Jimbo 0 #176 July 22, 2004 QuoteAnd there are worse things than making people think. Yeah? Name one! - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #177 July 22, 2004 >Yeah? Name one! Being in the plane with Mike Muscat on Sunday morning after he's had eggs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #178 July 23, 2004 Quote>Fox News certainly is a threat to liberals. Not really. Anyone who depends on FOX news for their information is easy to defeat in a debate; they tend to believe things that aren't true. Debating based on what someone sees on FOX is like bringing a knife to a gunfight,. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/FOX_News Bill, you tend to believe things that are not true, such as your assertion that people got arrested for wearing an anti-bush T-shirt. I think it was pretty easy to show that you were completely wrong. Some quotes from your link: QuoteFOX News is often considered to be particularly inflammatory to those with differing views. Of note is the use of stars and stripes imagery on supposedly neutral news reporting. The use of stars and stripes imagery is now considered bias. This is "of note", as if it is really important QuoteThe station is also regarded as quite pro-Israeli. To give one example, unlike reports on the Arab-Israeli conflict from the BBC, and US channels such as CNN, Palestinian and other Arab militants are generally referred to on Fox News as "terrorists". Damn right, it is true. Al Qaeda, Hamas, are terrorists. Do you hold a different position? I doubt Kerry will be advocating that we consider them militants. QuoteMany other channels tend to use neutral words such as "militant" or "guerrilla", or descriptive words such as "gunman" and "bomber". (Arab channels such as Al Jazeera often use the positive term "resistance fighter"). Whose biased? Sounds like the other channels are, toward the terrorists. Quotestudy by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (sponsored by (http://www.pipa.org/about.html) Ford, Carnegie, Tides, and other foundations) found that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network. Eighty percent of Fox News viewers believed at least one of three misconceptions about the War in Iraq, more than any other radio or television news source. This behavior persists even after adjusting for viewership and political preference. The report also claims that the viewers who watched the news more carefully turned out to have more misconceptions, including whether evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq link had been found, whether weapons of mass destruction had been discovered in Iraq, and whether Europe had supported the US's decision to go to war without UN support. [1] (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) They have now decided that these three things are obvious misconceptions? 1) A link has been found, and the 911 commission has agreed. 2) WMDs have been found, 30 something shells or so the last I read. What is the threshold for existence? 3) Many countries in Europe had supported our decision to invade. What are the countries that matter? What a load of shit! Here's another little gem of ubiased analysis (there is a slight difference between the title of this section and the contents): Quote FOX responds In addition, FOX News has been accused of placing an undue emphasis on conservative news stories. Left-wing critics claim that the network sometimes dedicates whole segments and shows to conservative stories they feel have been downplayed, and for a time had an entire show, Only On Fox, dedicated to doing just that. Some of the differing opinions of FOX News might result from the perceived lack of a clear-cut line between straight-news programming and news analysis programming. One of the founding concepts of the channel has always been to provide strong, opinionated, and controversial news analysis, particularly during prime time. Some of the analysis of FOX News that alleges bias centers on the news analysis programs such as Special Report with Brit Hume, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity and Colmes, which are opinion shows and thus by their nature not intended to be objective. In fact, many analysts believe it to be the strong opinions expressed on these commentary shows that have led to the channel's overwhelming success. However, many critics maintain that much content on FOX is biased, from selection of stories covered to the anchors' animated delivery of news. That is supposed to be how Fox responds? It is not their response to the critics, it is just more simple regurgitation of what the critics say. Also from this same 'Fox responds' section: QuoteAnother prominent FOX program, The O'Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O'Reilly, is also cited as a program with a heavily conservative slant, a charge O'Reilly denies, calling himself a populist. That is supposed to be a response by Fox, but it looks like just another 'citation' of bias, with a brief mention of the fact that it is denied.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #179 July 23, 2004 Looks like she's at it again. More political bullshit. More angry walkouts. Hmmm. See a trend? Clicky Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #180 July 23, 2004 QuoteLooks like she's at it again. More political bullshit. More angry walkouts. Hmmm. See a trend? Oh my god!!! There was a mass exodus of concert goers after she dedicated the ENCORE to Michael Moore. The trend I see is a bunch of people getting their panties in a wad over nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #181 July 23, 2004 >See a trend? People are starting to leave at the end of concerts? Bruce Springsteen, 1985: "This is a message for all the young people out there. I lived in a time when you grew up with war on TV every night. A lot of my friends were 17 or 18 and didn't have much of a chance to think about how we felt about things. And the next time they're gonna be looking at you, and you're gonna need a lot of information to know what you're gonna want to do. Because in 1985, blind faith in your leaders or anything will get you killed, cause what I'm talking about here is ... WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again!" Bruce Springsteen, 2003: Unlike Dixie Chicks, Boss Draws No Outrage for Iraq Views WASHINGTON -- Bruce Springsteen brought the crowd to its feet with the beloved "Rosalita (Come Out Tonight)" and its brash declaration, "I ain't here for business, I'm only here for fun." But this is a political town, and Springsteen did have a bit of business. It was Sept. 13, on the final leg of the tour he'll end Oct. 4 at New York's Shea Stadium, and he had something to say on "the question of whether we were misled into the war in Iraq." "Protecting the democracy that we ask our sons and daughters to die for is our responsibility and our trust," Springsteen said. "It's the American way." He has made the statement, as precisely worded as his lyrics, on some stops and not others. This time he brought his message to the nation's front door. He was not turned away. There was no public outcry as there was when the Dixie Chicks spoke out against President Bush in a manner that struck many as unpatriotic at worst, ill-considered and clumsy at best. At the time, Springsteen defended their right to speak. . . . . He opens his Iraq statement by saying, "People come to my shows with many different kinds of political beliefs; I like that. We welcome all." But in Washington, he flashed a playful grin, adding, "with the possible exception of Dick Cheney." He had a little fun at the president's expense, too, exhorting the crowd in his best preacher imitation to "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach the president who got us into this mess!" -- then introducing sax player Clarence "The Big Man" Clemons as a possible Oval Office substitute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #182 July 23, 2004 QuoteClarence "The Big Man" Clemons as a possible Oval Office substitute. Hmmmmm..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
