Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2 007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest.html

Right, a frickin' blog. The end all source.

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories?

Probably because no one likes drugs. I don't remember they're being a heroine lobby. Anti-drug isn't a leftwing vs rightwing issue.

Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

The media here is liberal, the media there is pretty fucking leftwing, probably on a scale of -8.23, -9.57. Besides, are you telling me the media here doesn't have a liberal tilt? If you actually believe this then I should warn you doing drugs can get you into trouble at your job.

They think of Fox News as basically the American equivalent of Hezbollah's al-Manar it's so biased.

They're also into scat fetishes. Who gives a damn about they're input? As I said, being a loony leftwinger over there is the status quo.

It could be worse. But why don't you take a look at the ratio of conservative to liberal commentators on Fox News?

Right, jackass, because Fox News commentators represent the proportional of right to leftwing personalities on all other outlets.

Hannity and Colmes is a joke, Hannity is a hard-line right-winger, Colmes is barely center-left.

I watch the show frequently, and gotta say you have no damn idea what you're talking about. Colmes is for raising taxes for all brackets, partial birth abortion, government enforcing gay marriage and eminent domain. The funny thing is he usually makes more persuasive arguments than Hannity.

Have you ever watched the show or just watched it once and decided Colmes was moderate?

Let's see, Rosie O'Donnell- celebrity, actor. Ann Coulter, prominent journalist

The only people that know about Ann Coulter are Fox News viewers and youtubers(not to say she isn't well-known).

on one of the most widely watched channels in the United States.

That's on basic cable. They're more watched news channels than Fox(BBC on satellite and digital cable).

Plus, Ann Coulter isn't a journalist for Fox News, she's a guess commentator. She is a writer for her own blog.

John Edwards, former vice presidential candidate and prominent politician.

John Edwars was a third rate politician before Kerry took him on as a runningmate, considering american's short-attention span, I bet most have already forgotten about him.

Seems like they're a bit more important in the scale of things..

You're fucking kidding me. There isn't a single american that has never seen or heard of Rosie O'Donnel either for her appearances on talkshows, movies, award ceremonies and voice acting. The fact you think Ann Coulter making an off-hand comment about a sexually ambiguous politician over an american figure head point-blank saying the American government murdered three thousands of its own people, proves how self-deluded you are.

if only the mainstream media covered more important things like that instead of covering poor Anna Nicole Smith and the latest diet 24/7.

Hollywood and the media are closely interwoven.

I think Pat Robertson, who has his own little screwed-up TV show gets wider circulation than Randi Rhodes, who is only on radio... I don't even think we get Air America here... could be wrong though.

No. Pat Robertson hasn't been big since VHS and everyone already thinks he's senile. Whereas Randi Rhodes has hundred of thousands of listeners nationwide and millions of listeners over the internet.

Funny how Pat Robertson, the devout Christian is talking about KILLING people is okay while <sarcasm>RADICAL LEFT-WING DIRTY LIBERAL SECULAR ATHEIST JEW MAN</sarcasm> is supposed to be a shock.

Funny how the media thinks it's more important to cover a story about some old guy saying we should assassinate a foreign dictator, than an old crabby cunt saying we should assassinate the leader of our own nation.

The fact you're still apologetic for the media informs what a leftwing asswimp you are.

"Or the time every news media covered Bill O'Reilly's phonesex scandal more than the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq at the hands of crazy-ass muhammedans"

What are you talking about? Everybody heard about Nick Berg.

It was the headlines CNN.com forwhile. I gave the wrong instance. What I meant to say was the media covered the story of a few soldiers committing fraturnity-level hazing on terrorist than the beheadings and captures of numerous american civilian. Infact, The New York Times ran over a hundred stories on Gitmo.

Maybe they're not just as spinning it to make them look good, or reporting it (but lying about certain points) as Faux News is.

Keep playing the apologist for your bolshevik media, drone. :)

---

At 4/9/07 10:00 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:48 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I was not defending them, I was simply stating that you should not count them as part of the liberal media.

And yet you conceded to his point that no one, other than FOX, reported on it.

He was trying to use that to say that the media has a liberal bias, when really it's probably more just a matter of ratings, and whether people would care more about a current offical in the Bush administration than a former head of the ACLU.

They "defend" anyone who is an idiot (in which most of those cases are... liberals!). "We're going to sue the school because this parent complained about God, but we're going to push for the historical teaching of the Islamic religion so as to teach tolerance", Yippie!

I think there's a difference between telling people that what's in the Bible is fact and forcing kids to pray and teaching historically without any bias towards Islam so they can understand the religion better? Should we remove any sort of theology from colleges?

Who are you calling pathetic? You're trying to win your debate by calling me an idiot, a dipshit, pitiful, and a waste of life. I've seen you do this in other threads. Other people remain civil around you and you get angry when someone proves you're wrong and you try to undermine us by calling us names and having a tantrum.

Prove me wrong? I've yet to see that. So far it's all been speculation.

It is also speculation to say that they hired Rosie to say that 9/11 was a conspiracy. That's more detrimental to their ratings than anything else, because I highly doubt most Americans actually believe that kind of shit.

So far most people here have been pretty nice to me, but when I try to bring up a political view that is different from yours you say terrible things about me in an attempt to dismiss everything I say.

Because you tried to counter the topic starter's points when every one of them is actually true. There should be no excuse for hiring Rosie in which people would actually watch as "news" when she's going on about the evils of the US and how 9/11 was planned by the government.

If the people watch The View as news they're already pretty low on the IQ scale. Some people might watch MTV as political news but that doesn't mean it's the network's fault they're stupid.

No one reports on the "Bush should die" claims. They might give a view of the economy, but even if the economy improves they always like to word it as "rises not as greatly as expected".

Libby was put on trial and convicted for "not remembering" when there is a man running around who used to work for Clinton who stole and shredded documents. Why is this man still running around and why was there less coverage on him than Libby?

Instead of criticizing my points you criticize me, and it removes any sort of semblance of a constructive debate.

bla bla bla...

Why don't you go cool off for a while

I'am cool. It's fun to have people go off on a rant.

Sure, you've succeded in ticking me off a little. But you haven't made me think about you, or change my views. You've made me discredit your own. All you're doing is metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you saying I should take the internet seriously?

While most of these internets are not serious, it would seriously help if you would seriously not be a dick to us because it makes you look like an ignorant little twit who can't do anything but call other people names.

Go chill out and when you're ready to debate civilly come back and talk to me and maybe we can become a bit more educated about the world instead of just immaturely taking petty potshots at each other.

I'll sum up this thread. If you can't see the media putting their bias against the president or taking a left-wing stance, then apparently you haven't been paying any attention to Vietnam, or you would see a trend

The media from the 60s and 70s is not the same as the one today, and I will not disagree with you that some of what the media did in Vietnam was detrimental (because that was a war we probably could have won) to the war. But should we give up all of our civil liberties for that? No, because that makes any war we fight for freedom pointless. Vietnam is a vastly different situation from Iraq. In Vietnam we had two parts of the country at war with each other and we took a side, in Iraq, everybody hates us. Not the same thing when the enemy is much more invisible.

To be fair I wrote my last posts at nearly 3:00 AM (which i'll try not to do from now on) and they're probably a little incoherent and a bit extreme.

However while you say the majority of the media is liberal, you're forgetting about all the media that is conservative. Go up and read the list by Maddox I posted, most of what he said is correct. There is plenty of media that is conservative, especially the radio. I haven't heard a single liberal talk show host that wasn't on NPR on the radio in a looong time.

---

At 4/9/07 01:08 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2 007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest.html

Right, a frickin' blog. The end all source.

The blog isn't, but the pictures are. You can look for more of Faux News's crap f you want, because obvious bias like that IS out there.

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories?

Probably because no one likes drugs. I don't remember they're being a heroine lobby. Anti-drug isn't a leftwing vs rightwing issue.

Usually the pro-medical marijuana supporters come from the left side of the aisle. The fact that even the majority of Democrats don't stand up for that and try to fight the other negative effects of the drug prohibition. And if noone likes drugs, how come so many people use them and there are entire factions devoted to legalizing them? I think you are pulling facts out of your ass there buddy. :)

Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

The media here is liberal, the media there is pretty fucking leftwing, probably on a scale of -8.23, -9.57. Besides, are you telling me the media here doesn't have a liberal tilt? If you actually believe this then I should warn you doing drugs can get you into trouble at your job.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

They think of Fox News as basically the American equivalent of Hezbollah's al-Manar it's so biased.

They're also into scat fetishes. Who gives a damn about they're input? As I said, being a loony leftwinger over there is the status quo.

Because generalizing all Europeans into one group because of one kind of pornography that has a following there is a logical counter-argument.

It could be worse. But why don't you take a look at the ratio of conservative to liberal commentators on Fox News?

Right, jackass, because Fox News commentators represent the proportional of right to leftwing personalities on all other outlets.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

Hannity and Colmes is a joke, Hannity is a hard-line right-winger, Colmes is barely center-left.

I watch the show frequently, and gotta say you have no damn idea what you're talking about. Colmes is for raising taxes for all brackets, partial birth abortion, government enforcing gay marriage and eminent domain. The funny thing is he usually makes more persuasive arguments than Hannity.

Have you ever watched the show or just watched it once and decided Colmes was moderate?

Aside from the taxes issue, that just means he has common sense. Colmes is not anywhere near as hardline as Hannity is. You've seen hardline in people like Begoner and real Democrats, I think you should know there's a difference.

Let's see, Rosie O'Donnell- celebrity, actor. Ann Coulter, prominent journalist

The only people that know about Ann Coulter are Fox News viewers and youtubers(not to say she isn't well-known).

on one of the most widely watched channels in the United States.

That's on basic cable. They're more watched news channels than Fox(BBC on satellite and digital cable).

Last time I checked more Americans had basic cable than digital cable, though perhaps it's grown enough that the numbers have grown dramatically. BBC has a wider audience in the world but in all likelihood Fox News has a wider audience here in the States.

Plus, Ann Coulter isn't a journalist for Fox News, she's a guess commentator. She is a writer for her own blog.

John Edwards, former vice presidential candidate and prominent politician.

John Edwars was a third rate politician before Kerry took him on as a runningmate, considering american's short-attention span, I bet most have already forgotten about him.

Seems like they're a bit more important in the scale of things..

You're fucking kidding me. There isn't a single american that has never seen or heard of Rosie O'Donnel either for her appearances on talkshows, movies, award ceremonies and voice acting. The fact you think Ann Coulter making an off-hand comment about a sexually ambiguous politician over an american figure head point-blank saying the American government murdered three thousands of its own people, proves how self-deluded you are.

Ann Coulter is a journalist, Rosie O'Donnel is not, what she says is not supposed to be regarded as news, nor is it claimed to be by any network.

if only the mainstream media covered more important things like that instead of covering poor Anna Nicole Smith and the latest diet 24/7.

Hollywood and the media are closely interwoven.

Yes, point being..?

I think Pat Robertson, who has his own little screwed-up TV show gets wider circulation than Randi Rhodes, who is only on radio... I don't even think we get Air America here... could be wrong though.

No. Pat Robertson hasn't been big since VHS and everyone already thinks he's senile. Whereas Randi Rhodes has hundred of thousands of listeners nationwide and millions of listeners over the internet.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted. That includes a whole lot of radio and where I live it's hard to find anything but conservatives when looking for talk radio on the airwaves.

Funny how Pat Robertson, the devout Christian is talking about KILLING people is okay while <sarcasm>RADICAL LEFT-WING DIRTY LIBERAL SECULAR ATHEIST JEW MAN</sarcasm> is supposed to be a shock.

Funny how the media thinks it's more important to cover a story about some old guy saying we should assassinate a foreign dictator, than an old crabby cunt saying we should assassinate the leader of our own nation.

The fact you're still apologetic for the media informs what a leftwing asswimp you are.

Who CARES what these douchebags say?

"Or the time every news media covered Bill O'Reilly's phonesex scandal more than the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq at the hands of crazy-ass muhammedans"

What are you talking about? Everybody heard about Nick Berg.

It was the headlines CNN.com forwhile. I gave the wrong instance. What I meant to say was the media covered the story of a few soldiers committing fraturnity-level hazing on terrorist than the beheadings and captures of numerous american civilian. Infact, The New York Times ran over a hundred stories on Gitmo.

That's because while we know that war crimes are to be expected from the assholes we're fighting, perhaps we should not be stooping to their level. If you actually researched the interrogation techniques while they do not klll the inmate they are very, very demeaning. And I seriously wonder what kind of fraternities you've been in. The Guantanamo Bay stories are important because they investigate our OWN Army, they are about American interests, they are about whether or not we have stooped to the level of the people we're fighting.

Maybe they're not just as spinning it to make them look good, or reporting it (but lying about certain points) as Faux News is.

Keep playing the apologist for your bolshevik media, drone. :)

If I'm such a drone then why would I be disagreeing with what you call the "left-wing" media at all? I'm not a pure liberal, I'm not a pure conservative, I'm somewhat of a centrist but more of a libertarian on many social issues. I have a deal of "liberal" influence but I also have my fair share of "conservative' influence as well (being pro second amendment rights meaning I do NOT think guns should be illegal). In addition to that I have my own take on foreign policy, and while I was opposed to the Iraq War that doesn't mean I think all we should do is just leave. I am not anti-Israel, and I certainly don't support the insurgents that kill U.S. and coalition troops. I am not a communist or a fascist.

---

At 4/9/07 02:16 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The blog isn't, but the pictures are. You can look for more of Faux News's crap f you want, because obvious bias like that IS out there.

I saw every picture, and I gotta say they don't prove shit about Fox. Everyone of the teleprompters writes what the host or guest is discussing.

How does "Does Cheney feel bad about hunting accident?" prove any bias whatsoever? The guy on that website is clutching at straws and so are you.

Since you linked me I'll return the favor.

http://newsbusters.org/

http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=
6664 (scientific study on the issue of the leftwing media).

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/
Articles/000/000/004/997meijg.asp

Just to give a few.

Usually the pro-medical marijuana supporters come from the left side of the aisle.

I never considered weed a drug. I also thought of it in the same category of tobacco.

The fact that even the majority of Democrats don't stand up for that and try to fight the other negative effects of the drug prohibition.

This doesn't really disprove my point........

And if noone likes drugs, how come so many people use them and there are entire factions devoted to legalizing them?

I was referring to a politician by "anyone." I can't think of a left or rightwing politician who comes out in favor of legalizing crack or crystal meth.

As for the factions, if they're there they're a member of lunatic fringe.

I think you are pulling facts out of your ass there buddy. :)

And I think you need to learn not to interpret every word in a literal sense and try to comprehend the context of its use.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

The outlets would be considered conservative unless they're on par with Randi Rhodes. Just because a company may be owned by a conservative businessman, doesn't mean the journalists don't put a leftwing tilt on stories.

Because generalizing all Europeans into one group because of one kind of pornography that has a following there is a logical counter-argument.

You're right. I was thinking of those fuckoff dutchies. Still, my point stands that they're fanatically leftwing over there. Or at least the media.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

You already used this argument, but I'll counter with a different one. For every one conservative media outlet, there's seven liberal ones.

Hannity and Colmes is a joke, Hannity is a hard-line right-winger, Colmes is barely center-left.

Aside from the taxes issue, that just means he has common sense.

No, it means he's a leftwinger. Not this "moderate" bullshit you propose.

Colmes is not anywhere near as hardline as Hannity is.

No, the difference is Hannity is much more raucous than Colmes.

You've seen hardline in people like Begoner and real Democrats, I think you should know there's a difference.

Begoner is an insane bolshevik. He isn't a "real" democrat by any means. Real democrats are John Kerry and Obama. Begoner is on par with Mao.

Last time I checked more Americans had basic cable than digital cable, though perhaps it's grown enough that the numbers have grown dramatically.

Whether you realize it or not, this doesn't disprove my argument. More people in the US watch the international BBC more than Fox.

BBC has a wider audience in the world but in all likelihood Fox News has a wider audience here in the States.

It doesn't. Fox even admits they're aren't the most watched news outlet by saying "Top watched news on cable."

Ann Coulter is a journalist,

For her own pitiful blog....

Rosie O'Donnel is not,

But she is one of the most well-known people in the US. Therefore, something she says would generate more impact than a hack like Coulter.

what she says is not supposed to be regarded as news, nor is it claimed to be by any network.

Do you consider Coulter calling someone a "fag" at a private dinner banquet more news-worthy than Rosie's accusation that the government killed its own people on television?

Yes, point being..?

They think that we give as much of a shit about celebrities in real as we do in the movies.

Like I said to Memorize, go back and read the list of conservative outlets I posted.

Is there a broken record in here? Or is that what you say when you have nothing to say?

That includes a whole lot of radio and where I live it's hard to find anything but conservatives when looking for talk radio on the airwaves.

I'm not doubting the radio is primarily right wing; what I am saying is that the media ignores Randi Rhodes, gives her a free-pass, but ravages Pat Robertson for doing the exact same thing, except Randi Rhodes didn't say assassinate the president of an enemy nation, but of our own nation.

Who CARES what these douchebags say?

Your dismissiveness will no work in debate with me. This proves the leftwing media's bias. The point was the media ignores one person for doing something, and pegging someone for the exact samething.

That's because while we know that war crimes are to be expected from the assholes we're fighting, perhaps we should not be stooping to their level.

What happened at Gitmo is nowhere comparable to what those animals do. Slowly sawing someone's headoff is millions times worse than letting a german shepherd bark at someone.

If you actually researched the interrogation techniques while they do not klll the inmate they are very, very demeaning.

Right, because people have been known to go insane and die from a cardiac-arrest from being demeaned.

And I seriously wonder what kind of fraternities you've been in.

Here in Clemson there was a frat that made certain people blow a gamecock(our rival college's mascot) away with a shotgun. Another form of hazing is making someone drink liters of water until they passout. Just to name a few.

The Guantanamo Bay stories are important because they investigate our OWN Army, they are about American interests,

And I say it's just the media's way of demoralizing american citizens when it comes to the war. I'm pretty sure a few americans being brutally murdered would generate a bigger buzz than Al-kaizar Fullahahaja being forced to get into a big naked pyramid.

they are about whether or not we have stooped to the level of the people we're fighting.

If I'm such a drone then why would I be disagreeing with what you call the "left-wing" media at all?

Because you've been spoonfed this bullshit about how the media's objective and really Fox News is making it up, despite thousands of instances of confirmed leftwing bias on the part of the media.

I'm not a pure liberal, I'm not a pure conservative, I'm somewhat of a centrist but more of a libertarian on many social issues.

You're about as libartarian as that anti-american twerp, Bill Maher(I'm guessing you're a fan of him anyways).

---

-Continuation of the original post.

I have a deal of "liberal" influence but I also have my fair share of "conservative' influence as well (being pro second amendment rights meaning I do NOT think guns should be illegal).

Whoopy-freaking doo.

In addition to that I have my own take on foreign policy, and while I was opposed to the Iraq War that doesn't mean I think all we should do is just leave.

It's just common sense.

I am not anti-Israel, and I certainly don't support the insurgents that kill U.S.

Well, I'll give you that one. Liberals are generally in favor of insurgents.

and coalition troops. I am not a communist or a fascist.

I'd believe you were a libertarian if you didn't sound like a liberal. That fact you're an apologist for the obviously leftwing media, but spurnful of Fox News(despite it not having anymore bias than CNN) informs you have the thought process, or brainwashed thereof, by a leftwing cabal.

Oh, and libertarians are against eminent domain.

---

I might write out a longer response later but I believe this deserves to be linked to:

http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news

---

At 4/9/07 02:00 AM, Memorize wrote: The US is full of gullible morons. Hence the last mid-term elections!

I think the midterm election was more of a retalition to the failure of Republicans. Votes were driven more by a sort of "fuck this" mindset.

But to create a bias newsource would be impossible. Because no matter what you have to select the stories you have to run each day. Even if not on purpose, the best most controversial or intresting stories may put either the right or left in a better light, which will have the opposite side bitching about media bias, as is evident here.

Liberals bitch about Fox because Fox is a horrible source for news. Perioid.

Conservatives bitch about the other major news outlets because they are full of ignorant liberal bullshit.

But to tell you the truth, left leaning media is better than Fox anyday.

---

America does not have a mainstream left-wing.

That is all.

---

jjibjab rules. and man is that video SO TRUE.

---

At 4/9/07 07:27 PM, Slizor wrote: America does not have a mainstream left-wing.

And Karl Marx was a pastor and not a deluded fool.

That is all.

At least you promptly stfu.

---

At 4/9/07 01:54 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:23 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Dude

Could you possibly try to say "dude" a few more times in your next post?

kthxbai.

I can't help it, i'm canadian lol actually i type the same way i speak so it just comes out if i read something and then reply right away. It's pretty funny, i call my wife dude all the time in public and people bring it up like i'm supposed to "get in trouble" or something...Now you know something about me, tell me something about you let's cyber j/k lol

---

At 4/9/07 08:28 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 4/9/07 01:54 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:23 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Dude

Could you possibly try to say "dude" a few more times in your next post?

kthxbai.

I can't help it, i'm canadian lol actually i type the same way i speak so it just comes out if i read something and then reply right away. It's pretty funny, i call my wife dude all the time in public and people bring it up like i'm supposed to "get in trouble" or something...Now you know something about me, tell me something about you let's cyber j/k lol

I thought Dude was a trait best reserved for people on the west coast. I know this cause my best friend, live in LA, can never stop saying dude. It annoys me.

---

At 4/9/07 01:44 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

He was trying to use that to say that the media has a liberal bias, when really it's probably more just a matter of ratings,

You just don't get it. You've already lost. Can't see it? Just take a look at all your posts. You defend these other news organizations who produce negatives about the president. I even gave an example of Clinton bombing Iraq based on his information that they had WMDs, yet I didn't see any of the "He lied from the Media".

You see, the reason why you lost is because your excuse for outlets like NBC and ABC is "it's probly just the ratings", yet when FOX produces their own stories, you constantly refer to them as "Faux" even though FOX is usually the most watched of any other news outlet.

So why is it that outlets like NBC, ABC and CNN produce negative stories about the president or any of his policies and refuse to cover any other story like the ACLU/Child porn incident, it's all about the ratings. Yet when FOX produce contrary stories and covers all of these extra things and obtain more viewers, they are suddenly biased (as in "faux")?

The bias is strong in you, young one.

---

At 4/9/07 07:15 PM, SirLebowski wrote:

I think the midterm election was more of a retalition to the failure of Republicans. Votes were driven more by a sort of "fuck this" mindset.

You didn't learn much about Vietnam did you?

But to tell you the truth, left leaning media is better than Fox anyday.

And that fully explains why they have more viewers than the other programs...

Lol, dumbass.

---

No, Fox News is biased because they try to promote their own point of view. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the network.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fo x_News

Fox News is biased, regardless of the other media.

Come to think of it, whether the rest of the media is leftist depends on your own personal view of what is the "middle ground", and I suppose we have a different definition of what the "middle ground" is. From what I can see what is "middle ground" to you is quite bit farther to the right than mine.

---

At 4/9/07 09:00 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: No, Fox News is biased because they try to promote their own point of view. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the network.

At least they actually give a list unlike the others.

Fox News is biased, regardless of the other media.

They're all biased you dumbass, which is my entire point. It's you who keeps picking and choosing.

This topic already gave examples of the other media bias, yet you claim "there isn't any...". Stop shitting yourself.

---

At 4/9/07 09:02 PM, Memorize wrote: They're all biased you dumbass, which is my entire point. It's you who keeps picking and choosing.

This topic already gave examples of the other media bias, yet you claim "there isn't any...". Stop shitting yourself.

Wow for once i agree with you. There is bias in all the media, however i still disagree with what you see as being left, as i still see that as being rightwing...but then i guess it's all relative to the individuals perception. In the USA the dems are prolly the most left you're going to get.

---

At 4/9/07 09:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 09:00 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: No, Fox News is biased because they try to promote their own point of view. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the network.

At least they actually give a list unlike the others.

Fox News is biased, regardless of the other media.

They're all biased you dumbass, which is my entire point. It's you who keeps picking and choosing.

This topic already gave examples of the other media bias, yet you claim "there isn't any...". Stop shitting yourself.

??? I don't claim there isn't any bias. Objective reporting is near impossible. I just think you're exaggerating the bias because of your own personal view of what is "unbiased". Which is natural, because someone who is more right-wing would naturally have a view of normal reporting being more right-wing.

---

At 4/9/07 10:56 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

??? I don't claim there isn't any bias. Objective reporting is near impossible. I just think you're exaggerating the bias because of your own personal view of what is "unbiased".

But you're doing it worse than I'am. I'm sitting here saying "yes, they're all biased". And you're trying to defend several news stations and attack one at the same time.