View Full Version : Fox News!
Rated No 1 for 100 months, pays to tell the truth and both sides of it!
zelatore
04-01-2009, 09:56 PM
ROFL.....great April fools joke! The best one I've heard all day!
:rlol::rlol::rlol:
gcarter
04-02-2009, 04:53 AM
ROFL.....great April fools joke! The best one I've heard all day!
:rlol::rlol::rlol:
Is it better than Obama telling Dodge and Chevy to resign from NASCAR?
zelatore
04-02-2009, 09:44 AM
That's apples and oranges, I'm not saying one side's right or wrong.
But when I've seen Fox news, it was so far away from 'fair and balanced' as to be ludicrous. At least they were up-front about it. I think the banner on the show I was watching was something like 'Obama: The first 100 days, the first 100 mistakes'
George, I think I've mentioned to you off-line before my thoughts on the current political climate, and they haven't really changed much.
BigGrizzly
04-02-2009, 09:56 AM
Lets get it straight it was not FOX news but the Bill O riley show. Some is fair and unbiased and some is not. However compared to MSNBC, it is all fair. Remember people watch the news and read the paper for excitement and want to believe it is true. I see it on OSO too:kingme:
CNN just received a "Peabody Award" for their political coverage. Apparently that's pretty prestigious....
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=91496
:beer:
gcarter
04-02-2009, 12:29 PM
[quote=zelatore;504826]
But when I've seen Fox news, it was so far away from 'fair and balanced' as to be ludicrous. At least they were up-front about it. I think the banner on the show I was watching was something like 'Obama: The first 100 days, the first 100 mistakes' [quote]
So Don, is that any worse than this?
"New York Times Spiked Election Season Obama ACORN Story because it would have been a “a game changer" "
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/new-york-times-spiked-election-season-obama-acorn-story-because-it-would-have-been-a-a-game-changer.html
I mean, after all, according to the NY Times is the "Newspaper of Record"!!! :yes:
If you're going to comment on Fox, admit to blatant news mongering on the part of the three major networks plus MSNBC and CNN.
BUIZILLA
04-02-2009, 12:55 PM
NY Times won't be around to see the end of Oby's first term... :bighug:
BigGrizzly
04-02-2009, 12:56 PM
Its all the darn news liberals who such up to Nancy P and all the farrrrr leftest:biggrin.::outtahere: In truth I do not believe anything I see on the news I treat like the election coverage. Its all one sided. I use the news like comedy central. There has ever been a even sided news reporter in the history of man. the truth I have never met a un biased person in my life except maybe Cuda:rlol:
Ghost
04-02-2009, 01:55 PM
CNN just received a "Peabody Award" for their political coverage. Apparently that's pretty prestigious....
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=91496
I can't speak for the Peabody--haven't looked into it. But this raises a point I have seen a lot--BS mutual admiration infrastructures. Group A does something and Group B gives them an award and Group C tells us how significant it is.
For example. Al Gore pushes an agenda. Even if you don't find it unfounded and dangerous, it is nonetheless at best only tangentially related to peace. And he gets a Nobel Peace Prize, and the 80%+ liberal members of the press tell all of us how prestigious this award is. The Peace Prize Gandhi received was significant. The one Gore received is not. Certainly it is meaningless compared to Gandhi's. The erosion of reputations usually lags badly behind falling performance. But foolish people will add credence to Gore's claims based on this award. And the press will intimate that he must be right, because he got the award.
Good advice about sensible thinking is like the best advice honest people give about sensible investing. Invest in things you know something about. The prospectus may have some useful information, or may not. But it is up to the good sense of the critical investor to dig deep enough into stuff he can observe for himself to build any useful perspective.
Look at JD Power for example. Is there some truth in some of their stuff? Maybe, I suppose. Do they run a racket where they create so many zillion categories of awards that everyone is a winner of something? Yes. And then, do those "winners" all buy a bunch of JD Power wall plaques and reprints and rights to publish the JD Power award results in all their marketing, awards which don't mention all the other categories they DIDN'T win? Yes. And thus don't these "awards" give a misleading impression that all the zillion minus one other awards don't exist? Yes. And don't the particular awards you see at any given place give a false impression of how they rate compared to the competition? Yes. And aren't the things they measure the easy ones, that give us the least useful information? Yes. All of these "initial quality" numbers. Ugh! I can judge initial quality of the very vehicle I'm looking at, on the test drive and in the showroom. Tell me something I don't know about what I can expect over the next decade.
So much of all of this is BS marketing. The big, proud bull of Merrill Lynch turned out to be a front for an awful bucketshop. Lehman too. Nobel prizes handed to bad politicians. Degrees from "prestigious" universities. If you don't know something about the truth of the reputation, directly, and you start relying on the reputation itself, you're already in trouble.
If you fishbone-diagram information, the results are interesting. (How you you know x? y. Okay, how do you know y? z. Okay, how do you know z? And so on.) Play that game honestly and you can't help but come back to principles of strict self-reliance. Because trying to sort out the truth to manage anything else becomes SO hopeless that no one has a prayer of ever doing anything more fair than sticking to responsibility for oneself. Reward, measured against anything but individual entity performance (per person, unit, company, etc), cannot be managed because the truth of measuring anything more complex is hopelessly incalculable. Anything you want to judge, to make funding decisions, beyond what people willingly pay for it, becomes hopeless. And all the maddening hopelessness of information and misinformation, discussed above, makes it impossible even for someone who WANTS TO BE PERFECTLY FAIR to be able to deliver on his intentions.
EDIT: Wow, so I went and read the link above about CNN winning the award. Illustrates my point exactly. The only useful details suggest CNN did extensive coverage in lots of forms and through lots of delivery mechanisms. Nothing specific to suggest that coverage was fair in any way. So, CNN gets credit in my book for pushing their stuff everywhere. TV. Radio. Web. Mobile devices. But the quality of that stuff is something else. Shouldn't THAT be what is important? Crap coming from 5 pipes is worse than crap coming from one.
Also, the mutual admiration BS is everywhere. "The 16-member Peabody Board is a distinguished panel of television critics, industry practitioners and experts in culture and the arts." Uh, distinguished how? Did they win Peabody Awards? The start of the last paragraph goes right over the top:
CNN Worldwide, a division of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner Company, is the most trusted source for news and information.
When I read that, I thought they must just have quoted CNN's own marketing slogan. Nope. Part of their written article about CNN. Apparently they must be pretty prestigious...:wink:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.