and in my opinion it came back to bite him.

As for the 2000 election -- like it or not, Bush won, by any measure; several news organizations sent investigators to Florida to do recounts of their own, and Bush still won in every case. The only scenario where Bush could have won was in the selective and cherrypicked recounts in selected Democratic precincts, and I can't see how anyone could regard that as fair or equitable. There was the additional issue of it being proclaimed that "the plain intent of every voter should be considered" and that "every vote should count" on the one hand, while on the other hand, every possible ballot from military personnel stationed overseas was thrown out on any and every technicality that could be found, regardless of the "plain intent" of THOSE voters. There were no clean hands in either of those elections, and the results were as they were; there's little point in going back to chew over coulda, shoulda, woulda. We seem to have survived both.

Without Bush II, I doubt that there ever could have been an Obama. I certainly never expected to see a black President of the United States in my lifetime. It's a remarkable thing for the country, and I find it rather stirring; even if I don't agree with all of his policies -- and I find that as time goes on, I agree with him and admire him more and more -- his election was a very, very good thing for our country. (Before anyone asks, I did in fact vote for him)
I agree that in the longer term, the people are likely to wise up "on the average", but the long term can in some cases mean decades.
No argument there either. I'm a Jew; we think in centuries. We've had a few decades that were worse for us than any have ever been for the US, with the possible exception of the 1860s, and those rather more recently. The Dark Ages were no picnic for us, either. We're still here.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #42

Post by Shermana »

Their version of misinformed:

Fox viewer believes that the Stimulus was a waste of money and cost about $1 million per job saved/created, few jobs were actually created, and most money went to the pockets of cronies. Some districts didn't even exist that got money.

MISINFORMED!!!! The Stimulus was a grand glory on the scale of a 1930's Tenessee Valley project. Imaginary districts are just that, Imaginary.

Fox viewer believes the Unemployment rate is more realistically around 21% taking into consideration underemployed part-time-only and those who give up and those who gave up on looking:

MISINFORMED: Those part-time-employed should be GRATEFUL they have part-time jobs and they are just lazy for not trying hard to get the full-time positions, and those who quit looking are just lazy. Don't question the national 9.5% figure!!

Foxviewer: Maybe Iraq really did have WMDs in production (considering they are now selling Yellow Cake to Canada) and there's a connection between the Syrian nuke facility bombed by Israel.

MISINFORMED: Everyone knows there were no WMDs in Iraq even though Israel bombed a nuclear reactor 20 years earlier. Everyone knows Clinton never bombed Iraq because of...oh wait nevermind. Stay quiet, misinformed citizen....

Foxviewer: The government seems to be corrupt and wants to only raise taxes and spend more to suit its own crony interests. The Debt's never going to get paid off.

MISINFORMED: How dare you question our noble government's intentions. We need more money to pay off spending which benefits YOU, the MISIFNORMED Citizen. Debt is good for the economy. Know your place, citizen!

User avatar
Grumpy
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:58 am
Location: North Carolina

Post #43

Post by Grumpy »

cnorman18
but I WAS disturbed by the fact -- and it was a fact -- that in his incarnation as an antiwar activiist, Kerry routinely portrayed the average American soldier in Vietnam as a brutal war criminal. I don't think that was justified, and neither did a lot of very reasonable and nongullible people, and in my opinion it came back to bite him.
I'm sorry, but that is not a fact. What I saw him doing was pointing out that soldiers are not policemen, that they are trained to break things and kill people, and that the regime we put in place and supported in that war was worse than what they had before and not worth a single American life. As Lt. Calley proved, some of our soldiers committed war crimes, many more killed innocent people by accident or in fear. That is what wars do to the people on both sides. Pointing out these facts should not be seen as accusing our soldiers, but of accusing the politicians who put them in that situation in the first place(that is who he was speaking to). We really had no business being there at all.

Sound familiar?

Kerry earned the right to speak about the atrocities committed in that war. His family was rich and he could have wriggled out of going, like W did in the National Guard or a college deferment or any of a dozen different avenues the rich have to protect their young. But he volunteered and served honorably and earned a Silver Star THEN he spoke to what the war had taught him(and ought to teach everyone). You may not agree with what he said, how he said it or where, but don't mistake his meaning for something that it is not. He earned more respect than that.

Grumpy 8-)

cnorman18

Post #44

Post by cnorman18 »

Grumpy wrote:cnorman18
but I WAS disturbed by the fact -- and it was a fact -- that in his incarnation as an antiwar activiist, Kerry routinely portrayed the average American soldier in Vietnam as a brutal war criminal. I don't think that was justified, and neither did a lot of very reasonable and nongullible people, and in my opinion it came back to bite him.
I'm sorry, but that is not a fact. What I saw him doing was pointing out that soldiers are not policemen, that they are trained to break things and kill people, and that the regime we put in place and supported in that war was worse than what they had before and not worth a single American life. As Lt. Calley proved, some of our soldiers committed war crimes, many more killed innocent people by accident or in fear. That is what wars do to the people on both sides. Pointing out these facts should not be seen as accusing our soldiers, but of accusing the politicians who put them in that situation in the first place(that is who he was speaking to). We really had no business being there at all.

Sound familiar?

Kerry earned the right to speak about the atrocities committed in that war. His family was rich and he could have wriggled out of going, like W did in the National Guard or a college deferment or any of a dozen different avenues the rich have to protect their young. But he volunteered and served honorably and earned a Silver Star THEN he spoke to what the war had taught him(and ought to teach everyone). You may not agree with what he said, how he said it or where, but don't mistake his meaning for something that it is not. He earned more respect than that.

Grumpy 8-)
All that is debatable, and people of good will can disagree: I'd be open to revising my opinions about Kerry's statements and intent, but I don't think it's worth going over that here. That election is over.

For the record, I was opposed to that war, then and now, and for the same reasons that you cite here; it was a matter of some personal significance to me, since I missed being drafted and sent over there by one (1) day. But I was not hostile to the troops who were there, nor did I blame them for the war crimes committed by a tiny minority of our soldiers. In my opinion, Kerry presented those atrocities as common and typical, and they were not. If Kerry could serve honorably, so did very many others; most, in fact. I grew up in an Army town, and there was no love or sympathy for Lt. Calley among the soldiers that I knew. He was regarded as a disgrace to the U.S. Army, which he was. To be honest, Kerry was regarded similarly, though for vastly different reasons.

In any case: My point was that that election was not determined or even much influenced by media deception or by "lies." People disagreed over the issue of Kerry's intentions and motivations in his words and actions after the war, as well as many other issues; and while people may or may not have been in error about that, and may or may not have made poor decisions, it was not a matter of being deliberately fooled, but of honest disagreement. Those aren't the same thing.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #45

Post by micatala »

cnorman18 wrote:
micatala wrote: I somewhat agree, but am less sanguine that there are no consequences to deceptive practices on the part of the media or politicians.
Where did I say that there are NO consequences? I said that we will survive them, meaning as a republic. The 55,000 or so soldiers who died in Vietnam did not survive the deception of the Tonkin Gulf Incident, but the nation did.
Fair enough. I admittedly was in part responding to the tone, and what I saw as the logical implications of that.

After all, one could say Germany and the Jews, at least as a people, "survived" Hitler, even if six million individual Jews did not.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

cnorman18

Post #46

Post by cnorman18 »

micatala wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
micatala wrote: I somewhat agree, but am less sanguine that there are no consequences to deceptive practices on the part of the media or politicians.
Where did I say that there are NO consequences? I said that we will survive them, meaning as a republic. The 55,000 or so soldiers who died in Vietnam did not survive the deception of the Tonkin Gulf Incident, but the nation did.
Fair enough. I admittedly was in part responding to the tone, and what I saw as the logical implications of that.

After all, one could say Germany and the Jews, at least as a people, "survived" Hitler, even if six million individual Jews did not.
Yeah, I've been having some tone-deaf problems lately, e.g. my reaction to Earl's good-natured imitation of Joey's cornpone humor. I'm in a transitional phase right now, and that seems to be hard for me even when it's a good thing. (1 week till I move in with the love of my life. Awesome -- and disorienting.)

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #47

Post by micatala »

Canada officially declares FOX news is not truthful.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... 29473.html


It's official! FOX lies.


THis also indicates at least some conservatives, like Canada's Harper, no full well that having FOX's spin machine on their side is a good thing for them.


I wonder, is MSNBC banned in Canada? What is Canada's version of free speech?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Post #48

Post by Lux »

Every day I feel more like joining the Canadian usergroup O:)

If I was Canada, I wouldn't actually ban Fox, though. But I see not problem with having some sort of screen for what one calls "news". I think it's only fair to allow all sorts of opinion programs, but I see no reason to allow any partisan network to declare themselves a news source.
[center]Image

© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]



"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #49

Post by East of Eden »

nygreenguy wrote:I would argue with the point that your author made like the WMD issue because there WERE people saying there WERE NO WEAPONS, only Bush and his people were saying there WAS weapons.
Only Bush and his people? Some might call that a lie.



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #50

Post by East of Eden »

nygreenguy wrote: There is also evidence that fox isnt a news network, rather a political extension of the republican party.
As I would say of much of the MSM, who are simply liberal Democrats masquerading as journalists. They aren't pleased their monopoly is gone.
Talking point memos from republican politicians to fox news have been intercepted and their contents are repeated verbatim on the air.
You mean like this NPR exec caught making Democratic talking points?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/caught- ... ctual-gop/

At least FOX isn't taking taxpayer money as NPR is, for now. ;)
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

Post Reply