OT: NEWSFLASH!!! Faux News is biased
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
and balanced. Some of you clueless clowns actually think Faux News is
unbiased, and all other media have a liberal bias.
Well, now Faux News' London Bureau Chief has let the cat out of the bag.
Faux News is biased, after all. Who woulda thunk it?
Fox News Admits Bias!
Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak
its name.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 9:40 AM PT
Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a
drill. Repeat: This is not a drill. Assume battle stations! Fire in the
hole! A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga!
The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that
their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade
is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to
trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon
trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually
believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for
steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year,
for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its
news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the
Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most
prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no
small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we
can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could
admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.
Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask
slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been
contained, because Norvell's comments-in an op-ed he wrote decrying
left-wing bias at the BBC-appeared only in the Journal's European edition.
But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and
often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed
the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take
solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of
the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open
about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People
watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's
institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was
a little more honest about it.
Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's
anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know .
they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of
Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized
by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the
bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death
should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes
is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous
belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's
so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he
literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)
I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to compare Norvell's op-ed to
the Vatican's belated admission, after 359 years, that Galileo had it right
when he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now how about a prime time
seppuku by Fox News chief Roger Ailes? Failing that, maybe ABC News could
lend Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer for Ailes' weepy confession. Hey,
there, funny face, where's the broken-winged sparrow underneath that
tough-guy exterior? Fox News has little to lose in terms of
credibility-sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years
ago-and everything to gain in terms of heightened visibility. Say it with
me, Roger: "Eppur si muove!" Doesn't that feel good?
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
"7/2 is a rasing hand" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1117584987$523...@recpoker.com...
> If thats true lets put that one in the FAIR column unlike the Commie News
> Network and their pack of liberals spouting left wing garbage in the name
of
> objectivity.
Your screen name is about as accurate as your statement.
"Commie News Network and their pack of liberals spouting left wing garbage
in the name of objectivity."
You are suffering from a serious mental illness and should check yourself
into the nearest psychiatric facility immediately. CNN is right of center.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
Porsche N Guns
I agree that FNC is biased towards conservatism
Now to clue you in:
(Nielsen data during the period March 1st 2004 to March 1st 2005) FNC averaged
1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18% from the same period last year, while
CNN fell 21% to 637,000 viewers from the same time period. CNN primetime
stalwarts "Larry King Live," "Wolf Blitzer Reports," "Lou Dobbs Tonight," "Paula
Zahn Now" and "Newsnight With Aaron Brown" all suffered double-digit declines,
while "Anderson Cooper 360" was up slightly, by 2%.
MSNBC declined 15% overall and 14% in primetime, while financial news channel
CNBC declined 23% overall and 42% in primetime
FNC had primetime increases across the board, led by Van Susteren at 10 p.m.,
"Hannity & Colmes" up 19%, and "Special Report With Brit Hume" rising 20%.
"O'Reilly Factor," cable news' most-watched program, with 2.4 million viewers,
was up 9%.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
"Porsche N Guns" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1117589847$523...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> I agree that FNC is biased towards conservatism
>
> Now to clue you in:
>
> (Nielsen data during the period March 1st 2004 to March 1st 2005) FNC
averaged
> 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18% from the same period last year,
while
> CNN fell 21% to 637,000 viewers from the same time period. CNN primetime
> stalwarts "Larry King Live," "Wolf Blitzer Reports," "Lou Dobbs Tonight,"
"Paula
> Zahn Now" and "Newsnight With Aaron Brown" all suffered double-digit
declines,
> while "Anderson Cooper 360" was up slightly, by 2%.
>
> MSNBC declined 15% overall and 14% in primetime, while financial news
channel
> CNBC declined 23% overall and 42% in primetime
>
> FNC had primetime increases across the board, led by Van Susteren at 10
p.m.,
> "Hannity & Colmes" up 19%, and "Special Report With Brit Hume" rising 20%.
> "O'Reilly Factor," cable news' most-watched program, with 2.4 million
viewers,
> was up 9%.
Do you work in the Faux Public Relations Department? Many of your posts
read just like press releases from that department.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
ChrisRobin
On May 31 2005 8:37 PM, Porsche N Guns wrote:
> I agree that FNC is biased towards conservatism
>
> Now to clue you in:
>
> (Nielsen data during the period March 1st 2004 to March 1st 2005) FNC averaged
> 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18% from the same period last year,
> while
> CNN fell 21% to 637,000 viewers from the same time period. CNN primetime
> stalwarts "Larry King Live," "Wolf Blitzer Reports," "Lou Dobbs Tonight,"
> "Paula
> Zahn Now" and "Newsnight With Aaron Brown" all suffered double-digit declines,
> while "Anderson Cooper 360" was up slightly, by 2%.
>
> MSNBC declined 15% overall and 14% in primetime, while financial news channel
> CNBC declined 23% overall and 42% in primetime
>
> FNC had primetime increases across the board, led by Van Susteren at 10 p.m.,
> "Hannity & Colmes" up 19%, and "Special Report With Brit Hume" rising 20%.
> "O'Reilly Factor," cable news' most-watched program, with 2.4 million viewers,
> was up 9%.
You are obsessed with Fox's ratings, Matt. Do you really have to post them
again, seeing as they have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand? It's
funny - you can't be bothered to post attributions to most of the
unsubstantiated crap you post, but when Fox News is the topic, you fall all over
yourself to prove that you are not the only idiot watching.
Yes, Fox News is popular among idiots. Yes, Fox News is the main source of
infotainment and biased opinion for many idiots in this country. Yes, you idiots
outnumber us.
And yes, even though you idiots outnumber us, that does not mean that you aren't
still full of shit.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
mo_charles
> again, seeing as they have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand?
It's
> funny - you can't be bothered to post attributions to most of the
> unsubstantiated crap you post, but when Fox News is the topic, you fall all
over
> yourself to prove that you are not the only idiot watching.
>
> Yes, Fox News is popular among idiots. Yes, Fox News is the main source of
> infotainment and biased opinion for many idiots in this country. Yes, you
idiots
> outnumber us.
>
> And yes, even though you idiots outnumber us, that does not mean that you
aren't
> still full of shit.
oh - and dick cheney orchestrated 9/11.
Chris Who Be Robin Me of My Fuckin' Brain Cells
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23jvm2x...@recgroups.com...
And you can't afford to lose any, that's for God damned sure.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
ChrisRobin
> oh - and dick cheney orchestrated 9/11.
>
> Chris Who Be Robin Me of My Fuckin' Brain Cells
Just can't let it go, can you?
So who DID orchestrate 9/11, genius? 19 dirty Arabs with boxcutters? Osama bin
Laden's dialysis machine? Pardon me while I laugh at you, loudly and publicly.
If you can convince me how said Arabs (none with ANY experience flying
commercial airliners) managed to hijack four airplanes that mysteriously evaded
the most advanced aviation tracking systems in the world for nearly two hours -
without assistance from inside our own government - I'll leave RGP forever.
And sorry, your earlier hypothesis - "they [folks at NORAD] were playing cards
and sipping coffee" - does not qualify, other than for first place in the
"Stupidest Argument Used to Refute a Conspiracy Theory" category.
mo_charles
> >
> > Chris Who Be Robin Me of My Fuckin' Brain Cells
>
> Just can't let it go, can you?
>
> So who DID orchestrate 9/11, genius? 19 dirty Arabs with boxcutters? Osama
bin
> Laden's dialysis machine? Pardon me while I laugh at you, loudly and
publicly.
i hate to break it to you, chris, but everyone reading this post is
laughing at YOU.
> If you can convince me how said Arabs (none with ANY experience flying
> commercial airliners) managed to hijack four airplanes that mysteriously
evaded
> the most advanced aviation tracking systems in the world for nearly two
hours -
> without assistance from inside our own government - I'll leave RGP forever.
i'm starting to believe you - there's no way anyone can convince you of
the fucking obvious truth - chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report is
entitled "We Have Some Planes" - it's replete with black box conversations
with hijackers, passenger list data, and various other irrefutable
evidence that suggests ARABS did in fact perpetrate the attacks. i
suggest you read it.
> And sorry, your earlier hypothesis - "they [folks at NORAD] were playing
cards
> and sipping coffee" - does not qualify, other than for first place in the
> "Stupidest Argument Used to Refute a Conspiracy Theory" category.
pg 18 of The 9/11 Commission Report:
"
The protocols in place for on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a
hijacking presumed that:
1. the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not
attempt to disappear
2. there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA
and NORAD chains of command; and
3. the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not
be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided
missile.
On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every
respect for what was about to happen.
"
here's a couple of hints:
you don't figure out a plane has been hijacked instantaneously
you don't find said plane in an instant when it's transponder is shut down
you don't communicate up a chain of command to the highest levels in
another instant
you don't scramble jets in another instant
you don't shoot down planes that you're not sure are flying into buildings
in another instant
read the report. learn something.
mo_charles
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
RazzO
influences. Not that I believe it.
On May 31 2005 8:36 PM, mo_charles wrote:
> i'm starting to believe you - there's no way anyone can convince you of
> the fucking obvious truth - chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report is
> entitled "We Have Some Planes" - it's replete with black box conversations
> with hijackers, passenger list data, and various other irrefutable
> evidence that suggests ARABS did in fact perpetrate the attacks. i
> suggest you read it.
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
http://www.pokerworldstars.com
http://www.pokermoviestars.com
email:tico...@yahoo.com
_____________________
"Logic will take you from A to B, but imagination will take you
everywhere"- Albert Einstein
mistermister
this is either a joke or you're the dumbest piece of shit alive. you
remind me of that fat kid in school who would always take the contrary
position ,thinking he was cool ,saying "my mom says i don't have to"
just before he got his ass kicked. crawl out of mom's basement and
get a life, you pathetic loser.
On Wed, 01 Jun 05 3:09:24 GMT, ChrisRobin <4308...@recpoker.com>
wrote:
KilgoreTrout
Since we are free (following Matt's precedent) to go wildly off-topic, I was
wondering how the conservatives feel about the fact that the most popular
conservative radio-host, who has raged against drug-use in the past, had to
admit that he is a flaming hypocrite who was in the depths of a long-term
addiction to rich-man's heroin?
Or the fact that the most popular conservative TV personality, who in the past
has made negative comments about "sexual deviants", likes to make desperate
late-night "booty-calls" to his disgusted staff with a vibrator jammed up his
ass?
I myself have no problem with people using drugs or vibrators. I also don't
spend my time fellating the religious right with a "morals and values" message.
mistermister
who is that? jerry lewis? the "friends" people? numerous "hollywood
stars"...those who are the ones praised for coming forward with "the
problem" and dealing with it and being honest about it? that who you
mean , gill boy?
On Wed, 01 Jun 05 4:49:40 GMT, KilgoreTrout <alexis...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
ChrisRobin
> > > oh - and dick cheney orchestrated 9/11.
> > >
> > > Chris Who Be Robin Me of My Fuckin' Brain Cells
> >
> > Just can't let it go, can you?
> >
> > So who DID orchestrate 9/11, genius? 19 dirty Arabs with boxcutters? Osama
> bin
> > Laden's dialysis machine? Pardon me while I laugh at you, loudly and
> publicly.
>
> i hate to break it to you, chris, but everyone reading this post is
> laughing at YOU.
Only the ones without the curiosity to at least keep an open mind on the
subject.
> > If you can convince me how said Arabs (none with ANY experience flying
> > commercial airliners) managed to hijack four airplanes that mysteriously
> evaded
> > the most advanced aviation tracking systems in the world for nearly two
> hours -
> > without assistance from inside our own government - I'll leave RGP forever.
>
> i'm starting to believe you - there's no way anyone can convince you of
> the fucking obvious truth - chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report is
> entitled "We Have Some Planes" - it's replete with black box conversations
> with hijackers, passenger list data, and various other irrefutable
> evidence that suggests ARABS did in fact perpetrate the attacks. i
> suggest you read it.
The 9/11 Commission? The same 9/11 Commission that was initially to be headed by
pathological liar Henry fucking Kissinger? The same Commission that the Bush
Administration convened only after repeated refusals, until they finally bowed
to overwhelming political pressure? Ha. I guess I'm not surprised you buyinto
that claptrap. The Commission is rife with conflicts of interest and top-heavy
with political clean-up men (including players in Iran-Contra and the S&L
scandals), Mo. I mean, say my theory of the attacks is true. Don't you think
there would be a cover up (as with, say, JFK's assassination) in order to
placate the public? And don't you think the Administration would be savvy enough
to assemble a panel that was willing to play ball? Hypothetically, of course.
Read up on the 9/11 Commission's sparkling history here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI406A.html
And info regarding its members' numerous conflicts of interest:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120404Schwarz/120404schwarz.html
> > And sorry, your earlier hypothesis - "they [folks at NORAD] were playing
> cards
> > and sipping coffee" - does not qualify, other than for first place in the
> > "Stupidest Argument Used to Refute a Conspiracy Theory" category.
>
> pg 18 of The 9/11 Commission Report:
>
> "
> The protocols in place for on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a
> hijacking presumed that:
>
> 1. the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not
> attempt to disappear
> 2. there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA
> and NORAD chains of command; and
> 3. the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not
> be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided
> missile.
>
> On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every
> respect for what was about to happen.
That's the lamest excuse EVER. Do you realize how flawed and ridiculous that
excuse is? I mean, they say they were "unsuited in every respect for what was
about to happen." How did they know what was about to happen? It hadn't happened
yet. Under these protocols, ANY hijacking (or transponder failure, for that
matter), technically, would be considered "unsuited," because they will almost
never have enough information to correctly identify the situation on the spot. I
call bullshit. No "special protocols" are necessary to scramble jets in such a
situation - it's an automatic process, and doesn't need approval from anyone
higher up the chain of command.
> here's a couple of hints:
> you don't figure out a plane has been hijacked instantaneously
No, but you know when their transponders go dead, and the pilots don't respond
to radio hails.
> you don't find said plane in an instant when it's transponder is shut down
Yes, you do. Radar does not require a transponder to work. You do lose, however,
exact altitude information and flight number when you lose a transponder signal.
> you don't communicate up a chain of command to the highest levels in
> another instant
The attacks occurred over nearly a two-hour period, AND, no exceptional
notification is necessary to scramble jets in such a situation (this same
routine was activated on at least 67 occasions in that same year).
> you don't scramble jets in another instant
Two hours. Four planes. Automatic procedures in place to get jets in the air
within 10 minutes. Why no jets?
> you don't shoot down planes that you're not sure are flying into buildings
> in another instant
You particularly don't shoot down planes when you yourself have NO jets in the
air.
> read the report. learn something.
I'll leave you with a synopsis of Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon,"
which I've mentioned previously. If you read nothing else on the subject, at
least check out this summary of Ruppert's case against Cheney. It'd cut and
paste it here, but it's LONG and I don't feel like reformatting the damned thing
at 1:30am:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
> who is that? jerry lewis? the "friends" people? numerous "hollywood
> stars"...those who are the ones praised for coming forward with "the
> problem" and dealing with it and being honest about it? that who you
> mean , gill boy?
>
Yes. Those are the people I mean. Because Jerry Lewis is the number one
conservative radio host, and the "friends" people are (collectively) the number
one conservative talk host(s). Either your reading comprehension needs work, or
you just aren't very bright.
Dumbass doesn't understand why being a lousy lying hypocrite is worse than being
a drug-addict or having an anal-vibration-fetish. These guys have those
problems + they are hypocrites. They spend all day ranting about how fucked up
everyone else is; I think "physician, heal thyself" is the relevant phrase.
Personally, I think people should be able to have a good time if it isn't
hurting someone else (and don't give me any "it hurts society" crap). But I'm
just one of those guys that thinks having professional legislators is just
inviting them to, well, legislate; I mean once you cover
murder/rape/theft/assault, how much is left? Just enough for a yearly
summer-session if you ask me.
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 05 4:49:40 GMT, KilgoreTrout
> wrote:
>
> >ince we are free (following Matt's precedent) to go wildly off-topic, I was
> >wondering how the conservatives feel about the fact that the most popular
> >conservative radio-host, who has raged against drug-use in the past, had to
> >admit that he is a flaming hypocrite who was in the depths of a long-term
> >addiction to rich-man's heroin?
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Rick
Ironic, as your admission flies squarely in the face of FNC's
"fair and balanced" claim.
Who is lying, you or FNC? Please advise.
In any case there's virtually nothing "conservative" about FNC,
or about George W. Bush, or about Neocons in general. They
are radicals, pure and simple, and subscribe to an extremely
narrow, radical right-wing ideology and agenda that is trying
(and succeeding beyond anyone's wildest imagination) to
throw America back 50 and 100 years in terms of social
progress, constitutional rights etc.
On the very rare occasion where a true conservative does
appear on FNC (e.g. Bill Buckley has been on a few shows),
look closely at their faces and you'll notice the utter disdain
and disgust.
FNC is an absolute joke among credible journalists.
igotskillz.com
Good Luck in tourney bud