The fact that you are so immune to the notion that Fox could possibly give fair coverage, or any coverage, of the protestors, speaks volumes about your own partisan biases.
I'm "immune" to it like I am in believing aliens exist: I've never seen any proof! Show me where they are being Fair & Balanced. Not "This is where they are being fair, because the truth is the Liberal Media lies, and this is what's really happening" or anything. Simply point to a clip, and I will watch it. It's just that simple.
You've never seen proof because you're prejudicially biased to the point that you never watch Fox News to know one way or the other!
Why didn't they air this one, then? If they're "fair and balanced", as you and others suggest, then what did it matter if they aired this? You claim it's fantasy and all, but I think it's truth. It's a sad, painful truth that we've all been taken advantage of by our government and corrupt corporations.
I don't know why they didn't air it. They may have aired it and I just didn't see it.
No, it was never aired. That's the thing that made it stand out. The Daily Show aired it from the YouTube segment that was loaded up.
And you know this because you personally observed that Fox News never aired it.
The same Fox News you never watch.
But they certainly didn't avoid airing it because this guy presented any facts or persuasive argument of the protests, or the evils of conservatism, or the evils of Fox news.
Like Herman Cain, they didn't ask him for any facts. They asked his opinion, and why he was out there, and what it all meant to him. He took the opportunity to answer that, explain his opinion, and challenge Mister "Fair & Balanced" to explain the discrepancies of the organization he represents. I mean, why do people attack Olberman when they rail against the Liberal slant of MSNBC? Because he's the face. This reporter was the face. He asked questions, the guy answered, and he obviously embarrassed the management enough for them not to air it. Facts.
Griff Jenkins (if I even got his name fully correct) is a tiny speck on the wall at Fox news. He doesn't have a daily show, he isn't a newsdesk anchor. I doubt the liberal snot being interviewed knew who he was, beyond the fact that he was holding a Fox microphone!
The liberal snot didn't "ask him questions", he just vented a bunch of rapid-fire one-liners at Jenkins ranting about Fox News, evil Republican responsibility for the Wall Street collapse.
(Despite that Dodd, Frank, Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other Dems made up the largest recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac donations. Despite that Franklin Raines led Fannie Mae over the cliff, and then was on Obama's vice presidential selection committee.
Despite that Wall Street firms --
the ostensible source of the protests-- supported not the Republicans, but their
largest donations ever made were to Barack Obama.)
And as the unemployment and insolvency deepens (post 2008)... he blames Republicans?!? NON-SEQUITOR!
For example, "Glenn Beck called the president a racist". If you were a regular Glenn Beck viewer (and that is probably the show i watched most frequently on Fox) you would have seen one day Beck presenting facts of Obama's specific actions related to social justice and black liberation theology, where he said "I'm sorry, but putting these facts together, I can only come to the conclusion that Obama is a racist". Which even in that context he said factually and respectfully, and it was clear he was presenting it as his opinion on the facts as he knew them. But the very next day on his own show, and later in the week on O'Reilly and other shows, Beck apologized and said that at that moment he saw it that way, but now Obama's motivations are clearly ideological (socialism, anti-colonialism) and not racial. This demonstrator misrepresents Beck to hold the eternal opinion that Obama is a racist. But in truth Beck only voiced that opinion for at most a day, as he wrestled with the facts as they became known about Obama.
I understand what you are saying. He's attacking Glenn Beck for something Beck apologized for already. Got it. Here's the problem with that entire scenario, though: Glenn Beck is a public figure. He's about on level with John Stewart when it comes to being an "informed political pundit", as he's way too much of a cartoon to be taken seriously. Any man who sits there and cries on camera for ratings is, in my book, a comedian. So, Glenn Beck said Obama was a racist. Then, a day later after "much hand-wringing" apologized about it, saying he hadn't thought it all out. Okay. Let's just ignore that it's almost a transparent ratings ploy. Beck would have said "God loves Martians" if he thought it would get his show the same amount of press coverage. He apologizes so as to not have any long-term repercussions for it. Thereby, allowing him to say something shocking, and then be able to deny any accusations of misconduct by 'I said I was sorry'. Thus, negating any Leftist point to make with it. It is, honestly, brilliant. He's a master at what he does. No doubts. I even caught a few episodes of his CNN show everyone forgets about. I stopped watching because, even though he was positively restrained on boring CNN, he was still a bit too theatrical to take seriously.
All of that said, Glenn Beck said it. He's a public figure. He, you, and anyone might could easily say 'He said he was sorry'. But it doesn't change the fact that he called the President of the United States of America a racist on live television. No more than it does Hank Williams Jr calling him 'Hitler'. You can neither be surprised or claim outrage at The Left when they use it to point to what FOX allows on air. All under the banner of "Fair & Balanced".
So basically, because Beck said it once and corrected himself within 24 hours when he clarified with the known facts that changed his opinion, it's still okay to slander Beck as having the permanent opinion that Obama is a racist.
Got it.
Because Beck is a public figure --a CONSERVATIVE public figure-- it's perfectly okay to smear and misrepresent him, despite the clear facts that Beck made the correction after less than a day, over two years ago.
Got it.
I'm certain you'd have a very different opinion if these same tactics were used on a liberal.
And that's just one --ONE!-- of the deliberate distortions this weenie liberal snot unleashed on Jenkins, rapid-fire.
Similarly, each of the points raised by this shithead protestor can be disproven. He espoused a lot of highly opinionated opinion, that you obviously agree with beforehand, in the absence of any facts presented.
Okay then, disprove them. I'm not going anywhere. Prove him wrong.
I already deconstructed the Beck one, and at least explained the interviewed weenie snot guy's tactics of rapid-fire distortions, that it takes hundreds of words to explain the context of and deconstruct. Slander tactics, that a video interview would require 30 minutes to defuse with the facts.
And then you'd just bypass the points made and say :yawn:
And you further enjoy that --your opinion-- he "PWN'D", or whatever, Fox News. All I see is a snot with no facts being a jerk.
Oh I said he "spanked" FOX News. And he did. Jerk or not, that happened.
No, it didn't.
It was too factless to be any kind of a serious "spanking".
It was just brat-noise. The kind of absolute excrement garbage the far-left loves and everyone else hates.
Now, go out and really look at FOX News, read as many diverse takes on the subject as possible, and then ask yourself: How can you be part of 90% of the world that believes in a God, and simultaneously one of the 10% of the world that believes FOX News is actually, honestly unbiased?
Because of your own biases against Fox.
Re-read what I said. Your response doesn't make any sense.
The 90% opposed to Fox -vs.- 10% support Fox are numbers you just pulled out of your ass. And they are wishful thinking.
Fox News is tremendously influential on public opinion, because a majority of the nation is center-Right.
I posted a Gallup poll (liberal polling group, by the way) about a year ago (and I believe G-Man, BSAMS and others have posted similar polls year after year) that people who identify as conservative outnumber people who identify as liberal by about 2-to-1, with a large group of independents who are likewise center-Right.
The fact is, Fox is the highest rated cable news network, for like 10 years. And those numbers have only increased since Obama became president, and more viewers have rejected the partisan coverage of the other networks.
What does "ratings" have to do with being "Fair & Balanced" or unbiased? If you claim is that people who hate Obama watch FOX because it's "Fair & Balanced", I am going to have to laugh at you. Come on, David. Stare at what's right in front of your face! If people who hate Obama watch FOX News....it's because FOX is slanted towards hating Obama! People that have a strong enough opinion to dislike someone aren't going to try and find a channel that disagrees with them, even "neutrally". They're going to find a channel that supports the position they have already created in their mind. "I hate Obama! Fox hates Obama! I like Fox!" That math is obvious to 90% of the planet. Think about the religious analogy I made, and you will understand how anyone gasps at you when you try and prop FOX News up as the epitome of journalistic integrity.
The fact that Fox News is the highest rated cable news service indicates a large number of people who have watched various channels, and have chosen Fox as the one they trust to consistently provide them the facts that other channels are not providing them.
O'Reilly has been the highest rated cable program for 10 years!
And another fact you choose to gloss over is that many who choose to watch Fox are independents and liberals, not just the conservative base. O'Reilly presents these stats regularly on his program.
It is only relative to other networks' partisan coverage that Fox --relative to the other networks-- is more conservatively biased.
Again, that's recursive logic. FOX only "appears" biased because others actually are? Jeez man. Come on.
You deliberately evaded my point.
The Center for Journalistic excellence reported that Fox News had dead even positive stories for both Obama and McCain. 40% each.
The other networks were all 30 to 60% askew in favor of Obama:
The Pew (PEJ) report for the 2008 election cycle is out.
Among the findings?
FOX NEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the 2008 presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didn't release the latter three network's numbers. Keep in mind, while Pew bills itself as Independent, it certainly leans to the left, which is probably why they didn't release all the numbers. God forbid they stated Fox News was the most fair of any television network, as it's doubtful any network bested the Fox numbers below since the Fox positive/negative are almost a perfect match. Interestingly, while they released the numbers for MSNBC and FOX, they didn't release individual CNN numbers, choosing to say it closely reflected the "Total Coverage" numbers below, putting it somewhere between MSNBC and FOX.
The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?
BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%
WORST (MSDNC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%
TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%
[url=
http://www.yelp.com/redir?url=http%3A%2F...c77e566c438]the complete Pew study[/url]
That doesn't correlate with me. The 10% state that FOX is "fair and balanced". But, they never seem to be able to point to anything to prove it. Whereas, I can show you this:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:398771" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-3-2011/moment-of-zen---gretchen-carlson-on-roseanne-barr">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
Not to mention the video above they didn't air.Be serious!
You show a 20-second out of context clip from the Daily Show (a clearly liberal centerpiece of clearly liberal network that never misses an opportunity to bash Fox News, or to bash Republicans in general as ignorant backward inbred so-and-so's) and that's supposed to prove something? (Beyond your own prejudices, going to comedy central to look up clips that support your preconcieved biases?
Re-watch it again. She's lambasting Rosie O'Donnell (and I don't blame her, trust me, because Rosie is an fat, ignorant cunt) who supports Occupy Wall Street, because she supports Occupy Wall Street, asking why ANYONE would listen to celebrities. "One Hour Later", on the very same show, all of a sudden they're welcoming Hank Williams, Jr. as a wonderful, great celebrity to "get his take" on the politics of the day. And we all know how that went, don't we? That right there is hypocrisy. It's not like she was creating her own opinion on the air when it came to Rosie, either. That's not how TV works. Not even in the Golden Land of Fair & Balanced. That was the company line, and she towed it. But, the moment a "celebrity" that they agree with politically comes on? Oh, that's okay. That's fair. That's balanced. Right?
Where was the patriotic outrage from FOX when HWjr did the Hitler thing? You would call someone like that a "socialist, marxist, etc." if a Liberal made such a remark about a Republican President (and you did...all the Right did...on many occasions under Bush, Jr). Like I said, hypocrisy.
As I already detailed, on later broadcasts, every Fox News program I watched made fun of Williams Jr., and basically said this is why we don't look to celebrities for political opinion.
You showed 20 seconds of snipped video in a carefully selected anti-Fox liberal context, with no attempt to see how Williams Jr was called on his idiocy on commentary after commentary on Fox News.
But again, you wouldn't know. Because you prejudicially never watch Fox News, except in edited clips from rabidly liberal sites who perpetuate your own prejudices.
God forbid you should ever expose yourself to Fox news in unedited form and dare to think for yourself.
But I also often post other sources, and still watch the News Hour.
An example of PBS bias from 2 days ago:
FOX NEWS: Sen McConnell on the Senate floor, answering Obama's calls for a vote on his Jobs Bill, said okay, right now, let's have a vote! But Harry Reid tabled the bill, because he knows that it not only faces opposition from Republicans, but because a majority of Democrat Senators won't vote for it either. So rather than lose, Reid tabled the bill.
PBS NEWS HOUR (Kwame Holman, same story) Sen Mitchell answered Obama's call for a vote on his Jobs Bill saying let's vote on it today. Sen Reid said elected not to vote on the Jobs Bill, because he said there was other pressing legislation that was a greater priority...
Do you see the difference? Fox gave the proper perspective of what was really at stake and that the bill did not have Democrat support. And PBS just completely glossed over and selectively omitted that important part of the story!
I am not, and never HAVE argued that the media doesn't slant Liberal. I've said repeatedly that it's obvious to anyone that MSNBC is Hard Left, FOX is Hard Right, and CNN is just useless. The flaw in reasoning that I question in you, is that you see it: MSNBC is Hard Left, CNN is Hard Left, PBS is Hard Left, Nickelodeon is Hard Left, MTV is Hard Left, The Home Shopping Network is Hard Left, and FOX News is absolutely Fair & Balanced. How can you choose to see the hypocrisy in Liberal media, and completely ignore it in FOX?
I don't have to search for clips, it's right there for you to see, 24 hours a day.
And until someone can show me proof it's Fair & Balanced, like you champion, I will not bother in trying to watch it...
That's idiotic.
Like I said, how will you ever know, if you never watch it firsthand, to judge for yourself? I don't like 100% of what any news channel presents. But I see a lot of "fair and balanced" on Fox. The fact that so many feel such a burning need to demonize Fox, for just presenting a conservative POV, in addition to the dominant liberal POV on the other networks, is just testament to the intolerant liberal prejudice against Fox.
