Why would the WH treat Fox as opposition outlet?

[Krisken]

You just wish you could quit me, don't you?

He said they don't do this because they \"aren't shills for a party.\" They ARE shills for a party. That was my point. The threshold of being a party shill is much lower than what you demand proof of. That they haven't gone as far as Fox is only because fox is the only one with opposing bias. When you try to counterbalance four medium weights with only one weight, it has to be a big weight.

Note I'm not denying that Fox is a party shill. They all are, one way or the other.

Okay fine name a time when CNN, CBS or MSNBC blatantly lied about McCain's policy. Show me when they followed up on a story about McCain that was disproven the first time they talked about it. Show me where they used their power to organize rallies for Obama or when they slanted their coverage to show McCain in a poor light.

I won't deny that there is a liberal bias to the Media. However they do allow Conservatives to make their point and they don't try to paint every Republican as an out of touch, evil, moron. Nor do they try to defend every democrat long past the point of being reasonable. They hold themselves to standards and a level of fairness that Fox News believes doesn't apply to them.[/quote]

How Quickly we forget[/QUOTE]
One instance does not a trend make.

Oh, and lets not forget this...

\"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.\"

Holy shit, they issued a correction and apology! Your one example was shown to be what it was, and the network apologized for it.

I'd be shocked to see Fox do that.

 

[GasBandit]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Holy shit, they issued a correction and apology! Your one example was shown to be what it was, and the network apologized for it.

I'd be shocked to see Fox do that.

Yes, because it made all the difference and radically changed their practices. After all, it's not like they just shuffled Dan Rather into another cushy sinecure and fired some behind the scenes no-names to appease the calls for heads, right?

 

[Rob King]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.[/QUOTE]

Something I've learned in past years is that Newton's third law of motion does not only apply to physics. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" could be just as easily rendered "To every political movement ... " "To every philosophy ... " etc.

 

[Krisken]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Holy shit, they issued a correction and apology! Your one example was shown to be what it was, and the network apologized for it.

I'd be shocked to see Fox do that.

Yes, because it made all the difference and radically changed their practices. After all, it's not like they just shuffled Dan Rather into another cushy sinecure and fired some behind the scenes no-names to appease the calls for heads, right?[/QUOTE]
And you can prove it didn't change anything.

Wait, no you can't.

 

[tegid]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.
.[/quote]

But that doesn't justify the strong bias or so overt political position. I thought you were saying that since it's the only conservative channel against 4 'leftist' channels, they had to be 4 times as biased and loud. If that's what you meant well, I just don't agree. If it isn't, then I apologize.

 

[GasBandit]

And you can prove it didn't change anything.

Wait, no you can't.

If I had a nickel for every time you asked me to prove a negative...

 

[tegid]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Holy shit, they issued a correction and apology! Your one example was shown to be what it was, and the network apologized for it.

I'd be shocked to see Fox do that.

Yes, because it made all the difference and radically changed their practices. After all, it's not like they just shuffled Dan Rather into another cushy sinecure and fired some behind the scenes no-names to appease the calls for heads, right?[/quote]
And you can prove it didn't change anything.

Wait, no you can't.[/QUOTE]

But you have to admit it's a reasonable possibility it didn't, or you'd be very naïve.

 

[GasBandit]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.
.[/quote]

But that doesn't justify the strong bias or so overt political position. I thought you were saying that since it's the only conservative channel against 4 'leftist' channels, they had to be 4 times as biased and loud. If that's what you meant well, I just don't agree. If it isn't, then I apologize.[/QUOTE]

Hm, it does look like I was saying it NEEDED to be 4 times as biased, didn't it? But where I was going was that it was only NATURAL to end up to be 4 times as biased.

 

[Krisken]

But the way in which they are matters, doesn't it?

Also, the counterbalance argument is pretty weak.

Uh, no. It's the entire reason for Fox News' success - people were sick and tired of rampant leftist media bias and were hungry, if not starving, for an alternative point of view.
.[/quote]

But that doesn't justify the strong bias or so overt political position. I thought you were saying that since it's the only conservative channel against 4 'leftist' channels, they had to be 4 times as biased and loud. If that's what you meant well, I just don't agree. If it isn't, then I apologize.[/quote]

Hm, it does look like I was saying it NEEDED to be 4 times as biased, didn't it? But where I was going was that it was only NATURAL to end up to be 4 times as biased.[/QUOTE]
And 1,000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven. Don't forget those.

 

[GasBandit]

And 1,000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven. Don't forget those.

[Krisken]I'd like to see the proof and source of your statistics that it is exactly, precisely, 1000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven.[/Krisken]

 

[Krisken]

And 1,000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven. Don't forget those.

[Krisken]I'd like to see the proof and source of your statistics that it is exactly, precisely, 1000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven.[/Krisken][/QUOTE]
Shit, like I have the time to post all the Terrorist Fist Bump, Birther, Tea Party, lies about Death Panel Healthcare bill nonsense, Internet Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and other nonsense just because you were too blind to follow it the first time I posted it.

Lets pretend you took the time to go back through the archives and realized you were full of it, shall we?

 

[GasBandit]

And 1,000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven. Don't forget those.

[Krisken]I'd like to see the proof and source of your statistics that it is exactly, precisely, 1000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven.[/Krisken][/quote]
Shit, like I have the time to post all the Terrorist Fist Bump, Birther, Tea Party, lies about Death Panel Healthcare bill nonsense, Internet Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and other nonsense just because you were too blind to follow it the first time I posted it.

Lets pretend you took the time to go back through the archives and realized you were full of it, shall we?[/QUOTE]

That's not nearly 1000. And what exactly was unsubstantiated/unproven about the Tea Parties? Are you saying there weren't any?

More likely, you're just doing what you always accuse me of doing - rattling down a short list of dubious talking points of questionable validity.

 

[Krisken]

And 1,000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven. Don't forget those.

[Krisken]I'd like to see the proof and source of your statistics that it is exactly, precisely, 1000 times as unsubstantiated and unproven.[/Krisken][/quote]
Shit, like I have the time to post all the Terrorist Fist Bump, Birther, Tea Party, lies about Death Panel Healthcare bill nonsense, Internet Freedom Act, Patriot Act, and other nonsense just because you were too blind to follow it the first time I posted it.

Lets pretend you took the time to go back through the archives and realized you were full of it, shall we?[/quote]

That's not nearly 1000. And what exactly was unsubstantiated/unproven about the Tea Parties? Are you saying there weren't any?

More likely, you're just doing what you always accuse me of doing - rattling down a short list of dubious talking points of questionable validity.[/QUOTE]
Heh, you wish.

 

[DarkAudit]

On one side you have one former WH press secretary admitting to feeding talking points to Fox, and another former WH press secretary admitting they were freezing out one of Fox's rivals.

On the other you have GB's Palin-esque word salad. Really, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." would have saved you so much typing.

 

[GasBandit]

On one side you have one former WH press secretary admitting to feeding talking points to Fox, and another former WH press secretary admitting they were freezing out one of Fox's rivals.

On the other you have GB's Palin-esque word salad. Really, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." would have saved you so much typing.

Neither of which have I claimed didn't happen. Let me repeat it again, for those who can't read or are just slow of brain -

I. Never. Said. Fox. Isn't. A. Shill.

I. Only. Refuted. That. The. Others. Aren't. As. Well.

I know you guys love to set up straw man arguments against me, but you're not nearly so clever as you think you are, nor as witty.

 

[Krisken]

On one side you have one former WH press secretary admitting to feeding talking points to Fox, and another former WH press secretary admitting they were freezing out one of Fox's rivals.

On the other you have GB's Palin-esque word salad. Really, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." would have saved you so much typing.

Neither of which have I claimed didn't happen. Let me repeat it again, for those who can't read or are just slow of brain -

I. Never. Said. Fox. Isn't. A. Shill.

I. Only. Refuted. That. The. Others. Aren't. As. Well.

I know you guys love to set up straw man arguments against me, but you're not nearly so clever as you think you are, nor as witty.[/QUOTE]
You are saying they are equal with nothing more than an opinion. I'm saying they aren't and explain why. Then you don't provide any proof and complain that we're the ones setting up straw men arguments? That there is some heavy disillusionment my friend.

 

[crono1224]

He is using the defense that one person/networks fuck-ups are irrelevant because others fuck up too.

 

[DarkAudit]

Just because GB says someone's a shill doesn't make it so. Put down Alice in Wonderland and get out of the children's section. You're a big boy now. The Red Queen is not real.

And neither is Fox "News".

 

[GasBandit]

Just because GB says someone's a shill doesn't make it so. Put down Alice in Wonderland and get out of the children's section. You're a big boy now. The Red Queen is not real.

And neither is Fox "News".

LOL @ trying to bash fox news by linking media matters. "Buddha isn't real because C'thulu said so!"

 

[DarkAudit]

Just because GB says someone's a shill doesn't make it so. Put down Alice in Wonderland and get out of the children's section. You're a big boy now. The Red Queen is not real.

And neither is Fox "News".

LOL @ trying to bash fox news by linking media matters. "Buddha isn't real because C'thulu said so!"[/QUOTE]

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

 

[Krisken]

LOL @ trying to bash fox news by linking media matters. "Buddha isn't real because C'thulu said so!"

I'm quoting this every time you come back with a freeper website post