Worst media reporting

[coastie]

That's called an editorial. They are allowed to give their opinion in those. Thanks though.

 

[trunks2k]

ah, the daily show... what every journalists secretly wants to be when he grows up.

Jon Stewart is my hero. He's got the perfect balance going for him. His show is "serious" enough that you get decent information from it but yet silly enough that they can stand up and say "look how incredibly stupid all this is! How can people think like this?!" and not catch much flak for it.

I've always enjoyed him when he talks to politicians and other political pundits. I've seen many times where he was so frank in his questions that the people he was talking were just caught offguard. He many times manages to ask a direct question about a flaw in the way a person is thinking in such a way that the other person doesn't go on the defensive. I loved his interview with Ann Coulter, he basically spent the entire thing showing how incredibly silly she was, and she had no clue what was going on. He also does some great commentaries. After 9-11, he seemed to be the most sincere "news anchor", he was the only one I ever heard ask the audience "The first thing I want to ask is, are you OK?"

 

[Patristic]

So who is the most objective, impartial, and accurate of the major news channels? Surely not Faux news uh, I mean Fox. If it was up to Murdoch and the rest of the crew at Fox all of us dissenters would be locked up down in Guantanamo right now. What it comes down to is that networks like CNN answer to the dollar not to the democrat or republican party. As for Fox they are neither fair nor balanced.

I love listening to these Murdoch is the devil theories that are not grounded in reality in the least. Sure, I admit Fox is more conservative oriented, but I don't go overboard and state they are the mouthpiece of the Republican party. Personally, I watch both Fox and MSNBC for news since I think the diverse opinions offered can counteract any bias and allow me to make my own decision. And pleae, give Murdoch some credit; He is extremely rich and powerful and if he wanted to he would have plenty of other options to silence you if he chose to use them.

 

[minus]

And pleae, give Murdoch some credit; He is extremely rich and powerful and if he wanted to he would have plenty of other options to silence you if he chose to use them.

You mean the way he tried to silence Al Franken?

 

[Ikaria]

Ironically, most of the "Murdoch is the devil" conspiracies I've read, have come from conservative Christians who are in love with Faux News.

Go figure.

 

[PhantomLlama]

That's called an editorial. They are allowed to give their opinion in those. Thanks though.

I know that, but it doesn't stop it being appalling.

 

[Ikaria]

it doesn't stop it being appalling.

...or false. Or gratuitously childish. Or unprofessional.

Or actionable.

 

[Brother Christman]

I say this as a (Reagan) conservative: The BBC was out of line and we can't tolerate that kinda' thing... but we have yet to significantly address the anti American (not to mention anti Judeo-Christian) nature of the Bush administration's $72 million love note to (US-independence-is-bad, homosexuality/paganism/abortion-good) UNESCO in the 2004 fiscal budget (HR 1950 - I'd encourage you to look it up if you doubt).

 

[Ikaria]

(US-independence-is-bad, homosexuality/paganism/abortion-good) UNESCO in the 2004 fiscal budget (HR 1950 - I'd encourage you to look it up if you doubt).

Feel free to enlighten me. I am keen to see the evidence which proves that UNESCO is what you say it is.

 

[sedders]

Is what Murdoch doing with Fox right? Is a man supposed to use his media companies to influence public opinion. Isn't a media company meant to be the voice of the people, not one man?

 

[rahma]

The "editorial" distorts the facts. The reporter was repremanded for what he said about the weapons scientist, not for his "unamericanism." That BS reporter makes it seem like the bbc guy was slapped for that. Bahhhh, bad reporting. Bahhhh

 

[Brother Christman]

Feel free to enlighten me. I am keen to see the evidence which proves that UNESCO is what you say it is.

Look up my previous posts. There's more than a few about UNESCO in there. Anyone who seeks their track record on the Web (outside UN-funded/filtered sources) shouldn't find it difficult, either.