Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Fox News. Once again being fair and unbalanced.

Maximum Peach





Posts: 9316
(9393 all sites)
Registered: 10/29/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 12:59 PM
Never mind getting the facts straight. It's all about telling the flock what they want to hear,and furthering the Republican agenda.



Obama Children's Book Ignites Controversy

WASHINGTON (Nov. 16) -- Has anyone told President Barack Obama lately that he will never catch a break?

Today, as his first book for children was released, Fox News ran this headline on its website: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General."
The brief item is quoted from a USA Today piece about "Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters," Obama's lyrical ode to 13 Americans "whose traits he sees in his own children." Addressed to daughters Malia and Sasha, the picture book begins: "Have I told you lately how wonderful you are?"

The newspaper notes in passing, "His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn."
Obama writes that Sitting Bull was "a medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises. It is fine that we are different." The book, whose royalties will go to help the children of fallen or disabled service members, also says that the Lakota chief "spoke out and led his people against many policies of the United States government. He is most famous for his stunning victory in 1876 over Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of the Little Bighorn."

That caused a storm of derision in the blogosphere as defenders and opponents of the president and Fox traded politically laced barbs about historical revisionism and political correctness. One sympathetic commentator sarcastically called the book "Obama's newest anti-American crime."

It was enough to make one wonder whether the man who ran on "hope" realized the irony that his book shares a name with perhaps the greatest American political satire ever written, a 1931 musical about a politician who runs for president on a platform of "love."

There is a certain bit of audacity in Obama's eclectic and ethnically diverse list of Americans.

Besides perennial heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, there are those selected for being kind (social worker Jane Addams), strong (Helen Keller) and inspiring (farmworker organizer Cesar Chavez). Vietnam Memorial architect Maya Lin is included for honoring the sacrifices of others, singer Billie Holiday because "you have your own song."

So far, no one has criticized Obama for including a singer whose heroin addiction and alcoholism led to an early death. Or asked whether artist Georgia O'Keeffe, whose paintings evoke female genitalia, should be part of a book for children as young as 3 years old. And maybe the president should get points for including "explorer" Neil Armstrong, who blasted Obama for canceling NASA's back-to-the-moon mission.

"If President Obama patted a child on the head, Fox News would probably accuse him of assault," Indiana University historian Ed Linenthal said. "It certainly sounds like what Obama has done is ... expand our sense of who counts in our own history. ... America has always been a mosaic of communities in which individuals become heroes and heroines and role models and tragic figures and controversial figures."

The 'Greatest Chief'

That Fox would single out Sitting Bull for condemnation illustrates how the wounds inflicted during the settling of the American West remain raw long after the "closing of the frontier" more than a century ago. Yet historians say the Native American holy man earned his place in Obama's slender 31-page book.


The inclusion of Sitting Bull in "Of Thee I Sing" has caused a storm of derision in the blogosphere over historical revisionism and political correctness.
"Why should that be controversial?" asked Linenthal, author of "Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields," an examination of how the Little Bighorn and other historic sites have been redefined in the nation's memory. "Is it controversial to hold up Robert E. Lee as a significant American even though he was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy's goal was to create a new nation apart from the United States?"

The Lakota Sioux chief belongs among the pantheon of American heroes, said Robert Utley, author of the definitive biography, "Sitting Bull: The Life and Times of an American Patriot."

"He was probably the most Indian Indian, the most devoted to his particular culture, and he practiced it on a daily basis and had the political and spiritual influence to lead his people as their greatest chief," Utley said. "He is as American as they come."

Utley called the Fox headline "a vast oversimplification." Sitting Bull was already too old to fight at the time of the standoff with Custer, he said, and was back with the women and children when Crazy Horse led the war party at the Little Bighorn.

"I'd brush Fox News off," he said. "They don't know what they're talking about."

This isn't the first time controversy has erupted over a chapter of history immortalized in movies, books and re-enactments as "Custer's Last Stand."

In the 1990s, the National Park Service removed Custer's name from the site in Montana and renamed it Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, adding a monument to the Indians who died there. The move sparked a bitter debate over historical revisionism in which one traditionalist compared it to ''handing the Vietnam War memorial over to the Vietnamese.''

Though emotions have cooled since then, the current controversy isn't unexpected, said University of New Mexico historian Paul Hutton, author of more than a dozen books on the American West and military history. While he called the Fox headline "outrageous" and "provocative," he said Obama's book is reflective of young people's literature since the 1970s "when Custer was sort of erased from the children's book universe."

Hutton argues that Sitting Bull is an outlier on Obama's list of forward-looking role models. He calls him a "conservative spiritual leader" who fought to "live on the plains, hunt buffalo and live in tepees at a time when the telephone was invented" and the modern industrial world was dawning.

"I don't know what broken hearts and broken treaties he mended," Hutton said in reference to Obama's prose. "I don't believe he was a progressive leader by any stretch of the imagination. He was not fighting for the future, he was fighting for the past. He brought death, destruction and poverty to his people" by not seeking peace with the white man in a struggle Native Americans were doomed to lose.

 

____________________
Well 30 years of heart and soul,lord we took it further than rock and roll.
We stood together thru thick and thin,yeah we made the best of it all back then.
Then I guess time took it's toll,cut me deep,cut me cold.
Brother against brother....

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:13 PM
George Custer hated Native Americans and was responsible for a number of atrocities against them. It's a part of this country's history that's shameful and wrong and quite frankly, my sympathies at the Little Big Horn is with the warriors who fought there. Custer deserved what he got and I have no problem with what Obama wrote.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:16 PM
Like MSNBC doesn't tells it's " flock what they want to hear,and furthers the Democrat's agenda". Truth be told, that's the way the "News Business" is nowadays has Ted Koppell makes very clear in his editorial.

quote:
Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news
By Ted Koppel
Sunday, November 14, 2010

To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.

Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men's jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.

Perhaps it doesn't matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.

On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.

Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.

I recall a Washington meeting many years later at which Michael Eisner, then the chief executive of Disney, ABC's parent company, took questions from a group of ABC News correspondents and compared our status in the corporate structure to that of the Disney artists who create the company's world-famous cartoons. (He clearly and sincerely intended the analogy to flatter us.) Even they, Eisner pointed out, were expected to make budget cuts; we would have to do the same.

I mentioned several names to Eisner and asked if he recognized any. He did not. They were, I said, ABC correspondents and cameramen who had been killed or wounded while on assignment. While appreciating the enormous talent of the corporation's cartoonists, I pointed out that working on a television crew, covering wars, revolutions and natural disasters, was different. The suggestion was not well received.

The parent companies of all three networks would ultimately find a common way of dealing with the risk and expense inherent in operating news bureaus around the world: They would eliminate them. Peter Jennings and I, who joined ABC News within a year of each other in the early 1960s, were profoundly influenced by our years as foreign correspondents. When we became the anchors and managing editors of our respective programs, we tried to make sure foreign news remained a major ingredient. It was a struggle.

Peter called me one afternoon in the mid-'90s to ask whether we at "Nightline" had been receiving the same inquiries that he and his producers were getting at "World News Tonight." We had, indeed, been getting calls from company bean-counters wanting to know how many times our program had used a given overseas bureau in the preceding year. This data in hand, the accountants constructed the simplest of equations: Divide the cost of running a bureau by the number of television segments it produced. The cost, inevitably, was deemed too high to justify leaving the bureau as it was. Trims led to cuts and, in most cases, to elimination.

The networks say they still maintain bureaus around the world, but whereas in the 1960s I was one of 20 to 30 correspondents working out of fully staffed offices in more than a dozen major capitals, for the most part, a "bureau" now is just a local fixer who speaks English and can facilitate the work of a visiting producer or a correspondent in from London.

Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed.

It was an imperfect, untidy little Eden of journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. We didn't know that we could become profit centers. No one had bitten into that apple yet.

The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible. Legions of new media present a vista of unrelenting competition. Advertisers crave young viewers, and these young viewers are deemed to be uninterested in hard news, especially hard news from abroad. This is felicitous, since covering overseas news is very expensive. On the other hand, the appetite for strongly held, if unsubstantiated, opinion is demonstrably high. And such talk, as they say, is cheap.

Broadcast news has been outflanked and will soon be overtaken by scores of other media options. The need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence and global ecological problems is probably greater than it has ever been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.

As you may know, Olbermann returned to his MSNBC program after just two days of enforced absence. (Given cable television's short attention span, two days may well have seemed like an "indefinite suspension.") He was gracious about the whole thing, acknowledging at least the historical merit of the rule he had broken: "It's not a stupid rule," he said. "It needs to be adapted to the realities of 21st-century journalism."

There is, after all, not much of a chance that 21st-century journalism will be adapted to conform with the old rules. Technology and the market are offering a tantalizing array of channels, each designed to fill a particular niche - sports, weather, cooking, religion - and an infinite variety of news, prepared and seasoned to reflect our taste, just the way we like it. As someone used to say in a bygone era, "That's the way it is."

Ted Koppel, who was managing editor of ABC's "Nightline" from 1980 to 2005, is a contributing analyst for "BBC World News America."






[Edited on 11/17/2010 by sibwlkr]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46739
(46740 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:17 PM
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 526
(526 all sites)
Registered: 9/22/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:21 PM
Good point, cable news is a cesspool, way to settle something that no one was disputing. Now, care to point out an MSNBC headline that's as inflammatory as this latest FOX tripe?

Also, honest question: isn't it clear to a FOX viewer that they are simply telling you what to think, because they think you are idiots? Or is it more of a "wink-and-nod" situation for viewers, where they see a headline like this, chuckle at the absurdity and move along down the road?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:29 PM
Anyone who listens to any talking head and takes what they say as gospel truth is a lazy, ignorant person. Sure, I know Olbermann and Maddow have their own take on subjects, but I don't accept what they tell me as a total truth.....I go and find other viewpoints before I make up my own mind. I remember several years ago listening to the O'Reilly show on my dad's car radio when he made the comment 'you don't need to think, I'll tell you what to think.' Sadly, that seems to be the case for a lot of people.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:29 PM
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46739
(46740 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:48 PM
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 01:56 PM
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


Of course there is no comparison. But add up the viewership of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and then compare it to Fox. The left have tons of options, the right only has one.

It cracks me up that people get bent on what MSNBC or FOX have to say? If you listen or watch news from a network you dislike, you are probably not going to like the spin that they put on their news.

I have an idea? Don't watch Fox news, don't watch Glenn Beck, and don't listen to Rush Limbaugh if you know you aren't going to like what they have to say.

The "news" was compromised a long time ago. You can choose which propoganda you want to listen to, but it is still propoganda.

Divide and Conquer, they love it when people get bent over it. Mission accomplished.

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1567
(1567 all sites)
Registered: 10/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:00 PM
I have no problem with news be presented with a political view, right or left, I do have a problem that fox just makes sh*t up . MSNBC dosen't.
And I believe that petty crap like this just proves that fox is not fair just unbalanced.

 

____________________
" I love that woman better than any woman I've ever seen"

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:03 PM
For FOX to be so slanted, they sure devote a LOT of time to Liberals giving ther point of view. At any given time day or night, you're just as likely to see a Liberal on the screen as a Conservative.

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:06 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




Sure you can, the ratings of either has noting to do with their political stances and how they portray the content that they broadcast.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46739
(46740 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:07 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




Sure you can, the ratings of either has noting to do with their political stances and how they portray the content that they broadcast.


So, TV ratings have no bearing on content? Um, OK.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:08 PM
quote:
MSNBC dosen't.


O-Kay ??? Good one.

They both do it.

Spin, spin, spin.


Olbermann being fair and balanced ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1567
(1567 all sites)
Registered: 10/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:11 PM
quote:
quote:
MSNBC dosen't.


O-Kay ??? Good one.

They both do it.

Spin, spin, spin.


Olbermann being fair and balanced ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8


Spin is putting the facts in the best possible context for your viewpoint. Lies are lies, You can tell the difference can't you ?

 

____________________
" I love that woman better than any woman I've ever seen"

 
E-Mail User

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:12 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




Sure you can, the ratings of either has noting to do with their political stances and how they portray the content that they broadcast.


So, TV ratings have no bearing on content? Um, OK.



Apparently not, MSNBC can clearly see that Fox is kicking the asses in the ratings yet they choose to stay the liberal course. If it was solely ratings driven then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that MSNBC would be following the Fox model.


[Edited on 11/17/2010 by er1016]

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46739
(46740 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:14 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




Sure you can, the ratings of either has noting to do with their political stances and how they portray the content that they broadcast.


So, TV ratings have no bearing on content? Um, OK.



Apparently not, MSNBC can clearly see that Fox is kicking the asses in the ratings yet they choose to stay the liberal course. If it was solely ratings driven then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that all news outlets would be following the Fox model.



I think it says alot more about the actual people choosing to view what it is they watch.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:16 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




Sure you can, the ratings of either has noting to do with their political stances and how they portray the content that they broadcast.


So, TV ratings have no bearing on content? Um, OK.



Apparently not, MSNBC can clearly see that Fox is kicking the asses in the ratings yet they choose to stay the liberal course. If it was solely ratings driven then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that all news outlets would be following the Fox model.



I think it says alot more about the actual people choosing to view what it is they watch.


What does it say about them?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:21 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ratings-wise, there is no equivalence of MSNBC to Fox News.


So their poor ratings make them less liberal in their views?


If you are painting every single minute and second of MSNBC as being of a "liberal viewpoint," can we also say the same about every single minute and second of the conservatism of Fox?




I don't watch MSNBC ever so I don't know but I know that Fox has liberal voices on that attempt to present the other side of issues. Even though the station has a conservative bent they do allow the opposition to be heard. Is that true of MSNBC? I don't know.

Incidentally, I agree with Ann and others that Sitting Bull is a strong example of a powerful and tragic time in our history and Custer was a blowhard and human pond scum.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:21 PM
quote:
Spin is putting the facts in the best possible context for your viewpoint. Lies are lies, You can tell the difference can't you ?


Well said. Not only that but, EVERY NETWORK and journalist spins, however, not all of them lie.

(and no, he cannot tell the difference)

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:22 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
MSNBC dosen't.


O-Kay ??? Good one.

They both do it.

Spin, spin, spin.


Olbermann being fair and balanced ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8


Spin is putting the facts in the best possible context for your viewpoint. Lies are lies, You can tell the difference can't you ?


Present some examples of actual lies from Fox News. Not mistakes that were later retracted but lies. Let's see if you know the difference.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9316
(9393 all sites)
Registered: 10/29/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:40 PM
quote:
Present some examples of actual lies from Fox News.
You mean like this?

quote:
Fox News ran this headline on its website: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General.


quote:
Sitting Bull was already too old to fight at the time of the standoff with Custer, he said, and was back with the women and children when Crazy Horse led the war party at the Little Bighorn.

 

____________________
Well 30 years of heart and soul,lord we took it further than rock and roll.

We stood together thru thick and thin,yeah we made the best of it all back then.

Then I guess time took it's toll,cut me deep,cut me cold.

Brother against brother....

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10159
(10158 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:42 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
MSNBC dosen't.


O-Kay ??? Good one.

They both do it.

Spin, spin, spin.


Olbermann being fair and balanced ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8


Spin is putting the facts in the best possible context for your viewpoint. Lies are lies, You can tell the difference can't you ?


Present some examples of actual lies from Fox News. Not mistakes that were later retracted but lies. Let's see if you know the difference.
Here's one from glen beck: "Obama's trip to India cost the U.S. taxpayers 2 Billion dollars".

 

____________________

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:44 PM
How much did that trip cost the US taxpayers ???

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46739
(46740 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/17/2010 at 02:45 PM
quote:
How much did that trip cost the US taxpayers ???


You tell us.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com