Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[Syntho-sis]

Making claims and not supporting them... I can see why you're a fan of Fox! </facetious>

 

Wow. Maybe you need to go use a dictionary on occasion, so you can look up the difference between the words claim and suggestion. Because you obviously have them confused.

 

I'm a skeptic bascule..of everything. Do you seriously think I believe the crap that Fox funnels down the throats of America? Well if you do, you're a moron. On the other hand. Do you seriously think I accept half the things people say on here? No, I don't. Not unless they can present unbiased, empirical evidence.

 

I come to discuss, not debate.

 

So quit cramping my style and GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID:

 

Here I'll post it for you:

 

Well from what I heard (Yes I heard it on Fox) Fox had been onto ACORN months before any of the other organizations had been. They knew ACORN was dirty. I don't know if there's any truth to that though. And I don't feel like digging through Fox's archives to verify it.

 

I'm not trying to influence anybody, just didn't wanna leave any stones unturned. My will is good mon.

 

Cheers,

[gre]

You know some people are saying Fox is not a reliable

 

 

That was my argument against Fox using the Beckism Method.

 

 

 

Lol.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well from what I heard (Yes I heard it on Fox) Fox had been onto ACORN months before any of the other organizations had been. They knew ACORN was dirty. I don't know if there's any truth to that though. And I don't feel like digging through Fox's archives to verify it.

 

Well, just so you know there's a huge difference between knowing something and hoping something.

[Phi for All]

Well, just so you know there's a huge difference between knowing something and hoping something.

Oh yes. Many people hope what they suspect is true, and when they find out it is, then they can say they knew it was true.

[Syntho-sis]

Well, just so you know there's a huge difference between knowing something and hoping something.

 

Yes somewhat. For example, I know that it will rain sometime in the near future. I hope that the rain will provide the farmer's crops with adequate hydration so that they can take the crops to market and thus our economy prospers because of it.

 

Knowing something doesn't always mean that it will actually occur though. Hope is usually an irrational belief that something will occur. (At least that seems to be what you are implying.)

 

If Fox was hoping ACORN was dirty, was it entirely irrational?

 

I'm honestly curious about this. Does anyone know what factors contributed to Fox's mistrust of ACORN overtime?

[bascule]

Wow. Maybe you need to go use a dictionary on occasion

 

Likewise, I think you need to look up the definition of "facetious"

 

Well from what I heard (Yes I heard it on Fox) Fox had been onto ACORN months before any of the other organizations had been. They knew ACORN was dirty. I don't know if there's any truth to that though. And I don't feel like digging through Fox's archives to verify it.

 

Perhaps now I'll take a less jovial tone... you're repeating hearsay, then washing your hands of it. That is in bad form, sir.

[Phi for All]

If Fox was hoping ACORN was dirty, was it entirely irrational?

Several FOX News memos have shown that they often aim their negative research at liberal targets, which they don't do with conservative ones (and do the opposite with positive research). Is that rational for a "news organization", whether they find something or not? And too often, if they don't find anything, they can always say they're investigating, which to some FOX News viewers means it's a forgone conclusion.

[Syntho-sis]

Perhaps now I'll take a less jovial tone... you're repeating hearsay, then washing your hands of it. That is in bad form, sir.

 

Jovial? I perceived it as sarcasm and belittlement.

 

It was still a suggestion. I identified my position as uninformed and that the statements made by Fox should be taken with a grain of salt. It's unbecoming for an intellectual like yourself to get his panties in a bunch over something so silly.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Several FOX News memos have shown that they often aim their negative research at liberal targets, which they don't do with conservative ones (and do the opposite with positive research). Is that rational for a "news organization", whether they find something or not? And too often, if they don't find anything, they can always say they're investigating, which to some FOX News viewers means it's a forgone conclusion.

 

Then you answered my question fairly.

 

See how simple that was?

 

*claps*

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Must we be so patronizing?

[iNow]

So, it seems FOX and crew are outraged because of a recent attack from Sesame Street. Yes, folks... Sesame Street.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street

Sesame Street is an American educational children's television series and a pioneer of the contemporary educational television standard, combining both education and entertainment. Sesame Street is well known for its Muppets characters created by Jim Henson. It premiered on November 10, 1969, and is the longest running children's program on US television.[1] The show is produced in the United States by the non-profit organization Sesame Workshop, formerly known as the Children's Television Workshop (CTW), founded by Joan Ganz Cooney and Ralph Rogers. The show has been running for 40 years.

 

 

What did they do?

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/06/pbs-says-sesame-street-parody-on-fox-news-was-wrong/

Yesterday we told you about one conservative blogger who thought that Sesame Street was out of line for a recent skit which had a muppet call a fictional news network a “trashy news show.”

 

What incensed the writer? The name of said network was POX News. And guess which news network rhymes with POX?

 

<...>

 

In this episode, Oscar the Grouch — the founder of the Grouch News Network (GNN) — receives a phone call from what appears to be a female muppet (or Bret Michaels from Poison) complaining that GNN isn’t grouchy enough.

 

“I am changing the channel,” she says to Oscar. “From now on I am watching ‘Pox’ News. Now there is a trashy news show.”

 

 

 

Here... Watch for yourself:

 

eO-1j9T90-8

 

 

 

Well... That set off a fury. It looked something like this:

 

 

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/11/03/l-is-for-leftist-thats-good-enough-for-me/

Add one more soldier to the Left’s war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch.

 

<...>

 

The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority. And don’t tell me, “If you don’t like it change the channel.” There are no channels left! It’s everywhere. Just last week I had Obama’s service and volunteerism promoted on every single major network, including Disney and Nickelodeon.

 

<...>

 

The insidious nature of left-leaning artists involved in altruistic artistic endeavors always carries the cloak of unassailability.

 

<...>

 

First you “educate” children from your perspective. The rest will follow — just like the proverbial boiling frog … is everyone enjoying the Jacuzzi?

 

But the difference now is that a Saul Alinsky-trained, William Ayers-influenced, Annenberg Challenge Board Member is now our President, and his influence, tactics and worldview (not to mention the power of your federal tax dollars through NPR, PBS and the NEA) now influence our culture at such an accelerated rate that the frog is no longer on a slow simmer but at a rapid boil.

 

Irony is a wonderful thing. Just as the Left elected the perfect Propagandist-in-Chief, their opposition (you and me) got wise, agile and pretty entertaining.

 

 

Entertaining? No... Not really. A bit disturbing and disheartening, but not entertaining. It's sad really.

 

This happened two years ago.

 

 

 

This sums it up well:

 

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/some-says-sesame-street-at-war-with-fox-news/

All year, I’ve been noticing this increasingly whiny trend among conservatives, and this episode is an absurd encapsulation of that. The pattern is always the same: conservative blowhard says something horrible about someone, who then pushes back, causing tears.

 

In the case of Sesame Street vs. Fox, the cable news network has aired countless hit pieces on Sesame Street and other PBS children’s shows. They ran not one, but two segments about how Sesame Street DVDs were “not for kids,” they called Mr. Rogers “evil,” one of their hosts referred to Cookie Monster’s movements as “erotic,” and even speculates that Oscar the Grouch may have been molested. All things considered, I’d say the Street’s response was remarkably restrained.

 

Rush Limbaugh kicked off the Obama Presidency by telling anyone who would listen that he hoped the President would fail, and that he wasn’t going to “bend over and grab the ankles” just because Obama is black. The DNC pointed out that Republican leaders bowed and scraped for Rush, and raised money off of it. The conservative response was to claim that Rush was being attacked.

 

Then, there was CNBC’s Rick Santelli, remember him? He’s the guy who first invoked the need for “a new Tea Party” as he ranted about “loser” homeowners and their extra bathrooms. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called him out in devastating fashion, at which point Santelli accused the White House of “threatening” him.

 

Finally, there’s the much-hyped “White House War on Fox News.” Here’s a quick review: Fox News not only went after Barack Obama relentlessly during the 2008 campaign, they also attacked his wife. After a summer of provocations like the ouster of Van Jones and the smearing of Kevin Jennings, the White House responded, wisely or not. Once again, the attacker played the victim, then inflated a claim of escalation that led to the supposed truce. Now, every time the White House pushes back against a news story, they’re accused of setting their sniper scope on new quarry.

 

And now, the right is playing victim to a puppet. I have to be honest, I expected more toughness out of this bunch.

 

 

That makes one of us. I expect little more than lunacy, lies, and hypocrisy from this bunch, myself.

[gre]

What will Glenn Beck say about this? The Obama administration is secretly trying to brain wash kids through sesame street now? Indoctrination? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPMnbyX5C4w ...

[SH3RL0CK]

I fail to see why the lack of a sense of humor on the part of FOX news relates to the question of whether or not they are a news organization.

[toastywombel]

Synthosis, ask me why Fox has reported so much on Acorn, but refuse to report on this.

 

A woman named Dawn Leamon was ganged raped by several of her fellow employees while working in Iraq. She was working for KBR, a defence contractor. When she went to report incident to KBR authorities she was locked in a crate for hours before a guard finally let her out. When she contacted the justice department she found out that her fellow employees who raped her could not be held accountable because of a contract that KBR required her sign before she began working for them.

 

To add insult to injury this was not an isolated incident many women have also reported similar abuses by fellow KBR employees, such as Jamie Jones.

 

The contract stated that KBR employees cannot be held accountable for any sexual, physical, or any kind of abuse towards other employees while on the job. It also stated that employers are not allowed to report any abuse by fellow employees to anyone.

 

Senator Al Franken heard about this story and proposed a Bill that would require the Defence Department to refuse business to military contractors that require their employees to sign such contracts and give the right for the victims of these crimes to sue KBR or any other contractors in which this case applied.

 

When it came to a vote on the Senate floor 30/40 republican senators voted against it.

 

That to me seems like a much bigger story than ACORN, and yet Fox has not mentioned it at all, as far as I know.

 

If that is not a "lying by omission" from Fox, I do not know what is. The really sad thing is that this corporation (KBR) has been linked to many other abuses such as Human Trafficking, Murdering of Iraqi Civilians, and creating unsafe work environments for its employees.

 

Here is the links where I got my information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/senate-passes-amendment-that-would-allow-kbr-rape-victims-the-right-to-sue.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

[gre]

 

Here is the links where I got my information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/10/senate-passes-amendment-that-would-allow-kbr-rape-victims-the-right-to-sue.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

 

 

Wow, I wasn't aware of any of this. I guess you could say the 75 percent of Republican Senators sponsor terrorism.

 

 

 

 

 

"Good god almighty!" -- Glenn Beck

[toastywombel]

Wow, I wasn't aware of any of this. I guess you could say the 75 percent of Republican Senators sponsor terrorism.

 

 

 

 

"Good god almighty!" -- Glenn Beck

 

and rape!

[Phi for All]

I find it interesting that 4 out of the 10 Republican Senators who voted in favor were women, including Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rep Senator from Texas. Apparently Halliburton's influence in that state isn't as strong as the outrage that comes from the rape of fellow women.

[Genecks]

That's curious.

Does the U.S. government give Fox money for being a public channel?

Is there anything like that involved?

 

If so, then you'd think the government could force Fox to at least clean up its truthiness.

[iNow]

Ah... Fox News. Lying about the numbers of last weekends protest in Washington about healthcare, and then using stock footage of the 9/12 project in an attempt to pretend that reality matched their numbers.

 

Keepin' it classy, Fox.

 

Watch for yourself:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage

[bascule]

Ah... Fox News. Lying about the numbers of last weekends protest in Washington about healthcare, and then using stock footage of the 9/12 project in an attempt to pretend that reality matched their numbers.

 

Keepin' it classy, Fox.

 

Yeah, was about to post that myself. Let's review how Fox "News" works:

 

1. Call yourself a news organization

2. Create, sponsor, and promote anti-Democrat protests in Washington, DC

3. Use stock footage of that protest to make subsequent anti-Democrat protests look bigger, while simultaneously lying about the number of attendees

4. ...

5. PROFIT!

[doG]

All of the alleged news agencies, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are nothing more than pulpits or soapboxes for the powers-that-be within their respective organizations. They are all biased and untrustworthy. If you want truth aggregate the reports yourself from the lot of them and try to look for the common elements in the content and then take that with a grain of salt.

[A Tripolation]

C'mon guys...you gotta admit that it was pretty funny.

Why do you all care when no educated person believes that Fox News is balanced?

[bascule]

All of the alleged news agencies, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are nothing more than pulpits or soapboxes for the powers-that-be within their respective organizations. They are all biased and untrustworthy.

 

Yes, that said, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin are all bad people. Some are just worse than others.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why do you all care when no educated person believes that Fox News is balanced?

 

Because people who vote and affect the leadership of this country are listening to Fox's lies.

 

This is a lie:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage

 

It's being reported as news.

[Mr Skeptic]

C'mon guys...you gotta admit that it was pretty funny.

Why do you all care when no educated person believes that Fox News is balanced?

 

Um, because of the effect they have on the huge number of bumbling morons who think they are?

[mooeypoo]

Generally I don't have a problem with Fox News, seeing as I'm usually not as naive as to think any of the networks are even close to being unbiased.

 

However, I have a very big problem with the fact that Fox News anchors and staff are actively organizing demonstrations, and that the network actively promotes them (without promoting demonstrations of the other side).

 

The "Actively Organize" is my problem - that transforms them from an organization that reports information (with the usual biases, sure) to an activist organization against the current administration.

 

Whether that's what a news organization is supposed to do or not aside, at the very least this makes it totally unsurprising that the Obama administration refuses to cooperate with an organization that actively operates against them without even attempting to present itself as unbiased.

[ydoaPs]

Why do you all care when no educated person believes that Fox News is balanced?

 

Because there's no education or IQ requirement to be able to vote?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, 14% of the people in a recent Pew poll said that FOX News is "mostly liberal."