-------------------------------------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 21:46 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
Stoneage
Look at the bright side. To me a statement like "Watch Fox news, then you will know what's going on in America" is only amusing. It gives me a good laugh!

I hate to tell you folks but FOX News reaches far and away more households in the US than any or all of the other cable units combined. They sometimes equal or exceed the lower ranking national news broadcasts (i.e. CBS) in the same time slot. Factor in their rapidly growing business news network and you have quite the behometh Obviously the market has been created by "someone(s)" and said "someone(s)" are not the FOX News end user.

Be snarkily dismissive at your peril.

Yes, and Rupert Murdoch (the same owner) sells far more copies of his gutter press rags in the U.K. than other newspapers. And we see now the tactics he has employed to get his "news", such as hacking a murdered girl's cell phone and bribing police. The success of Fox News is no secret: It appeals to many people's basest instincts and fears. It is a formula Murdoch has mined for decades. The fact that it reaches so many households says a lot about why so many people are so misinformed.

Folks, people in the US aren't nearly as "misinformed" as you would like to think. It's just that it's not in most of our nature to be haughtily dismissive and faux erudite with those with whom we disagree.

There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of propaganda and lies, and calling it exactly what it is. And in point of fact, repeated studies of people who get most of their information from Fox News shows that they are far more misinformed than people who get their news elsewhere. Happy to refer you to the studies if you're really interested in the facts, but I doubt you are.

LOL. I love being lectured to about FOX News by erudites who wouldn't be caught dead watching it and rather glean their opinions thereof from partisan websites and push polls. Why don't you link us to just one of your "repeated studies" regarding a plurality of Americans and their stupidity. I would be fascinated.

I am not lecturing, merely pointing out a fact: People who get their information from Fox News are actually LESS informed than people who watch no news at all. In fact, there have been SEVEN studies showing Fox News viewers consistently misinformed about a variety of major issues. And how do you know where I get my news, by the way? Did I tell you, or do you have psychic powers?

[mediamatters.org]

[www.alternet.org]

[www.rawstory.com]

"Extended Exposure To Fox News Makes Viewers Stupid".

LMFAO! THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT! Do you have ANY so-called studies from legitimate sources or are they all from transparently partisan (i.e. leftist) propaganda websites? You're trying to make your point about transparent Righty propaganda by using transparent lefty propaganda. I assume you're intelligent enough that the irony of this is not lost on you.

The irony is completely reversed, and you in fact have proved my point. You don't like the conclusions of the study, and are not interested in the methodology, the findings or any of the details, so you simply dismiss it out of hand as "leftist". How typically right-wing to simply dismiss facts which are unfomfortable. I can asure you that the methodology in the studies (there have in fact been seven of them) are far more objective than the standards of "journalism" Fox adheres to in deciding how to present what it calls "news".

I have no problem with legitimate facts, my friend. As soon as you encounter some feel free to send then along. Your sources AND their methodology speak for themselves.

Yeah, ok. If you defend Fox, your relationship with "legitimate facts" speaks for itself as well.

Find some legitimate facts instead of partisan hissy-fits to justify your intolerance and insecurity and perhaps you'll be taken seriously by other than those who share your "enlightened and progressive" world view, my friend. This ignorant FOX News viewer initially dismissed your harangues as the trendy nonsense spouted by partisan websites. So, what do you utilize to prove me wrong but those VERY partisan websites?!? You need to quit while you're behind.A long, hard look in the mirror wouldn't hurt either.

Again, you have nothing to offer but your own circular reasoning and personal insults, so why bother? Typical.

All I am offering is simple, irrefutable logic. I didn't insult anyone either.

That is really funny, as there is nothing "logical" or "irrefutable" about anything you said. As for insults, you in point of fact accused me of intolerance and insecurity, as well as "haughtiness". I suppose that's the price one pays for disagreeing with you. But I suggest we agree to disagree on this and move on, shall we?

Are you not in fact intolerant of FOX News and by extension anyone who might agree with them? Are you not so fearful, i.e. insecure, of anyone who might not readily digest a statement as patently hysterical as "People who get their information from Fox News are actually LESS informed than people who watch no news at all" or "Nothing, I repeat nothing, ever said by these idiots on Fox and friend has ever been "factually correct"as fact? Those are your words my friend. If you feel insulted you have no one to blame but yourself. BTW, someone else must have accused you of "haughtiness." I have no idea where they got that notion.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
R

Quote
71Tele

Quote
mitchflorida1
Fox News ran a very pro-Obama piece today, so why all this complaint about their supposed bias?

Jay Bookman
Read it and weep, Mitch...

Fox News lets the mask slip once again

6:05 pm May 30, 2012

This is not a Romney campaign ad. Not technically anyway.

It is a video produced by the Fox News Channel as a news product, a “fair and balanced” review of the Obama presidency to date. It was broadcast on the channel this morning.

Twice.

Since then, it has become such an embarrassment that Fox has made it vanish from its website.

A bit over-the-top but factually correct.

Obama 2008: Hope & Change.

Obama 2012: Fear & Envy.

Nothing, I repeat nothing, ever said by these idiots on Fox and friend has ever been "factually correct". Even Fox pulled this piece out of embrassment.

Listen to yourself objectively and tell me you aren't throwing a partisan hissy-fit of the first order. And whether this video has been removed from the FOX News website, is irrelevant as it has already gone viral. That's how the media works in this day-and-age. People as smart as you should be EMBRASSED for not knowing that. Why don't review the video and tell the class where and how it isn't factually correct.

...and people as smart as YOU should know how to spell.

That's how YOU spelled it in your post, one-up, genius.

Hey guys stop insulting each other. Debate is fine but its degenerated somewhat.

Am I remembering correctly? Didn't Mick come out publicly in the 80s or 90s in support of the Conservative party?

Quote
Gazza

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Gazza

Quote
whitem8
I also liked Sweet Neo Con. Good political blues. Some cool harp and great backing. And at least Jagger is singing about something other than women! I mean it is ok on the classics, but as he ages he tries to hard to sound like young lust, or forlorn jilted loss.

Musically its fine, and I've no problem with the subject matter but the whole thing is undermined by the fact that the lyrics are throwaway infantile rubbish. Every time I hear it the image that springs to mind is that it was written by a 13 year old schoolboy with Tourettes.

LOL! What do you think of Dangerous Beauty, then? I think that one's written more cleverly.

Political songs being too direct is a common mistake among song writers, imo. You'll miss the target or the intention of the song.

Dangerous Beauty is fantastic. My favourite song on the album, along with Laugh I Nearly Died. Its also laugh-out-loud funny.

Not only are the lyrics funny, Mick's delivery of them is absolutely sublime. No one could have managed what he did with that song.

A true latter day stones triumph.

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
Gazza
Am I reading this right?

A positive comment by a character played by Mick Jagger in a skit written by a group of comedians is an endorsement of a political candidate by the lead singer of The Rolling Stones in an election in which he can’t even vote anyway…

Are you on crack?

I never said Jagger endorsed Romney, bozo. He called him a "mensch" which means good guy. You need to get some new reading glasses.

Doesn't 'mensch' actually mean 'man' in German?

What about the 2003 Fox News court case in Florida involving Jane Akre?

What was it that the Fox News lawyers argued?
Oh yeah, the media is not required to tell the truth on network television.

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News legal team that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. "

I'm wonder how that will help get to the crux of issues facing the country?
Instead we debate citizenship, college grades (no concern for GWB's grades though), or whether or not Michelle gave Barack a "terrorist fist jab".




MSNBC has many pundits that say stupid things or omit to provide the full story, but Fox News is really for suckers. The absolute worst. Ever.

Quote
Fuman2

What was it that the Fox News lawyers argued?
Oh yeah, the media is not required to tell the truth on network television.

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News legal team that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. "

Well, the Florida Court of Appeals clearly recognized an obvious precedent. In other words FOX News is hardly the first. Can you say ABC? BBC? CBS? NPR? NBC? NYT? WPO? LAP? At least you had the class to bring MSNBC into the discussion. I am a BIG fan of Morning Joe. Mika Brzezinski always looks like she just bit into something extremely unpleasant and I find that no end of amusing. Steve Rattner is very reasonable, not nearly as hysterically bitter or angry as your typical American left-winger. That's probably why he was the first one out the door of Obama administration.

-----------------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 21:28 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

I only ask that you stop calling me your friend. I had enough of "my friends" from John McCain in the last campaign. Sorry about confusing your insults with those of another poster. I strive for accuracy, unlike Fox.

Wow, no need to be nasty about it. Show some class, there are good people on both sides of the issue. Obama is a Pied Piper sort of figure. Lots of people were deceived by his "silver tongue". But you can't pay your mortgage with Obama's words and speeches. If we could, we would all be millionaires by now!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 21:13 by mitchflorida1.

Quote
R
Are you not in fact intolerant of FOX News and by extension anyone who might agree with them?

1. Pointing out what Fox does, who owns it, and what their motivations and actions have been is not intolerance.

2. It is certainly not "hysterical" to post results of a study supporting the assertion that Fox News viewers are less informed and more poorly informed than people who get their news from other sources or people who get no news at all. These were the conclusions of the studies. The statement you accuse me of being "hysterical" about was a verbatim quote of the headline reporting one of these studies. I used quotation marks and showed the source.

3. Despite all of your clever invective you have not managed to challenge anything of substance in the University Of Maryland or the Princeton studies. You only engage in a type of circular reasoning that says (basically) if you like something it's true, and if you don't like it it's false. It's no surprise that this method of argument isn't very convincing. I (again) suggest we move on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 21:21 by 71Tele.

Quote
R

Quote
Fuman2

What was it that the Fox News lawyers argued?
Oh yeah, the media is not required to tell the truth on network television.

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News legal team that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. "

Well, the Florida Court of Appeals clearly recognized an obvious precedent. In other words FOX News is hardly the first. Can you say ABC? BBC? CBS? NPR? NBC? NYT? WPO? LAP? At least you had the class to bring MSNBC into the discussion. I am a BIG fan of Morning Joe. Mika Brzezinski always looks like she just bit into something extremely unpleasant and I find that no end of amusing. Steve Rattner is very reasonable, not nearly as hysterically bitter or angry as your typical American left-winger. That's probably why he was the first one out the door of Obama administration.

"the Florida Court of Appeals clearly recognized an obvious precedent. In other words FOX News is hardly the first."

Can you help me out. What "obvious precedent" are you referring to?

Quote
mitchflorida1

Quote
71Tele

I only ask that you stop calling me your friend. I had enough of "my friends" from John McCain in the last campaign. Sorry about confusing your insults with those of another poster. I strive for accuracy, unlike Fox.

Wow, no need to be nasty about it. Show some class, there are good people on both sides of the issue. Obama is a Pied Piper sort of figure. Lots of people were deceived by his "silver tongue". But you can't pay your mortgage with Obama's words and speeches. If we could, we would all be millionaires by now!

You say 'stop being nasty", then you carry on with your typical Obama-hatred.

Your problem is you want to dish out nasty, snide anti-Obama comments, but you don't want anyone to call you on it.

I asked you several times why you continue to use this forum for your baiting anti-Obama hatred and bigorty and you have not answered yet. One time (on President's Day) you even started a thread which was an illustration of Obama trampling on the U.S. Constitution while all the past presidents looked on in horror. Putting aside for a moment the idiocy of the picture, why would you start a thread like that on a Rolling Stones discussion site? I would like an answer please.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-05-31 21:25 by 71Tele.