Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[DaShi]

I usually just watch it on the internet, when I have time. It's available on their website.

[MikeH]

Not in the UK.

Bloody internet nazis.

[DaShi]

Can't you get it from other streaming sources?

[Asher]

It's all over the torrent sites. I get them daily via an RSS downloader.

Back when I took the subway, it would automatically download each night then re-encode them into mp4 for use on my iPod, then sync...I'd watch The Daily Show to work, The Colbert Report on the way home.

[MikeH]

I don't like it that much. Can't be arsed.

[giblets]

Why don't they let foreigners watch? They're throwing away advertising revenue.

[DaShi]

Because they want them to buy the DVD boxset.

[MikeH]

I think because they sold it to a channel here, and it's probably part of the deal they did with More4, they want me watching it on their channel so they get viewing figures and ad revenue. Which they don't if I watch it online.

[Al B. Sure!]

I read the Washington Post every day, you dumbass. Quite the radical right-wing newspaper.

Now Jrabbit did take on a little bit of a condescending tone but calling him a douche and a dumbass is pretty disrespectful.

Whatever happened to children having respect for their elders?

See what the 'libruls' have done? Taught children like HC that it is okay to be ignorant.

[Al B. Sure!]

Asher, I think you're mistaking the Washington Post with the Washington Times, the latter being, from wikipedia, "a socially and politically conservative alternative to the larger and more liberal Washington Post."

The Washington Post does have some slants, however, but there's much conflict of perspective:

In the mid-1970s, some conservatives called The Washington Post "Pravda on the Potomac" due to their perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials,[23] This characterization referred to the official newspaper of the Soviet communist party. Since then, the appellation has been used by both liberal and conservative critics of The Post.[24][25] In 1963, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover reportedly told President Lyndon B. Johnson, "I don't have much influence with The Post because I frankly don't read it. I view it like the Daily Worker."[26][27]
As Katharine Graham (the former publisher of The Post) noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for political candidates. However, since at least 2000, The Washington Post has endorsed Republican politicians, such as Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich.[28] In 2006, it repeated its historic endorsements of every Republican incumbent for Congress in Northern Virginia.[29] There have also been times when The Post has specifically chosen not to endorse any candidate, such as in 1988 when it refused to endorse then Governor Michael Dukakis or then Vice President George H.W. Bush.[30] On October 17, 2008, The Post endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.[31]
The Post's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it has steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.[citation needed]
In "Buying the War" on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting George W. Bush's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations.[32]
In 1992, the PBS investigative news program Frontline suggested that The Post had moved to the right in response to its smaller, more conservative rival The Washington Times, which is owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate owned by the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America. The program quoted Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the conservative activist organization the Moral Majority, as saying "The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And The Washington Times has forced The Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence."[33] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer also mentioned competition from the Washington Times as a factor moving The Post to the right.[34]
On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".[35] It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them liberal (including E.J. Dionne, Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and some on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Robert Kagan Robert Samuelson, Michael Gerson, and Charles Krauthammer).
In November 2007, The Post was criticized by independent journalist Robert Parry for reporting on anti-Obama chain e-mails without sufficiently emphasizing to its readers the false nature of the anonymous claims.[36] In 2009, Parry criticized The Post for its allegedly unfair reporting on liberal politicians, including Vice President Al Gore and President Barack Obama.[37]
In a November 19, 2008 column, The Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo".[38] Responding to criticism of the newspaper's coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It's not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected".[38]
Commentator Glenn Greenwald has called its Op-Ed page the "leading outlet for neoconservative and related right-wing advocacy".[39]

However, I guess American centrism would be right-wing to you so...

[giblets]

See what the 'libruls' have done? Taught children like HC that it is okay to be ignorant.

Could you at least try to make sense?

[Asher]

Asher, I think you're mistaking the Washington Post with the Washington Times, the latter being, from wikipedia, "a socially and politically conservative alternative to the larger and more liberal Washington Post."

The Washington Post does have some slants, however, but there's much conflict of perspective:



However, I guess American centrism would be right-wing to you so...

The paper is clearly centre-right. Even your summary from wiki and bolded parts indicate as much, post-1990.

I'm not confusing it with the Washington Times, which is a right-wing newspaper. WaPo is "more liberal" than the Times, but it still is centre-right.

[Al B. Sure!]

Could you at least try to make sense?

As usual, everything goes over your head.

I was pointing out the incongruity between HC being what I think most of us would characterize as conservative while simultaneously lacking in most conservative values, such as respect for elders and basic manners.

[Al B. Sure!]

The paper is clearly centre-right. Even your summary from wiki and bolded parts indicate as much, post-1990.

I'm not confusing it with the Washington Times, which is a right-wing newspaper. WaPo is "more liberal" than the Times, but it still is centre-right.

The ombudsman of the paper, Howell, makes it very clear that conservatives are "outnumbered" at the paper and conservatives in general "feel disrespected" by the paper's coverage. Her exact words.

The paper did endorse Obama. Is Obama center-right? By international standards, yes; but by American, hardly.

My summary and bolded parts indicated no such thing that the paper is right-wing. Opinions are dissenting with liberals like Chris Matthews believing it to be conservative but the paper's ombudsman saying otherwise. The editorials reflect opinions all over the board but the paper endorsed Obama. Did you even read my quote?

Or, once again, you don't read people's posts?

[giblets]

As usual, everything goes over your head.

I was pointing out the incongruity between HC being what I think most of us would characterize as conservative while simultaneously lacking in most conservative values, such as respect for elders and basic manners.

His immaturity and simplistic conception of morals is obvious. I'm wondering why you think liberals have anything to do with it. If his brother is any indication, it runs in the family.