So, you're saying Fox is not biased at all?

Not true and the only way to know it is do your own research.

That's because you don't look, you are too busy buying everything in the huffington post.

Ok, I'm trying to stay neutral in this issue, but I have also heard that Keith Olbermann has a problem with his bladder control and pees his pants on the set, when he gets too excited?

True or false?

I've said this before

something to keep in mind

the news channels are not in the business of disseminating information. They are in the business of selling advertising.

They sell a demographic set of audiences to advertisers. They have to guarantee that those demographics will be watching so they present the news in a format that will keep them watching. FOX does it, CNN does it, MSNBC does it.

they are telling you what you want to hear to keep you watching

The whitehouse has to battle untruths somehow. I doubt it will shut down Faux news which would do us all a favor...lol

It is the worst news station in accuracy than any other station. It is also the worst with political spin than any others.

I think that's a fairly jaded perspective.. not that there's not some truth to it. there is. but if you follow that to it logical conclusion, you arrive at a place where you cannot take anything anyone has to say.. and I just can't get there.

I understand that FOX has a particular demographic that it, in a way, has to keep happy. Rush and Beck and Jon Stewart and Colbert are the same way.. If you offend your audience too often, soon you have no audience..

but I gotta think that there is some truth, a good amount of truth, in the things that a guy like Boortz or Levin has to say..

Yea, they're a little coarse in the way they deliver their message and they're speaking to a particular audience but if people didn't identify with it, they wouldn't listen. And if enough people didn't listen, they wouldn't be on the air.. particularly in the talk radio medium..

Air America is a great example.. It's the free market. People weren't listening, they went off the air despite all the money folks like Soros were pumping into it..

So my point is that if the audience didn't exist, they wouldn't be selling to it. Meaning that if people didn't want to hear what Fox is saying, they wouldn't listen.. And the fact is that FOX pulls a bigger audience at 3AM (!!!) than CNN pulls in primetime..

Well, I'm not sure I would go that far.. and it depends on what and who you're talking about.

I'm just pointing out that people who call Fox News "Faux" News act as if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC etc are just telling it straight..

Dan Rather, anyone?

There are 4 parts to communication: the intended message, how it's spoken/communicated, how it's heard and how it gets interpreted.

It's in the last two parts that the so-called Faux News gets it bad rap from those who are intent on finding it biased in the first place. They buck the trend of the mainstream media. They rock the boat, so to speak.. So those who don't say "hey! you're rocking the boat!"

Most journalists are inherently liberal. They go to Liberal Arts colleges, they get bachelors of arts degrees and are churned out of liberally biased communications departments.. Not all, of course but most. They young and idealistic and intent on changing the world. Nothing wrong with that, per se but I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the Katie Courics and Matt Lauers of the world aren't liberals, don't vote for democrats and don't nearly uniformly and universally support democrat causes.. Again, not that they're not entitled to their political opinions..

They just happen to be in the unique position of having a daily capitive audience to which they get to minister their opinions..

And for the longest time,they were the only ones in the game, they had the market cornered, there were only the big 3 and when you flipped from one to the next, you got the same message, the same news, the same slant on it.. and no one ever questioned them.. No one ever was suspicious that they were all broadcasting from the same building, practically.

Now, when the upstart Fox comes along and throws a monkey wrench into their nice docile audience, their natural response is to attempt to discredit them. The easiest way to do that is to discredit them by calling them biased. Nevermind that they themselves are biased.. That's beside the point..

They wouldn't see FOX as a threat unless there is some truths being told.

Ditto do your own research. I grew up listening to CNN, as I got older and actually listened to other views I wasn't so closed minded. I do plenty of research when it comes to these things, it's my personal preference.

The sad truth is NO ADMINISTRATION should tell an opposing new organization what to do. Once that is allowed our freedom of speech is being infringed on. Obama and his socialist buffoons need to just deal with the fact that there are opposing views and stop acting like a damn dictator.

You should have said something about it under Bush then because he blocked what news we could get.

Nothing is worse than the MSNBC trifecta of Mathews, Olbermann, and Maddow...

To claim they are more accurate.. or don't spin issues is quite funny...

I did not claim any of those were more accurate. I don't watch them.

Faux news is the worst when it comes to accuracy without spin. It doesn't take much to verify it most of the time.

2 fox threads???? you people ARE trying to mess with me aren't ya? which one do I talk about the pledge in????

Awww poor Rose. Hey, be glad there aren't any videos or audio that you had to listen to, hence no speakers. If I had some extras I'd send them to ya!