Quantcast

Is Fox News really Fair and Balanced?

Nonstoppolitics 2011/07/09 20:02:45
Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
Fox News is a reputable news source
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Fox News never misses an opportunity to take a shot at Obama and yet they gave Bush a pass on every issue. Even though there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their hero, President Bush, presided over the worst economic crisis our country has seen since the Great Depression, Fox News continues to spread ideological propaganda on a daily basis.

That's my opinion. I want to hear from everyone else. If you think I'm wrong then cite specific examples of when Fox News has offered balanced perspectives on the issues. If you think I'm right, but still believe in what Fox News is saying then tell me why you think it's okay that Fox News calls itself "Fair and Balanced." If you believe Fox News is Republican propaganda then give me a specific instance of when they've proven this to be true. Lets have a thoughtful discussion and refrain from name calling and giving opinions without substance.

Read More: http://www.outfoxed.org/

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • luvguins 2011/07/09 20:12:57 (edited)
    Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
    luvguins
    +5
    Faux News

    Roger Ailes got his start with Tricky Dick Nixon, so his plan was to have Right Wing Media, and Rupert Murdoch was glad to help him.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Charlie 2011/09/29 16:10:40
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Charlie
    +1
    You say that Fox gave Bush a pass on every issue? You're talking BS as I'm pretty sure you do not watch Fox and are just throwing out what other people have said that don't watch it either. That being said, stats like this must kill you as Fox doubles every other news channel out there.

    Total Viewers (Live +SD)

    Total day: FNC: 1.331 | MSNBC: 470 | CNN: 417 | HLN: 296
    Primetime: FNC: 2.462 | MSNBC: 835 | CNN: 547 | HLN: 331


    5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p: 12a:

    FNC Five: Baier: Shep: O’Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O’Reilly: Hannity:
    1.542 1.878 1.631 2.787 2.574 2.013 1.196 823

    MSNBC Matthews: Sharpton: Matthews: O’Donnell: Maddow: EdShow: O’Donnell: Maddow:
    681 614 703 796 904 804 495 430

    CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: KingUSA: Cooper: Morgan: Cooper: KingUSA: Morgan:
    544 439 387 484 621 535 359 298

    HLN Special: Prime: Issues: Grace: DrDrew: Behar: Showbiz: DrDrew:
    436 370 392 392 254 373 274 161
  • Nonstop... Charlie 2011/10/04 03:56:56
    Nonstoppolitics
    So your defense that Fox is reputable news source is that they have higher ratings than other more reputable news sources? I do watch Fox semi-regularly because unlike Faux News I want to make informed arguments. Your response is typical of a Fox News viewer. You address my claim that Fox gave Bush a pass on every issue by saying that I don't watch Fox which isn't really an argument at all. Fox was the first news station to call the election for Bush in 2000, they led the "flip flopper" crusade against Kerry in 2004, and continue to demonize Obama on a daily basis. Meanwhile when Bush was pushing to go into Iraq, Fox News was too happy to assist in misleading Americans about the nonexistent WMDs and stoking panic and fear and sell a costly and unnecessary war to the public. They continue to glorify the Bush Administration to this day even though history has proven through the war spending and economic crisis that Bush was a lousy President by almost all objective standards.
  • Charlie Nonstop... 2011/10/04 13:32:58
    Charlie
    Fox doesn't need any defense from me as they seem to be doing very well by themselves.
  • Nonstop... Charlie 2011/10/05 02:57:35
    Nonstoppolitics
    You said I must not watch Fox because I said they gave Bush a pass on every issue. I listed several reasons why I believe this was the case and yet again you go back to the ratings argument. The post wasn't about ratings. Reality TV has high ratings and even viewers will admit it's trashy garbage. My claim is that Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine and ratings don't change that. Apparently you have no legitimate argument to contribute.
  • Adrint 2011/08/30 02:49:36
    Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
    Adrint
    Seems pretty bad to me.
  • jackolantyrn356 2011/08/20 03:24:52
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    jackolantyrn356
    +1
    Works for me better than the Second class Margine......... What Liberals seem to forget expecially in news. You can never be vbalanced but keep on calling for Balence.
  • Blacque Jacques 2011/08/17 17:57:11
    Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
    Blacque Jacques
    +1
    Puhleese... Fox News is so biased it is sickening. Hannity, O'Reilly et.al., are the most loudmouthed, prejudiced, arrogant, vain, concieted, disrespectful, ignoramuses on television. Period, end of discussion.
  • JCD aka "biz" 2011/07/13 16:56:11
    Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
    JCD aka "biz"
    +1
    FOX "NEWS" belongs to Rupert Murdoch.
    It is just as "reputable" as the News of the World.
  • Tyler Carper 2011/07/10 01:36:52
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Tyler Carper
    +1
    Its not as Conservative as CNN is Liberal
  • Nonstop... Tyler C... 2011/07/10 02:31:20
    Nonstoppolitics
    +2
    Elaborate. How exactly is CNN liberal and how is Fox objective?
  • Tyler C... Nonstop... 2011/07/10 02:38:49
    Tyler Carper
    +1
    In a joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable channels of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It's not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator's stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama."
    CNN has been accused of perpetrating media bias for allegedly promoting both a conservative and a liberal agenda based on previous ...







    In a joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable channels of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It's not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator's stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama."
    CNN has been accused of perpetrating media bias for allegedly promoting both a conservative and a liberal agenda based on previous incidents. Accuracy in Media and the Media Research Center have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories.
    CNN is one of the world's largest news organizations, and its international channel, CNN International is the leading international new channel in terms of viewer reach.[52][53] Unlike the BBC and its network of reporters and bureaus, CNN International makes extensive use of affiliated reporters that are local to, and often directly affected by, the events they are reporting. The effect is a more immediate, less detached style of on-the-ground coverage. This has done little to stem criticism, largely from Middle Eastern nations, that CNN International reports news from a pro-American perspective. This is a marked contrast to domestic criticisms that often portray CNN as having a "liberal" or "anti-American" bias. In 2002, Honest Reporting spearheaded a campaign to expose CNN for pro-Palestinian bias, citing public remarks in which Ted Turner equated Palestinian suicide bombing with Israeli military strikes.
    Chicago Sun-Times. June 5, 2007. As said by Ted Turner, founder of CNN, "There really isn't much of a point getting some Tom, Dick or Harry off the streets to report on when we can snag a big name whom everyone identifies with. After all, it's all part of the business." However, in April 2008, Turner criticized the direction CNN has taken.[55] Others have echoed that criticism, especially in light of CNN's drop in the ratings.
    A Chinese website, anti-cnn.com, has accused CNN and western media in general of biased reporting against China, with the catch-phrase "Don't be so CNN" catching on in the Chinese mainstream as jokingly meaning "Don't be so biased". Pictures used by CNN are allegedly edited to have completely different meanings from the original ones. In addition, the channel was accused of largely ignoring pro-China voices during the Olympic Torch Relay in San Francisco.
    On April 24, 2008 beautician Liang Shubing and teacher Li Lilan sued commentator Jack Cafferty and CNN $1.3 billion damages ($1 per person in China), in New York, for "violating the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people". This was in response to an incident during CNN's "The Situation Room" on April 9, where Cafferty stated his opinion that "[the USA] continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food" despite his view that "[the Chinese leaders were] basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years". Further, amid China's Foreign Ministry demand for an apology, 14 lawyers filed a similar suit in Beijing.
    In June 2009, musician M.I.A. stated she did an hour-long interview with CNN condemning the mass bombing and Tamil civilian fatalities at the hands of Government forces in Sri Lanka in 16 weeks the same year, "and they cut it down to one minute and made it about my single “Paper Planes.” When I went to the Grammys, I saw the same reporter from CNN, and I was like, “Why did you do that?” And she said, “Because you used the G-word.” "Genocide. I guess you’re not allowed to say that on CNN," raising questions concerning CNN's coverage and commitment to free speech.
    On November 11, 2009, longtime CNN anchor Lou Dobbs resigned on air. He didn't explain why in his exit speech but it has been reported that he was bothered by a memo that ordered anchors to stop allowing Obama birthers airtime.
    On July 7, 2010, Octavia Nasr, senior Middle East editor and a CNN journalist for 20 years, was fired after she expressed on her Twitter account admiration for a liberal-minded Muslim cleric who had recently died, casting doubts on the company's commitment to freedom of speech.
    On October 1, 2010, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was fired after remarks he made during an interview with comedian Pete Dominick at a radio show the previous day about prejudices he faced during his television career, at CNN and jokes about him by comedian Jon Stewart. Calling him a "bigot" before retracting this and describing him instead as "prejudiced" and "uninformed", the interviewer invoked Stewart's faith as an example of how Stewart was "a minority as much as you are". Sanchez stated his view that Jewish people were not an oppressed minority in America, and his view that "everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart" before stating "And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart."
    (more)
  • Nonstop... Tyler C... 2011/07/10 05:58:54 (edited)
    Nonstoppolitics
    +1
    That's quite an elaboration. Let me sum up my response. Sanchez is a public figure and public figures are held to higher scrutiny than the rest of us. He also publicly bashed his employer which isn't exactly the smartest thing to do unless you have hard evidence. His opinions could be taken as anti-semetic which is frowned up on in our culture as it should be. I would hardly say the Sanchez firing proves CNN is liberal.

    In regards to Octavia Nasr, the liberal minded muslim cleric was Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah who seemed to be slightly more openminded than some islamic militants, but still held anti-semetic views and was closely associated with the islamic militant group Hezbollah. I don't see anything inherently wrong with CNN wanting to distance itself from reporters who endorse anti-American extremists. Seems like more of a step towards objective journalism than anything else.

    I didn't necessarily dislike Lou Dobbs. I thought he made a lot of sense on outsourcing and he was instrumental in bringing illegal immigration to the public consciousness which is a major problem regardless of one's political leanings. The Birther issue was debunked consistently and in the end the President provided his birth certificate. Only loony conspiracy theory nuts continue to insist that Obama...





    That's quite an elaboration. Let me sum up my response. Sanchez is a public figure and public figures are held to higher scrutiny than the rest of us. He also publicly bashed his employer which isn't exactly the smartest thing to do unless you have hard evidence. His opinions could be taken as anti-semetic which is frowned up on in our culture as it should be. I would hardly say the Sanchez firing proves CNN is liberal.

    In regards to Octavia Nasr, the liberal minded muslim cleric was Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah who seemed to be slightly more openminded than some islamic militants, but still held anti-semetic views and was closely associated with the islamic militant group Hezbollah. I don't see anything inherently wrong with CNN wanting to distance itself from reporters who endorse anti-American extremists. Seems like more of a step towards objective journalism than anything else.

    I didn't necessarily dislike Lou Dobbs. I thought he made a lot of sense on outsourcing and he was instrumental in bringing illegal immigration to the public consciousness which is a major problem regardless of one's political leanings. The Birther issue was debunked consistently and in the end the President provided his birth certificate. Only loony conspiracy theory nuts continue to insist that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. If CNN wants to distance itself from loony conspiracy theory nuts then I don't see how that makes it inherently liberal. At least CNN discourages lies. Fox News promotes them.

    I'm not entirely up to date on M.I.A. or her politics. To my knowledge she's not an expert in political affairs so if CNN chooses not to use a portion of her interview then I'd say it's within their rights. If what she said was true then I'd say it's bogus for CNN not to use her segment because she said the "G" word, but again she's not an expert in political affairs so in counterbalancing the journalistic atrocities of Faux News this incident gets very little weight.

    Cafferty is a little rough around the edges, but I would say calling China a bunch of goons is fairly accurate. I think it's obvious that Cafferty was referring to the Chinese government and not each individual Chinese citizen as the lawsuit states. That's like saying everyone in Libya is a Gaddafi supporter or every US citizen is a Republican. That lawsuit is total BS. Glenn Beck has made far more serious assaults on truth and reason. I would say Cafferty was wrong on a technicality. As far as calling the Chinese (government) a bunch of goons I would say he's pretty right on. (On a side note China allowed various groups to protest at the Beijing Olympics if they registered with the government, they allowed the protests to be filmed, when the cameras were gone they used the registration forms to round up the protesters and arrest them. Communist News Network? Gimme a break. Only communists would sue a news network for a million dollars per person because a show host insulted their government. Apparently there's no separation between people and government over there just like there's no separation between news and government over here.)

    I would argue that if you took anything Ted Turner has said and compared it to anything Rupert Murdoch has said the gavel of objectivity would not favor Rupert Murdoch. The guy is a stone cold ideologue. He freely admits it. So far your list has shown me that CNN at least makes an effort to uphold objective journalism.
    (more)
  • Nonstop... Nonstop... 2011/07/10 06:20:46
    Nonstoppolitics
    +1
    And on to Fox.

    A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush."

    The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."

    Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. In the documentary Outfoxed, former Fox News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias...









    And on to Fox.

    A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush."

    The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."

    Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. In the documentary Outfoxed, former Fox News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias. The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray."

    Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."

    Steven Milloy, the commentator for FoxNews.com, has been critical of the science behind global warming and secondhand smoke as a carcinogen. In a February 6, 2006, article in The New Republic, Paul D. Thacker revealed that ExxonMobil had donated $90,000 to two non-profit organizations run out of Milloy's house. In addition, Milloy received almost $100,000 a year from Philip Morris during the time he was arguing that secondhand smoke was not carcinogenic. Milloy's website, junkscience.com, was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by RJR Tobacco.

    (Yes, I also know how to cut and paste from Wikipedia. Speaking of which...)

    In August 2007, a new utility, Wikipedia Scanner, revealed that Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses owned by Fox News, though it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were. The tool showed that self-referential edits from IP ranges owned by corporations and news agencies were not uncommon, including from The New York Times. Fox edits received attention in the blogosphere and on some online news sites. Wikipedia articles edited from Fox computers from 2005 through 2007 included Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.

    (As far as I can see it seems like Fox has an agenda to slant the news and call it "fair and balanced." Independent studies have shown that Fox News viewers are less informed about current events. Fox News has been caught redhanded trying to cover up their blatant news bias and conflicts of interest. Again they send out marching orders and penalize anyone who dares to stray from their right wing ideological vision. I'm outraged that people who watch this channel have the gaul to call liberals communists. You don't get much more totalitarian than Faux News.)
    (more)
  • Tyler C... Nonstop... 2011/07/10 20:12:27
    Tyler Carper
    I agree with you 100%
  • America... Tyler C... 2011/07/10 07:03:52
    American☆Atheist
    +1
    but reality has a liberal bias
  • Darkitec 2011/07/09 22:40:05 (edited)
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Darkitec
    They have their slant, but considering the extremist left slant of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News. it's nice to have a news source that isn't so completely indoctrinated into the progressive government knows best, environazi scam, cult.
  • America... Darkitec 2011/07/10 07:07:27
    American☆Atheist
    +1
    abc is right and msnbc is alittle left
  • Orsino Darkitec 2011/08/05 12:50:39
    Orsino
    Real news outlets shouldn't have slants
  • R. 2011/07/09 22:38:09
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    R.
    +1
    The John Edwards story. Fox wouldn't even touch it at first but the mainstream never went
    for it even though it is their kinda story . The acorn exposes.
    They are fair and balanced because they offer the opposition a seat at the table although
    they often decline.
  • Nonstop... R. 2011/07/10 04:12:11
    Nonstoppolitics
    +2
    It has been my experience that while Fox gives the opposition a seat at the table, they rarely give them a voice. Bill O'Reilly is constantly yelling at his guests to "shut up" and Sean Hannity also railroads over liberal contributors. Also the seat at the table is often towards the end and a few notches lower than the rest. For example, "Bulls and Bears" is hosted by conservative Brenda Buttner with the regular panelists being Tobin Smith, Gary P. Smith, Pat Dorsey, and Eric Bolling all of whom are conservative leaning. About twenty minutes in to the half hour show they bring in a relatively unknown liberal and have a 5 to 1 debate with him/her. I personally don't feel like that is giving the opposition a seat at the table or being "fair and balanced."
  • R. Nonstop... 2011/07/10 11:59:07
    R.
    I said they offer them a seat not that THEY opened up the floor to them. Bulls and Bears ?
    Really ? You are the only person I know that would want to know the opinion of any
    libtard when it comes to Wall street. Besides if you have heard one tards opinion of
    Wall street you have basically heard them all. Why don't the libbies have their own
    money and investment shows ? I'll tell you why , " money and profits sre BAAADDDD".
    Wall street is BAAAADDDDD. Just pay more taxes and let the government decide who
    gets it.
    p.s. Pat stands straight at best , no right lean.
  • Nonstop... R. 2011/07/10 18:24:34
    Nonstoppolitics
    I'll agree that Pat is in the middle. So that makes it 4 against 1. Believe it or not there are business minded Democrats. Hell, the most successful businessman alive, Warren Buffet, endorsed Obama in 2008. Also it wasn't liberals who made all the shady investments which crashed the economy so I think Wall Street could stand to hear a liberal perspective. The liberals "Bulls and Bears" chooses to showcase are unqualified to debate economics. Of course you would think liberals don't know anything about money when Fox liberals are your point of reference.

    It's also an oversimplification to assume that every liberal thinks money and profits are "BAAADDD." Most of us are not anti-business. We're pro-environment and pro-workers rights. BP dumped tons of oil into the waters of the gulf coast and conservatives would let them walk away because punishing them raises the cost of oil and yet resistance to environmental standards on oil companies allowed Exxon Mobil to pollute rivers and lakes in Montana and fight any clean up efforts. Big oils profits are other businesses losses when they aren't held to higher safety standards. Supporting the elimination of the EPA is anti-business in itself because big oil is not the only business in America and many other businesses have suffered due t...

    I'll agree that Pat is in the middle. So that makes it 4 against 1. Believe it or not there are business minded Democrats. Hell, the most successful businessman alive, Warren Buffet, endorsed Obama in 2008. Also it wasn't liberals who made all the shady investments which crashed the economy so I think Wall Street could stand to hear a liberal perspective. The liberals "Bulls and Bears" chooses to showcase are unqualified to debate economics. Of course you would think liberals don't know anything about money when Fox liberals are your point of reference.

    It's also an oversimplification to assume that every liberal thinks money and profits are "BAAADDD." Most of us are not anti-business. We're pro-environment and pro-workers rights. BP dumped tons of oil into the waters of the gulf coast and conservatives would let them walk away because punishing them raises the cost of oil and yet resistance to environmental standards on oil companies allowed Exxon Mobil to pollute rivers and lakes in Montana and fight any clean up efforts. Big oils profits are other businesses losses when they aren't held to higher safety standards. Supporting the elimination of the EPA is anti-business in itself because big oil is not the only business in America and many other businesses have suffered due to their irresponsibility.

    From Kathy Lee Gifford to Hanes to Nike, a large portion of American and multinational corporations profit from labor abuses overseas. It's one thing to relocate a factory overseas to take advantage of cheap labor, it's another thing to move a factory overseas to take advantage of slave labor. Sometimes government isn't the bad guy. Most of the time they are complicit in these injustices because they get campaign contributions from these companies, but to call the people who champion campaign finance reform and corporate responsibility "anti-business" is just wrong. We're not anti-business, we're anti corruption.
    (more)
  • R. Nonstop... 2011/07/10 22:17:02
    R.
    There you go again. Please cite where I said the word "democrat". It wasn't liberals
    who crashed Wall Street . Did Warren help crash the economy. I'm sure there are
    no liberal hedge fund managers or CEOs . Give it a rest.
    " BP dumped tons of oil into the waters of the gulf coast and conservatives would
    let them walk away because punishing them raises the cost of oil" ...
    First off they didn't ' dump" anything and second it could have been alot less if your
    community organizer hadn't dithered and if we were not forced to drill deepwater
    and allowed to drill on the shelf and Anwar this type of spill would not have taken
    place. If you believe conservatives would just let them walk away you may be guilty
    of oversimplification .
    " Supporting the elimination of the EPA is anti-business in itself ..." That is
    classic. Eliminating the EPA is shrinking government and it is necessary if
    we are to continue breathing . Otherwise we will eventually be taxed on how many
    times you exhale in a year. I'm sure the will have an average number which can
    be raised or lowered depending on the level of revenue needed.
    Once again , I never uttered the words " campaign finance reform " or "anti business".
    Companies move for one of two reasons ; taxes or labor cost. We have the
    highest...





    There you go again. Please cite where I said the word "democrat". It wasn't liberals
    who crashed Wall Street . Did Warren help crash the economy. I'm sure there are
    no liberal hedge fund managers or CEOs . Give it a rest.
    " BP dumped tons of oil into the waters of the gulf coast and conservatives would
    let them walk away because punishing them raises the cost of oil" ...
    First off they didn't ' dump" anything and second it could have been alot less if your
    community organizer hadn't dithered and if we were not forced to drill deepwater
    and allowed to drill on the shelf and Anwar this type of spill would not have taken
    place. If you believe conservatives would just let them walk away you may be guilty
    of oversimplification .
    " Supporting the elimination of the EPA is anti-business in itself ..." That is
    classic. Eliminating the EPA is shrinking government and it is necessary if
    we are to continue breathing . Otherwise we will eventually be taxed on how many
    times you exhale in a year. I'm sure the will have an average number which can
    be raised or lowered depending on the level of revenue needed.
    Once again , I never uttered the words " campaign finance reform " or "anti business".
    Companies move for one of two reasons ; taxes or labor cost. We have the
    highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations now that Japan dropped
    their rate by 5 percentage points and thanks to unions and their legacy cost
    we lose on the labor side as well. And your last sentence leads on to believe
    that conservatives are pro corruption and you may have a point. The fact that
    we have have not impeached the community organizer and his merry band
    of thieves and czars , makes us complicit in the most corrupt administration
    in the history of America.
    (more)
  • Nonstop... R. 2011/07/11 03:51:29 (edited)
    Nonstoppolitics
    It was Bush's policy of deregulation that caused the economic crisis. Virtually all economists agree that the sale of suprime mortgage securities and the lack of oversight on credit default swaps was the primary reason the economy crashed. I seriously doubt Dick Fuld and the who's who of the economic crisis are solid Democrat supporters and if they are then it's only so they can get Democrats to abandon progressive values. It's absurd to suggest that the majority of Wall Street favors regulating Wall Street. Of course they're against any efforts, efforts that are led primarily, almost exclusively, by Democrats.

    BP didn't technically "dump" tons of oil into the water, but with the amount of times they've been fined for oil spills and the amount of times they've paid fines without changing any of the practices that lead to the spill, they might as well have just dumped the oil in the ocean. BP is an obvious example of corporate irresponsibility. Even they themselves admit it or they wouldn't be paying all the money to people affected by the spill in the Gulf. I would say a litmus test of whether or not you're a right wing wacko would be if you think BP's behavior up to and during the gulf oil spill was responsible.

    Let me lay out my "pro-business" argument. Businesses don't exist ...









    It was Bush's policy of deregulation that caused the economic crisis. Virtually all economists agree that the sale of suprime mortgage securities and the lack of oversight on credit default swaps was the primary reason the economy crashed. I seriously doubt Dick Fuld and the who's who of the economic crisis are solid Democrat supporters and if they are then it's only so they can get Democrats to abandon progressive values. It's absurd to suggest that the majority of Wall Street favors regulating Wall Street. Of course they're against any efforts, efforts that are led primarily, almost exclusively, by Democrats.

    BP didn't technically "dump" tons of oil into the water, but with the amount of times they've been fined for oil spills and the amount of times they've paid fines without changing any of the practices that lead to the spill, they might as well have just dumped the oil in the ocean. BP is an obvious example of corporate irresponsibility. Even they themselves admit it or they wouldn't be paying all the money to people affected by the spill in the Gulf. I would say a litmus test of whether or not you're a right wing wacko would be if you think BP's behavior up to and during the gulf oil spill was responsible.

    Let me lay out my "pro-business" argument. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum. They exist around neighborhoods, small businesses, other businesses, etc. If a factory is spewing out pollution that is causing home values to plummet then they are affecting the business of realtors, investors, homeowners, and developers. When tobacco companies give employees lung cancer it makes health insurance costs go up for businesses or, if they choose to drop or lower coverage, then it affects the workers which in turn affects consumer spending which affects business. The Republican "pro-business" and Democrat "anti-business" argument is BS because Republicans aren't pro-business, they are pro-specific businesses, mainly whichever ones have the most powerful lobbyists. Democrats are guilty of it too so I don't excuse them.

    We didn't elect our politicians to be "pro-business" we elected them to be "pro-people." If a business has helped better people's lives then cool, but if they've given people lung cancer like tobacco companies or stifled alternative energy innovation like oil companies then the government isn't being "anti-business" by regulating them, they are being anti-destructive business and pro-people. There's a BIG difference.

    "Eliminating the EPA is shrinking government and it is necessary if we are to continue breathing . Otherwise we will eventually be taxed on how many times you exhale in a year."

    You gotta be kidding me. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

    And I have heard every boogeyman variation on Obama and unions under the sun. On one hand you guys say Obama is an ineffective leader who can't tie his shoelaces in the morning and on the other he's a diabolic mastermind bent on destroying America. Which is it? In truth I'm disappointed with Obama because I don't think he's done enough to further progressive causes. Name one thing he's actually done that progressives should be thrilled about. Even healthcare reform is years away from being full implemented so if you look at the first two years he hasn't even done much for you guys to complain about. He renewed the Bush tax cuts, he resigned the Patriot Act. Conservatives should practically be campaigning for Obama.

    And there are the all powerful unions to which a whopping 12% of the American workforce belongs to. Meanwhile as union membership has declined corporate profits have shot through the roof and wages have stagnated. As Republicans have deregulated select businesses, our government has become more and more corrupt. Even our Supreme court thinks multinational corporations are people and deserve an equal voice in our democracy as flesh and blood Americans. It wasn't always that way and back when it wasn't the Democrats were running the show. (By running the show I mean the time period between 1933 and 1969 compared to the Republican Era from 1969-2008.)
    (more)
  • R. Nonstop... 2011/07/11 12:28:08
    R.
    +1
    It was Bush's fault. If I had a dime for every time I've heard that said I would
    be posting from my own private island. It is well documented that many on
    the right warned of the impending bubble being created by the fannies and
    freddies but we were continually assured by the leftists that they were in
    good shape. Remember a filabuster works for either side. You tards always
    use the word deregulation like it is bad and regulation is good and the truth
    is that " regulation" is what started this ball rolling. When bubba decided
    he wanted to be remembered as the prez who put everybody in a house
    ( remember the last dim prez wanted a chicken in every pot) whether they
    could pay for it or not and the lenders faced certain IRS audits which assured
    wrong doing COULD be found unless they played ball ( Fair Housing Act)
    a certain percentage of the loans HAD TO BE MADE TO LOW INCOME
    PEOPLE. Now it doesn't take one of your so called " expert " economist
    to know that if you lend money to someone without the ability to pay you
    back 2 things will occur . You will lose money big time and you will have
    people wanting to tatoo " IDIOT" in large letters across your forehead at
    no charge.

    " If a factory is spewing out pollution" and " When tobacco companies give employees lung ...





















    It was Bush's fault. If I had a dime for every time I've heard that said I would
    be posting from my own private island. It is well documented that many on
    the right warned of the impending bubble being created by the fannies and
    freddies but we were continually assured by the leftists that they were in
    good shape. Remember a filabuster works for either side. You tards always
    use the word deregulation like it is bad and regulation is good and the truth
    is that " regulation" is what started this ball rolling. When bubba decided
    he wanted to be remembered as the prez who put everybody in a house
    ( remember the last dim prez wanted a chicken in every pot) whether they
    could pay for it or not and the lenders faced certain IRS audits which assured
    wrong doing COULD be found unless they played ball ( Fair Housing Act)
    a certain percentage of the loans HAD TO BE MADE TO LOW INCOME
    PEOPLE. Now it doesn't take one of your so called " expert " economist
    to know that if you lend money to someone without the ability to pay you
    back 2 things will occur . You will lose money big time and you will have
    people wanting to tatoo " IDIOT" in large letters across your forehead at
    no charge.

    " If a factory is spewing out pollution" and " When tobacco companies give employees lung cancer " . How many factories do we have left in America ?
    We are a consumer nation not a manufacturing one. The average global
    temperature was 2 to 3 degrees higher in during the Pliocen Epoch
    ( 5.3 to 2.5 million before present) than today and the air quality standards
    in our country are higher today than they have ever been. Unfortunately
    we are not the only people living on earth so overall quality is not something
    we are in control of and it is hardly our responsibility to make up the difference
    caused by other polluting countries. The tobacco comment stands on its own
    and like the classification given my EPA comment , this one will be afforded
    the same honor.
    This is classic tardspeak " On one hand you guys say "... You are addressing
    me so do so based on what I say not "you guys". Lumping don't fly
    here , homey. Agreed he is not a classic progressive . What he is cannot
    be clearly defined outside of being a LIAR. He has symptoms of many
    different ideoligies all rolled into one but he is a true Alinskyite in that
    he learned his craft on the streets as a community organizer and realizes
    the importance of an effective ground game.
    Bush tx cuts and Patriot act were renewed because they WORK and
    he knows that now. Gitmo and several other Bush era policies are
    still in play because they work.
    The discussion was about Fox News and we have strayed quite a bit.
    Whether you feel FOX News IS fair and balanced , they do offer
    balance in a media that is decidedly bias to the wrong side.
    (more)
  • Darkitec Nonstop... 2011/07/10 17:09:28
    Darkitec
    +1
    I've never listened to O'Reilly, but I can admit to hearing Hannity's radio show several times, and I agree, he's a terrible to dissenters (liberal or Libertarian).. If anyone dares express an opinion that differs from his own, he cut them off, belittle them, pound them with repeated biased questions that have nothing to do with a callers point so long as it makes Hannity's opinion correct, and will keep the caller from expressing his arguments, I wish there were more Libertarian talk show hosts like Neil Boortz that's not government right or government left but just plain, minimize government and let people live.
  • rand 2011/07/09 22:34:30
    Fox News is a Republican propaganda machine
    rand
    But I watch it at times BECAUSE, as Chris Wallace said, it offers a view from a perspective other than that of most other networks. No one source is going to give it to us straight; just selecting what and what not to air is a matter of opinion.
  • Teancum79 2011/07/09 22:16:46
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Teancum79
    +2
    I think the bias calls tend to come from people who think left field is the center.
  • Nonstop... Teancum79 2011/07/10 04:54:38 (edited)
    Nonstoppolitics
    +1
    I would say center is objective journalism and not injecting political views into news stories which Fox News anchors do on a daily basis. There have been countless leaks of Fox News Memos which are marching orders sent down from above on what to say and what not say on air. Fox News is owned by News Corporation whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch, a devout conservative. News Corporation has donated millions of dollars to Republican causes including the Republican Governors Association and the US Chamber of Commerce. Roger Ailes, President of Fox News, has a history of being instrumental in Republican Presidential campaigns. Now, to be fair, the political views of Murdoch and Ailes might not necessarily mean they don't promote objective journalism, but when you look at the content of their coverage, their trademark shows, and those marching orders http://mediamatters.org/resea... it's pretty clear that Fox News is way out in right field.
  • Teancum79 Nonstop... 2011/07/11 15:20:20
    Teancum79
    +1
    It is clear that fox news is right of CNN, MSNBC etc., but have you ever noticed their bias? or do you pretend it is no bias because you like like it?
  • Nonstop... Teancum79 2011/07/11 18:24:25
    Nonstoppolitics
    General coverage on CNN is very unbiased in my opinion as opposed to Fox which is consistently slanted nearly every hour of the day. MSNBC is more directly liberal, but they often use information to back up their arguments. Fox uses propaganda and subliminal messaging. They run a ticker about Bush under the graphic "You Decide" for the 2004 election. They show what they want to promote with good light, good footage and what they want to smear with poor lighting and bad footage. They show conservative contributors in full screen and liberal contributors in split screen. There are also been numerous leaks of marching orders sent down from above which tells everyone at Fox what to focus on and what to ignore. That's not being a reputable news network. Fox News uses over a dozen propaganda techniques to further it's right wing message. CNN and MSNBC at least make an effort to report the news.
  • Teancum79 Nonstop... 2011/07/11 18:28:09
    Teancum79
    +1
    I have no doubt that tactics are used, but I disagree that Fox is the big offender. I recall Bush getting nailed for nearly every misspoken word, but O gets a pass on the number of states we have and a dozen other major mess-ups. I'm not saying fox is saintly, but I find the accusation that they are really unfair or biased unjustified.
  • Welshtaff 2011/07/09 21:56:08
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Welshtaff
    +2
    Sure beats ABC, CBS My other choice to watch is BBC, right down the middle news. beats abc cbs choice watch bbc middle news BBC News
  • Freedom4 2011/07/09 21:05:55
    Fox News is a reputable news source
    Freedom4
    More so than any other media outlet there is.
  • Nonstop... Freedom4 2011/07/10 04:24:11
    Nonstoppolitics
    +1
    So what would you say are the most objective shows on Fox? Who are the most objective anchors? Give me some examples of how anchors from other networks have shown their bias. If you're comparing Fox News to MSNBC then you're going to find a similar amount of opinionated news reporting. Comparing Fox News to CNN, which has a fairly high standard of objective news, I would say Fox is much less reputable.
  • Bibliop... Nonstop... 2011/07/10 07:24:35
    Bibliophilic
    +1
    The only slightly objective person on Fox is probably John Stossel, but maybe he's just a bit different from the same conservative tripe. There is nothing reputable about Fox in general.
  • Freedom4 Nonstop... 2011/07/10 13:41:45
    Freedom4
    Here are a couple of good examples. Coverage of the tea parties vs the Wisconsin teachers strikes, the reporting of Obama appointing an admitted communist and cop killer supporter to his cabinet, and rev wright just to name a few major ones.
  • Nonstop... Freedom4 2011/07/10 16:32:43 (edited)
    Nonstoppolitics
    +1
    Wait a second cutting footage of a Tea Party rally to make it look like there were more people in attendance than there actually were makes Fox a reputable news station? And here we go with the same old guilt by association anti-Obama propaganda. All Fox News knows how to do is wage smear campaigns and lies.
  • America... Freedom4 2011/07/10 07:08:57
    American☆Atheist
    lmao, you are brainwashed
  • Freedom4 America... 2011/07/10 16:37:14
    Freedom4
    I named three solid examples and that is all you can say? I think that says it all. The reason the left feels a need to attack fox time and time again is because fox actually reports both sides to every story and is the only news source to do so and the left relies on ignorance to push their horrible policies

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/31 17:54:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals