Ah sorry... we were both confusedSenorToenails wrote:
Hah! I read the OP, not that one. Sorry!Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Wow.... Thanks.... This is not what I was expecting. I thought that this would start with a flame and end with a deeply embittered debate. I had no idea you all were so reasonable! Well, it's good to know that there are still at least some people who are in touch with reality.really? i couldnt find that meaning in that post?SenorToenails wrote:
It looks like he was saying that he prefers the conservative bias as opposed to the liberal bias in news reporting. I reread his post (albeit quickly) and I didn't see anything that implied a "if you don't watch fox, you are out of touch with reality" opinion.
It's 5am, and I haven't gone to bed yet. This one is probably my fault.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ah sorry... we were both confused
Bedtime i thinkSenorToenails wrote:
It's 5am, and I haven't gone to bed yet. This one is probably my fault.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ah sorry... we were both confused
Deadmonkiefart, how should I put this... Compared to the rest of the world, your country is right-wing. So whatever you consider to be liberal, well, it isn't really... And of course that's why Fox news becomes a hate magnet. The positions it supports only exist among the US right-wingers and specifically neo-conservatives.
ƒ³
Oh I forgot Cam, you live next to a Muslim so that pretty much proves that Islam is a peace loving warm tolerant non-violent religion.CameronPoe wrote:
Everyone does have their own bias. Defending against your view of reality has become exceedingly easy of late due to poor OP construction and weak arguments. Check out some of the topics running at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to respond to even very simple questions in them requiring yes/no answers....lowing wrote:
The problem is, and you see it in this forum plain as day, everything and everyone is considered biased, bigoted, racist etc.. when it goes against the liberal opinion.
It is their only defense against reality.
In your reality freedom of religion, enshrined in the constitution of your own country, seems to be some sort of horrid crime signalling the downfall of humanity. So much so that you can't even bring yourself to recognise the fact that your country defends freedom of religion by answering a simple question. Your arguments swing around self-defeatingly proclaiming Islam is violent on the one hand and then, when pressed with the reality of things, stating that most Muslims 'aren't real Muslims' on the other. I wouldn't be surprised if your next topic states your fear that the sky is in fact falling in.
As to the OP:
Fox News sucks big black dick.
CNN sucks dick too. Most Europeans won't realise that because we get a sanitized version of CNN over here in Europe. If you visit the US you'll realise how insidious CNN is too.
I do believe in freedom of religion, but when that core religion goes against that very freedom, as well as every other freedom. I do not.
Using your opinion, a religion should be allowed to charm snakes on campus because it would be discrimination and against our constitution not to do so.
Like I said in the other thread, you do your own leg work, do not get pissed at me if you quoted the wrong paragraph that supported my opinion and not yours. Next time read what you quote.
Now back to this OP.......
And praying goes against that very freedom how exactly? lollowing wrote:
Oh I forgot Cam, you live next to a Muslim so that pretty much proves that Islam is a peace loving warm tolerant non-violent religion.
I do believe in freedom of religion, but when that core religion goes against that very freedom, as well as every other freedom. I do not.
It's your constitution. I'm pretty sure snake charming doesn't form part any of the worlds recognised religions. I'm also pretty sure that bringing a snake on campus would be prohibited as it would conflict with the fact that religious practice should not impinge on anyone else.lowing wrote:
Using your opinion, a religion should be allowed to charm snakes on campus because it would be discrimination and against our constitution not to do so.
Still can't bring yourself to admit it eh? This is the most childish fun I've had on this forum in years.lowing wrote:
Like I said in the other thread, you do your own leg work, do not get pissed at me if you quoted the wrong paragraph that supported my opinion and not yours. Next time read what you quote.
1, I didn't say pray I said religionCameronPoe wrote:
And praying goes against that very freedom how exactly? lollowing wrote:
Oh I forgot Cam, you live next to a Muslim so that pretty much proves that Islam is a peace loving warm tolerant non-violent religion.
I do believe in freedom of religion, but when that core religion goes against that very freedom, as well as every other freedom. I do not.It's your constitution. I'm pretty sure snake charming doesn't form part any of the worlds recognised religions. I'm also pretty sure that bringing a snake on campus would be prohibited as it would conflict with the fact that religious practice should not impinge on anyone else.lowing wrote:
Using your opinion, a religion should be allowed to charm snakes on campus because it would be discrimination and against our constitution not to do so.Still can't bring yourself to admit it eh? This is the most childish fun I've had on this forum in years.lowing wrote:
Like I said in the other thread, you do your own leg work, do not get pissed at me if you quoted the wrong paragraph that supported my opinion and not yours. Next time read what you quote.
2. You know damn well the point I am making Cam, stop being an ass for once.
3. I did admit it and I used your quote to do so.
O'Reilly = commentary.<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Commentary != news.
O'Reilly is not a reflection of the news that Fox reports. He is a reflection of commentary.
Didn't you already point that out two pages ago?SenorToenails wrote:
I watch Fox News. I think a lot of people have a hard time separating their commentary from their news, though I really don't know why. They are pretty obviously separate.
I never believe any sensationalist stories until they are confirmed from both sides of the spectrum... I hate liberal media bias as much as I hate the conservative bias - I'm moderate (almost in the middle) left, if you looked at my political compass test
@usmarine's comment on blogs: That's because they don't provide news - they provide an opinion. I guess if Fox News didn't claim they are "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't mind them as much.
I will never take a blog as unbiased - they will always have an agenda. I prepare myself for the agenda before I read them - I make sure I know the intention of the blog. That's why you can't take a Linux blog seriously in posts about Windows, or a Hippie blog seriously on posts about the Iraq war. You have to know the bias and weigh the statements accordingly.
-konfusion
@usmarine's comment on blogs: That's because they don't provide news - they provide an opinion. I guess if Fox News didn't claim they are "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't mind them as much.
I will never take a blog as unbiased - they will always have an agenda. I prepare myself for the agenda before I read them - I make sure I know the intention of the blog. That's why you can't take a Linux blog seriously in posts about Windows, or a Hippie blog seriously on posts about the Iraq war. You have to know the bias and weigh the statements accordingly.
-konfusion
I'm glad you noticed. Was that before or after you posted a video about commentary?<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Didn't you already point that out two pages ago?SenorToenails wrote:
I watch Fox News. I think a lot of people have a hard time separating their commentary from their news, though I really don't know why. They are pretty obviously separate.
Irrelevant. Those freedoms of which you speak are enshrined in your constitution and in mine, provided those freedoms do not clash with other laws.lowing wrote:
1, I didn't say pray I said religion
You have something against snakes?lowing wrote:
2. You know damn well the point I am making Cam, stop being an ass for once.
lollowing wrote:
3. I did admit it and I used your quote to do so.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-09 05:12:05)
I don't hate Fox news. Mainly because we don't get that here in germany, at least not via cable.
All I have is the EU version of CNN, and in some rare "Breaking News" instances, or at night, its parent network, CNN USA.
But we get the Daily Show with John Stewart, that's hilarious.
All I have is the EU version of CNN, and in some rare "Breaking News" instances, or at night, its parent network, CNN USA.
But we get the Daily Show with John Stewart, that's hilarious.
New recruits who are Hispanic and only speak Spanish, and that means the supervisors who speak only English....usmarine wrote:
?????Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=98408usmarine wrote:
Are you talking about the news, or the opinion shows?
dripping.
Honestly I don't watch the news enough to immediately recognize which station it is, but halfway during that, I was thinking please don't be Fox news....lol
I don't consider viewpoint on opinion shows, I look at skill of the host.
He reported the news. What the hell is wrong with that clip?
He even pauses after the names of languages or ethnicities.
The last two sentences really get me.
Why not require the workers to speak English? The state has no clear answer on that.
Read: What is the state doing about the immigration problem? Nothing.
That wasn't even necessary.
You know, when I was watching that news clip, I wondered why the state would hire people who can't speak english.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
New recruits who are Hispanic and only speak Spanish, and that means the supervisors who speak only English....
He even pauses after the names of languages or ethnicities.
The last two sentences really get me.
Why not require the workers to speak English? The state has no clear answer on that.
Read: What is the state doing about the immigration problem? Nothing.
That wasn't even necessary.
I don't think that was slanted, but this is really a matter of opinion.
Because you agree with it right? You hold many of the same views, so of course you ask the same questions they do. That doesn't make it news.SenorToenails wrote:
You know, when I was watching that news clip, I wondered why the state would hire people who can't speak english.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
New recruits who are Hispanic and only speak Spanish, and that means the supervisors who speak only English....
He even pauses after the names of languages or ethnicities.
The last two sentences really get me.
Why not require the workers to speak English? The state has no clear answer on that.
Read: What is the state doing about the immigration problem? Nothing.
That wasn't even necessary.
I don't think that was slanted, but this is really a matter of opinion.
Anyways people should just watch the news that makes them happy and plays to what they want to know, makes everyone happier except when they have to watch the "other side's propaganda".
US English being the de facto language of the US, and the language used in government at large, I wonder why the state would hire people who cannot effectively communicate with the public at large. It's a valid question, and I don't see how that isn't newsworthy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because you agree with it right? You hold many of the same views, so of course you ask the same questions they do. That doesn't make it news.
Anyways people should just watch the news that makes them happy and plays to what they want to know, makes everyone happier except when they have to watch the "other side's propaganda".
And I also do not put so much stock in pauses when a guy is reading from a teleprompter.
But yes, I likes my news the way I likes it.
It's a valid question that does not need to be answered by the news. Asking which TV is the best for the price is also a valid question, but one that also should not be answered by the news.
OK. So, a news source should not try to effectively answer obvious questions that arise from the story? Why the state would hire people who don't speak english is the root of the story. Trying to get an answer is good journalism.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's a valid question that does not need to be answered by the news. Asking which TV is the best for the price is also a valid question, but one that also should not be answered by the news.
Come on, what is the matter with you people. They present the news the same as everyone else. But the prime time stuff and morning stuff is also the same as everyone else, full of peoples opinions. The news is still the news. "Country A invades Country B" There ya go, that is the news, you cannot slant that. Then people give their opinions. That seems pretty fair to me, and they are not changing the news.konfusion wrote:
I never believe any sensationalist stories until they are confirmed from both sides of the spectrum... I hate liberal media bias as much as I hate the conservative bias - I'm moderate (almost in the middle) left, if you looked at my political compass test
@usmarine's comment on blogs: That's because they don't provide news - they provide an opinion. I guess if Fox News didn't claim they are "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't mind them as much.
I will never take a blog as unbiased - they will always have an agenda. I prepare myself for the agenda before I read them - I make sure I know the intention of the blog. That's why you can't take a Linux blog seriously in posts about Windows, or a Hippie blog seriously on posts about the Iraq war. You have to know the bias and weigh the statements accordingly.
-konfusion
I watch a lot of Fox News when I'm at my parents house as they get it on their cable. I also watch BBC24, Sky News, EuroNews and a little CNN. I have to say that all news stations have their bias but FOX News is the most brazen when it comes to this. As Cam says we have the sanitised version of CNN so we don't have as much perspective on how bad they are. EuroNews is the closest thing to a truly objective channel (no presenters, minimal 'window-dressing', a 'no comment' section where raw footage of news items are shown) but even they have a European bias in terms of perspective and choice of stories.
Fox News know themselves that they are completely biased...otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to plaster 'Balanced & Unbiased' or 'the No Spin Zone' all over the screen. And as regards differentiating between the news and the commentary, well a respectable news network wouldn't allow such one-sided tripe commentary onto it's airwaves, you don't see that kind of shit on EuroNews, Channel 4 News or RTÉ News; the closest thing to it on BBC24 is 'Hardtalk' which is leagues ahead in terms of the level of seriousness and critical debate.
I'd actually love to see Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur take on Bill O'Reilly in a debate, Sackur would eat him!
Fox News know themselves that they are completely biased...otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to plaster 'Balanced & Unbiased' or 'the No Spin Zone' all over the screen. And as regards differentiating between the news and the commentary, well a respectable news network wouldn't allow such one-sided tripe commentary onto it's airwaves, you don't see that kind of shit on EuroNews, Channel 4 News or RTÉ News; the closest thing to it on BBC24 is 'Hardtalk' which is leagues ahead in terms of the level of seriousness and critical debate.
I'd actually love to see Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur take on Bill O'Reilly in a debate, Sackur would eat him!
THATS NOT THE NEWS PORTION OF THAT CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Braddock wrote:
I watch a lot of Fox News when I'm at my parents house as they get it on their cable. I also watch BBC24, Sky News, EuroNews and a little CNN. I have to say that all news stations have their bias but FOX News is the most brazen when it comes to this. As Cam says we have the sanitised version of CNN so we don't have as much perspective on how bad they are. EuroNews is the closest thing to a truly objective channel (no presenters, minimal 'window-dressing', a 'no comment' section where raw footage of news items are shown) but even they have a European bias in terms of perspective and choice of stories.
Fox News know themselves that they are completely biased...otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to plaster 'Balanced & Unbiased' or 'the No Spin Zone' all over the screen. And as regards differentiating between the news and the commentary, well a respectable news network wouldn't allow such one-sided tripe commentary onto it's airwaves, you don't see that kind of shit on EuroNews, Channel 4 News or RTÉ News; the closest thing to it on BBC24 is 'Hardtalk' which is leagues ahead in terms of the level of seriousness and critical debate.
I'd actually love to see Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur take on Bill O'Reilly in a debate, Sackur would eat him!
fuck hell get it thru your thick lefty skulls.
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/usmarine wrote:
Come on, what is the matter with you people. They present the news the same as everyone else. But the prime time stuff and morning stuff is also the same as everyone else, full of peoples opinions. The news is still the news. "Country A invades Country B" There ya go, that is the news, you cannot slant that. Then people give their opinions. That seems pretty fair to me, and they are not changing the news.konfusion wrote:
I never believe any sensationalist stories until they are confirmed from both sides of the spectrum... I hate liberal media bias as much as I hate the conservative bias - I'm moderate (almost in the middle) left, if you looked at my political compass test
@usmarine's comment on blogs: That's because they don't provide news - they provide an opinion. I guess if Fox News didn't claim they are "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't mind them as much.
I will never take a blog as unbiased - they will always have an agenda. I prepare myself for the agenda before I read them - I make sure I know the intention of the blog. That's why you can't take a Linux blog seriously in posts about Windows, or a Hippie blog seriously on posts about the Iraq war. You have to know the bias and weigh the statements accordingly.
-konfusion
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-09 06:54:27)
I know it's not the news section numbnuts. The fact that it is allowed airspace on the channel tarnishes the respectability of the entire station though. Also there are a lot of dumbasses out there who don't distinguish between news and commentary (they see something on a 'news channel' and think of it as news) and FOX exploit this.usmarine wrote:
THATS NOT THE NEWS PORTION OF THAT CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Braddock wrote:
I watch a lot of Fox News when I'm at my parents house as they get it on their cable. I also watch BBC24, Sky News, EuroNews and a little CNN. I have to say that all news stations have their bias but FOX News is the most brazen when it comes to this. As Cam says we have the sanitised version of CNN so we don't have as much perspective on how bad they are. EuroNews is the closest thing to a truly objective channel (no presenters, minimal 'window-dressing', a 'no comment' section where raw footage of news items are shown) but even they have a European bias in terms of perspective and choice of stories.
Fox News know themselves that they are completely biased...otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to plaster 'Balanced & Unbiased' or 'the No Spin Zone' all over the screen. And as regards differentiating between the news and the commentary, well a respectable news network wouldn't allow such one-sided tripe commentary onto it's airwaves, you don't see that kind of shit on EuroNews, Channel 4 News or RTÉ News; the closest thing to it on BBC24 is 'Hardtalk' which is leagues ahead in terms of the level of seriousness and critical debate.
I'd actually love to see Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur take on Bill O'Reilly in a debate, Sackur would eat him!
fuck hell get it thru your thick lefty skulls.