The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Fox News- obviously journalism!

245

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Mistress of the ashen cloud and most glorious fallout Registered User regular
    We should start a kickstarter fund to pay a lawyer to sue them for libel. We'd need a lot of lawyers.


    Also, I find it frustrating that even legitimate news outlets refuse to take Fox to task over fraud and falsehood. I guess there's some code of honor that keeps news companies from calling other news companies on bullshit.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    I don't even think there is such a thing as "unbiased news".

    I mean, I guess you could just dryly report facts and not explain them. But that would just be confusing and frustrating to the average viewer, not to mention boring. Proper news requires some sort of analysis, and that analysis will always be called a "bias" by anyone who disagrees with it. If we had some magical truth-telling device that would be great, but as it is we're stuck with human opinions.

    Well, I mean you can never be wholly unbiased, but you can cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately. I think the CBC in Canada, and probably the BBC in the UK do a pretty fair job of this (of course, they're run by the government instead of individual millionnaires/corporations, so that may be why).

    And i would counter that trying to "cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately" IS what most major news outlets in the US do, and it's a huge fucking problem. Because sometimes one side is just wrong, and the journalists should say so. It's like:

    Democrats: We'd like to keep things pretty much the same.
    Republicans: We want to criminalize abortion and invade Iran.

    Shouldn't a journalist, in the interest of truth, just call out the Republicans for being crazy?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The news media seems to run under the same kind of blackmail that the Republicans think the economy should run on.

    "Oh you're going to treat me poorly, well fuck you I won't come on your show."

    I say call the fuckers on it.

    See how well their egos take not being in the spotlight.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    On the fair coverage, PBS for the most part has done a reasonable job. When there are multiple viewpoints worth hearing, they'll try to get reasonable people who have those viewpoints. If there is only one reasonable view, they often just blow off the fringe groups and bring in a single expert from the accepted viewpoint.

    I'm wondering if this is a result of being publicly owned and they just have a better feel on who they can tell to fuck off when they play they "Wah, you're being mean and not entertaining my shitty fringe view." Ratings not being the end all be all probably gives them a little more leeway as well.

    Pisses me off that anonymous gave them shit a bit back because they didn't like some of the coverage but seems to puss out when it comes to dealing with Foxnews.

    Steam ID
    battletag: Millin#1360
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Every news channel in the US is so horribly biased as to be almost completely unwatchable at this point. Rarely is there an actual rational discussion of truth and facts. There is always severe bias, twisting of information, and absence of information that refutes that channel's agenda. Best place to get unbiased news and truth is the internet now.

    Fox is the worst offender of conservatively biased "news" and shouldn't be watched by anyone. Same goes for nearly every other "news" channel out there now on American TV.

    Fox's bias is political, while other station's biases tend to be towards manufacturing crap that will get people to tune in.They're not really the liberal media that Fox likes to call them as a justification for acting the way they do.

    No, there is pervasive liberal bias in the other networks. I mean, CBS tried to destroy a presidential candidate with forged documents. MSNBC is all liberals all the time. NPR has been doing a running series where they play an Obama campaign commercial, talk about how awesome he is, and then... they go on to the next news item.

    Um, no. Just no.

    MSNBC has twice as many right-wing guests as left-wingers and Joe Goosing Scarborough. NPR is objective and simply talks about the candidates without lying. And CBS...oh CBS, you take someone else' forged documents as real, then you cover the Obama 2008 campaign with more negative coverage as John McCain, but because Katie Couric wasn't prepared for just how mind-bogglingly stupid Sarah Palin truly was (Ms. Couric bent over backwards trying to help the woman but she just didn't realize how bad the situation was) you're an evil lamestream liberal media monster.

    Still happening in 2012 by the way, that Obama negative coverage thing I mentioned.

    The "liberal media" myth dates back at least as far as Nixon, who (I think) coined the phrase, and going back that far is getting back to when words meant different things than they do now. The media is corporate-conservative-authoritarian bias and always has been, because it takes money to run those shows and print those papers and being mainstream generally means not pissing off people who can hurt you, i.e. the aristocrats.

    But what the news media truly and completely is, is the evolution of the town gossip. They're more interested in having people listen to them than anything else, they want a lead and bleed, they want a scary car chase, they want to seem important by reporting something important because they aren't likely to DO anything important.

    There is a word that dropped out of the lexicon somewhere around when Roger Ailes started building his Stalinesque little empire; Objectivity. The ability to report a story as an objective truth instead of sexing it up with innuendo and subjective moral complaints and lies of quality to modify truths of quantity.

    I miss that word, and the meaning behind it. Just as I miss CNN Headline News, but I guess that makes me a whiny old man nostalgic for a time that wasn't really that good anyway.

    Such is life.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Wooo Fox News. I did my final in speech class on Fox News. Everyone was genuinely surprised that this happened-

    fox-news-shitty-photoshop.jpg

    Captain Marcus on
    ISIS delenda est
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    The news media seems to run under the same kind of blackmail that the Republicans think the economy should run on.

    "Oh you're going to treat me poorly, well fuck you I won't come on your show."

    I say call the fuckers on it.

    See how well their egos take not being in the spotlight.
    I think this becomes a sort of prisoner's dilemma issue, though. If we could somehow get all the major news networks on board at the same time it would be excellent.

  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    I don't even think there is such a thing as "unbiased news".

    I mean, I guess you could just dryly report facts and not explain them. But that would just be confusing and frustrating to the average viewer, not to mention boring. Proper news requires some sort of analysis, and that analysis will always be called a "bias" by anyone who disagrees with it. If we had some magical truth-telling device that would be great, but as it is we're stuck with human opinions.

    Well, I mean you can never be wholly unbiased, but you can cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately. I think the CBC in Canada, and probably the BBC in the UK do a pretty fair job of this (of course, they're run by the government instead of individual millionnaires/corporations, so that may be why).

    And i would counter that trying to "cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately" IS what most major news outlets in the US do, and it's a huge fucking problem. Because sometimes one side is just wrong, and the journalists should say so. It's like:

    Democrats: We'd like to keep things pretty much the same.
    Republicans: We want to criminalize abortion and invade Iran.

    Shouldn't a journalist, in the interest of truth, just call out the Republicans for being crazy?

    Yeah, I think "objectivity" was more what I was going for than "unbiased", now that I've read a few more posts.

    Given the above republican stances, an objective reporter should ask the republican questions that a sane person would ask when faced with these stances- like "aren't you worried about alienating female voters with this stance?" or "Iraq and Afghanistan really didn't seem to go too well- what makes you think Iran would be any different?" and let the crazies say their piece and if they are crazy let em show everyone. If they're wanting to make logical arguments, then your job isn't to stop them. Though it IS pretty much your duty to then have someone with a different point of view on who may very well make a good case for the dude being crazy with their arguments.

    Calling out people who aren't wanting to do anything illegal or grossly immoral is NOT something you should do as a journalist, from what I understand. I know some people who work closely with the Canadian parliament (the institution not the parties), and they aren't allowed to hold public political viewpoints. That's the kind of thing you're looking at with an objective media. And what America is maybe not getting?

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Wooo Fox News. I did my final in speech class on Fox News. Everyone was genuinely surprised that this happened-

    fox-news-shitty-photoshop.jpg

    I'm sure it was an accident

    959tebowspiece678wj4%25282%2529.jpg

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Soooo... It's not just Fox then? It's more of an endemic problem with the national-level news channels. Fantastic. :-/

    Before I go curl up into the fetal position and suck my thumb trying to forget I know any of this, has anyone given any thought on how to set the USS News back on course? As a Canadian I'm used to fairly strict regulations regarding what's allowed to go on TV, but I'm going to guess that "suggesting more regulations" = "government telling me what to listen to" = "political suicide for anyone who would dare to suggest such a socialist/communist thing".

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    Politifact took only two years of "working the refs" to start applying a double-standard in favor of Republicans, and even though it regularly gives freebies to the GOP like the rest of the media to try and avoid appearing "biased" it is still virulently attacked for not being "balanced."

    As Stephen Colbert put it, "reality has a liberal bias."

    And the thing is, there has always been propaganda and there will always be spin control and the people will always be more willing to spend money on self-affirming, us vs. them, angry conservative commentary because conservatives are the kind of mindset that WANTS regular repetition of mantras and to be preached at and pandered to. It's the reason they're more religious, it's the reason they watch Fox News, it's the reason they can say, "He's our president and we should just shut up and support him," with a straight face.

    America has always been about ironic contradictions, we support dictatorships to defend democracy. We worship at the altar of life, liberty, and the individual pursuit of happiness while canonizing those who sacrifice individual pursuits, personal liberty, and sometimes their lives to military service. We fought a revolution to throw off oppressive autocratic aristocrats and the companies they used to oppress us and now we laugh at and deride those who fight against a local breed of neofeudalist upper-class twits.

    It's part of life.

    Historically speaking, I don't think there are any good solutions. The last time we had a major leftward shift economically was World War II, when taxes went up and war was fought and at the end of it a lot of men who were now very good at fighting and organizing said, "you're not going to cheat me because if you do we will shoot you Mr. Management." And the progress unions had already made solidified and strengthened.

    We've been losing ground ever since.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Rachel Maddow's show and her blog while leaning left still prevents facts more than any other show on fox does. Just because someone comes at a story from a liberal perspective doesn't equate them to what fox does, and its that kind of false equivelency both sides do it garbage that lets fox get away with it.

    I mean I don't think anyone from Msnbc has ever been caught point blank reading GOP talking points on the air, but that has happened on Fox and Friends.

    Shameless Link whoring updated Fridays starting 1/26/17
    http://exterminatorsassistant.blogspot.com/
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    *cough*PreachIthinkyoumean"presents"*cough*

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited July 2012
    El Skid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    I don't even think there is such a thing as "unbiased news".

    I mean, I guess you could just dryly report facts and not explain them. But that would just be confusing and frustrating to the average viewer, not to mention boring. Proper news requires some sort of analysis, and that analysis will always be called a "bias" by anyone who disagrees with it. If we had some magical truth-telling device that would be great, but as it is we're stuck with human opinions.

    Well, I mean you can never be wholly unbiased, but you can cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately. I think the CBC in Canada, and probably the BBC in the UK do a pretty fair job of this (of course, they're run by the government instead of individual millionnaires/corporations, so that may be why).
    The BBC isn't run by the government, and it actually is a corporation (clue is in the name).

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Wooo Fox News. I did my final in speech class on Fox News. Everyone was genuinely surprised that this happened-

    fox-news-shitty-photoshop.jpg

    What the ever loving shit...?

    I can't believe that, it's flat out racist. "His name is Steinberg but he doesn't look quite enough like a sneaky jew from 1930's Nazi propoganda, I'm sure our photoshop dept can do something about that". As for the other guy, they've made him look like Fester Adams!

    It blows my mind that they're allowed to do that. It really puts in perspective this bubble reality American Conservatives seem to live in if all their information sources are doctored to this degree.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    Apparently Fox News already has people on trying to tie the Colorado shootings to the Occupy movement via The Dark Knight Rises.

    What the fuck.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Kamar wrote: »
    Apparently Fox News already has people on trying to tie the Colorado shootings to the Occupy movement via The Dark Knight Rises.

    What the fuck.

    Well, if we ignore the fact it's most likley terrorists or crazed gun nuts, my second best guess would be crazed right wingers buying Rush Limbaughs line about it being liberal propoganda (bain vs bane). It wouldn't be the first time right wing rhetoric has caused a shooting. I'm almost curious to see how this could possibly be blamed on OWS. Though it's not like Fox have to come up with convincing justifications for anything they say.

    But yeah, it's utterly disgusting to be trying to spin it this way while they're not even done counting the dead. I sometimes wonder if these people ever have a moment of clarity where they realize how heinious what they're doing really is.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    Living in Canada, seeing people claim any American news media leans liberal is kind of weird. Even the CBC, Canada's socialist utopian news organization has fools like Kevin O'Leary.

    It definitely helps that, in Canada, the most powerful moneyed interest is probably the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan. Kevin O'Leary has chump change compared to them, and he probably cries himself to sleep every night because of that.



    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    Didn't we get a Fox news like station up here in Canada a year or so ago that completely failed to catch on at all? Pretty sure that was the case, I remember how it was being compared to Canada getting it's own hardcore conservative channel that would push the Stephen Harper agenda and yet up here people thought it was a bunch of crap from the start and didn't watch.

  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    Jesus Christ, what kind of maniac tries to assign political blame to something like this while they're still trying to figure out how many have died?

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • HenroidHenroid How do you get a centrist to change their mind? Take away their privilege.Registered User regular
    Jesus Christ, what kind of maniac tries to assign political blame to something like this while they're still trying to figure out how many have died?

    Fox News viewers.

    Seeking artists for well-paid commissions. PM me.
    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Cade wrote: »
    Didn't we get a Fox news like station up here in Canada a year or so ago that completely failed to catch on at all? Pretty sure that was the case, I remember how it was being compared to Canada getting it's own hardcore conservative channel that would push the Stephen Harper agenda and yet up here people thought it was a bunch of crap from the start and didn't watch.

    Sun News Network (I always thought it was called Sun TV). It took a few legal battles before it could even go on the air, if I recall correctly.

    Oats on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Oats wrote: »
    Cade wrote: »
    Didn't we get a Fox news like station up here in Canada a year or so ago that completely failed to catch on at all? Pretty sure that was the case, I remember how it was being compared to Canada getting it's own hardcore conservative channel that would push the Stephen Harper agenda and yet up here people thought it was a bunch of crap from the start and didn't watch.

    Sun News Network (I always thought it was called Sun TV). It took a few legal battles before it could even go on the air, if I recall correctly.

    It's understandable that one could miss it, given that their prime time audience averages about 12,900 - those are the 2011 numbers, but as the network launched with an average viewership of 31,000, it's not a good sign. Also, Fox, in spite of its numerous faults, does not have major personalities telling the executives of companies to go fuck their mother on what is, ostensibly, a national news network, and then go on to whine that the regulator is a bully when told that no, you can't say that on television.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    I don't even think there is such a thing as "unbiased news".

    I mean, I guess you could just dryly report facts and not explain them. But that would just be confusing and frustrating to the average viewer, not to mention boring. Proper news requires some sort of analysis, and that analysis will always be called a "bias" by anyone who disagrees with it. If we had some magical truth-telling device that would be great, but as it is we're stuck with human opinions.

    Well, I mean you can never be wholly unbiased, but you can cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately. I think the CBC in Canada, and probably the BBC in the UK do a pretty fair job of this (of course, they're run by the government instead of individual millionnaires/corporations, so that may be why).
    The BBC isn't run by the government, and it actually is a corporation (clue is in the name).

    Yeah, I was kinda simplifying. The CBC isn't run by the government either- it's called a "crown corporation", which means it gets some of its funding from the government, and has its own mandate from the government, which includes providing fair news coverage.

    Neither the BBC or the CBC is 100% its own corporation, both are accountable to the government for their programming, unlike a regular corporation, which can do whatever it wants with its programming within the existing regulatory framework.

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    El Skid wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »

    I guess hoping that someone or a group of someones who have a lot of money and are politically neutral start up a new, unbiased news channel is the answer?

    I don't even think there is such a thing as "unbiased news".

    I mean, I guess you could just dryly report facts and not explain them. But that would just be confusing and frustrating to the average viewer, not to mention boring. Proper news requires some sort of analysis, and that analysis will always be called a "bias" by anyone who disagrees with it. If we had some magical truth-telling device that would be great, but as it is we're stuck with human opinions.

    Well, I mean you can never be wholly unbiased, but you can cover both sides of a story relatively dispassionately. I think the CBC in Canada, and probably the BBC in the UK do a pretty fair job of this (of course, they're run by the government instead of individual millionnaires/corporations, so that may be why).
    The BBC isn't run by the government, and it actually is a corporation (clue is in the name).

    Yeah, I was kinda simplifying. The CBC isn't run by the government either- it's called a "crown corporation", which means it gets some of its funding from the government, and has its own mandate from the government, which includes providing fair news coverage.

    Neither the BBC or the CBC is 100% its own corporation, both are accountable to the government for their programming, unlike a regular corporation, which can do whatever it wants with its programming within the existing regulatory framework.

    I wouldn't even say that the BBC is accountable to the government, it gets it's funding from the licence fee not taxes, and any attempt the government has ever made to influence the BBC has resulted in a media shitstorm that makes the government in question look very bad. The BBC is generally accountable to offcom, same as every other UK broadcaster.

    I love the BBC, I think it's one of the UKs greatest institutions.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Ah, Sun TV, and it's predecessor Sun Newspapers. Two completely laughable news sources portray themselves as 'News for the Average Joe.' Their editorials are borderline racist, their sensationalism is on par with tabloids, and their content is meant for the lowest common denominator. Not sure if I'm correct, but I'd liken them to the Daily Mail in the UK. Complete with the scantily dressed "Sunshine Girl". (Oh, but don't make prostitution legal, or else all women will dress up like sluts)


    Not that I'm against women dressing down for photos....but could we at least get a Sunshine Boy?

    I've also found Maclean's, (Canadian version of TIME or Newsweek) to be horribly right wing at times.

    And then there was the Western Report (forgotten the name, it may have been different). It was a line of cocaine away from being a Hate Magazine.

    Honestly, the only major news sources that I find are either balanced or left wing are the Toronto Star (Left wing) Globe and Mail (Centre Left), and CBC (Centre left, but trying to be Centre) I don't watch enough CTV to make an informed decision.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    It's the Western Standard, which replaced the Alberta Report. Both of these hard-nosed, pro-business institutions were unable to generate enough profit to stay in business (apparently the silent majority only read these publications at public libraries). The Western Standard is still around in digital format. It's another product of noted brain trust Ezra Levant. Interestingly, the majority of the contributors are either based in Eastern Canada or the Eastern U.S.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Thank you, I remember reading it in my school library, and although at the time being a self-absorbed straight white teenager with wealthy parents (Perfect profile for a Tea Party voter), I found it's articles very disturbing. So much so, that I preffered Adbusters to it.

    And Ezra Levant, that guy is our own version of Glenn Beck, although I really do think he Believes the BS spewing from his mouth.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    As a simple Canadian watching the US elections from afar, I can't help but wonder... isn't there some sort of journalism standard required in US law/regulations to call oneself a "News" program?

    Nope. Pretty much our first amendment right to be a dick.

    The MSM in this country is pretty nasty and exploitative all around. FOX's problem is that unlike their peers, FOX is unashamed of its big business interests and wears them on its sleeve.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    Thank you, I remember reading it in my school library, and although at the time being a self-absorbed straight white teenager with wealthy parents (Perfect profile for a Tea Party voter), I found it's articles very disturbing. So much so, that I preffered Adbusters to it.

    And Ezra Levant, that guy is our own version of Glenn Beck, although I really do think he Believes the BS spewing from his mouth.

    That would be my estimation as well, and it sounds like we were exposed under similar circumstances.

    The whole history of right-wing news media in Canada is crazy. It all really starts with Ted Byfield (the mentor of guys like Ezra Levant). He was a journalist who underwent religious conversion to conservative Anglicanism (which is weird right there; I'm not sure what sort of person decides that he has heard God tell him that Anglicanism is the one true faith). He started a weird religious order called the Company of the Cross, which started several boys of schools out West. They ran like a creepy conservative cult, where the staff were all paid a $1 a day plus communal room and bored. The schools started going under, basically starting with the fallout from essentially killing a 12 year old during a forced snowshoe march.

    With the schools going under, Byfield started these report news magazines to present a "true" conservative viewpoint. They retained the same cult-like structure - if you worked there you got $1 a day plus room and board. In spite of this they weren't able to stay afloat. One would fail and they'd start another, until eventually you end up with the Western Standard.



    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    Ah, Sun TV, and it's predecessor Sun Newspapers. Two completely laughable news sources portray themselves as 'News for the Average Joe.' Their editorials are borderline racist, their sensationalism is on par with tabloids, and their content is meant for the lowest common denominator. Not sure if I'm correct, but I'd liken them to the Daily Mail in the UK. Complete with the scantily dressed "Sunshine Girl". (Oh, but don't make prostitution legal, or else all women will dress up like sluts)


    Not that I'm against women dressing down for photos....but could we at least get a Sunshine Boy?

    I've also found Maclean's, (Canadian version of TIME or Newsweek) to be horribly right wing at times.

    And then there was the Western Report (forgotten the name, it may have been different). It was a line of cocaine away from being a Hate Magazine.

    Honestly, the only major news sources that I find are either balanced or left wing are the Toronto Star (Left wing) Globe and Mail (Centre Left), and CBC (Centre left, but trying to be Centre) I don't watch enough CTV to make an informed decision.

    Funnily enough this sounds much more like our newspaper called The Sun than the daily mail.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    Apparently Fox News already has people on trying to tie the Colorado shootings to the Occupy movement via The Dark Knight Rises.

    What the fuck.

    They were stating that the shooter in europe that shot those kids at the camp was brown and muslim before anyone actually knew anything. Turns out it was a white guy(not 100% on that, I forget now), but who was anti-immigration and thought muslims were infiltrating the country. whoops. Then the narritive became "why do they have camps for children, anyways!??!!?!?"

    steam_sig.png
  • HenroidHenroid How do you get a centrist to change their mind? Take away their privilege.Registered User regular
    Incidentally, Fox continues to be horrible regarding this shooting incident. One of the people filling my Twitter feed posted this:
    Uh...why does "Fox & Friends" have their "Religion Contributor" on the phone for this Movie Theater shooting story?
    Any other news organizations trying to crowbar the death of Heath Ledger into this shooting story or is it just "Fox & Friends?"

    Seeking artists for well-paid commissions. PM me.
    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    What the fuck does Heath Ledger have to do with anything?

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    kildy wrote: »
    Megan Kelly also had that hilariously out of character rant about how the government needs to mandate maternity leave or whatnot. Bill Oreilly also had a few lucid moments on TDS where he seemed to totally not buy all the shit he said on Fox.

    It's performance art. Manufactured bullshit. Beck's issue is that he takes it too far. I don't think he buys half the shit he says, he just doesn't have the same filter on him that causes him to stop saying shit. Same with the Fox and Friends producer/whoever all was involved in that campaign ad of a morning show that went over an invisible line even for Fox's standards of monetizing insanity.

    O'Reilly's radio show was actually pretty moderate and reasonable. I have no doubt that he hams it up on The Factor.

    sig.png
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    As a simple Canadian watching the US elections from afar, I can't help but wonder... isn't there some sort of journalism standard required in US law/regulations to call oneself a "News" program?

    Nope. Pretty much our first amendment right to be a dick.

    The MSM in this country is pretty nasty and exploitative all around. FOX's problem is that unlike their peers, FOX is unashamed of its big business interests and wears them on its sleeve.

    And that's what the first amendment is for, since its pretty clear with people like Bush, Bachhman and Santorum in charge of one of the two major US political parties (or Nixon, McCarthy, Thurmond in the past) won't necessarily define dick in a non-dick manner.

    Just because Fox News is a terrible thing that is watched by people who are terrible and should feel bad doesn't mean it should be silenced or off cable. It just means we need fewer terrible people and better other media.

    The idea of the "liberal media" is hogwash though. Every empirical study shows the media is pro-corporate, pro-establishment and above all pro-conflict/drama/horserace because it drives ratings. They would much rather report "X says blah, Y says turnips rape children" than point out that Y is fucking retarded and should be ashamed.

    Hell, Jonah Goldberg popularized the idea of the liberal media and his latest book was :
    Liberal-Fascism-315868.jpg

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    As a simple Canadian watching the US elections from afar, I can't help but wonder... isn't there some sort of journalism standard required in US law/regulations to call oneself a "News" program?

    Nope. Pretty much our first amendment right to be a dick.

    The MSM in this country is pretty nasty and exploitative all around. FOX's problem is that unlike their peers, FOX is unashamed of its big business interests and wears them on its sleeve.

    And that's what the first amendment is for, since its pretty clear with people like Bush, Bachhman and Santorum in charge of one of the two major US political parties (or Nixon, McCarthy, Thurmond in the past) won't necessarily define dick in a non-dick manner.

    Just because Fox News is a terrible thing that is watched by people who are terrible and should feel bad doesn't mean it should be silenced or off cable. It just means we need fewer terrible people and better other media.

    The idea of the "liberal media" is hogwash though. Every empirical study shows the media is pro-corporate, pro-establishment and above all pro-conflict/drama/horserace because it drives ratings. They would much rather report "X says blah, Y says turnips rape children" than point out that Y is fucking retarded and should be ashamed.

    Hell, Jonah Goldberg popularized the idea of the liberal media and his latest book was :
    Liberal-Fascism-315868.jpg

    Shit like this makes my head spin. Someone needs to get a out a dictionary, point out the word "liberal" to this fuck-nugget and enlighten him to the fact it means the complete polar fucking opposite of what he thinks it does.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    As a simple Canadian watching the US elections from afar, I can't help but wonder... isn't there some sort of journalism standard required in US law/regulations to call oneself a "News" program?

    Nope. Pretty much our first amendment right to be a dick.

    The MSM in this country is pretty nasty and exploitative all around. FOX's problem is that unlike their peers, FOX is unashamed of its big business interests and wears them on its sleeve.

    And that's what the first amendment is for, since its pretty clear with people like Bush, Bachhman and Santorum in charge of one of the two major US political parties (or Nixon, McCarthy, Thurmond in the past) won't necessarily define dick in a non-dick manner.

    Just because Fox News is a terrible thing that is watched by people who are terrible and should feel bad doesn't mean it should be silenced or off cable. It just means we need fewer terrible people and better other media.

    The idea of the "liberal media" is hogwash though. Every empirical study shows the media is pro-corporate, pro-establishment and above all pro-conflict/drama/horserace because it drives ratings. They would much rather report "X says blah, Y says turnips rape children" than point out that Y is fucking retarded and should be ashamed.

    Hell, Jonah Goldberg popularized the idea of the liberal media and his latest book was :
    Liberal-Fascism-315868.jpg

    Shit like this makes my head spin. Someone needs to get a out a dictionary, point out the word "liberal" to this fuck-nugget and enlighten him to the fact it means the complete polar fucking opposite of what he thinks it does.

    When I see things like this, I cannot help but think of Calvin and Hobbes: When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions.

    Who would have thought that the logic of a five year old kid on the comics page was their source of ideas?

    "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. " -- George Orwell, 1984
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    The Calgary Sun used to have a Sunshine Boy, but that stopped....a while ago. Like, at least 10 years ago. Not sure why.

    The Sunshine Girl is the only reason I visit the Calgary Sun website these days. :P

    Tube wrote: »
    No, I hate D&D more than the other subforums because it's more of a pain in my arse.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The Calgary Sun used to have a Sunshine Boy, but that stopped....a while ago. Like, at least 10 years ago. Not sure why.

    The Sunshine Girl is the only reason I visit the Calgary Sun website these days. :P

    For me, it can only be Bild Girls.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Though to be fair, MSNBC does lean liberal but not nearly to the extend that FOX does.

    This is the point of the conversation where I point out the fact that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed in the nation.

    Because Fox just fucking lies.

    The reason why MSNBC leans liberal is that Reality and things that are actually happening have a notorious liberal bias. When they report on things actually happening (unlike fox news) there will be by US standards a liberal bias, because it's simply the way the world is.

    The BBC is a near perfect source of news, they are even their OWN harshest critic when they slip up and in the US they would be the most liberal network of all.

    Government helps people. Private companies often screw them over. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. The climate is collapsing. Obama is doing a good job. Just because the Republicans don't want to believe these things doesn't make them not true, or liberal.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
Sign In or Register to comment.