KipWellsFan Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists." Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" ... "If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_en_...v_fox_clinton_1 lol, who was it saying that Fox News is a legitimate source of news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicSoxFan Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_en_...v_fox_clinton_1 lol, who was it saying that Fox News is a legitimate source of news. Not me. I don't consider a network with Sean Insanity a news source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 If Roger Ailes found it so awful, why did he hype it all weekend? Why did he even air it for that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists." How about Chris Wallace's assault on all journalists by chickening out and saying "a lot of people have e-mailed me this". What a chicken s*** way of asking a question yet not actually asking it himself. He was clearly there to do Fox News' smearing of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 A high profile guy completely overreacts to a simple, relevant question. So he was criticized a little, get over it. You don't think if CNN got Bush to overreact (and posit a conspiracy theory against him for christ sakes) they wouldn't be publicizing the hell out of it? You don't think CNN reporters are told to try and bait Bush into saying something stupid? Give me an f'n break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) A high profile guy completely overreacts to a simple, relevant question. So he was criticized a little, get over it. You don't think if CNN got Bush to overreact (and posit a conspiracy theory against him for christ sakes) they wouldn't be publicizing the hell out of it? You don't think CNN reporters are told to try and bait Bush into saying something stupid? Give me an f'n break... 1. Bush the the President. If he gets hot under the collar and shouts at a reporter, the whole world will know about it. 2. The MSM is left-leaning, and tries to show itself as unbiased. Fox News is unabashedly far right, and only half-ass tries to say otherwise. I'll take slightly left over far right for my news, thank you. That Fox graphic above says it all. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS would never do something that atrociously biased in their news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) 1. Bush the the President. If he gets hot under the collar and shouts at a reporter, the whole world will know about it. 2. The MSM is left-leaning, and tries to show itself as unbiased. Fox News is unabashedly far right, and only half-ass tries to say otherwise. I'll take slightly left over far right for my news, thank you. That Fox graphic above says it all. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS would never do something that atrociously biased in their news. 1. Clinton is an ex-president with just as much exposure, hence the reaction he got... 2. So? It was still a valid question and it was still a gross overreaction. So they used a poor word as a headline, what's the big deal? And are you kidding me? Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs bash Bush DAILY. The rest I don't watch, and PBS doesn't count as they are supposed to be neutral by law. I'm not arguing Fox doesn't lean to the right or even that Fox doesn't have an agenda (to put down liberal views). Anyone with a brain can see that. However you're full of sh*t if you don't think CNN is the exact same way for the left. In college as my senior seminar for my political science degree I really wanted to analyze both FOX and CNN treatment of news stories over a one month period. I ended up not doing it because it would have been too difficult to measure the difference (what is 'negative' connotation, what is 'positive' etc). However I did try for a week and it was amazing how each website (the base of my attempt at the study) had such differing headlines for the same story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) 1. Clinton is an ex-president with just as much exposure, hence the reaction he got... 2. So? It was still a valid question and it was still a gross overreaction. So they used a poor word as a headline, what's the big deal? And are you kidding me? Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs bash Bush DAILY. The rest I don't watch, and PBS doesn't count as they are supposed to be neutral by law. I'm not arguing Fox doesn't lean to the right or even that Fox doesn't have an agenda (to put down liberal views). Anyone with a brain can see that. However you're full of sh*t if you don't think CNN is the exact same way for the left. In college as my senior seminar for my political science degree I really wanted to analyze both FOX and CNN treatment of news stories over a one month period. I ended up not doing it because it would have been too difficult to measure the difference (what is 'negative' connotation, what is 'positive' etc). However I did try for a week and it was amazing how each website (the base of my attempt at the study) had such differing headlines for the same story. Those people you mention, and others in the MSM, would be (and will be) doing the exact same thing to a Dem Prez. Fox, on the other hand, is clearly much more biased in their approach. MSM's bias is towards sensationalism and the almighty dollar. Fox's is towards the GOP. And yet, I do not consider myself "full of sh*t". Nor do I refer to others on this board is such a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Again, if Roger Ailes thinks its so beyond the pale, why was it still getting front page promotion on the Fox News website as of this morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) 1. Clinton is an ex-president with just as much exposure, hence the reaction he got... 2. So? It was still a valid question and it was still a gross overreaction. So they used a poor word as a headline, what's the big deal? And are you kidding me? Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs bash Bush DAILY. The rest I don't watch, and PBS doesn't count as they are supposed to be neutral by law. I'm not arguing Fox doesn't lean to the right or even that Fox doesn't have an agenda (to put down liberal views). Anyone with a brain can see that. However you're full of sh*t if you don't think CNN is the exact same way for the left. In college as my senior seminar for my political science degree I really wanted to analyze both FOX and CNN treatment of news stories over a one month period. I ended up not doing it because it would have been too difficult to measure the difference (what is 'negative' connotation, what is 'positive' etc). However I did try for a week and it was amazing how each website (the base of my attempt at the study) had such differing headlines for the same story. So now not only was Clinton overreacting but having a GROSS overeaction? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS would never do something that atrociously biased in their news. i don't think so. they've have done just that on many occasions in the past. large portions of CBS news had to be let go due to blatant pro-democrat bias. Clinton and the Dems are just pissed because he didn't get his ususal 'slow pitch softball' questions he would get from ABC, CBS or CNN. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) MSM's bias is towards sensationalism and the almighty dollar. Fox's is towards the GOP. the MSM is obviously pro-democrat. FOX is blatantly pro GOP. both FOX and the MSM have a bias towards "sensationalism and the almighty dollar". see, you pretty much agree with the democrats on most issues, therefore when you see biased news casts which ignore stories that put the GOP in a favorable light and show those which make the Dems look good you see a fair newscast. The newscast helped reinforce your world view, therefore you see no problem with them. On the other hand, FOX presents news stories and points of view you usually disagree with thus creating, in your mind, a strong GOP bias presented by FOX news. Edited October 1, 2006 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) i don't think so. they've have done just that on many occasions in the past. large portions of CBS news had to be let go due to blatant pro-democrat bias. Clinton and the Dems are just pissed because he didn't get his ususal 'slow pitch softball' questions he would get from ABC, CBS or CNN. the MSM is obviously pro-democrat. FOX is blatantly pro GOP. both FOX and the MSM have a bias towards "sensationalism and the almighty dollar". see, you pretty much agree with the democrats on most issues, therefore when you see biased news casts which ignore stories that put the GOP in a favorable light and show those which make the Dems look good you see a fair newscast. The newscast helped reinforce your world view, therefore you see no problem with them. On the other hand, FOX presents news stories and points of view you usually disagree with thus creating, in your mind, a strong GOP bias presented by FOX news. Show me one instance of the MSM labeling anyone, even the head honcho Bush, so absurdly as "getting crazed". The only way that isn't bias is that its just plain unprofessional. Fine. Either way, they are a joke. Yes, I should have noted that both the MSM and Fox are after the dollar. They just go about that in different fashion. The MSM was there doing news a long time ago, attempting to provide unbiased news. They have been marginally successful. Then along comes Fox, on the obvious far right, and tries to basically say "we're on the right because the MSM is on the left". Its the classic make it us and them scenario that the GOP loves. You are either with us or against us. The very idea that they may be trying to be unbiased doesn't even occur to them as being possible. As for my world view, go look at my posts. Honestly, in your case, I'd say I agree with you as often as I disagree. And when I disagree, see what the reason is or what I suggest instead. It won't be simple left/right stuff. I'd put my views as all across the spectrum on different issues, but on net, I'm pretty close to center. Kind of like the MSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts