BF2S Forums Georgia Not So Innocent - Whether FOX Like It Or Not!

imortal wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's called making money.

Networks make money via selling advertising time.

In this case its called censorship.

They didn't have to put her on the air in the first place.  Not censorship.  Besides, only goverments censor.  Companies "prioritize content."

.Sup wrote:

I believe if that woman and the girl were praising the Georgians that "commercial" would not had happened.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't recall seeing any pro-Georgia or anti-Russia advertisements on Fox lately...

It doesn't have to be as black and white as that, I'm not claiming there is some sort of strange company out there that simply hates Russia and advertises this fact on FOX. As an example imagine a large oil company advertises on a news station and the oil company has ties to a lobby group pushing for conflict in a region that will result in oil prices being driven up, this alone could provide reason enough for the station to favour news stories that lean towards and advocate conflict in this region (possibly painting one side out to be the bad guys on a continual basis).

Go see Dilbert. He's got a tinfoil hat you can borrow.

Turquoise wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Unless they're doing it at the behest of the government.  Granted, I'm not saying that Fox is doing that (although they did act essentially as an organ of the government in the past).

I was just about to say something similar. The big TV news companies are big because they praise certain politicians which later reach a very important position in certain country's government. That politician later thanks them by supporting the TV company. For instance donates money or invests in the company. The TV station later posts news that are in favor of those politicians. And if the politician says its Russia's fault for suffering of those Ossetian people then the TV station must support him by not allowing praising the Russians (telling the truth).

I wouldn't say all of our media is like that (it actually tends to work the other way around most of the time), but Fox is the most sketchy in its connections to government.

One thing to remember though is that the aunt had just as much of an agenda as Fox does.  She's clearly biased in her own right.

Turquoise wrote:

One thing to remember though is that the aunt had just as much of an agenda as Fox does.  She's clearly biased in her own right.

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing to remember though is that the aunt had just as much of an agenda as Fox does.  She's clearly biased in her own right.

I completely agree. Outside of the specific situation they were involved in you can dismiss everything she says as her own bias and not many could argue with you. It's what they have to say in relation to the bombing raid they were caught up in that is important and it yet again points to Georgia being the aggressor in this war.

And while I think the Russians have gone way off the deep end in their response I still feel it would be pure folly to potentially embark on WW3 in the name of backing up an aggressor, Georgia have made their bed and now they can lie in it.

.Sup wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I was just about to say something similar. The big TV news companies are big because they praise certain politicians which later reach a very important position in certain country's government. That politician later thanks them by supporting the TV company. For instance donates money or invests in the company. The TV station later posts news that are in favor of those politicians. And if the politician says its Russia's fault for suffering of those Ossetian people then the TV station must support him by not allowing praising the Russians (telling the truth).

I wouldn't say all of our media is like that (it actually tends to work the other way around most of the time), but Fox is the most sketchy in its connections to government.

One thing to remember though is that the aunt had just as much of an agenda as Fox does.  She's clearly biased in her own right.

Not all TV stations but I got the felling FOX news is one of those. The aunt might really be biased but the girl saying bombs came from the Georgians is true imo.

Braddock wrote:

Is it really even up for debate anymore whether or not Georgia started this conflict by trying to recapture South Ossetia? The media here in Europe have made it clear it was Georgia who threw the first stone, it's just that certain networks and news agencies seem happier to put more emphasis on Russia being bad guys in the aftermath rather on than who started the whole thing in the first place (I wonder how many innocent civilians Georgia killed in their opening attacks).

What is the US media's take on things currently, are they saying Georgia or Russia started it?

Clark W Griswald wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Is it really even up for debate anymore whether or not Georgia started this conflict by trying to recapture South Ossetia? The media here in Europe have made it clear it was Georgia who threw the first stone, it's just that certain networks and news agencies seem happier to put more emphasis on Russia being bad guys in the aftermath rather on than who started the whole thing in the first place (I wonder how many innocent civilians Georgia killed in their opening attacks).

What is the US media's take on things currently, are they saying Georgia or Russia started it?

I think it has something to do with Russia controlling most of Europe's oil.  You might have to warm up to that fact.

Braddock wrote:

Clark W Griswald wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Is it really even up for debate anymore whether or not Georgia started this conflict by trying to recapture South Ossetia? The media here in Europe have made it clear it was Georgia who threw the first stone, it's just that certain networks and news agencies seem happier to put more emphasis on Russia being bad guys in the aftermath rather on than who started the whole thing in the first place (I wonder how many innocent civilians Georgia killed in their opening attacks).

What is the US media's take on things currently, are they saying Georgia or Russia started it?

I think it has something to do with Russia controlling most of Europe's oil.  You might have to warm up to that fact.

That doesn't really answer the question though, does it? I was asking who they are blaming for the starting of the conflict.

Braddock wrote:

Here is a clip of a 12 year old American girl from the Bay Area being interviewed on FOX News after being caught up in bomb attacks while visiting the South Ossetian region. The interview is going quite well until she mentions a few things that FOX don't appear to want to hear...

ATG wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Here is a clip of a 12 year old American girl from the Bay Area being interviewed on FOX News after being caught up in bomb attacks while visiting the South Ossetian region. The interview is going quite well until she mentions a few things that FOX don't appear to want to hear...

I watched the clip last night.

If fox is so biased, why did they the ladies 30 seconds to say whatever they wanted?

The numbskulls broads wasted 5-10 of those 30 seconds looking at the camera with slack jaws and hints of droll coming from their mouths.

This is obviously started by the Georgians, and they are stupid assholes for doing it and thinking we would go to war with Russia over it.


Before we try and remove the splinter from Russias eye we need to remove the tree from our own.

Unless the expectation is for Russia to bow like dogs when we bomb their former states ( Kosovo ) and deploy " missile shields " in their backyards then the world better prepare for major shit in the Balkans.


We act like we can do whatever the hell we feel like. We have been pushy, condescending and belligerent. If I hear one more American politician describe us as the sole super power I will go insane. 


We still have MAD, what the fuck do we care what Russia does to Russians? Georgians were Russian up until a few years ago, were they not?