|
|
|
Wow! You are one angry man! Too much MSNB-hee-haw, I would imagine. I took the side of Fox because everyone else was having a go at them and because their straight news reporting is as good as anyone else. They also tend to do less editorial and opinion pieces than some of the others though I admit I try to avoid those on any channel.
Not sure why you're being a bit of a dick about this; try to relax; if you want to carry iton, let's talk in the Soapbox. have a nice day and RELAX
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: You are one angry man! Too much MSNB-hee-haw, I would imagine.
You don't know how to read apparently. I said I don't watch any of the news programs.
Karel Čapek wrote: Not sure why you're being a bit of a dick about this;
Because "fair and balanced" is about the absurd thing you could use to describe Faux News, or any other organization for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I said I don't watch any of the news programs.
And yet my statement stands. You would have to watch to figure it out.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Because "fair and balanced" is about the absurd thing you could use to describe Faux News, or any other organization for that matter.
How would you know if you don't watch? That's just ignorance in action.
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: How would you know if you don't watch? That's just ignorance in action.
No, that's just ignorance on your part. I already told you I have watched and I have done my homework on these shows, their people and their so-called experts.
Perhaps you forgot to read what I actually posted.
I suggest you stop with the ad hominem attacks. They're saying more about you then they are about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No, that's just ignorance on your part. I already told you I have watched and I have done my homework on these shows, their people and their so-called experts.
You said: "I said I don't watch any of the news programs." a couple of posts back.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Perhaps you forgot to read what I actually posted.
Perhaps you forgot to remember what you had written.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I suggest you stop with the ad hominem attacks. They're saying more about you then they are about me.
Doubtful: they're observations based on your behavior which I'm not the only to spot. I admire you for trying to attack me when you have been caught out in a, hmm, let's be generous and call it a senior moment, but the truth stands.
You can't say "I don't watch" with one breath and then "I already told you I have watched". Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you need to read it again:
Quote: I seldom watch any news programs at all. I usually get the title of a story and start doing my own research into it.
I did not say "I don't watch any of the news programs". What this meant, and I should have been more clear, I don't watch any of them on any regular basis. I usually get the title set of their story and fist couple of lines and then go research it myself. They sure as sh*t won't do it to any degree of respectable journalism.
So I don't watch every news program on every story. I pick out the few I'm interested in and go do my own homework.
Every so often, I may watch an entire news story, take notes, and then go do my homework on who was on it, both sides of the story, credentials and play "follow the money", just to exercise my research skills. It's amazing what you'll find when you do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
I did not say "I don't watch any of the news programs".
Yes you did. I quoted you. You said exactly that!
I said I don't watch any of the news programs. [^]
Your words! I think you need to see a doctor. Fox has a couple they recommend.
You are clearly contradicting yourself which is tragically funny. If you won't come clean and admit you made a boo-boo, we're done; no point in going on. Over to you, Davey boy.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Yes you did. I quoted you. You said exactly that!
I said I don't watch any of the news programs. [^]
Your words! I think you need to see a doctor. Fox has a couple they recommend.
Apparently, I did. I also expounded on what I meant so it's rather a moot point now.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to worry: it happens to all of us. Have a pleasant evening. I, for one, will not be watching any news channels! 
|
|
|
|
|
You found it on the internet - it must be true!
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on, you know that 75.37% of all statistics are lies, the other 37.64% are made up!
I only started on this thread because I felt that Fox were being unfairly picked out over some patently bad media outlets. My thought was that was because they are about the only conservative mainstream media outlet at the moment so easy pickings. I don't see anyone standing up about the appaling MSNBC or rabidly left wing CNN. Just trying to be fair
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Fox news is no worse than any of the other media outlets and certainly a lot more balanced
Fox is "Balanced" but they consider that as giving the guy who says "2 + 2 = 4" equal time with the guy who says "2 + 2 = 5" --- unless they really want you to believe that 2+2=5, in which case they will give him equal time with the guy who says "2 + 2 = purple"
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
That's simply not true. This morning they had a segment about Iran and had Alan Colmes[^] on, a rabid left wing Demotard/Obama supporter and let him have his say, without interruption.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: had Alan Colmes[^] on, a rabid left wing
Ahem... Conservatives thinks he's "rapid left-wing". Liberals consider him Fox's official lapdog.
The Fox-style "balanced" reporting like I described is the reason why the US is pretty much the only country which refuses to accept climate change.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: The Fox-style "balanced" reporting like I described is the reason why the US is pretty much the only country which refuses to accept climate change.
Bit of a leap there but I don't think we refuse to accept climate change, it's the causes that are the heart of the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: it's the causes that are the heart of the debate.
Precisely my point. Fox's pairing of respected scientists with whack-a-doddles leads people to believe there is still some "debate" over what is happening....
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are misreading it: I don't recall Fox denying climate change, just anthropogenic climate change. I'm sure you can find a quote to disprove that.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: I don't recall Fox denying climate change
What? And you said I didn't watch Faux News? They do one of two things on Faux.
1) They constantly deny climate change is happening and they do it in a thinly-veiled in-direct way by trotting out their so called "experts" who have no expertise in the field of climatology at all to debate actual scientists and climatology researchers. They give the real experts about half the talking time of their side of the argument. They generate and parade made-up "conflict" with scientists to give the illusion of conflict within the scientific community where none exists.
Like I've said time and time again. DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON THESE PEOPLE.
2) Something, anything, everything goes wrong or is "in the news" and they try and blame it all on Obama. Ariana Grande licked a doughnut and f***ing Faux News tried to blame it on Obama! (see Fox and Friends, July 8th(?), with former Miss Kansas Teresa Vail as their "expert")
You call that "fair and balanced"?!
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question: which of your statements is true? Are you having a senior moment or just mixed up?
I watch Fox amongst others. They are no worse than CNN and far better than MSNB-hee-haw.
But again, how would you know if you don't watch them? Or do you do all of your research online because we all know how unbiased that is.
BTW, they don't deny climate change, they are not convinced at anthropogenic climate change which is a whole different thing.
Do you mean this person?
Theresa Marie Vail [^]
She appears well educated and has served her country. What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: You didn't answer the question: which of your statements is true? Are you having a senior moment or just mixed up?
Which of my statements is true? You didn't ask this anywhere.
Yep, that's her. Yes, she is majoring in Psychology. How does that justify blaming the President of the United States for someone licking a doughnut? I don't think there's a single other psychologist in the country willing to draw that line. I don't know any psychologists, but the question is on my list of things to ask if I ever meet one.
Karel Čapek wrote: She appears well educated and has served her country. What's wrong with that?
The problem isn't that she's not educated, she is. I never said that was the problem. What I said was people who are not educated in or are otherwise not experts on the TOPIC that Faux News is presenting is the entire problem with Faux News.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I don't think there's a single other psychologist in the country willing to draw that line.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I don't know any psychologists,
You're doing it again! Points for trying, that's for sure. Hilarious. Hard to have a conversation with someone who makes such ludicrous, contradictory statements. Can you not see that?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: The problem isn't that she's not educated, she is. I never said that was the problem. What I said was people who are not educated in or are otherwise not experts on the TOPIC that Faux News is presenting is the entire problem with Faux News.
But you specifically mentioned her!
Dave, Dave, Dave, what are we going to with you? 
|
|
|
|
|
Those two statements do not contradiction each other in any way. One is a hypothesis. I really don't think there is any practicing psychologist who will agree with her. The other is a statement of when I plan to gather data points on that very topic. You apparently didn't learn that's part of how science works in your Bible school.
Karel Čapek wrote: But you specifically mentioned her!
Yes, but did you ask yourself why I put her name in there? It's easy. So you can go look up the segment yourself, be sure you've got the correct one and then listen to what she said on your own.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
