God Bless Hannity's America... [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Homyrrh

03-14-2009, 02:42 AM

I'll defend meritless jabs at FOX with fortitude. Its news reporting is as unbiased as CNN, and its pundits, while overtly conservative and/or "traditionalist", still maintain a presentation of facts without bias. Primarily, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, while perhaps hard to digest in their demeanor, are very often reasonable commentators. I even stand firm in noting that Rush Limbaugh's, however unaffiliated with the network, fervor is directly proportional to his salary and would change accordingly.

There is, however, an exception or two that often bug me. I never watched Laura Ingraham much, but she was annoying, much like Geraldo is. But the most annoying conservative pundit in media, without exception to mind, is Sean Hannity.

As a pretty conservative individual, I often find that my voting criteria, or at least the majority of it, aligns with Republican candidates. I am a registered independent because my political and social disposition is not in either way a partisanship. When I watch Hannity on weeknights, I find myself wondering how any individual could emulate the very leftist individuals whom he despises--Olbermann, Matthews, etc.--and blindly throw deragatory and inflammatory remarks at the commander-in-chief after reprimanding the aforementioned liberal pundits for doing so to former president Bush. There are just way too many times that Hannity dismisses Democratic guests without supporting arguments; he propagates some confounding Rapbulican fanaticism that simultaneously baffles and saddens me.

I really feel commentators like O'Reilly are quite reasonable and make a genuine effort to defeat, well, "spin", but when someone like Sean Hannity distorts and defaces the core values of American conservatism, its simpl bothersome.

*NOTE- I went to his site, and though his views on an acceptable presidential candidate are quite analagous to my own, I amused myself with this (http://hannidate.hannity.com/).

Preston_79

03-14-2009, 11:34 AM

I've listened to Hannity before and he's just not entertaining at all. Never listened to Rush more than maybe 10 minutes. O'Reilly's alright, but I'm not setting aside time to watch or listen to him either.

I did like Micheal Savage's show on MSNBC but it got axed after only like 6 episodes. I've heard his radio program and it's pretty good. Dennis Miller's radio program is good too, but only because he talks sports and movies with his politics. Miller has great guest hosts on his show too like Norm MacDonald, whom I find hilarious.

Hannity is just a snooze.

You're a good American Homyrrh!

The Heart Collector

03-14-2009, 01:53 PM

glenn beck is way worse than hannity right now. he's completely lost it.

shoe1985

03-14-2009, 02:47 PM

I hate Glen Beck. He is so paranoid it isn't funny.

O' Reilly doesn't like to listen to anyone but those who agree with him.

Rush is an idiot, who I never liked at all.

There is a guy on at 4 on Fox News, Neil something that I do like. He doesn't seem to play to either side that much, and has pretty much said to his guests that he wants them to get to the point.

I mainly watch CNN though. Lou Dobbs is a lot of fun to watch because he disses everyone equally, and seems to push what america should truly be striving for.

Homyrrh

03-14-2009, 05:02 PM

shoe1985

03-14-2009, 09:15 PM

Neil Cavuto is FOX's Senior VP for Business. Definitely knows his stuff. Lou Dobbs is alright as well. There were rumors that he was going to run for governor of NJ pretty soon.

Yes, Neil Cavuto. It doesn't matter if you are Repub, Dem, or an Independent, you better come prepared when you come on his show. I was watching a few weeks back when a Republican Senator was going on and on about something stupid, and Neil called him out. First time I ever was excited to watch Fox News.

Brando @$$ Fat

03-15-2009, 03:22 AM

The annoying thing about Hannity isn't so much his views as much as it is his completely inextraordinary, lackluster political mind. He is a partisan hack to his very core. Fox tries to make him look like this great controversial figure when he's really just a lapdog for his party. He's too stupid to think in any other terms. Hell, I even saw this one clip where he was praising M.C. Hammer...telling him that he was his biggest fan and that he had all his albums. It's not that he's hateful or anything, he's just an overpaid moron. Glenn Beck's craziness is not so much a result of his views (although I'm sure they don't help) as much as it is his bizarre personality and incredibly weird/uncomfortable demeanor. Glenn Beck is that kid in middle school who sat alone at the lunch table drawing creepy and violent pictures while mentally planning his future success. Bill O'Reilly I have no problem with because he's unintentionally hilarious.

Badbird

03-24-2009, 02:15 PM

I really feel commentators like O'Reilly are quite reasonable and make a genuine effort to defeat, well, "spin", but when someone like Sean Hannity distorts and defaces the core values of American conservatism, its simpl bothersome.

Yes, aside from stalking bloggers while they are on vacation, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oreilly-producer-stalks-a_n_178468.html) O'Reilly seems totally reasonable.

Homyrrh

03-24-2009, 04:04 PM

Yes, aside from stalking bloggers while they are on vacation, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oreilly-producer-stalks-a_n_178468.html) O'Reilly seems totally reasonable.
Really...who reads the Huffington Post? This makes FOX look like Local news at 5.

QUENTIN

03-24-2009, 04:58 PM

Really...who reads the Huffington Post? This makes FOX look like Local news at 5.

It does reflect poorly on Fox News and is an amateurish move, but... The Huffington Post has 4.5 million readers, The O'Reilly Factor has 3.5 million viewers. So a better question might be "Really...who watches The O'Reilly Factor?"*

*figures only available for daily viewers/monthly readers but both intend to represent individual consumers.

Homyrrh

03-24-2009, 08:35 PM

Indeed, so Bill O'Reilly gets nearly as many unique viewers in a night as Arianna "I've been here 30 years and still don't speak the language" Huffington gets in a month...

I meant what self-respecting, discerning individual can even hint at condemnation of FOX and take the Huffington Post seriously. Did anyone read the article? The HP makes FOX look as objective as Hellen Keller. Regardless of whether it even happened or how heinous FOX's actions were (apparent not Bill O'Reilly's), does anyone raise their intellectual guards at words like "frenzied, crackpotty, incoherent"...no?

What a joke...someone's going to condemn ANYTHING for being slanted and use the Huffington Post as their source? Amateur hour, shit...

someguy

03-25-2009, 12:26 AM

Even though the HuffPo v Factor is a bit of an aside to the main point of his show being bad, let me point out one thing which is that The Huffington Post does not claim it's an objective news source. It's entirely based on opinions/commentaries from a whole bunch of people and is much more about commentary than objective reporting. I believe that this has been stated from the beginning with Huffington Post.

On the other hand, Fox is a network that is mostly commentary but claims it's objective reporting. We all know that they pride themselves on that claim since they call their news 'fair and balanced.' The Factor coined the term 'no spin zone' for the program which flat out says that there will be no subjective twist on the news. We probably all know that everything about The Factor is Bill's personal opinions and commentary over events rather than actual reporting. I can see where you're coming from Homyrrh but I do want to clarify that Huffington Post has never claimed objectivity from what I know while Fox News and The Factor get a lot of their ridicule from others because of their claims of objectivity.

Badbird

03-25-2009, 01:51 AM

You can find a hundred versions of the same story; I just happened to link the Huffpo version.

Point is, O'Reilly is crazy and a story posted on Huffington Post doesn't make it untrue.

eljefe15

03-26-2009, 12:03 PM

Crazy Dud

03-27-2009, 08:32 PM

That's funny, I was just talking to my fiancee this morning about how if I had an opportunity to stab Bill O'Rielly I would. LOL! I really wouldn't mind if all of FAUX News and the rest of the "conservative" talking heads, including all mentioned in this thread, would sink deep into the ocean never to be seen again. What a world that would be!

Here is an open-minded individual, ready and willing to reach across party lines to solve our nation's problems! :rolleyes:

Fox News isn't fair and balanced, but NOTHING on TV is, so there's really no reason it should get singled out MORE than others.

Cop No. 633

03-27-2009, 09:12 PM

Here is an open-minded individual, ready and willing to reach across party lines to solve our nation's problems! :rolleyes:

Fox News isn't fair and balanced, but NOTHING on TV is, so there's really no reason it should get singled out MORE than others.

I guess if you rape somebody long enough they'll start to think it's great sex. If you're honestly trying to say that CNN or MSNBC is as bad as Fox, you should stop watching TV and read a damn newspaper or some online site. Fox is one of the biggest slaps in the face to the history of journalism.

Vong

03-27-2009, 10:48 PM

I can always find good journalsim in the BBC...and sometimes CTV.

Homyrrh

03-27-2009, 11:29 PM

I guess if you rape somebody long enough they'll start to think it's great sex. If you're honestly trying to say that CNN or MSNBC is as bad as Fox, you should stop watching TV and read a damn newspaper or some online site. Fox is one of the biggest slaps in the face to the history of journalism.
CNN's a non-issue. The station thrives on news-reporting and objective analysis much more than either FOX or MSNBC with their strong emphases on their high-profile pundits. Bret Baier, FOX's primetime nightly news anchor, leans as far as Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric...and Bill O'Reilly has an opinion and gets paid $15 million a year to give it. More people watch him express this than any other cable news show. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann, in my opinion a fuming volcano of communism, can only be legitimate as a pundit. Ultimately, claiming some bias for either side is an emotional complaint rather than an educated deduction. FOX isn't biased because it has a bunch of conservative or traditionalist pundits, much like MSNBC, rife with lefty loons, can't be called biased simpyl because their pundits have opinions. It all boils to ratings. FOX kills NBC and CNN in ratings, and they'll obviously maintain the status quo to keep that spot.

Then, of course, there's the New York Times...

Cop No. 633

03-28-2009, 12:10 AM

CNN's a non-issue. The station thrives on news-reporting and objective analysis much more than either FOX or MSNBC with their strong emphases on their high-profile pundits. Bret Baier, FOX's primetime nightly news anchor, leans as far as Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric...and Bill O'Reilly has an opinion and gets paid $15 million a year to give it. More people watch him express this than any other cable news show. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann, in my opinion a fuming volcano of communism, can only be legitimate as a pundit. Ultimately, claiming some bias for either side is an emotional complaint rather than an educated deduction. FOX isn't biased because it has a bunch of conservative or traditionalist pundits, much like MSNBC, rife with lefty loons, can't be called biased simpyl because their pundits have opinions. It all boils to ratings. FOX kills NBC and CNN in ratings, and they'll obviously maintain the status quo to keep that spot.

Then, of course, there's the New York Times...

I'm not speaking from personal bias. I don't even watch MSNBC. I can watch both programs and see where their bias comes into play, but to even say that it's in the same league as Fox is just plain ignorance. Apart from having pundits who like to flaunt their political leanings and say the most asinine statements in the news world, you've got somebody like Murdoch sending memos and talking points about what hot right wing issues to discuss and how to manipulate their viewers.

I tend to stay away from TV reporting in general simply because I want to hear the news, not some guy's opinion on what he thinks about the news. I don't care if its Olbermann or O'Reilly or Hannity.

Ratings as far as I'm concerned mean nothing. Fox is conservative because the people that own the company have their own agendas and they know what average right wingers want to hear. Same with MSNBC, they noticed a lot of left leaning people getting angry at Fox's bias so they upped their ante. But overall, I think it's the viewers that lose because the news shouldn't be a warring game of ideologies. It should just say what is happening and not present each piece of news as another tactic to use against the right or left.

Then again, people in this country can be dense so maybe they really need to be told how to feel about certain news bytes.

eljefe15

03-28-2009, 01:56 AM

The Heart Collector

03-28-2009, 03:27 AM

Fox News isn't fair and balanced, but NOTHING on TV is, so there's really no reason it should get singled out MORE than others.

Fox News gets singled out more because it is shittier. The other channels are bad, but there's at least a semi-facade of credibility. Fox News is openly a tabloid. It is not only that it is not fair and balanced (nothing is), it's that it is incredibly stupid.

eljefe15

03-28-2009, 04:27 PM

Fox News gets singled out more because it is shittier. The other channels are bad, but there's at least a semi-facade of credibility. Fox News is openly a tabloid. It is not only that it is not fair and balanced (nothing is), it's that it is incredibly stupid.

Yes but it goes far beyond stupidity, ignorance, or conservative politics. Most FAUX talking heads say that "libruls" attack their shows because we disagree with them. Yes, it is true that I disagree with most if not all of their pseudo "points." But that doesn't mean that I agree with all of what comes out of MSNBC or that I think that they are unbiased. For example, I like and respect Chris Mathews both as a journalist and as a person. But when he said on air that he was going to do everything he could to "make [Obama Presidency] work," I cringed. Not just because it's biased commentating...(And actually I think journalist should have a point of view, but a point of few supported by facts, figures and critical thinking)...but because I thought that his man love for Obama would cloud his reasoning and inhibit him from asking the tough questions. But that hasn't happened yet and I'm happy about that. But I digress. The biggest problem that I have with FAUX News commentators is that they're douche bags, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with their asinine points of view or their biased, all most treasonous politics. It has to do with their disrespect for people that disagree with them and the people they represent (RNC, conservatives, etc.). Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow and especially Keith Olbermann are biased (rightfully so) and ask tough questions in a tough manner (sometimes) but they are not douche bags, especially not to their guests that share an opposing point of view. You never hear them verbally attack one of their guests or get into some shouting match while waving a finger at them calling them a "coward." And their commentating usually ends with attacking a policy or political position of a public figure. Never, that I can remember, have I witnessed any of them comment on the personal life or something beyond politics of policy unless it is used to expose the hypocrisy of the person they are commenting on. On the other hand, FAUX News people, and I used this term loosely, not so much.

Crazy Dud

03-30-2009, 02:59 AM

Yes but it goes far beyond stupidity, ignorance, or conservative politics. Most FAUX talking heads say that "libruls" attack their shows because we disagree with them. Yes, it is true that I disagree with most if not all of their pseudo "points." But that doesn't mean that I agree with all of what comes out of MSNBC or that I think that they are unbiased. For example, I like and respect Chris Mathews both as a journalist and as a person. But when he said on air that he was going to do everything he could to "make [Obama Presidency] work," I cringed. Not just because it's biased commentating...(And actually I think journalist should have a point of view, but a point of few supported by facts, figures and critical thinking)...but because I thought that his man love for Obama would cloud his reasoning and inhibit him from asking the tough questions. But that hasn't happened yet and I'm happy about that. But I digress. The biggest problem that I have with FAUX News commentators is that they're douche bags, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with their asinine points of view or their biased, all most treasonous politics. It has to do with their disrespect for people that disagree with them and the people they represent (RNC, conservatives, etc.). Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow and especially Keith Olbermann are biased (rightfully so) and ask tough questions in a tough manner (sometimes) but they are not douche bags, especially not to their guests that share an opposing point of view. You never hear them verbally attack one of their guests or get into some shouting match while waving a finger at them calling them a "coward." And their commentating usually ends with attacking a policy or political position of a public figure. Never, that I can remember, have I witnessed any of them comment on the personal life or something beyond politics of policy unless it is used to expose the hypocrisy of the person they are commenting on. On the other hand, FAUX News people, and I used this term loosely, not so much.

Everything you just said about Fox News I ALSO see in MSNBC. As Homyrrh said, it's all about ratings. It's about the almighty dollar, so both stations play to their respective groups. They both do the same thing, they just play to a different audience. Your opinion here is blatantly partisan.

Cop No. 633

03-30-2009, 04:28 AM

Your opinion here is blatantly partisan too. And you're reason that "every news network is crooked too" doesn't excuse the fact that Fox is the worst culprit of them all in terms of misleading news and leaving their viewers misinformed.

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

Check out this link. The study was done two years ago, but it still doesn't dismiss that Fox is terrible at doing their job. You trying to defend Fox News is like saying, "Yeah, Bush was corrupt, but so was every other President! What's the big deal?"

Can you at least speak in specifics and not generalities? I suggest you read Outfoxed or watch the documentary. It'll give you some insight as to how Rupert Murdoch's little news network is run.

Have you ever seen an MSNBC correspondent outright tell one of their speakers to shut up? To cut off their microphone? Or anything of that sort? I'm curious. Around here, we call that bullying, not journalism.

Homyrrh

03-30-2009, 07:47 AM

eljefe15

03-30-2009, 02:40 PM

Everything you just said about Fox News I ALSO see in MSNBC. As Homyrrh said, it's all about ratings. It's about the almighty dollar, so both stations play to their respective groups. They both do the same thing, they just play to a different audience. Your opinion here is blatantly partisan.

Well you don't get any more partisan that "Fuck FAUX News." I never claimed not to be partisan. But can you show me video evidence where Mathews, Olbermann or Maddow verbally attack a guest or get into some shouting match or call their guest names. I don't understand how you can claim "everything" I mentioned in my post about FUAX News. That's just ridiculous.

Cop No. 633

03-30-2009, 02:41 PM

Criminal Rock

03-30-2009, 07:56 PM

While only somewhat relevant, yet still in support of the ratings argument on either side, I've always found it excruciatingly ironic that Family Guy, perhaps the most liberal comedy ever (or at least on right now), has a primetime slot on Rupert Murdoch's network.

And that has nothing to do with the quote/unquote 'bipartisanship' of Fox News, or Rupert Murdoch, since the only reason why Family Guy airs on their network in prime time is because it has a huge following and it makes a shit load of money...

More to the point, there is no question that Fox News' reporting contains editorializing that caters to the republican party, and MSNBC to the democratic party (and CNN to both)... most journalists would tell you that's to be expected. But as a person who has watched all three major networks for the last 10 or 11 years, I can say from anecdotal experience that Fox News is the most biased news I have ever watched.

If only this dude made video's like this of all the content released on Fox News...

1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=5)
2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riGXuhwLYVI&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=8)
3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clupshL6U1k&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=39)
4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN823dUu6KA&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=47)
5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXjFHDu_yj0&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=63)

Homyrrh

03-31-2009, 01:09 PM

Oh man, that undoes everything about Fox News being the worst source of news. I guess it's okay as long as Murdoch only cares about ratings. Come on guys, it's just like how Hearst only wanted to get more readers for his paper, so we should let yellow journalism slide. In fact, we should all applaud for Murdoch's network and how it keeps dumbing down Americans because hey, he makes billions of dollars a year, and we should all respect that. Right?

The fact that Family Guy is on Fox is the proof that Murdoch only cares about ratings.

And that has nothing to do with the quote/unquote 'bipartisanship' of Fox News, or Rupert Murdoch, since the only reason why Family Guy airs on their network in prime time is because it has a huge following and it makes a shit load of money...

More to the point, there is no question that Fox News' reporting contains editorializing that caters to the republican party, and MSNBC to the democratic party (and CNN to both)... most journalists would tell you that's to be expected. But as a person who has watched all three major networks for the last 10 or 11 years, I can say from anecdotal experience that Fox News is the most biased news I have ever watched.

If only this dude made video's like this of all the content released on Fox News...

1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=5)
2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riGXuhwLYVI&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=8)
3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clupshL6U1k&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=39)
4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN823dUu6KA&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=47)
5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXjFHDu_yj0&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=63)

I don't quite understand the condecension or dissent, as both of you have either agreed with me and sensationalized what I had said. My first words noted my remarks were both off-topic and only a support (i.e. -- not )proof") that FOX is indeed a ratings-driven network. I do not see Murdoch with more to gain from pandering to the right than simply to money.

eljefe15

03-31-2009, 01:50 PM

And that has nothing to do with the quote/unquote 'bipartisanship' of Fox News, or Rupert Murdoch, since the only reason why Family Guy airs on their network in prime time is because it has a huge following and it makes a shit load of money...

More to the point, there is no question that Fox News' reporting contains editorializing that caters to the republican party, and MSNBC to the democratic party (and CNN to both)... most journalists would tell you that's to be expected. But as a person who has watched all three major networks for the last 10 or 11 years, I can say from anecdotal experience that Fox News is the most biased news I have ever watched.

If only this dude made video's like this of all the content released on Fox News...

1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=5)
2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riGXuhwLYVI&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=8)
3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clupshL6U1k&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=39)
4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN823dUu6KA&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=47)
5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXjFHDu_yj0&feature=PlayList&p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&index=63)

Liberal Viewer is awesome. Best political commentating on youtube, IMO.

I don't quite understand the condecension or dissent, as both of you have either agreed with me and sensationalized what I had said. My first words noted my remarks were both off-topic and only a support (i.e. -- not )proof") that FOX is indeed a ratings-driven network. I do not see Murdoch with more to gain from pandering to the right than simply to money.

Of course FAUX News is ratings driven. Murdoch has let it be known that he is not necessarily a fan of Bill O'Reilly. So why does he not fire him? Money. Where's the news here?

Homyrrh

03-31-2009, 03:19 PM

Liberal Viewer is awesome. Best political commentating on youtube, IMO.

Of course FAUX News is ratings driven. Murdoch has let it be known that he is not necessarily a fan of Bill O'Reilly. So why does he not fire him? Money. Where's the news here?
Again...I think my original message is either being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I said FOX's prime directive is ratings and, subsequently, money. The pundits are all conservative or traditionalist, but Rupert Murdoch cares much less about politics than money. I'd endorse Chris Matthews if the check were big enough (well, within the bounds of reason and the law, etc.). I just pointed out Family Guy as an interesting example of this....Seth McFarlane bleeds blue, but Murdoch couldn't care less because he makes the latter a shitload of green.

Then I got two or three posts saying I was an idiot because I tried to refute any and all bias for news reporting, etc....

Brando @$$ Fat

03-31-2009, 03:46 PM

I said FOX's prime directive is ratings and, subsequently, money. The pundits are all conservative or traditionalist, but Rupert Murdoch cares much less about politics than money. I'd endorse Chris Matthews if the check were big enough (well, within the bounds of reason and the law, etc.). I just pointed out Family Guy as an interesting example of this....Seth McFarlane bleeds blue, but Murdoch couldn't care less because he makes the latter a shitload of green.

I agree. It really is about money for them, but it's interesting you bring up Chris Matthews, who really isn't much ideologically different from anyone at Fox. There is a strong Machiavellian undertone in what he writes, as well as an ubercapitalist, greed-mongering one.

Homyrrh

03-31-2009, 05:22 PM

I agree. It really is about money for them, but it's interesting you bring up Chris Matthews, who really isn't much ideologically different from anyone at Fox. There is a strong Machiavellian undertone in what he writes, as well as an ubercapitalist, greed-mongering one.
Yeah, but I was just referring to the Obama fever he seemed to have durign the campaign (i.e. - "knees quaking" quote, etc.). Perhaps not the best example, but using Keith Olbermann seemed a bit extreme ;)

Criminal Rock

03-31-2009, 05:48 PM

I don't quite understand the condecension or dissent, as both of you have either agreed with me and sensationalized what I had said. My first words noted my remarks were both off-topic and only a support (i.e. -- not )proof") that FOX is indeed a ratings-driven network. I do not see Murdoch with more to gain from pandering to the right than simply to money.

First off, I wasn't sure what you meant when you said "ratings argument" and if it even had anything to do with the topic of Fox News' biased reporting. I assumed it did simply because that's what every other schmoe seemed to be focused on before you posted. Either way, the point you intended to make still doesn't make sense as every single network is by default ratings [money] driven, not just Rupert Murdoch/News Corp, and not just Fox News...

Rupert might love ratings [money] more than anything else in the whole world, but that's a moot point when considering the facts... he owns and funds one the most biased cable news channels on TV, so I personally don't care if he has the rights to Family Guy because that doesn't take away from the facts that matter.

Cop No. 633

03-31-2009, 06:56 PM

First off, I wasn't sure what you meant when you said "ratings argument" and if it even had anything to do with the topic of Fox News' biased reporting. I assumed it did simply because that's what every other schmoe seemed to be focused on before you posted. Either way, the point you intended to make still doesn't make sense as every single network is by default ratings [money] driven, not just Rupert Murdoch/News Corp, and not just Fox News...

Rupert might love ratings [money] more than anything else in the whole world, but that's a moot point when considering the facts... he owns and funds one the most biased cable news channels on TV, so I personally don't care if he has the rights to Family Guy because that doesn't take away from the facts that matter.

QFT.

I apologize for me being so harsh Homyrrh. I just feel that saying, "It's only about ratings..." is short sighted and extremely obvious like Tai Mai Jew pointed out. You can use that for any argument involving a TV show. Murdoch may own Fox. They may broadcast Family Guy, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he and other head honchos would personally send memos regarding what news to broadcast on the FNC. If it was only about ratings, he would simply let them do as they please and go fly to the Bahamas, but because he does have a personal interest in what they show, it's further proof that he does have an agenda outside of only ratings.

It doesn't excuse the fact that the FNC is misinforming their viewers, making them more ignorant, and pandering to their religion and views. They are the most biased program. To say CNN is just as bad is not true. How many times have you ever seen pundits on any other news channel tell their interview subjects to shut up or cut them off as often as Fox pundits?

At the very least, we can both agree that Hannity is an ass twat. I loved the chapter on Lies by Al Franken where he shows a graph that Hannity had in his book that makes no sense and then fixes it for him in the book. I found that incredibly amusing and truthful about the kind of brain Hannity has.

Brando @$$ Fat

03-31-2009, 08:40 PM

Yeah, but I was just referring to the Obama fever he seemed to have durign the campaign (i.e. - "knees quaking" quote, etc.). Perhaps not the best example, but using Keith Olbermann seemed a bit extreme ;)

Olbermann also used to work for Fox. Funny how the world works. Pretty much every pundit mentioned here I find to be condescending (O'Reilly, Olbermann), disturbing (Beck), stupid (Hannity), annoying (Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann), etc.

I know he's not a "pundit," but I would like to throw his name out there anyway while we're at it... Has anyone here actually read anything by Thomas Friedman that didn't make you want to poke your eyes out? Every time there's a panel on CNN they'll bring up something that Thomas Friedman said...as if it's some sort of guiding light of wisdom.

Homyrrh

04-01-2009, 01:05 AM

Olbermann also used to work for Fox. Funny how the world works. Pretty much every pundit mentioned here I find to be condescending (O'Reilly, Olbermann), disturbing (Beck), stupid (Hannity), annoying (Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Olbermann), etc.

I know he's not a "pundit," but I would like to throw his name out there anyway while we're at it... Has anyone here actually read anything by Thomas Friedman that didn't make you want to poke your eyes out? Every time there's a panel on CNN they'll bring up something that Thomas Friedman said...as if it's some sort of guiding light of wisdom.
He's resident Messiah at the NY Times...well, at least one of 'em.

Crazy Dud

04-01-2009, 02:29 AM

I was simply trying to say that calling one network MORE biased than another is simply splitting hairs. In other words, bias is bias. Who cares if one is MORE biased than the other? I NEVER defended Fox News. I don't like Fox News. However, I feel the attacks it receives are mostly partisan in nature, just as most attacks on MSNBC are. It's divisive and I don't see how this discussion in its current form could possibly be productive.

If, however, we acknowledge the fact that true journalism is more or less dead in this country, we can discuss why that is and how it came to be, and, maybe, just maybe, discuss ways in which it could be changed. That would be much more productive.

And, BTW, I have seen Outfoxed. It's about as objective a documentary as anything by Michael Moore. In other words, it's a joke, and another example of divisiveness.

ArtFactoryRadio

04-08-2009, 03:19 PM

I'll defend meritless jabs at FOX with fortitude. Its news reporting is as unbiased as CNN, and its pundits, while overtly conservative and/or "traditionalist", still maintain a presentation of facts without bias. Primarily, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, while perhaps hard to digest in their demeanor, are very often reasonable commentators.

I really feel commentators like O'Reilly are quite reasonable and make a genuine effort to defeat, well, "spin", but when someone like Sean Hannity distorts and defaces the core values of American conservatism, its simpl bothersome.

I'm curious how exactly you came to the conclusion that Bill O'Reilly is unbiased? If you compare him to propagandists from communist Russia circa 1955, then yes he is unbiased in comparison to that, but he spins things just as much as Keith Olbermann, just in the opposite direction. You need go no further for proof of that than newshounds.us They monitor Fox News on a daily basis for conservative spinning.

I'm not saying CNN is any better, I'm just saying you probably like Fox because you are an admitted conservative, and that is exactly who they cater to. They're going to appear non-bias if they're saying things the way you want to hear them.

Just like people who love Michael Moore movies think he is non-bias.

We're better off if we just admit why we like what we like. You can gather from this that I am fairly liberal, and I tend to go to liberal sources for my news, but I like to watch Fox from time to time to know how the conservative side is ticking.