A tactic that seems in common use by leftists and liberals is to drowned-out, disrupt, discredit, disdain, and disregard any message that's counter to their current dogma. Fox provides such messages, which are often as factual, but more complete than what's seen on CNN. For example, a recent study showing women earning less in the workplace wasn't taken as factual and accurate on it's face as other news outlets did. There are obviously flaws and assumptions in that study that demonstrate a bias. Point out such bias doesn't sit well with the left.

Truth is seen by the left as rightwing bias.

Jay you won't find it. The leaning left media has had a monopoly on the news for so long, they can't stand anyone challenging the status quo. So, they have to marginalize and demean them. Fox News does have faults. Shep Smith and his car chase obsession, Hannity and Colmes is a bit unproductive on debate. John Gibson and Brit Hume are great. Overall, they are top rated because a majority of the cable news watchers like them over the others. ww

Let me correct your error OBGYN:

"You just don't like the perspective that Keith puts on his newscast & with good reason; it shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt he is."

That's better.

Fox News is everything the other networks are not: Reporting the news objetively, while also making sure everyone knows where there loyalties lie.. With America

The other networks are run by liberals who state "We're professionals first", but are constantly explaining why they are gushing over any Democrat (except Lieberman) who comes onto their show. Let me add a few items to the list already establshed

1. Dan Rather's interview with Sadaam in 2003 (maybe 2002). That was not an interview by Rather, that was a knob-job. He actually referred to Sadaam as Mr. President while gushing

2. The Diane Sawyer interview with Abdimijhiad was laughable, with her defense for doing the interview (of a man who as called for the destruction of Israel, the US, inviting David Duke to a Holocaust denial forum) as dialoguing with people we disagree with. Would she be that concillatory with say Rush Limbaugh (Who I don't like anyway) but present on principle

3. What about the open platform for any Republican that disagrees with Bush, but the lack of a platform for Lieberman, or Bob Kerrey (who has basically said the Democrats are idiots in a recent op-ed).

4. Terry Moran having more of a problem with the White House having a problem with the bogus Koran flushing story, than the actual BOGUS KORAN FLUSHING STORY itself

5. Time's Joe Klien acting as quasi-consultant for the Kerry Campaign, while also writng articels in Time presenting an "objective" analysis of the Dem and Repub campaigns. Of course the Bush campaign gets raked over the coals

6. Begala and Carville still doing Crosstalk? on CNN while odfficial members of the Kerry campaign

7. Cindy Sheehan plastered on every magazine, but complete failure to state she was part pf the Kerry campaign in conjunction with Michael Moore

8. Speaking of Moore. No mention that he was part of the Kerry campaign while he was covering the conventions and getting awards for his "slob-umentary" that circumvented campaign finance laws

9. journalist lining up to do hit pieces on the Dem candidates that are camapigning against their candidate (Couric and Stephanapolus - Hilalry); NBC = Obama, CNN = Edwards

10. The Kitty Kelly hit piece was given 3 straight days of coverage in NBC the weeks beefore the election, BY HER BEING IN THE TODAY SHOW FOR THOSE 3 DAYS STRAIGHT. Think Shrum or the authors of the anti-Hillary books will get that much leeway. Of course the anti-Hillary/Edwards books were dismissed as rehashing the past. But isn't the past in the Kelly Bush-Hit Piece more ancient history?

Obgyns:

You're right, I should have cited this link. Thank you for prompting me.

And how the hell did I forget Newsweek and the Flushable Korans? People frigging DIED from that one!!!!!!

J.

Olbermaann..Yes "Nuff Said".

Olbermann is the definition of a shill. He lies about his bias and puts on hacks like disbarred John Dean to spew over Bush Administration troubles.

Olbermann almost nightly gets his facts wrong an/or misquotes someone.
The difference is Republicans and conservatives have no problem with MSNBC and Olbermann being on the air, as opposed to the Hugo Chavez emulating democrats "John Edwards" / "George Soros" progressives who want to shut down fox and shut them out of a free and open political process.

Republicans showed up for MSNBC debate, Democrats boycotted and ran from Fox debate..Nuff Said!

And by the way for all you progressives, the "racist" Fox news was the ONLY network to extend a hand to the CBC and invite them to debate on their network.

Game set and Match! Oh wait there was no game..The Democrats failed to show up.

Chris G,

I don't think Fox is objective by any stretch of the imagination, nor are they perfectly accurate...that's what they have in common with all the other networks. Where they differ is they lean right and the others left. Therin lies the liberal problem wth Fox.

It's unfortunately quite simple.

Jay,
I agree with you completely. However, I must add that Fox's coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith was way over the top. But, maybe it was so from all news outlets.

Funny that there is so much that you forgot some! You will never see the reasoning aside from the fact that the Left is absolutely full of GARBAGE.

I myself rarely watch Fox, thanks to being able to track a story to the source on line, but having the Democrats refuse to have Fox run a debate is enough for me to at least Support the Network.

As to the rest of the MSM and their spinning the fauxtography scandals, pandering to Saddam, and the burying of the Terrorist threat at JFK,
I say nothing.

But to blogs and media outlets such as Wizbang I say thanks for the welcoming breath of fresh air!

I stopped watching FoxNews during Katrina. It was the sensationalism, and I thought, "Oh crikey, they've morphed into the mainstream media". Fox was the last network news channel I was watching, having given up CNN, MSNBC and Network News years prior.

I get all my news off the internets now. I was forced to, alas.

The Left in this country, both the nutjobs who live next door and post comments in here, and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media don't SEE any other POV than theirs. They cannot wrap their atrophied little brains around anything other than how they want things to be. They are physically and mentally incapable of seeing a conservative POV. Can't do it.

This is really funny stuff. The ever on-going, never-ending whine/rant from the right about the meanies in the MSM. Did you ever stop to think why they're called "mainstream"? Hmmmm, maybe because more folks watch, buy and listen to the "mainstream" then they do to whining right wing malcontents. You know the market determines what people read, watch and listen to, duh.

Oh, and "Ooga Booga Fever" John Gibson at Fox says all you need to know about those him and the rest of those folks at the Bush Propaganda Ministry.

If you want to get into a contest about inaccuracy and bias I can fill pages and pages with Fox examples, but undoubtedly would be banned for doing so.

I stopped watching FoxNews during Katrina.

Haven't you figured out that, while watching live news events of any importance, you should keep the TV on whatever network is showing a live feed, and use the Internet to dig up the actual facts behind those shots?

One thing the networks have going for them is bandwidth- you can, if you wish, have several live, full-resolution video feeds coming into your house all at once.

Weather and hurricanes show us a great example. When Katrina was still running across southern Florida, I was hitting a couple of different web sites for actual information (weatherunderground.com is my fave "heavy weather" site now), and letting the Weather Channel and the other networks show me the cool photos and videos of winds and waves. I learned from reading the actual, unedited reports and analyses from the National Weather Service that there was a good chance that Katrina would make the turn north and head (generally) for the New Orleans area nearly two days before the TV news droids on the major networks mentioned it (and nearly a day before the Weather Channel gave it a high probability). One commenter on WU's blogs predicted the impact zone more than two days out, and told us why he thought so (no weather source ever seems to give the actual "meat and potatoes" behind the predictions - it's always "this front will make the hurricane turn this way," instead of "the pressure here is 979 millibars, and it's well over a thousand here, so that plus the jet stream will force the storm to turn right along this path, into a patch of 82 degree Gulf water, making the storm intensify and hit this patch of coast with the deep water just offshore, making the storm surge very intense right at high tide."

When it comes to showing neat things, TV is great - as long as you don't let them interpret that for you.

The unwillingness and inability of conservatives to recognize and correct their own faults will be their downfall.

Bookmark it.

JFO, you asshole. It's jealousy from the left that drives this. Americans don't get their daily dose of leftist elitist propaganda from the MSM anymore.

Fox news & talk radio are out there to call BULLSHIT on all the blather broadcasted & printed.

The MSM can't handle that they have lost their monopoly and ability to sway public opinion. Now they are just ridiculed and are laughable. Keith "Assclown" Olbermann is a prime example.

JFO,

Part of the reason for the current configuration of the Mainstream Media has nothing to do with the marketplace, it has to do with technology, duh.

Cable TV doesn't have as big an audience as network TV because of technology, not content. The internet is now putting newspapers out of business and is influencing the content of TV news. In time, many of the network news programs will go off the air because of changes in technology. Until then we have some entrenched left leaning individuals who control much of what we call the MSM. If their value was in their content they wouldn't be losing readers and views at the rate they are.

The unwillingness and inability of conservatives to recognize and correct their own faults will be their downfall.

Wow- that's a big honking load of irony you got there, Lee.

Jfo said:

"Did you ever stop to think why they're called "mainstream"? Hmmmm, maybe because more folks watch, buy and listen to the "mainstream" then they do to whining right wing malcontents. You know the market determines what people read, watch and listen to, duh."

They are called 'mainstream' because they control more than 80% of the airwaves, NOT because they represent more folks, or that more folks watch them. In fact, FoxNews kicks all the other networks asses in ratings, and the rest of the Leftie Media (is that better? It's accurate at least) roils and slobbers over that fact. More folks watch Fox.

Total viewers: (LS)

Total day: FNC: 845 | CNN: 599 | MSNBC: 224 | HLN: 232 | CNBC: 176

Prime: FNC: 1,656 | CNN: 1,402 | MSNBC: 430 | HLN: 325 | CNBC: 119

Or check this out

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings/

Observing that the Leftist POV is promoted on all but ONE News Network isn't whining, it's a substantive observation. Lefties such as yourself don't care about a "fairness" doctrine, really. You just want your POV to be the ONLY one put out there. If the market did determine what news we watch on TV, Fox would be the only network.

The Left's cheating, lying, and communist tactics will be the conservatives' downfall.

If I had cable, I would watch FoxNews just for the great legs!

I think the left hates Fox mostly because their bias is known and they beat the crap out of every other liberal cable outlet, who will NEVER admit their own biases.

By the way,

The state sponsored media in Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union can also be considered "main stream media".

There was one thing that showed me that CBS news was yellow journalism at its finest. In one of its first seasons, 60 Minutes tried to destroy Audi with a total BS story about Audi's going into gear and taking off at high speed. That was one crappily sourced piece of garbage story.

And I'll say you left out one of the biggest and worst, when Cronkite said the Vietnam war was unwinnable after the battle that pretty much destroyed the Viet Cong.

But no, since FauxNews shows the other side, they're the enemy. Far more so than al Quaeda to people like Barney and Lee.
But that's what makes it funny. Sooner or later all non-committed-lefty-type-people click over to FoxNews and realize all the hyperbole and hyperventilating of dishonest nitwits is just that, hyperbole and hyperventing of dishonest nitwits.

The left these days has absolutely no sense of proportion or decency.

Ok lefty trolls, one more time. PLEASE give us comparable examples of Fox changing/misreporting/lying. JFO, Lee, anybody????

I'm not biased, I'd do all those babes on Fox News.

The Dems want to do something more than complain about biased journalism. That is why they have boycotted the Fox debate. Why isn't your party doing more to show its unhappiness for bias in the media?

It seems to me you guys should be complaining more about the Repubs legitimizing a biased (to you anyway) newsource like MSNBC instead of complaining about the Democrats listening to the same types of complaints being made by their base.

Lee,
Any thoughts on the correctable "mistakes" of the other major political party in this country?

Veeshir, don't foget the poo flinger, BrianD.

Go ahead you Arkansas leg-hound and you'll wake up in Fort Marcy Park sans penis.

Blue,

You see, everyone's biased. Fox is just less so. Sometimes they're influenced by the Left as well, like when they wouldn't call Ohio but calling PA 12 hrs earlier (but PA had a closer margin) in 2004.

If the Right boycotted liberal media, they'd have no where to go really.

It's like a diet that only limits you to peaches (a la the Fox babes). So you have to make yourself to go do Sawyer and Zahn as well, occasionally.

Lee,

I took a quick look at wizblue and see you had a total of 4 comments so far today by non-wizblue authors. That's probably because of the content over there, but it also explains why you keep coming back here; for some company.

Really though, if we wanted to see your view of things we know where to find you. Do you think your view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of people who don't particularly want it?

And if you want to put yourself on a heavy protein type diet, you have to do O'Donnell.

"The Dems want to do something more than complain about biased journalism. That is why they have boycotted the Fox debate. Why isn't your party doing more to show its unhappiness for bias in the media?"

Oh, I think that everyone knows the "our party" is unhappy with media bias, we just don't run away whimpering from the big old boogy-man.

If Republican candidates refused to appear on the "opposition" networks, we'd frag 'em.

Dems, on the other hand, think that it's swell, laudable even, to have this illegitimacy campaign going on. FOX isn't *biased* it's *evil*.

For the uninformed: Bar none, there is not a better news program on the airways today or ever before than Brit Hume's News Hour. Excellent coverage of US & international news followed by an excellent discussion of important events with both conservative and liberal views well-presented (which is what the MSM and the lib-socialists really hate). And for the left's view, two of the regulars are top journalists from NPR - and those two (Juan Williams & Moira Liason) are original panelists. That would be like Rush Limbaugh being a regular on PBS. Sure, Brit is a conservative, but he rarely shows his bias on his news hour - you can hear his conservative views when he presents our sides arguements on Fox News Sunday where the host is the liberal Chris Wallace (who also does a fine, balanced job). What the MSM hates about the news presented on FXN is that it is truly fair and balanced - the MSN cant bring themselves to do that and cant stand that someone else is.

Do you think your view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of people who don't particularly want it?

Do you think Fox New's view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of the Democrats, who don't particularly want it?

There's also the issue, Synova, that Democrats can boycott a single news network because it's right biased. For the Republicans to do the same would limit them to only Fox.

Oh, I think that everyone knows the "our party" is unhappy with media bias, we just don't run away whimpering from the big old boogy-man.

No, you legitimize biased news networks.

The only people I hear whimpering about the Fox debate not happening are Republicans. Democrats have made their decision and have moved on.

Blue Neponset:

Do you think Fox New's view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of the Democrats, who don't particularly want it?

Did your remote control run out of batteries? You know, even if don't replace them, you can still change the channels on the television itself.

Blue,

So if you're against getting views presented to people that don't want it, what're you doing here. Get out.

Go do your Rosie and Helen Thomas.

How can we get them to give us more Laurie Dhue? She gives me HARD news.

Wow... almost 40 comments, and despite all the hysteria and hissies by the Fox haters, not one of them can cite a single concrete example that comes anywhere near the deeds of those media outlets they have no problems with. Not even Lee, who's apparently bored and lonely in his own little sandpit.

Can you say "tunnel vision," boys and girls?

"Moved on", yes, rapidly away from Fox news. This is also known as running away.

Blue,

Do you think Fox New's view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of the Democrats, who don't particularly want it?

So who's forcing you or Democrates to watch Fox News? Lee is not just another person posting comments, he has his own area on Wizbang were he can post almost anything he wants. Who's fault is it that few go their?

The only people I hear whimpering about the Fox debate not happening are Republicans. Democrats have made their decision and have moved on.

Who's wimpering? Repubs could care less that the Dems pussied out on their only chance to change minds. Instead they preach to lefty choir like you.

Did your remote control run out of batteries? You know, even if don't replace them, you can still change the channels on the television itself.

I want to see the Democratic candidates debate the issues. I don't want to see Fox News anchors framing those issues and asking loaded questions at the debates. As a Democrat I see no benefit to having a debate on Fox News it will only benefit the Republicans and it will legitimize a overly biased news network at the same time.

Who's wimpering? Repubs could care less that the Dems pussied out on their only chance to change minds.

You seem to care enought to comment about it. Jay seems to care enough to write a story about it. If you want to claim you couldn't care less then you may want to ignore the next story about the subject.

Instead they preach to lefty choir like you.

It is a debate between the Democratic Presidential candidates. They are suppose to be preaching to the Lefty choir. That is why they have primaries and stuff; the Lefty or Righty choirs get to choose their candidates.

FOX really isn't very different from the other news networks. I read a study that compared the bias and it wasn't greater than the *nearest* to unbiased other network (which I don't recall at the moment.) The difference was that FOX was ever so slightly "right" and the closest to neutral other network was ever so slightly "left" with all the rest of the news networks even farther "left."

Still, to hear the complainers talk, those left leaning networks are actually right leaning as well. (I suppose they occasionally don't condemn Bush, ergo, they are working for Bush.) Considering this it's not surprising that FOX is seen as some overt minion from hell.

And it's those nutcases who think that CNN is "right" and ABC is "right" and all the others are "right" that pressure the Democratic candidates to boycott FOX.

So a choice has to be made... boycott FOX and get people like OBGyns complimenting them on *doing* something constructive to make the world a better place, or tell people like OBGyns that they are a bit unbalanced. Well, *that's* not good for votes, is it.

While the rest of us laugh about how cowardly the Dem candidates are, either afraid of FOX or afraid of their base, and the "other side" tries to say how Republicans should be doing it too, or they would be doing it if they actually believed that the other networks were biased as much as FOX.

Somehow their world view doesn't hold the possibility that we'd like to see how "our" candidates deal with the situation. Somehow their world view doesn't hold the possibility that a number of people figure it's a good test of presidential ability... this dealing with bias.

I've read the most amazing flights of fancy about how "the other party" thinks... meaning Republicans. And somehow it's never possible that Republicans are rational people with a different take on events. And no effort whatsoever goes into trying to understand when it's so much easier to project.

No room in the world for varied opinions. The truth is obvious. Anyone denying the truth is...

... not Democrat.

Speaking of choirs, I heard Olbermann was an enthusiastic choirboy growing up in Boston.

Blue Neponset,

I don't want to see Fox News anchors framing those issues and asking loaded questions at the debates. As a Democrat I see no benefit to having a debate on Fox News it will only benefit the Republicans and it will legitimize a overly biased news network at the same time.

Loaded questions? I think you mean difficult questions. By refusing to be challenged the Democrats have in my mind portrayed themselves as weak. You can't boycott terrorism and "move on"...you can't boycott illegal immigration and "move on".

The job they are auditioning themselves for is anything but an easy one, and yet they've already decided to opt out of something on the way.

By appearing on Fox, they are not legitimizing it, they are legitimizing themselves. But they passed on that opportunity. I guess they only want to be president of the Democrats.

"...it will legitimize a overly biased news network at the same time."

But it's *not* overly biased. It's similarly biased.

Show what FOX has done that compares to what the other networks have done in their news programs.

I dont understand why the democrats even bother tohave debates anyway (errr, actually, softball news conferences) - all those socialists are preaching the same stuff anyway. gc

Blue Neponset said, "I want to see the Democratic candidates debate the issues. I don't want to see Fox News anchors framing those issues and asking loaded questions at the debates. As a Democrat I see no benefit to having a debate on Fox News it will only benefit the Republicans and it will legitimize a overly biased news network at the same time. "

What you said is the problem with the other media outlets. From our point of view, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. are overly biased new networks but to the left. Look at how they frame questions. Those questions are framed from the left.

Except that there is Fox on the right vs. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the NYTIMES etc. on the Left.

"The only people I hear whimpering about the Fox debate not happening are Republicans."

And Libertarians... but I quibble.

The thing about the FOX debate not happening is that it's *interesting*. Thus, we talk about it. It's interesting that a segment of our population is insistent on delegitimizing, rather than engaging, any opposition. It's curious. It's fascinating.

So of course we talk about it.

Dems don't, and why should they? They either think that their guys were brave and noble to make such a gesture of delegitimization or, who knows, maybe they'd just like to forget caving to the nutroots. Who knows? And that question, too, is interesting.

This curious standard of bravery and activism is also interesting. This is *doing* something? Really? I guess boycotts are a traditional Dem thing. Cutting of noses to spite faces. I don't know that it's ever worked very well. I can just see people saying "that'll show 'em!" And wonder who got showed what.

How about doing something that *works*?

Loaded questions? I think you mean difficult questions.

No, I meant loaded.

You can't boycott terrorism and "move on"...you can't boycott illegal immigration and "move on".

True, but you can boycott Fox News and move on so I don't see why the Dems decision to avoid a Fox News debate is so telling to you.

Blue Neponset: "No, I meant loaded."

So provide an example of a loaded question.

But it's *not* overly biased. It's similarly biased.

Most Democrats disagree with you on that.

Show what FOX has done that compares to what the other networks have done in their news programs.

Watch outfoxed or go to foxattacks.com.

I doubt we will ever agree on this issue but I would guess we both agree that Democrats think Fox News is overly biased. If that is, in fact, the case then I don't see why the Dems decision to avoid Fox News is so hard to understand or condone.

So provide an example of a loaded question.

"Do you believe in evolution?"

"Do you believe in evolution?"

So how is that a loaded question? Second, if that question were asked by someone else would that be grounds to boycott that network?

One of the qualities I look for in a presidential candidate, Blue Neponset, is confidence. Avoiding being asked difficult or even for the sake of argument "loaded" questions does not show confidence. It does show that their carefully sculpted responses to Democratic talking points are quite fragile and cannot withstand questioning.

I think this was a huge miscalculation on their part.

True, but you can boycott Fox News and move on so I don't see why the Dems decision to avoid a Fox News debate is so telling to you.

Because the whole point is to show that they are capable leaders, not capable escape artists. They don't have that luxury if they win the presidency, and that's what they're running for.
It's telling because it shows they are not fit.

So how is that a loaded question?

Chirs Matthews asked that question to the Republican Presidential candidates during the MSNBC debate a few weeks ago. It is a loaded question because it was asked, IMO anyway, only to stoke a controvery.

No, "Do you believe in evolution" is not a loaded question unless you put it in the "raise your hand for yes" format.

Wasn't that a question asked of the Republican candidates during their debate on MSNBC?

"Do you believe in evolution?"

Isn't it interesting that Blue Neponset uses that as an example of a loaded question. Since we are talking about Fox in this thread the implication is that Fox asks loaded questions and that is bias.

Why is this interesting? There have been three Republican debates. The first moderated by MSNBC, the second by Fox and the third by CNN. Searching the transcripts of each of those debates for the word "evolution" twice turns up the very question that Blue Neponset says is a loaded question.

The problem is that the question was not asked at all during the Fox moderated debate, but was asked by both the MSNBC and CNN moderators.

If the question "Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question, then MSNBC and CNN are guilty of asking loaded questions. So doesn't that mean that Blue Neponset's claim of bias at Fox is misdirected?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006

My favorite of all time. Bonus points for promoting this guy instead of firing him.

Highly amusing Eric, that Blue Neponset would use an actual loaded question that was used more than once by more than one of the Left leaning media outlets during a republican debate AS an example of what Fox would do to democrat candidates during a debate.

They are the very definition of psychological projection.

So far, I think I agree with the liberal posters here. Let 's move on. The liberals/dems have publicly claim that they are closed minded and intolerant. So all they want to hear is their own views echoed by their overly biased liberal networks. So as Blue pointed out, closed-minded and intolerant people wouldn't want real debate, so it is natural for them to boycott Fox.

In essense, the Reps are more open-minded and interested in real debate. The dems are closed-minded and intolerant. Their decision to boycott Fox is simply a public statement of their closed-mindedness and intolerance. So no need for more debate.

Whoa, jp, Cameron wrote that as a joke. You're just mad that the made-up Kerry quotes were believable.

And what about the lefty operative who put Joe Lieberman in blackface as a joke? I'm sure you had no problem with that, did ya?

JP2 - your first mistake is reading Media Matters - your second is, after reading Media Matters, you still think FXN is the outlet that is biased. gc

If the question "Do you believe in evolution?" is a loaded question, then MSNBC and CNN are guilty of asking loaded questions. So doesn't that mean that Blue Neponset's claim of bias at Fox is misdirected?

All news media ask loaded questions. I just happen to think Fox News would do little else besides ask loaded questions and therefore the debate would be little more than a Republican political advertisement.

CNN
1) Freely admitted that they covered up some of Saddam Hussein's most horrific crimes in exchange for "access."
2) Co-produced a piece on "Operation Tailwind" from the Viet Nam war, during which they alleged that the US used poison gas.
3) Accused the US military of "targeting" journalists for killing in Iraq.
NBC News:
1) Rigged a GMC pickup to explode, using model rocket engines, to support their story that the trucks could explode in a routine crash.
CBS News:
1) Aired a documentary on the suffering of Viet Nam veterans without disclosing (or, even noticing) that five of the six veterans profiled had never actually served in Viet Nam.
2) Aired a piece on George W. Bush's National Guard service using fraudulent documents and describing the accuser as an "Air National Guard veteran," instead of "an Army National Guard veteran with a long-standing grudge against Bush and a history of mental problems."

Versus a fabricated Fox report about John Kerry getting a manicure. You're shitting me! That's the best you've got JP2? The other examples are serious stuff ranging from falsely accusing the U.S. of murder and using WMDs, to falsifying test results, to what some believe constitutes an attempted coup of the government. But no, Fox talked about John Kerry's fingernails. Oh my they are TOO BIASED for words.

All news media ask loaded questions.
---------------------------------------
Using your example of loaded questions. Then Fox didn't do. MSNBC and CNN did it. So in essence again, you don't mind loaded questions at all. You only want to hear your own views echoed with your own biased loaded questions.

I agree with you that we can move on. We can conclude that the dems are closed minded and intolerant. The reps are more open-minded and interested in real debates.

No need for more debates. We can all agree on that conclusion.

First we get: "Do you think Fox New's view is that valuable that it has to be dumped in the faces of the Democrats, who don't particularly want it?"

When that's shown to be a completely ridiculous statement, it's ignored and we get:

"I want to see the Democratic candidates debate the issues...."

Well, you got it. What's your problem?

If you want to see them debate the issues within their own frameset with no danger of stepping outside the bounds of liberal-think, then that's fine. I couldn't care less. Conversely, many like you would be condemning republicans for not appearing on the other networks, citing that they are afraid of an opposing opinion. But then you'd be admitting bias in the other networks, wouldn't you? Oh wait ... I think you already did.

Love Fox, despite the car chases; primarily watch Hume and O'Reilly, first one for news, second for entertainment and news.

The sins of Fox are miniscule compared to the lies and distortions of the rest. For God's sakes, they make up news at the other ones!

"All news media ask loaded questions. I just happen to think Fox News would do little else besides ask loaded questions and therefore the debate would be little more than a Republican political advertisement. "

That's a copout. Your example blew up in your face and now you back track. You obviously didn't watch the Fox debate. Here is the transcript. The Fox moderators didn't ask the candidates softball questions. They asked them the kind of solid questions that Democrats are simply too cowardly to be asked.

When you argue in favor of Democrats boycotting Fox what you really mean is that Democrats should only do debates that are little more than a Democrat political advertisement.

I have never seen a bigger example of political cowardice by anyone than by boycotting Fox.

Democrats seem to be saying, "They're too Conservative. They're too hard. They won't ask fair questions.... I'm afraid."

If Democrats are too afraid of Fox, then how can anyone trust them to stand up to America's enemies. What a bunch of pussies.

So in essence again, you don't mind loaded questions at all. You only want to hear your own views echoed with your own biased loaded questions.

That is quite a bit of mind reading. As a Democrat I don't mind loaded questions being directed at Republicans. That evolution question made you guys look pretty bad, IMO. If Huckabee is chosen to run as someone's VP he is going to have to answer that question over and over again. If Fox News has all of the Dems at their mercy they are going to ask those kinds of questions all night and nothing good will come out of it, for the Dems anyway.

I think fabricating a story and fabricating quotes to make a politician look poorly is fairly serious. Promoting the person responsible is also important. I'm sure you can imagine a scenario in which fake Bush quotes were constructed to make him seem stupider than he actually does, or racist, or that he was a homosexual. It would cost the reporter his job, and rightfully so.

I think the other news outlets are poorly run too and they make horrible, horrible mistakes, however, they just don't come close to being as biased as Fox. If I cared to, I could spend an extra 10 minutes and find several more examples, but arguing about how biased Fox is is rather silly at this point in the game. There was actually a point in our cultural history where rational people really tried to argue that it was "fair and balanced." Some people just don't get it, and that's ok.

If Democrats are too afraid of Fox, then how can anyone trust them to stand up to America's enemies. What a bunch of pussies.

I am not afriad of garbage trucks but that doesn't mean I let myself get runover by one. What benefit will the Dems garner from debating on Fox News?

"That is quite a bit of mind reading. As a Democrat I don't mind loaded questions being directed at Republicans. That evolution question made you guys look pretty bad, IMO. If Huckabee is chosen to run as someone's VP he is going to have to answer that question over and over again. If Fox News has all of the Dems at their mercy they are going to ask those kinds of questions all night and nothing good will come out of it, for the Dems anyway. "

Isn't that the point? A debate is to put the candidate on the spot and ask them hard questions, ask them where they stand on issues. If you ask them lame softball questions you get lame softball answers.

So what if the Democrats get asked a bunch of loaded questions from Fox. That is what the Republicans get from ALL of the other networks, as seen by your own example. The example YOU gave was of a loaded question directed at the Republicans by the other networks. And it was asked twice. You're okay with that, but not okay when loaded questions are directed at Democrats. You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that?

As a Democrat I don't mind loaded questions being directed at Republicans.
-------------------------------------------------
Basically you confirm again that the dems are closed minded and intolerant of different views. They want their own loaded questions asked of Reps, but they don't want to have their own views challenged.

Again, we agree that dems are closed minded and intolerant compared to the Reps. We can agree on that.

"I'm sure you can imagine a scenario in which fake Bush quotes were constructed to make him seem stupider than he actually does, or racist, or that he was a homosexual. It would cost the reporter his job, and rightfully so."

I don't have to imagine. How long did Dan Rather get to keep his job after Rathergate?

To be fair, it is about wanting to look good. I just believe boycotting a debate hosted by the one right leaning news network is going too far.

I am not afriad of garbage trucks but that doesn't mean I let myself get runover by one.

That's a funny analogy, but not a wholly true one given the circumstances and the context. It's not akin to being run over by a garbage truck, it's more like avoiding putting your garbage out altogether because you don't like the smell.

Is David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, is known liar, according to the liberal Slate writer here?

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063759
David Brock, Liar
A lifelong habit proves hard to break.

A debate is to put the candidate on the spot and ask them hard questions, ask them where they stand on issues.

I agree that is why I don't think the Democrats should let Fox News ask the debate questions. I won't find out about any issues I care about. Instead, Fox News will ask questions Republicans want answers to. For the most part, I don't care what you guys think about my Presidential candidates at this point.

The example YOU gave was of a loaded question directed at the Republicans by the other networks. And it was asked twice. You're okay with that, but not okay when loaded questions are directed at Democrats. You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that?

No, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. Both parties have a choice and if the Republican Party is dumb enough to chose to have its Presidential candidates on stage infront of people who aren't going to ask debate questions that Republicans care about then that is your party's fault. Don't blame me for supporting my party when they don't allow that to happen.

Me: But it's *not* overly biased. It's similarly biased.

Blue: Most Democrats disagree with you on that.

Me: A study of the news programs, and certainly you can quibble the methods, showed that FOX news was *as close to center* as the nearest to center left-leaning news network. (I believe they judged by how many times right or left think-tank sources were quoted).

I realize that most Democrats do not think that FOX is similarly biased (but in the opposite direction) as other news networks. But the opinion of most Democrats does not create reality.

The opinion of Democrats does not make FOX News more biased than it is. Just the same way that the opinions of the left loonies does not make networks like CNN or CBS tools of the fascist regime.

The fact that so many people are so convinced that FOX News... or Faux Noise... is so completely outer limits is *interesting*. It's interesting in a sociological way. Why do they think something that quite obviously isn't true? Why do so many people repeat it without ever watching FOX News to see for themselves? Is it just that they can't get past O'Reilly?

Was it a reaction to the charge, implied by FOX News slogans that the other networks were spinning? Was it the blatant appeal to the masses? FOX certainly did that. The news isn't very different from the other networks at all, but the advertisement was aimed at regular working folks, conservatives, and what might be considered the unsophisticated.

Is all the anger and, yes, hatred, coming from an apparent class judgment that was made? FOX News for Rednecks?

"I don't have to imagine. How long did Dan Rather get to keep his job after Rathergate?"

Too long. Imagine if he was promoted!

Blue Neponset,

For the most part, I don't care what you guys think about my Presidential candidates at this point

Finding out what someone is, is as important as finding out what they're not. You may be a Democrat, and I may be a Republican, but whomever is elected will be our president.

Both parties have a choice and if the Republican Party is dumb enough to chose to have its Presidential candidates on stage infront of people who aren't going to ask debate questions that Republicans care about then that is your party's fault.

Problem is if the Republicans used that tactic, they would only be found on one network.

I don't think we can agree on this one no matter what either of us says. I'm just hoping more people feel the way I do than the way you do.

But the opinion of most Democrats does not create reality.

True, but it is their party and if they think Fox News sucks then they have every right to avoid Fox News.

So, Blue, I'd say that you assume that FOX will behave the way you say they will because you *know* that the other networks would do so and that you approve.

I, however, expect professionalism.

Perhaps it's another case of people judging others by themselves.

I think that the Democrats should utterly ignore the opinions of Republicans until after they pick a presidential candidate.

It is, after all, how they picked Kerry.

True, but it is their party and if they think Fox News sucks then they have every right to avoid Fox News
------------------------------------------------
That 's true. Closed-minded and intolerant people can choose to hear only the intolerant views. The conclusion we can all agree is that the democrats are closed minded and intolerant. When liberals and democrats talk about tolerance and open-mindedness, they simply spin.

You may be a Democrat, and I may be a Republican, but whomever is elected will be our president.

True, but I can't vote in a Republican primary and vice versa. If this were a Presidential debate we were discussing I think your arguments about avoiding Fox News would have much more validity, but since it is a primary I think the Parties should respond to the wishes of the party members.

Problem is if the Republicans used that tactic, they would only be found on one network.

I have more faith in the RNC than that. If Republicans found a debate host to be too biased I think the Repubs would find a suitable substitute without too much trouble. It is your candidate that is being chosen you should have some say in who gets to ask the questions.

Perhaps it's another case of people judging others by themselves.

Maybe, but since you don't know me from Adam you shouldn't assume that is the case.

I think it's really weird that you interpret it all as the debate hosts accepted by the Republicans as not being too biased.

Sort of like, proof that FOX is biased? Democrats boycotted them.

Proof that the other networks aren't anywhere near as biased? Republicans agree to appear.

The logic, dear sir, is flawed.

The conclusion we can all agree is that the democrats are closed minded and intolerant.

Touche, LoveAmerica Immigrant I can't deny it anymore. We, Democrats also hate apple pie and kick puppies every time we see one.

it is a primary I think the Parties should respond to the wishes of the party members.
---------------------------------------------
True again. Closed-minded and intolerant people can choose to hear only the intolerant views. Reps are more open-minded than the dems so they are willing to be challenged. So that is the conclusion we can draw from this.

The members of the dem party are closed minded and intolerant. So their candidates should honor that wish.

LoveAmerica Immigrant I can't deny it anymore
----------------------------------------------
Thanks.

"No, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. Both parties have a choice and if the Republican Party is dumb enough to chose to have its Presidential candidates on stage infront of people who aren't going to ask debate questions that Republicans care about then that is your party's fault. Don't blame me for supporting my party when they don't allow that to happen. "

What you seem to discount is the intelligence of the American people. Most people are smart enough to guage whether a question is fair or not. It's not just about asking questions that appeal to Conservatives only or Liberals only. Every debate should put the candidates on the spot and ask them how they would handle problems that affect everyone Conservative and Liberal.

The point is all Americans should watch all of the debates, both Republican and Democrat, to see who would offer the best solutions. If you boycott debates because you are afraid of the questions or the answers you might get, well then you deserve the government you get.

Jay Tea you really hit the lefties between the eyes. Blue Neo is sputtering trying to keep his rapidly leaking opinion from sinking and JP2 doesn't want to "take the time" to dispute your facts or give evidence about Fox News. Since the debates are designed and used to attract independent voters, the argument that Fox News isn't democratic enough is lost. I do think it is valid to say the demo's are afraid of Fox they will never be able to handle the terroists. Good job JT.

I'm not assuming so, Blue. I'm suggesting that you should think about it.

Different people expect different behavior from people. It's a fact. You think that Republicans, if they really thought the other networks were biased, would refuse to appear on them. You think that debate hosts will and should be pricks.

I think that candidates should appear in hostile venues, rather than only safe ones. I think that debate hosts should be professional no matter who they support.

(And what about the pro-Democrat debate host who prefers a particular Dem candidate? Don't you worry about that?)

To all the "Blues" posting here today: I fully support your support of the Dems boycotting FXN. You have no way of knowing this, but actually, FXN is becoming more "mainstream" in that moderates and even libs are watching more and more (just look at the stats). So your guys can go ahead and ignore a major media outlet (where they could define liberalism to a broad audience) and stick with the softball questions in their own little cocoons and give greater and greater socialist answers. Never face any tough questioning during your selection process. Fine. Then, once again, those really stupid answers will be shown on republican ads during the presidential election and the dem will once again be blown away. Makes me smile thinking of what is coming.

Come to think of it, that's a good reason to debate with a debate host that is likely from a different party. They'll be less likely to favor one candidate over another. (Assuming that they are unprofessional.)

The other problem, is that eventually a candidate from each party will be chosen. Who is better prepared to debate, the candidate who only debated in safe venues with softball questions or the candidate who subjected himself to hard questions in a hostile environment?

It will be interesting to find out.

And what about the pro-Democrat debate host who prefers a particular Dem candidate? Don't you worry about that?
Synova

And what about Chris Matthews who does ga-ga over Rudy all the time? I was worried Matthews might kiss Rudy on the stage. Knowing Rudy's history, he might have liked it.

sean, why you little so-and-so. What else have you got in that biiiiig closet?
================================

Remember now you folks asked for it. Here's just a tiny drop in the bucket and it's only about Iraq. We don't need to go into the antics of "Ooga Booga Fever" Gibson and his sideways racism.

Fox Host - Sean Hannity
FOX: (November 13, 2002 ): "We can handle the situation in Iraq, which I think needs to be dealt with and in fairly short order, and we can still finish the job of protecting against al Qaeda and another attack. I don't see why you think we're incapable really of doing both and doing both well."
FACT: Afghanistan remains unstable. Last February the UN released a report stating that opium production in Afghanistan is contributing to the instability and terror campaigns in Afghanistan. [Scoop.co.nw]
FOX: (December 9, 2002): "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not."
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda. 'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FOX: (January 29, 2003): "Iraqis are not going to be bombed by the United States. The United States will use pinpoint accuracy, like we always do."
FACT: "But nonprofit groups in Iraq and the United States say there were thousands of civilian casualties, many more than in the recent conflict in Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf War of 1991." [NY Times 3/18/03].

FOX: "But one of the things that I am...really, really, really good [sic] about is David Kay, who's the chief weapons inspector now, he's compiled what he believes to be the mother load of documents and evidence that we have the case, we have the proof. He's not coming out until it's all been verified and all been put together. And I think a lot of these guys on the left that weren't there to help us defeat this animal and this madman and his two raping, vicious, murdering sons, I think they're going to have an awful lot of egg on their face."
FACT: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."
-Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay [CIA.gov]
FOX: (August 20, 2003): "Mr. Speaker, did you notice that not only were all the predictions of liberals and Democrats in this country wrong on every front leading up to this war about environmental disasters, thousands of people would be dead, innocent civilians murdered by the thousands and thousands, we'd so anger the Arab world we'd have problems for decades and all this."
FACT: From CBS's 60 Minutes 3/28/04:
Ed Bradley questioning National Security Advisory Condi Rice: "But it's been reported that if you look at the 30 months since 9/11, there have been more attacks by al Qaeda than in the 30 months prior to 9/11." [CBS News]
FOX: "Saddam Hussein has harbored, promoted, helped, sheltered al Qaeda members. We know that." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (September 17, 2003)]
FACT: Senior US officials confirm that they have found "no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda." [Miami Herald 3/3/04], The bipartisan September 11th commission report "undercuts Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." [LA Times, 7/19/03]. [Miami Herald]
FOX: "I think we have done it well, despite the complaints. And I've mentioned at this point after World War II, when we had American troops in Germany. They were complaining. They wanted to come home. They were being attacked by young Nazis." [Ann Coulter, Hannity&Colmes, (August 4, 2003)]
FACT: Insurgent attacks on allied troops in post-war Germany were almost non-existent. There were no guerilla campaigns or coordinated efforts at sabotage. There were zero combat casualties in post-war Germany. [Slate.com]
* * *
Fox Host - Brit Hume
FOX: "We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that [Saddam Hussein] has been pursuing aggressively weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons." [Fred Barnes, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (August 9, 2002)]
FACT: The Iraq Survey Group has reported that inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq was pursuing or stockpiling chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. As lead inspector Dr. David Kay concluded: "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." [NY Times, 1/26/04]
FOX: "There has to be substantial chemical weapons, manufacturing plant someplace. Now, maybe it is a brewery or something like that." [Mort Kondracke, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, (January 24, 2003)]
FACT: Lead inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. David Kay reported in October 2003 that "Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new [chemical weapons] munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed -during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."*
*Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Oct. 2, 2003).
* * *
Fox Contributor - Bill O'Reilly
FOX: In March of 2003, O'Reilly told Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
FACT: No WMD have been found. According to Reuters on 9/15/03, the Administration's hand picked weapons inspector has come up with no WMD on his visit to Iraq. "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." (Note: the chemical weapons Bush was referring to at the time never materialized.)
FOX: "However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do." Fox News - Feb. 26, 2003
FACT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -- U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment
FOX: "The fact that a load of weapons grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here. It is possible. And those with the mindset to do that have to be confronted...But you will not refute. You cannot refute, and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq, who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country." [Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, March 4, 2003]
FACT: After the Nigerian government reported that a quantity of radioactive material had been stolen from a foreign oil company operating in the Niger Delta, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to ascertain the nature of the problem. As it happened, the company which had lost its radioactive material was Halliburton. The missing materials were radioactive elements (beryllium and americium) used in locating cracks in oil pipelines. None of this material can be used to make a nuclear weapon. None of this material is plutonium. Nigeria has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Halliburton has no known nuclear weapons program, and no means of producing weapons grade plutonium. Neither beryllium nor americiums are lethal. [LA Times, 3/1/03; Houston Chronicle, 3/7/03; AP 2/21/03] [EPA.gov]

JFO,

Great post. You have proven decisively that you don't understand the difference between news and commentary. I particularly like your attributing comments by guests to Fox. Did you even notice those same guests say the same thing when they are on CNN?

Mac Lorry:

Try reading Jay's post before you burp your nonsense. 5 of his cites were not "news". Now try again.

And just as an aside, so it's ok with you if Fox News hires "commentators" who make false or biased assertions as long as they are "commentary"? Or that regular "guests" make fa;lse and biased assertions?
You help make the point of those of us who understand Fox is nothing more than a shill for the right wing. Your response to me is just like them - flase and unbalanced.

OBGyns, this headline is from a post at the link you provided:

Neil Cavuto Says an 18-Year-Old Female is a "Young Girl"

The story concerns the 18yo that was just abducted and killed in Kansas.

Do you really want to point to idiots that use that headline, not to mention the story, to criticize a Fox host.

She was a girl correct? And young at 18 right? Is that the critical thinking you look for in a source?

Oh and I shouldn't leave out this piece on your most favorite "Fox debunking" website: "Think Progress caught Bill O'Reilly in a gross misrepresentation of the Sunday New York Times in his Talking Points Memo last night 6/4/07.

First of all you see where they get their talking points, secondly Think Progress (shill for Soros) claimed the JFK plot was on the front page of the NYT when all that was there was a very small sidebar, so small the headline could hardly be read.

The STORY was on page 37 (or 30 dependent on the edition) the front page contained NO STORY.

When it's all said and done we know where you OBGyns buy your Kool-Aid.

And BTW, when did Olberfool ever have an in studio or taped interview of a Republican that WASN'T highly critical of Bush or his administration?

JFO.

Here's the kind of story you need to find to prove Fox is as bad as ABC.

ABC: Customs Fails to Detect Depleted Uranium. It was the kind of uranium that -- if highly enriched -- would, by some estimates, provide about half the material required for a crude nuclear device and more than enough for a so-called dirty bomb -- a nightmare scenario for U.S. authorities.

Fact: Notwithstanding the network's desire to inform viewers about potential terrorist threats, the conclusions reached by ABC News about movement of radioactive materials are not supported by this specific investigation, NEI's vice president for communications, Scott Peterson, said. The depleted uranium transported by ABC could not be used to make a nuclear bomb and, thus, one material cannot be linked to the other.

"Transport of 15 pounds of depleted uranium is perfectly legal and poses no threat to the public. The ABC correspondent might just as well have been carrying 15 pounds of oranges in a suitcase, because one activity is just as legal and safe as the other," Peterson said.

Depleted uranium is shipped daily around the world and routinely used as counterweights in airplanes and elevators, he noted. The Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Section 40.22 stipulates that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has evaluated this amount of material for safety considerations and believes the risk to the public is minimal; therefore, a specific license is not required.

With regard to potential use of radioactive material in a "dirty bomb," the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said, "In most cases, any immediate deaths or serious injuries would likely result from the explosion itself, rather than from radiation exposure. It is unlikely that the radioactive material contained in a dirty bomb would kill anyone.

"Try reading Jay's post before you burp your nonsense. 5 of his cites were not "news". Now try again."

JFO what are you talking about?

1)Eason Jordan admitting that CNN withheld information about Iraq in order to get better access is not opinion it is about policy in the news department.

2) Operation Tailwind was not an opinion piece it was a news story.

3) Eason Jordan again claiming that the U.S. was targeting reporters. Okay, I'll agree with you, that is his opinion.

4) NBC News rigging a truck to explode. That wasn't opinion, that was rigging a news story.

5) Olbermann. Olbermann is an idiot just like O'Reilly. But they are there to tell their opinions not really to tell the news.

6) CBS News' veterans story. Hmmm? Opinion or News story? News Story.

7) Rathergate. News Story

8) NY Times, Walter Duranty got a Pultizer for his NEWS stories about the Soviet Union, and all of the other examples Jay gave were about NEWS stories.

So Jay gives specific examples of NEWS stories and you give specific examples of opinions.

There is a difference. The difference is why Fox is popular on the right. Conservative voices are allowed to speak. On the other networks, not so much.

For all the bluster from the left about Fox, they never ever seem to understand that what they see in Fox we see in reverse in ALL of the other news organizations. They can't seem to accept even one outlet that is a differing point of view.

JFO,

I relly hope you didn't type all those words. The blisters! And all I saw there was PREDICTIONS, not news. If a sportscaster innaccurately predicts the outcome of the Super Bowl, would you consider him to have misstated fact? Maybe you would.

Blue Neponset:

If Fox News has all of the Dems at their mercy they are going to ask those kinds of questions all night and nothing good will come out of it, for the Dems anyway.

History seems to indicate otherwise. What you claim would happen didn't occur in 2004 during a Fox hosted Democratic debate in NH.

What's different now?

JFO,

Try reading Jay's post before you burp your nonsense. 5 of his cites were not "news". Now try again.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. Jay's posts include fabrication of evidence and knowingly doctoring of tests. These are then presented as factual information derived from honest investigations or tests. If you think Jay's cites are just commentary then call him on it.

And just as an aside, so it's ok with you if Fox News hires "commentators" who make false or biased assertions as long as they are "commentary"? Or that regular "guests" make fa;lse and biased assertions?

Do you ever read the editorial section of a newspaper, and did you think you were reading hard news? Commentary is not hard news, it's opinion and there is lots of biased opinions on the MSM. No one here is saying they can't have biased opinions. They only cross the line when their bias is presented as fact, which often comes in the form of study or authentic document when they know or should know it's wrong.

There's the difference between being wrong and telling a lie. People like Bill Clinton didn't know at the time that Saddam didn't have WMD, so he was just wrong. Putting model rocket engines in a pickup to make it blow up on camera and then presenting it as a valid test is a lie. All commentators are wrong about many of the things they say, but it's not a lie if they don't know at the time it's wrong.

Hmmm... wonder why I sense a bit of "free-range lunacy" as seen here as people defend a demonstrably left-leaning MSN against the "evil fuaxnews?"

I can't believe JFO cited those examples as Fox being biased. No wonder the left goes for all those conspiracy theories.

The lefties are a wierd bunch. We are talking apples and they bring oranges. ww

OBGyns - "Hey look over there, it's the despicable Fox News, look please look."

Meanwhile, back in reality, OlberFool is declaring Bush is really the one responsible for the recent JFK Airport terror plot.

C'mon truthers, couldn't have been Bush; Idlewild would still be a raging inferno if it were his plot. Look at the World Trade Towers. Would his execution worsen with practice?
====================================

You forgot when (NBC?) and the union planted spies in Food Lion to expose bad food handling. They tried to get employees to put bad food back on the shelf, but Food Lion employees refused, and the plot was exposed.

Food Lion won a lawsuit but got no damages.

The difference between crack heads and Keith Oberman fans is that there is hope for crack addicts.

I'd like to tip JFO who listed that long "example" of bias(like Hannity saying stuff that's conservative . . . I wonder if I could find Colmes saying things liberal and use it as an example of liberal bias). There's a three hour block on the radio with a dude named Rush -- you might find some conservative bias.

All kidding aside, don't you all find it absolutely freaky that the left considers Marx Olberman a balanced journalist?

I'm also having a little trouble with Blue N's logic.

"True, but it is their party and if they think Fox News sucks then they have every right to avoid Fox News."

Please do not twist criticsm for their actions into a desire to refuse them any "rights".

What I'd also like to know is what questions are asked in a debate that only Democrats care about? Is it education? The budget? The environment? Social Security? Labor? Please give me a clue as to what it is that only Democrats care about.

"...I can fill pages and pages with Fox examples." But you won't. Not because you're afraid of being banned, but because you would actually have to do some research to locate them. Some of you lefties are very disappointing and just take up space. Democrats aren't so bad and neither are Liberals, but you make them look that way.

Foxs News : moonbats
Pavlov's bell : Palvov's dogs

Arf little doggies.

And by research, I don't mean one website: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/03/con04139.html

I hate Fox News because we lefties use to get away with a lot of crap before they came along.

Can't we go back to the good ole days of a leftwing monopoly?

rrita:

And by research, I don't mean one website:

Is that meant as satire?

'cause I mean like you only listed a single site yourself.

What else ya got?

Oh... and BTW a lot of those "examples" are opinion not stated facts. Jeesh, you're as sad as JFO.

Jfo, If Saddam did not have any WMD, at least stuff that was not shipped to Syria before the actual invasion, why did Saddam purchase 1 million doses of atropine? Why were Iraqi military units, like the republican guard possessing new chem/bio suits? Considering the cost of such items, if they did not posssess nerve gas, it would seem a waste of money that could have been spent on other military hardware. I know that sort of logic escapes you. By the way, Han Bixs declared Iraq in material breach of UN resolution 1441. That is why we invaded Iraq. Any other contention is BS.

marc, rrita did NOT cite a source that she used, she showed the site that JFO cut and pasted his "research" from. Verbatim.

JFO, are you Congressman Bernie Sanders, or did he give you permission to use his words without attribution?

J.

Thanks J, in looking back thru the thread you're correct.

I notice no one addressed my observation about "Ooga Booga Fever" John Gibson and I forgot to mention "Spearchucker" Britt Hume. There are only 2 conclusions about these 2: a) they are incredibly ignorant (the kind conclusion) or (b) they are racists. The paragons of Fox News.

Jay, you implied Obermann was (fill in the blank). What the hell do you think O'Reilly is?

Murdoch discovered a niche market; half of America.

It is obvious that you think Fox is biased, JFO. Your opinions and beliefs make it plain you are chattel of the left leaning MSM.
====================================

O'Reilly? A blowhard. I tend to ignore him.

Perhaps instead of Olbermann the idiot, I should have cited Chris Matthews and his incredibly inept and egotistical "moderation" of that Democratic debate.

And I still am amazed that the WORDS of commentators are considered worse than the DEEDS of journalists.

J.

JFO - I'll answer your last: O'Reilly is a moderate independent that gets excited & emotional over things he believes in. Obermann is a screaming lefty that only cares about slaming conservatives. BTW, I was watching FX News Sunday when Hume used the spearchuker euphimism: he used in its proper format obvlivious to the racist undertones proving he isnt a racist. However, since you jumped on the term as being related to race I will assume that you are the racist.

Nice try Gemini - you use the usual nightie tactic of accusing someone who points out racism of being a racist. That's an old, tire and worn out tactic. But lets get to that word "spearchucker." I grew up in a segregated town in maryland in the 50s. "Spearchucker" has only one meaning and it is a derogatory/racist term related to African Americans only. So spin away and apologize away. At a minimum, it was ignorant. But of course the apologists from the right like you who rarely if ever see racism as in issue would excuse it.

Oh, and "Ooga Booga Fever" John Gibson?

ooops...rightie rather than "nightie"

Yeah, well, your comments are what can be expected from such narrow minded types. You cant fathom persons that can use words freely without concern for someone taking offense because they themselves have no ill thoughts towards persons that are different. I feel sorry for you growing up in a segregated area - I understand it must have really limited your thought processes.

So if Hume calls John Glenn a "spearchucker" it is racist? How does that even fit in the context of racist. Glenn is for a bill, so he is a black man hunting it?

Using words that can be used as a insult to black people even if you are not using them as an insult to black people is now racist I guess.

Monkey and Chimp are also used to be derogatory to black people. Calling Bush a Monkey is now an insult to blacks apparently.

Question: Why isn't saying "house negro" about black people racist to the Left?

Should have said "Question: Why isn't saying "house negro" about black people NOT racist to the Left?"

AngryMe,

Good point! Apparently such terms are not racist if a lefty uses them. Of course that's hypocritical, but at least in their own minds they are not racist.

I love how you folks try to tationalize something away. The word spearchucker is as derogatory as the word nigger. If you don't get that then I feel sorry for you.

Still no response to "Ooga Booga Fever" Gibson, who we know has a history of defending that paragon of virtue Bill Bennett who believes it's a good thing if black people have abortions in order to reduce the crime rate.

There is absolutely *nothing* about the word "spear chucker" that is racist. "Spear carrier" is a *common* word used by the writers I know and it is *never* racist. It refers to a minor character who supports the main character, usually as back-up and usually not alone.

Used in a sentence: "I'm afraid my spear carriers come across as cardboard characters."

A "spear chucker" in my mind is *obviously* someone who fights or "throws spears" for someone else.

A whole lot of people have hunted with spears and fought with spears on a whole lot of continents other than Africa. The *idea* that a "spear" must refer to an African is incredibly warped. It says far *far* more about the racial assumptions of someone making that accusation than it does about anyone else.

When *I* think "spear" I think of chariots. I think of Chinese spears with horse-hair around the end so that the blood doesn't drip down the handle.

I don't think Africa.

Yes, this *definitely* says more about the person who automatically thinks of naked Zulus when someone uses the word "spear." Because, you know, Africans are *primitive*. (rolls eyes)

The quote from Bill Bennett *in context* said the opposite, JFO.

If you want to get after someone who *really* thinks that black babies should be aborted perhaps you should attack Planned Parenthood which was founded for the express purpose of aborting black babies.

JFO, I suggest you give us a list of terms that must never be used by a white person ever.

Because frankly, most of us poor white folk have never ever in our life even heard most of them and, you know, it would be a shame if we put together words of the english language in a way that made sense to us and it turned out that those magic words turned our poor hearts into a cancerous racist mass.

Magic words. I suppose that's racist too since, you know, *magic* is something African, what with animism and voodoo and what all.

Synova:
No it is from someone who grew up in a segregated part of the country where the word meant one thing only; and later in an urban area in the north when it was used in the same way. Please show me some other usage for the term other than your lame or naive explanation.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.phpterm=spearchucker

Find a definition somewhere else. Still waiting to hear the rationalizations of "Ooga Booga Fever" Gibson. The silence is telling.

JFO has relied on the old lefty "racist" trick to support an argument against Fox News. It only proves they have no argument. Just labels, demeaning and marginalizting. JFO loves the fact that his party has effectively enslaved black americans so their very existance is dependent on the democratic party, or so they have them believe. Who is the racists' here JFO? I believe your pointing finger should turn around to you and your party. Most conservatives I know are too busy working and paying taxes and raising a family to spend time on playing "What Color Is This Person or That Person", we leave that game to you and your dysfunctional party. Fox News rocks. They have their problems, but overall, if I was to watch the news, it would be Fox. ww

"No it is from someone who grew up in a segregated part of the country where the word meant one thing only; and later in an urban area in the north when it was used in the same way. Please show me some other usage for the term other than your lame or naive explanation."

Whatever, but Brit Hume used the term in reference to John Glenn. Please explain to me how that is racist? I don't get it.

Replace the word Spearchucker with any of the synonyms in your Urban Dictionary definition. It just doesn't make sense.

Here is an article I found that calls John Bolton a "Renegade Spear-Carrier". What did the author mean? Was that racist?

In fact this Blogger really likes the term Spear-Carrier.

What does he mean by "Spear-Carrier"? Could that meaning also be applied to what Brit Hume said about John Glenn?

The Democrat frauds are just plain scared of Fox News period. If they can't control it they must destroy it and that's the way it goes.

Fox News is not part of the Democrat Perpetual Fraud like the rest of the MSM. So they must attack it like rabid dogs for it screws up their only means of getting elected , deceiving and lying to the American People. I believe the Rats like to call it "POLITICS". Ya, right. Did someone just say WAAAA!

"Still waiting to hear the rationalizations of "Ooga Booga Fever" Gibson. The silence is telling."

What is there to rationalize? It was a stupid statement, just like Rosie's "Ching Chong" statement, Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown", Gary Trudeau's "Brown Sugar", Robert Byrd "White Niggers", Joe Biden's "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent", Hilary Clinton's "Mahatma Gandhi ran a gas station down in Saint Louis.", Al Sharpton's ""White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." You know there are a lot more quotes I could come up with.

Before you go throwing stones at Fox over John Gibson's stupid remarks why don't you and the other Democrats actually clean your own house of its racists? It sure would be interesting to see the Democrats actually condemn one of their own for just once.

"It sure would be interesting to see the Democrats actually condemn one of their own for just once."

Amen to that. And not 6-9 months after an election when it was know prior to the election if ya know what I mean.

Obviously the word was not used to mean "John Glenn is acting like a person of African origin."

It makes no sense at all.

Not like calling someone a "house negro" which the left seems to like doing so much.

I was hoping to apply for the house negro position at Paris' house.

"I was hoping to apply for the house negro position at Paris' house."

Posted by: nehemiah

There's the comedy relief when you need it! :D