FOX NEWS-Bitch Slapped by Brits
Pug Fugly!
Communications (Ofcom) - the official regulator of the UK's communications
industries - recently chastised Fox News and found it in violation of
various regulations in that country aimed at preventing the media from
deliberately spreading misinformation. Ofcom found that Fox News anchor John
Gibson made "false statements by undermining facts." Its report stated, "Fox
News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall
allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American
obsession.Even taking into account that this was a 'personal view' item, the
strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC
meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond."
Ofcom concluded, "Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect
for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view
programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the
[British] Programme Code."
www.americanprogress.org
That'll teach the Pug Channel to lie.
Jake WK
wrote:
>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
Jake
Fedayeen Democrat
wrote:
The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
big three networks?
-
HELP WANTED!!!
Through a taped message delivered to al Jazeera
Television, Al Qaeda has annouced it will layoff
several thousand suicide bombers due to economic
conditions in the Middle East. Al Qaeda plans to
outsource the coveted jobs to the Boston area in
time for the July 2004 DNC Convention.
Mohammed al Ghore,said, "The new jobs will not
replace the jobs lost during the Bush regime, but
they do offer health benefits."
Jake WK
<InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:02:33 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
>>
>>Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
>>
>>It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
>>
>The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
>cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
>big three networks?
Take note, folks, that Fedayeen Democrat avoids the issue of Fox's
dishonesty entirely....by attempting to change the subject to why
anybody should care if Fox is dishonest.
SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
messenger.
Jake
Pug Fugly!
"Fedayeen Democrat" <InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vm0of09rgi2iqr2bo...@4ax.com...
Go to your room, liar!
Josh Dougherty
more specific link.
Thanks.
"Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca> wrote in message
news:10fnuek...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Harper
<jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I can't find this story with your general link provided. Please provide a
>more specific link.
When in doubt, go to the best news service on the planet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3805691.stm
Paul.
--
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Pug Fugly!
"Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:atSdnc95uYw...@comcast.com...
> I can't find this story with your general link provided. Please provide a
> more specific link.
>
> Thanks.
It's about 3/4ths down the page:
http://tinyurl.com/46bvc
Fedayeen Democrat
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:22:31 -0700, Fedayeen Democrat
><InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:02:33 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
>>>
>>>Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
>>>
>>>It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
>
>>>
>>The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
>>cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
>>big three networks?
>
>Take note, folks, that Fedayeen Democrat avoids the issue of Fox's
>dishonesty entirely....by attempting to change the subject to why
>anybody should care if Fox is dishonest.
>
The British Ministry of Information should be concerned with their
homegrown news agency, the BBC.
http://www.rense.com/general36/mis.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,924172,00.html
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/bbc.html
>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>
>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>messenger.
>
The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
source that rails against Fox News outside the US. The Lefties found
out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
I don't think so.
Reported by Fox:
LONDON — BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan resigned Friday after a
judicial inquiry repudiated his reporting that the government "sexed
up" intelligence on Iraq -- the third resignation prompted by the
harsh criticism.
The controversy has sent a chill through British media, with senior
journalists warning it could impede tough investigative reporting.
In a statement, Gilligan apologized for mistakes in his May 2003
story.
"My departure is at my own initiative," he said. "But the BBC
collectively has been the victim of a grave injustice."
"I love the BBC and I am resigning because I want to protect it. I
accept my part in the crisis which has befallen the organization. But
a greater part has been played by the unbalanced judgments" of senior
judge Lord Hutton, Gilligan said.
In a statement, the British Broadcasting Corp. confirmed Gilligan's
resignation and said it recognized "it is a very difficult time for
him."
Hutton was appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair to investigate the
suicide of David Kelly, a scientist caught up in the dispute between
the government and the BBC about the case for war in Iraq. Hutton said
the BBC was wrong when it quoted an anonymous source as saying
officials had inflated intelligence to justify war.
Besides Gilligan, the BBC's two top officials -- BBC chairman Gavyn
Davies and director general Greg Dyke -- also have resigned; the BBC
apologized to the government after the inquiry.
"Adjectives like 'abject' and 'servile' come to mind," said Sir David
Attenborough, who held a string of BBC management posts in the 1960s.
"It is a sad day when that kind of groveling is required."
On Wednesday, the judge exonerated Blair's government and excoriated
the BBC for what he called an "unfounded" report and "defective"
editorial procedures.
Dyke said he and other BBC officials were "absolutely shocked" by
Hutton's report.
"We were shocked that it was so black and white," he told the GMTV
morning television program Friday. "We knew mistakes had been made by
us but we didn't believe they were only by us."
Dyke later said the judge had "given the benefit of doubt to every
government witness and not to any at the BBC."
Hutton absolved Blair and officials of "sexing up" the September 2002
dossier or mistreating Kelly, who committed suicide in July after he
was identified as the source for the BBC's story.
Hutton, whom Blair appointed to investigate Kelly's suicide, said the
allegations were "very grave" and faulted BBC editors for failing to
review what Gilligan was going to say before he went on the air with
the first, and strongest, version of his story.
The reporter broadcast that version just after 6 a.m. without a
script, answering an anchor's questions extemporaneously. Crucially,
he said officials insisted on including in the dossier a claim -- that
Iraq could deploy some chemical and biological weapons on 45 minutes'
notice -- that the government "probably knew ... was wrong."
"I attributed this to David Kelly; it was in fact an inference of
mine," Gilligan said in his resignation statement.
He told the Hutton inquiry this had been a slip, and that later
reports accurately reflected Kelly's assessment that some people in
the intelligence services were unhappy about the inclusion of the
45-minute claim because they believed it had not been sufficiently
corroborated.
The BBC later faulted Gilligan for "loose use of language."
On Friday, Gilligan stood behind most of his story.
"The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and
probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute
claim was the `classic example' of this; and many in the intelligence
services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it,"
he said.
Dyke said it was important journalists be able to use anonymous inside
sources.
"Lord Hutton does seem to suggest that is not enough for a broadcaster
or a newspaper ... to simply report what a whistleblower or someone
like Dr. Kelly says because they are an authoritative source. You have
to demonstrate that it's true," Dyke told BBC radio Friday. "That
would change the law in this country."
The publicly funded BBC, whose extensive TV and radio news and
entertainment programming gives it a uniquely powerful place in
British life, apologized "unreservedly" Thursday for the errors it
made in the story. The network said it had to confront "serious
defects in the corporation's processes and procedures."
Blair accepted the apology and said it was time for all involved in
the bitter row to move on.
"The BBC made mistakes and we have to face up to that," said BBC head
of news Richard Sambrook in an e-mail sent Friday to the corporation's
3,500 news staff.
"I believe we must restate our core editorial values, look hard at
issues of accountability and transparency, and how to sustain
editorial quality across the full range of our programs," he added.
But the Hutton report and Dyke's resignation angered many BBC staff,
and alarmed other journalists.
Veteran media commentator Roy Greenslade said the BBC was strong
enough to survive.
"The BBC, because it is a principled organization, is eating its heart
out over this," he said. "But I don't think in the long run they'll be
intimidated.
"There are enough intelligent people at the top of the BBC to ensure
they don't lose their way or their morale."
-
The BBC is like the NY Tims. What a surprise.
Gibson said the BBC is anything but impartial. It has an agenda like
the NY Times and Dan Rather's 60 Minutes.
Tempest
Fedayeen Democrat wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:02:33 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
>>
>>Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
>>
>>It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
>>
>
> The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
> cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
> big three networks?
Hitler's propaganda machine started small too.
And look up the "Fox Factor" while you're at it.
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Jake WK
<InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:33:45 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:22:31 -0700, Fedayeen Democrat
>><InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:02:33 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
>>>>
>>>>Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
>>>>
>>>>It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
>>
>>>>
>>>The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
>>>cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
>>>big three networks?
>>
>>Take note, folks, that Fedayeen Democrat avoids the issue of Fox's
>>dishonesty entirely....by attempting to change the subject to why
>>anybody should care if Fox is dishonest.
>>
>The British Ministry of Information should be concerned with their
>homegrown news agency, the BBC.
>
>http://www.rense.com/general36/mis.htm
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,924172,00.html
>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/bbc.html
At least the BBC is a legitimate news organization with a long,
respected journalistic pedigree....unlike Fox News which isn't a true
journalistic organization at all. I daresay, even most who watch it
know they are getting highly manipulated, grossly distorted
propagandizing under the guise of "news"....but they just don't care.
Nonetheless, no credible journalists or reputable newspeople consider
Fox to be anything but a mouthpiece for the administration and Rupert
Murdoch's ultra-rightwing agenda. Fox has no credibility or respect
left within the real journalistic community.
They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
integrity.
>
>>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>>
>
>>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>messenger.
>>
>The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
>source that rails against Fox News outside the US.
I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
about, once again.
>The Lefties found
>out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
>wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
>whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
really a news organization.
>
>I don't think so.
>
>Reported by Fox:
You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
Jake
hank
The BBC and England...has degenerated into a socialist cesspool...
and are in decline....
They censor their news....and are on the verge of communism.
peace
love
hank
.......................................
Pug Fugly!
"hank" <rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:52d5a174.04071...@posting.google.com...
Bush's Poodle Blair a Commie?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Fedayeen Democrat
wrote:
The BBC has as many inaccurate stories as the NY Times.
>Nonetheless, no credible journalists or reputable newspeople consider
>Fox to be anything but a mouthpiece for the administration and Rupert
>Murdoch's ultra-rightwing agenda. Fox has no credibility or respect
>left within the real journalistic community.
>
Fox has baffled leftist journalists to no end. They can't explain why
Fox News is so successful and it cable news competitors are sinking
in the ratings and network news are consistently losing viewership.
>They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
>figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
>total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
>integrity.
>
Hey Dummy, O'Reilly and Hannity's shows are opinion shows. Opinion
shows are naturally biased in case you couldn't figure it out.
O'Reilly and Hannity are the number one and two shows on cable news.
CABLE NEWS RACE
THU, JULY 15, 2004
FOXNEWS OREILLY 2.0 [RATING]
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.6
FOXNEWS SHEP 1.3
CNN LARRY KING 1.1
CNN AARON BROWN .6
MSNBC HARDBALL .4
MSNBC OLBERMANN .4
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH .4
CNN ZAHN .4
CNN COOPER .4
MSNBC NORVILLE .3
CNBC MILLER .2
CNBC MCENROE .1
It sucks to be Fox, just ask MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.
>>
>>>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>>>
>>
>>>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>>messenger.
>>>
>>The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
>>source that rails against Fox News outside the US.
>
>I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
>about, once again.
>
>
>>The Lefties found
>>out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
>>wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
>>whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
>
>Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
>really a news organization.
>
It appears you're not intelligent enough to know what I meant even
though I had a little typo.
>>
>>I don't think so.
>>
>>Reported by Fox:
>
>You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
>meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
>opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
>exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
>fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
>
SLOP: Standard Leftwingnut Operating Procedure,
SLOP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
messenger.
-
Fedayeen Democrat
>
>
>Fedayeen Democrat wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:02:33 -0500, Jake WK <gimme...@rake.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
>>>
>>>Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
>>>
>>>It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
>>>
>>
>> The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
>> cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
>> big three networks?
>
>
>Hitler's propaganda machine started small too.
Yeah, CNN tried that model.
>And look up the "Fox Factor" while you're at it.
More shill from the Left?
Jake WK
<InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and the both of them combined don't have a third of the
inaccurate stories on Fox News.
>
>>Nonetheless, no credible journalists or reputable newspeople consider
>>Fox to be anything but a mouthpiece for the administration and Rupert
>>Murdoch's ultra-rightwing agenda. Fox has no credibility or respect
>>left within the real journalistic community.
>>
>Fox has baffled leftist journalists to no end. They can't explain why
>Fox News is so successful and it cable news competitors are sinking
>in the ratings and network news are consistently losing viewership.
There is nothing to be baffled about. There is a dumb reactionary
born every minute who wants easy answers to complex questions and is
willing to be led around like a bleating sheep. It's nothing new and
it's no mystery. Pandering to the lowest common denominator and the
dumbing down of our society is nothing new and nothing to be proud of.
>
>>They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
>>figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
>>total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
>>integrity.
>>
>Hey Dummy,
Spoken like a true disciple of the new thug mentality from the party
of Lincoln..
>O'Reilly and Hannity's shows are opinion shows. Opinion
>shows are naturally biased in case you couldn't figure it out.
Yet, they regularly claim the things they report are facts. Imagine
that. You can't have it both ways, Gomer.
>O'Reilly and Hannity are the number one and two shows on cable news.
Did you say cable NEWS??? As in real NEWS? Oh, but I
forgot.....you're the first to admit that the lies they weave are not
news.....just lies and nothing more. They even lie about the things
that have occurred on their own shows, especially O'Reilly.
>
>CABLE NEWS RACE
>THU, JULY 15, 2004
>
>FOXNEWS OREILLY 2.0 [RATING]
>FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
>FOXNEWS GRETA 1.6
>FOXNEWS SHEP 1.3
>CNN LARRY KING 1.1
>CNN AARON BROWN .6
>MSNBC HARDBALL .4
>MSNBC OLBERMANN .4
>MSNBC SCARBOROUGH .4
>CNN ZAHN .4
>CNN COOPER .4
>MSNBC NORVILLE .3
>CNBC MILLER .2
>CNBC MCENROE .1
>
>It sucks to be Fox, just ask MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.
So that means the fact that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was number one at the box
office and the highest grossing documentary in film history means it
is superior and accurate.....right?
>
>>>
>>>>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>>>messenger.
>>>>
>>>The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
>>>source that rails against Fox News outside the US.
>>
>>I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
>>about, once again.
>>
>>
>>>The Lefties found
>>>out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
>>>wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
>>>whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
>>
>>Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
>>really a news organization.
>>
>It appears you're not intelligent enough to know what I meant even
>though I had a little typo.
A little typo? Is that like your little braino? Just another little
drippo down your leggo?
>
>>>
>>>I don't think so.
>>>
>>>Reported by Fox:
>>
>>You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
>>meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
>>opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
>>exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
>>fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
>>
>SLOP: Standard Leftwingnut Operating Procedure,
>
>SLOP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>messenger.
When Fox News starts reporting facts, we can discuss it. Until then,
you're just another goosestepping dittohead sucking at Fox's
propaganda tit. But, hey, there's a lot of you....and you give em all
them great ratings, so you should feel comfort in numbers. How does
it feel to be one more nose-ring in the herd?
Jake
LHB
sinks, and the socialist party supporters whine and whine!
Tom Betz
> the network news sinks and sinks
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
Give some examples. Maybe you confusing bias with accuracy. Show me
the study that supports your whine that the BBC and the NY Times
combined don't have a third of Fox's inaccuracies. You're probably
confusing hard news with commentary.
>>
>>>Nonetheless, no credible journalists or reputable newspeople consider
>>>Fox to be anything but a mouthpiece for the administration and Rupert
>>>Murdoch's ultra-rightwing agenda. Fox has no credibility or respect
>>>left within the real journalistic community.
>>>
>>Fox has baffled leftist journalists to no end. They can't explain why
>>Fox News is so successful and it cable news competitors are sinking
>>in the ratings and network news are consistently losing viewership.
>
>There is nothing to be baffled about. There is a dumb reactionary
>born every minute who wants easy answers to complex questions and is
>willing to be led around like a bleating sheep. It's nothing new and
>it's no mystery. Pandering to the lowest common denominator and the
>dumbing down of our society is nothing new and nothing to be proud of.
Show me the demographics that support your whine.
>>
>>>They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
>>>figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
>>>total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
>>>integrity.
>>>
>>Hey Dummy,
>
>Spoken like a true disciple of the new thug mentality from the party
>of Lincoln..
>
>>O'Reilly and Hannity's shows are opinion shows. Opinion
>>shows are naturally biased in case you couldn't figure it out.
>
>Yet, they regularly claim the things they report are facts. Imagine
>that. You can't have it both ways, Gomer.
>
Opinion. A normal thinking person would be able to know what that
means.
>>O'Reilly and Hannity are the number one and two shows on cable news.
>
>Did you say cable NEWS??? As in real NEWS? Oh, but I
>forgot.....you're the first to admit that the lies they weave are not
>news.....just lies and nothing more. They even lie about the things
>that have occurred on their own shows, especially O'Reilly.
Cable News is what networks like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC are
classified as being. You are lame.
Give me examples of O'Reilly's lies. Notice, I used the plural form of
example.
>
>>
>>CABLE NEWS RACE
>>THU, JULY 15, 2004
>>
>>FOXNEWS OREILLY 2.0 [RATING]
>>FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
>>FOXNEWS GRETA 1.6
>>FOXNEWS SHEP 1.3
>>CNN LARRY KING 1.1
>>CNN AARON BROWN .6
>>MSNBC HARDBALL .4
>>MSNBC OLBERMANN .4
>>MSNBC SCARBOROUGH .4
>>CNN ZAHN .4
>>CNN COOPER .4
>>MSNBC NORVILLE .3
>>CNBC MILLER .2
>>CNBC MCENROE .1
>>
>>It sucks to be Fox, just ask MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.
>
>So that means the fact that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was number one at the box
>office and the highest grossing documentary in film history means it
>is superior and accurate.....right?
>
Ratings prove that your claim of Fox News appealing to the lowest
common denominator is wrong.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>>>>messenger.
>>>>>
>>>>The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
>>>>source that rails against Fox News outside the US.
>>>
>>>I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
>>>about, once again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Lefties found
>>>>out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
>>>>wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
>>>>whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
>>>
>>>Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
>>>really a news organization.
>>>
>>It appears you're not intelligent enough to know what I meant even
>>though I had a little typo.
>
>A little typo? Is that like your little braino? Just another little
>drippo down your leggo?
>
Look at your keyboard, the M and N are close to each other. You are an
idiot.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>Reported by Fox:
>>>
>>>You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
>>>meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
>>>opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
>>>exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
>>>fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
>>>
>>SLOP: Standard Leftwingnut Operating Procedure,
>>
>>SLOP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>messenger.
>
>When Fox News starts reporting facts, we can discuss it. Until then,
>you're just another goosestepping dittohead sucking at Fox's
>propaganda tit. But, hey, there's a lot of you....and you give em all
>them great ratings, so you should feel comfort in numbers. How does
>it feel to be one more nose-ring in the herd?
>
What a clever diatribe. You have been able to spew bs without using
one fact.
-
We’re learning more about Senator John Edwards--turns
out he is a multi-millionaire personal injury attorney.
That’s how he’ll solve the deficit - he’s going to
trip on the capitol steps, fake a back injury and
collect billions.
-Jay Leno
Barry Worthington
Sure, Hank....and there are fairies at the bottom of my
garden.....but, then, I only live here...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Fedayeen Democrat
wrote:
You are the one baffled. It is evident of your lack of links that
support your allegations.
>>>They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
>>>figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
>>>total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
>>>integrity.
>>>
>>Hey Dummy,
>
>Spoken like a true disciple of the new thug mentality from the party
>of Lincoln..
>
>>O'Reilly and Hannity's shows are opinion shows. Opinion
>>shows are naturally biased in case you couldn't figure it out.
>
>Yet, they regularly claim the things they report are facts. Imagine
>that. You can't have it both ways, Gomer.
>
Why can't a news station have both hard news and commentary? Are you
one of those who hate freedom of speech?
>>O'Reilly and Hannity are the number one and two shows on cable news.
>
>Did you say cable NEWS??? As in real NEWS? Oh, but I
>forgot.....you're the first to admit that the lies they weave are not
>news.....just lies and nothing more. They even lie about the things
>that have occurred on their own shows, especially O'Reilly.
>
Link me to sites.
You bitch and moan without supporting it.
>
>>
>>CABLE NEWS RACE
>>THU, JULY 15, 2004
>>
>>FOXNEWS OREILLY 2.0 [RATING]
>>FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
>>FOXNEWS GRETA 1.6
>>FOXNEWS SHEP 1.3
>>CNN LARRY KING 1.1
>>CNN AARON BROWN .6
>>MSNBC HARDBALL .4
>>MSNBC OLBERMANN .4
>>MSNBC SCARBOROUGH .4
>>CNN ZAHN .4
>>CNN COOPER .4
>>MSNBC NORVILLE .3
>>CNBC MILLER .2
>>CNBC MCENROE .1
>>
>>It sucks to be Fox, just ask MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.
>
>So that means the fact that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was number one at the box
>office and the highest grossing documentary in film history means it
>is superior and accurate.....right?
>
Does Nielsen rate movies?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>SROP: Standard Rightwing Operating Procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>SROP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>>>>messenger.
>>>>>
>>>>The only reason why the story was posted was because you found a
>>>>source that rails against Fox News outside the US.
>>>
>>>I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
>>>about, once again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Lefties found
>>>>out they are helpless in trying to bring down FoxNews.You have this
>>>>wide-eyed illusion that adding an international source to aid your
>>>>whining,it might put a dent in Fox's domination of cable mews.
>>>
>>>Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
>>>really a news organization.
>>>
>>It appears you're not intelligent enough to know what I meant even
>>though I had a little typo.
>
>A little typo? Is that like your little braino? Just another little
>drippo down your leggo?
>
Eat shut and die! I bet you got the meaning of that.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>Reported by Fox:
>>>
>>>You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
>>>meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
>>>opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
>>>exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
>>>fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
>>>
>>SLOP: Standard Leftwingnut Operating Procedure,
>>
>>SLOP: If you can't dispute or disprove the facts, then attack the
>>messenger.
>
>When Fox News starts reporting facts, we can discuss it. Until then,
>you're just another goosestepping dittohead sucking at Fox's
>propaganda tit. But, hey, there's a lot of you....and you give em all
>them great ratings, so you should feel comfort in numbers. How does
>it feel to be one more nose-ring in the herd?
>
When you link to your assertions, there can be honest discussion.
Jake WK
<InaneH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not here to provide you with links anymore than you provided links
that proved your assertions. Go take a look at OUTFOXED and you'll
see blatant lies proven to be false...and you'll also see Bill
O'Reilly lie about what he said previously juxtaposed with the clips
of his previous statements that prove he's lying. And he's only one
example you'll see of many. Not that this is anything new. It's been
a well-know aspect of Fox operation for years now. It is already at a
point that no reputable or serious journalists will go anywhere near
them----their credibility within their own profession is in the
gutter; and whether you believe it or not, that is ultimately how they
will be judged and the reputation they will carry with them into
history.
Not that I really expect you to take the time or trouble to see a
documentary on such things, since it might make you have to reconsider
your position and so you'll no doubt avoid seeing anything that might.
The righteous don't like to chance anything they might find
undeniable.
>
>>>>They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
>>>>figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
>>>>total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
>>>>integrity.
>>>>
>>>Hey Dummy,
>>
>>Spoken like a true disciple of the new thug mentality from the party
>>of Lincoln..
>>
>>>O'Reilly and Hannity's shows are opinion shows. Opinion
>>>shows are naturally biased in case you couldn't figure it out.
>>
>>Yet, they regularly claim the things they report are facts. Imagine
>>that. You can't have it both ways, Gomer.
>>
>Why can't a news station have both hard news and commentary? Are you
>one of those who hate freedom of speech?
Perhaps you still weren't paying attention when I pointed out that
people like O'Reilly loudly proclaim specific things to be FACTS which
are provably false...along with lying about what he's previously said,
repeatedly, and provably so.
That is very different than hiding behind the veil of "opinion".
>
>>>O'Reilly and Hannity are the number one and two shows on cable news.
>>
>>Did you say cable NEWS??? As in real NEWS? Oh, but I
>>forgot.....you're the first to admit that the lies they weave are not
>>news.....just lies and nothing more. They even lie about the things
>>that have occurred on their own shows, especially O'Reilly.
>>
>Link me to sites.
>You bitch and moan without supporting it.
See above.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>CABLE NEWS RACE
>>>THU, JULY 15, 2004
>>>
>>>FOXNEWS OREILLY 2.0 [RATING]
>>>FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.6
>>>FOXNEWS GRETA 1.6
>>>FOXNEWS SHEP 1.3
>>>CNN LARRY KING 1.1
>>>CNN AARON BROWN .6
>>>MSNBC HARDBALL .4
>>>MSNBC OLBERMANN .4
>>>MSNBC SCARBOROUGH .4
>>>CNN ZAHN .4
>>>CNN COOPER .4
>>>MSNBC NORVILLE .3
>>>CNBC MILLER .2
>>>CNBC MCENROE .1
>>>
>>>It sucks to be Fox, just ask MSNBC, CNN and CNBC.
>>
>>So that means the fact that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 was number one at the box
>>office and the highest grossing documentary in film history means it
>>is superior and accurate.....right?
>>
>Does Nielsen rate movies?
In other words, you dodge the issue because you can't deal with it.
In television, Nielsen is merely a statistic indicating relative
popularity....just as box office revenues at the movie theaters are
statistics indicating relative popularity.
So, if you think that Fox's popularity on cable news is an indicator
of anything regarding quality or credibility or legitimate
content....then you must feel the same about FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
Otherwise, you're just raising an empty issue when you post Nielsen
ratings.
.
What a joke---like you've provided a single link to prove your
assertions, which you have not.
You want to have an "honest" discussion?
Okay, here's my Honest Republican Test:
Yes or No-----Do you honestly believe Fox News reporting is "fair and
balanced"?
Yes or No-----Do you think Bush has ever lied to the American people?
Yes or No-----Do you think Bush lies regularly?
Jake
hank
You live there...so what..? It only means you are drowning
in englands dogma...and cant see the forest for the trees...
But I bet you think you are will rounded....
Your posts prove you are a liberal wacko...which fits my
in with what I said...you and england are socioliberals.
You and your kind are a danger to freedom.
buggeroff...and stick to your own countrys many many problems..
peace
love
understanding
hank
............................................
VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
You made the assertion, provide the link. If you ask me to provide a
link I'll do so.
rothko_
> respected journalistic pedigree....unlike Fox News which isn't a true
> journalistic organization at all. I daresay, even most who watch it
> know they are getting highly manipulated, grossly distorted
> propagandizing under the guise of "news"....but they just don't care.
did you not read the article this person posted?
> Nonetheless, no credible journalists or reputable newspeople consider
> Fox to be anything but a mouthpiece for the administration and Rupert
> Murdoch's ultra-rightwing agenda. Fox has no credibility or respect
> left within the real journalistic community.
Thats why every news agency reporting the election changed their call
for florida from Gore to Bush when Fox announced theirs for Bush?
> They've been exposed for gross distortion after distortion, with their
> figureheads like O'Reilly and Hannity spouting lie after lie with
> total disregard for anything remotely resembling journalistic
> integrity.
have any sources?
> I didn't post any source---so you don't know what you're talking
> about, once again.
So your guilty of the same thing your government accusses Fox of then
... asshat!
> Cable mews? Well, at least you didn't call it "news", since Fox isn't
> really a news organization.
Id call the BBC real but they all keep resigning i cannot keep up with
whos on the pot and when.
>Reported by Fox:
You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
So nothing in this is factual? Address the specifics in the article
... or shut the fuck up Hack!
Barry Worthington
Therefore I know that your picture of my country exists only in your
fevered imagination...
It only means you are drowning
>
> in englands dogma...and cant see the forest for the trees...
And what is englands dogma (sic), pray?
>
> But I bet you think you are will rounded....
>
> Your posts prove you are a liberal wacko...which fits my
>
> in with what I said...
I've told you, I live in a liberal democracy. So do you, come to think
of it...
>you and england are socioliberals.
Now that's a new one! But what on earth does it mean?
>
> You and your kind are a danger to freedom.
>
>
> buggeroff...and stick to your own countrys many many problems..
Well, we all have problems. We don't like what our current PM is
doing, but at least he isn't a moron....
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
P.S. If your posts get any more cryptic, I might as well read the
Rossetta Stone.
natch
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:42:01 -0700, "Pug Fugly!" <ab...@powergate.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>MEDIA - FOX CITED FOR ITS DISHONESTY:
> >
> >Seldom has a propaganda machine been so appropriately named.
> >
> >It's just too bad that America is the hen house.
> >
> The question to be asked is; Why are morons so threatened by one
> cable news channel whose audience numbers could never compare to the
> big three networks?
>
> -
vs 24 hours a day
Sparky
LOL - not with twatwaffles like you & LHB! You guys kill me!
Fedayeen Democrat
You are proof positive ignorance runs through Liberal usenet wonks.
hank
Doing away with the first amendment ...are we?
Fox news is not run by jews...it reports facts....
the rest of the media corps. like CNN MSNBC are total
liberal/democrat mouthpieces.....and this is admitted by
the reporters and editors themselves....
SO....Fox is the only one the closest to reporting without
slant..... not perfect...but the closest yet.
love
and I surly do love you..you little shithead.
hank
.............................................
Roy
>snip<
So....you are smarter than the BBC. Yeah. Right.
rothko_
> >
> > >You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
> > >meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
> > >opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
> > >exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
> > >fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
> >
> > So nothing in this is factual? Address the specifics in the article
> > ... or shut the fuck up Hack!
> ...........................................
> Doing away with the first amendment ...are we?
just for the record, no i didnt write that, i just cut it wrong. but
thats just for the record,
Sparky
>>>
>>>>You can stop right there...since that is the most worthless and
>>>>meaningless byline in the media today. Fox doesn't report---Fox
>>>>opines, with a flimsy mixture of half-truths, innuendo, and overheated
>>>>exploitation; feeding the public's fears to whip up reactionary
>>>>fervor. As a real news source, Fox less than zero.
>>>
>>>So nothing in this is factual? Address the specifics in the article
>>>... or shut the fuck up Hack!
>>...........................................
>>Doing away with the first amendment ...are we?
"Shut up, just shut up!"
Tell it to Bill O'Reilly
Fredric L. Rice
But he only said it once and it was a special case.
<rofl!>
---
Scientology secrets: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
American Hezbollah Party endorses Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/
Bush is a brutal baby killing fascist: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/