a "foxy" response to CANTHINK
Someone with the anonymous handle of "canthink" has called me a "limousine liberal" who needs to pull my head out of my behind. He also writes that if I took a good look around I "might just be able to see that you are begging for the USA to be defeated by our enemies."
This diatribe is apparently in response to my view that FOX News slants the news to appeal to conservatives and the far right.
I think "canthink" just proved my point about FOX; it caters to people like "canthink."
However, he did get a couple facts wrong. For the record, I drive a 2004 Dodge Ram. Also, I'm not a liberal, as other members of the newsroom often point out to me. I believe in individual rights, low taxes and a strong national defense.
But I also like to get news from a consistently objective source.
posted by Patrick Rice @ 7:36 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
It's remarkable to me that people don't see the incredible bias of Fox News. When they aren't talking about the lastest about Paris Hilton or the latest missing girl, all they do is cheerlead the Bush administration.
It's embarrassing to me that people really think they are "fair and balanced." How skewed is your viewpoint? Wow.
It's funny how you choose the most outlandish comment on your blog to comment on, and you don't address or even acknowledge the statements that other viewers backed-up.
And every logical person on this earth (there's not many these days) knows people like "canthink" are absolute nuts and will say anything that pops out of their mouths without backing it up.
Since you seem to be so pronounced and “tall and mighty up on your...Dodge Ram”, why don't you try addressing some of the sincere opinions of other viewers. For example, do you think NBC or CNN, or any other network is biased? AND OF COURSE I’m thinking hypothetically. Or are you just so intent on attacking FOX that you have to slam dumbfounded people like "canthink" who make ridiculously slipshod comments that no one expects to believe?
But hey, I'm glad not everyone has the same opinion as you, and I'm sure FOX News is too.
I look forward to reading this blog, Mr. Rice. Laissez les bons temps rouler! (I'll let you translate)
Don't worry about it. We need facts more than opinions, although some people can't tell the difference anymore. Looking at the polls, about 30% not only drank the kool-aid, the are on an IV. He probably thinks Sam Patti is a liberal. If you are getting angry letters from the far left and the far right, you must be doing something right. Keep up the good work.
Get 'em Pat -
Let The Good Times Roll! (drew's translation)
tjk
Fox news is "conservative"?
Show me another network...any network...that goes as far to put articulate representatives of both point of view on TV whenever they're covering a political story. There is none. Your indictment of Fox as being conservative only proves just how liberal the vast majority of the electronic media is, as none of them can hold a candle to Fox for presenting both sides of a controversal story.
Show me anything Fox has done that compares with Dan Rather's attempt to turn the presidential election on fabricated documents regarding President Bush's military record...documents that any good reporter would have checked before using. But, Rather and CBS didn't.
Show me where has Fox aired anything to compare with CNN's "Tailwind," a one-hour special condemning the US military for using chemical weapons against our own troops in Vietnam. They were warned before they aired the story that it was false, by their own senior military expert, who quit in protest. They were forced to admit that the entire story was completely false, and apologise to the US military.
Fox personalities, like O'Rielly and Hannity, have slammed President Bush for years about issues like fiscal irresponsibilty in overspending on the budget, ignoring the problem of illegal aliens, and signing the "McCain/Feingold" campaign finance legislation. Nearly every Fox personality is tearing into the Bush administration over the issue of the border agent who was imprisoned for shooting the Mexican drug smuggler, and the fact that the DHS Inspector General lied to US Senators to political provide cover for the prosecution.
NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC parrot the junk science of man-made global warming, just like your paper does. I'm not sure if the problem is simple bias, or just plain stupidity.
According to these "scientists" who are telling us that we're facing a crisis, the globe has warmed a total of 0.7 degree (C) in the past one hundred years. That tiny amount of "change" is less than the probability of error they're working with when they measure temperature from hundreds of locations over a 100-year period. In other words, the "change" they're trying to panic us with is actually "un-measurable" with current technology.
Before you print your next Gore-fawning expose on "global warming," try talking to someone with an advanced degree in physics who isn't trying to scare igorant people to try to win a huge federal grant to tell us how to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.
The bottom line, Pat, is that your paper is far more biased than Fox News will ever be, and you're bothered at not being able to publish your liberal garbage without people challenging your frequently weak point of veiw.
Stop trying to change the world, and just report the news...for a change. If we wanted you media clowns running the world, we'd elect you to office.
Oh Pat, I forgot to mention your multi-article series on illegal immigrants. Where did your article mention that 27% of all criminals currently housed in US prisons are illegals? And, where did the article mention that 95% of all the outstanding murder warrants left open in Los Angeles were in the name of illegal aliens? Where did your article mention that illegals immigrants also contribute significantly to the problem of affordable housing in our area?
By the way, I also took note of today's story, on page A4 regarding Tim Russert's testimony in the Scotter Libby case. Your headline over the AP story...something I have to suspect you have some editorial control over...says "Russert Testifies he never discussed Plame with Libby." In the first paragraph the story clearly highlights that Russert's testimony hurts Libby's defense, because Russert is contradicting what Libby has stated.
However, to someone who is willing to wade through nine paragraphs, the story finally gets to a very important point about Russert's sworn testimony...it contradicts statements Russert had already given investigators before the trial.
So, to anyone who reads only the headline, or doesn't wade through the entire story, the article looks quite bad for Libby. But, to the fewest people whose opinion will be affected by the story...the ones who actually read to the final two paragraphs in the 10-paragraph article...they finally see a picture that actually proves that Russert has a faulty memory, making his testimony weak, or that Russert is a liar. Bottom line: there will be people...possibly a large percentage of those who see this story...who won't read the entire story and will conclude that Russert made Libby look like a liar yesterday, instead of Russert, himself, being caught as not being consistent in his story.
Most "fair" journalists, I believe, would have mentioned Russert's inconsistencies in either the headline or at least very early in the article, because it's critical to the context of the story.
Bias in the N/W Florida Daily News? Or, are you guys just dumping anything that AP gives you into the paper, trusting them to do the thinking for you?
Pat,
Back to the supposed bias of Fox News. I hope you'll watch Bill O'Reilly's show, tonight. He's going to show a recent news story in which NBC reporter, David Engle, laments our situation in Iraq, and states that every solder he talked to expressed a negative opinion about our current situation in Iraq. In the past few days since that NBC piece aired, Fox News and Bill O'Rielly have received a number of letters from the soldiers who spoke to Engle in Iraq. Those letters say that Engle was lying about what he'd been told, and that they'd spoken to him and made no such negative statements about the US mission in Iraq. In essence, Engle will be proven to have lied to create his story. He will be proven to have used our honorable US heroes, and twisted and lied about what they told him, in order to portray the US mission in Iraq in a negative light.
But, even after proof of NBC's biased reporting on our situation in Iraq is provided...even after Engle is proven a liar...will you turn your accusations of bias toward one of the major liberal broadcast networks? I doubt it.
SOunds like you are a Libertarian. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home