Did someone say FOX News was biased?

[Q Classic]

the krugman column, i have to say, although slimy, is still relatively polite.

cavuto, however, i feel overrreacted. not only did he respond in an excessively vitriolic and far more insulting; and although some of his points are valid, i have to say that cavuto has turned me off to him with this brazen display of distemper.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
gsmoove:

Now you started it!! Bezerker believes there is only ONE possible interpretation of the Constitution, and he is one of the few that actually follows (knows?) it.

Watch out for long-ass posts ahead!!

uh oh didn't mean to thread jack just had to respond to that one.

QCubed, How is the Krugman article slimy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's best to leave Berz and his rantings alone .

[Q Classic]

after reading it, although it also made many valid points, i felt that it was at best a thinly veiled attack on fox news, one of nytimes's competitors (post, which, mind you, is utter crap), and murdoch (who, mind you, i despise because of his fox networks...).

(which, mind you, is so far from fair and balanced that anybody who believes that quite frankly scares me.)

[gsmoove23]

Ah, ok then, nothing to argue.

[Defiant]

Why, Q, because we think for ourselves, personally anybody who is left of center scares the hell out of me. I watched FOX religiously throughout the war and I watched CNN and with the exception of tickturd Rivera, FOX did an outstanding job. CNN had to correct itself every half hour. I am comparing CNN and FOX because they are two ends of the spectrum.

[Q Classic]

Defiant:

let's get one thing straight: anybody who is outside of the moderate region in politics scares the sh|t out of me.
meaning, anybody who actually believes that affirmative action is a good thing, or that we actually need an ERA (we don't--just a wider definition of what constitutes a person), or belives in the motives of PETA, and so on bothers me.

if you must know, i go to foxnews.com, cnn.com, bbc.com, msnbc.com, and a plethora of other news sites to obtain my news.
i find fox is not fair, nor balanced--it is what it is, a conservative news outlet, which should--to anybody who thinks for him/herself--cast quite a strong dubious light on the conservative allegation that the liberals own the media. to imagine that fox is moderate is to image that cnn is moderate or even conservative.
cnn is no more moderate, fair, or balanced that fox is. it is also what it is, a left-leaning news outlet. i'm quite certain that if it chose to give up its self-image of the "establishment" news network--and with it, the desire to be "moderate", and went fully liberal, it would enjoy quite the ratings boost.

[Defiant]

Q,
then it is opinion that drives your conclusion of accurate news, because I believe it is "the most" fair and balanced and maybe I think it is fair and balanced because I am in the same stride as they are. Frankly from your quote that anybody who thinks FOX is fair and balanced scares you, can only lead me to believe you are left of me. For all practical purposes news is news, you can't change that, it is the editorials that drive what distinguishes the spectrum of the news agency. There is where I believe FOX is more accurate.

[Guynemer]

The editorials are "accurate" on FOX?

How can an editorial be accurate? An editorial is an opinion. It is not news. News can be accurate or inaccurate. An editorial can not be classified as such.

[Q Classic]

defiant, i'm fine if you think i'm more left than you. i see myself as moderate, which places you squarely on the right. thus, me being moderate would place me left of you. are we in accordance on that?

for all practical purposes, news is not news-- it is information about the day's proceedings, spun in one way or another for one party's gain. why else would you think that the news outlets salivate over "exclusives"? because when they get those, they get to spin the news story any which way they want, and usually, the people who give them the exclusives know how the outlets will choose to spin it.
to be frank, there are no "fair and balanced" news outlets. one ought to watch both cnn and fox and try and read in between the lines.

editorials, on the other hand, are opinions, and not stated fact. i can say that to me, my opinions--or editorializing, if you will--that all the news outlets shouldn't be trusted is correct and accurate, but that's only because i'm in step with my own thoughts.
if you happen to agree with fox, i'm not stopping you. but i will say this: i think that if you belive that fox will satisfy all of your news needs, you're doing yourself a great disservice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
after reading it, although it also made many valid points, i felt that it was at best a thinly veiled attack on fox news, one of nytimes's competitors (post, which, mind you, is utter crap), and murdoch (who, mind you, i despise because of his fox networks...).

(which, mind you, is so far from fair and balanced that anybody who believes that quite frankly scares me.)

I think it is "fair." I do not think it is balanced.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
defiant, i'm fine if you think i'm more left than you. i see myself as moderate, which places you squarely on the right. thus, me being moderate would place me left of you. are we in accordance on that?

for all practical purposes, news is not news-- it is information about the day's proceedings, spun in one way or another for one party's gain. why else would you think that the news outlets salivate over "exclusives"? because when they get those, they get to spin the news story any which way they want, and usually, the people who give them the exclusives know how the outlets will choose to spin it.
to be frank, there are no "fair and balanced" news outlets. one ought to watch both cnn and fox and try and read in between the lines.

editorials, on the other hand, are opinions, and not stated fact. i can say that to me, my opinions--or editorializing, if you will--that all the news outlets shouldn't be trusted is correct and accurate, but that's only because i'm in step with my own thoughts.
if you happen to agree with fox, i'm not stopping you. but i will say this: i think that if you belive that fox will satisfy all of your news needs, you're doing yourself a great disservice.

Q Cubed, having discussed things with you for some time, I would say you are a Democrat or a left-leaning Independent. Clearly, FOX is all but a card-carrying Republican network that would be right of all Democrats and many Independents.

However, if Republicans scare you, I should add my counter, Democrats scare me.

[Berzerker]

Thx Defiant

gsmoove -

Berzerker, get a grip, everyone is following their interpretation of the constitution, as are you.

What a meaningless comment. Does that mean you think all "interpretations" are equally valid or is one interpretation correct and others are wrong?

uh oh didn't mean to thread jack just had to respond to that one.

You didn't respond to what I said. Try using an actual quote and explaining why I'm wrong. Hell, I don't even know what you're "responding" to.

Imran -

Now you started it!! Bezerker believes there is only ONE possible interpretation of the Constitution, and he is one of the few that actually follows (knows?) it.

There is only one accurate interpretation of the Constitution, and I certainly make the effort to understand what the Framers wrote and meant. But since you believe your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, why do you exempt yourself from your critique of me? Oh yeah, hypocrisy is all about applying double standards.

[gsmoove23]

You didn't respond to what I said. Try using an actual quote and explaining why I'm wrong. Hell, I don't even know what you're "responding" to.

Oh great, so I can get into a long senseless arguement that has nothing to do with the thread.

What a meaningless comment. Does that mean you think all "interpretations" are equally valid or is one interpretation correct and others are wrong?

In a sense, yes I do, as long as the interpretations are implemented within legal guidelines, ie. voted on by legitamately elected officials, not overturned by the courts. Beyond that I care little about what you feel the interpretation should be or arguing about it.

My main beef is with your hijacking of the right-left spectrum as some gauge of how far someone is from the "true" interpretation of the constitution, which it has nothing to do with. I have no problem with people who put themselves on different places in the spectrum then they probably should be, but you just completely change the whole definition.

EDIT - whoops, left a little extra bit in there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now you've done it

Berz can't figure out that interpretations of the Constitution are equally valid and will fight tooth and nail on the assumption that he has the only correct answer...



(PS... I totally agree with your last post... *runs*)