MSNBC has dropped Rev Al Sharpton. Libs no longer have a source of news. That is a terrible spot to be in: stay with a Sharpless MSNBC; switch to Wolf and CNN; revert to networks; or sneak a peek of FOX? Would they dare conform to Fair and Balanced reporting?
This has been a terribile weekend for Libs
- Thread starter mneilmont
- Start date
Well, where does anyone get "fair and balanced" reporting ?? I realize you're convinced you get it from Fox because, well, Roger Ailes has been telling you for the last 15 years that's what he does (and you believe everything he says). But, you really don't have anymore idea than yours truly what that phrase actually means anymore.
Speaking practically, I seriously doubt you really give two ***** about the opposing view anyway; all you really want is ammunition in some unexplainably vain attempt to convince people your side somehow has the high ground in whatever argument you're trying to make versus the opposition......and Lord knows, you extremists (on both sides) do like to argue.
In the final analysis, almost nobody (and I suspect that includes you, neil) really wants what might be traditionally defined as "fair and balanced" reporting, because you/they require continuous information which supports their personal belief system.....and essentially all information contrary to that belief system is, by definition, biased. In fact, come to think of it, it occurs to me that most people.....in our argument/opinion-dictated society.....really want no part of so-called "fair and balanced" reporting of most any subject; whether politics, sports, entertainment, or even general news, for that matter.
For example, check out the reactions around here (perhaps less than an ideal place to attempt to make this point) when someone writes something even modestly negative about WVU football (while a decent percentage of folks here seem to be more against the Program than in favor of it).....or the latest in killings of unarmed blacks or unsuspecting police officers or even individuals in movie theaters.......or how about something as simple as Bruce Jenner's latest magazine cover.
Changing the subject for just a moment, I heard a take this morning that said this past weekend was a shot in the arm for both political extremes; Trump keeps stomping on the GOP establishment (supposedly important, since his Left-wing opposition remains convinced he's unelectable) while Hillary's ship keeps taking on water like it was hit by a torpedo. In other words, the theory is that whackos on both sides....by those two admittedly vague standards.....actually had a good weekend
Last edited:
Is that one of those diatribes that Tail would suggest Duh huh or Duh Na would be a proper response. First, I don't think I have ever had the pleasure of Roger Ailes in conversation. Therefore, your first assumption is pure poppy-cock. I get my balance on Fox, MSNBC(Morning Joe), and CNN(Allison). And do see/listen to a good bit of C-span. WVU is seldom on networks - have no reason to watch.
From your self appointed perch, you take the liberty of referring to "you extremists" which would suggest that includes me and excludes you. Why is that? Only those in opposition to your opinion are extreme? I have only observed you on one side, and have you been critical of me a few times while you let the son-of-a-***** that initiates the exchange slide. Should you be taken as independent?
Had to go out for a couple hours and lost my train of thought. Hope this is enough to get the drift.
And you are not a bit cool. Fact. You say I am predictable, and you offer nothing that you predict. Can you read tea leaves too with equal success - after the fact? You are no more than the cheering section for a self described cock-sucker. Can you predict where I am going with this thought? Cool? My ***.
And, all of your crap about "fair and balanced" that you say no one wants. Is that a fact, or just your opinion? I suspect that is only your opinion and honestly, you really have no idea in hell what other people want. Not a bit cool to make up stories about your fellow man. Or, is that just another of your worthless predictions - after applying your limited capacity to think? Cool, my ***.
Last edited:
To say NO ONE wants it wouldn't be accurate, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that most don't. If they did, there would be a lot less Fox and MSNBC viewers.
http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12/10/why-does-roger-ailes-pay-former-employees-milli/197212
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/02/law...roger-ailes-may-have-committed-federal-crime/
I don't know how anybody can accept "fair and balanced" from a "news" organization that defended its right to lie in a lawsuit. Or one that encouraged former employees to lie to protect a candidate's reputation, or paid hush money to another employee.
Congratulation, you and uncool are on the same page with "most" in his verbiage. My error in repeating his position using an absolute for the modifier.
I think we can all agree that 'Fair and Balanced' and Fox can not be used in the same sentence.
I really think that the network with the largest viewership would disagree with your worthless/needless "all agree" comment as being totally false. Would you not reasonably think that is the comment on which "we all agree"?
Was hoping you'd have gotten a good night sleep, neil, and rediscovered your sense of humor this morning.......come to think of it, maybe you have. That reference to (apparently) yours truly as "uncool" probably has everyone rolling in the aisles this morning.
Take my advise, neil; you really oughta' be selling tickets for that kind-of cutting edge material......
Take my advise, neil; you really oughta' be selling tickets for that kind-of cutting edge material......
Yes, your advice has been rock solid and something I should rely on. How is that for sense of humor? You actually have not been one to give me any support for any of my brilliant offerings in the past. Now you want me to accept your friendly offer of advice? That is not cool.
And, you are as pathetic as him. Really wouldn't expect any more than that from you.
My bad. Smart people and generally people having an even number of chromosomes will agree that 'Fair and Balanced' and Fox can not be used in the same sentence.
Is that your attempt at being lawyerly and restate using different wording? Do you disagree that Fox has more viewership? Further, do most (not all) have a preference for non "Fair and Balanced" reporting? Can you make a different deduction from the evidence presented?
It's very simple. Fox claims to be fair and balanced and there's ton of evidence (even in this thread) that they are not. What the hell does viewership have to do with anything?!?
The viewership number is subordinate to your alleged "ton of evidence( even on this tread)"? Want another wild guess?
Numbers of viewers has no relationship with fair and balanced whatsoever. zip. nada. bumpkis. It only reflects that a certain portion of the population like to watch.
Wait a minute ... you mean that despite the popularity of The Muppets, that Kermit and Gonzo aren't real beings?
Star Wars didn't really happen long ago in a galaxy far far away?
BUT SO MANY PEOPLE WATCHED IT!!! IT HAS TO BE FACTUAL!!!
It's mind blowing. Pretty obvious that reasoning skills are lacking in some here.
And Tail comes thru with his normal babble to deflect from the issue while continuing to cry about how people are misunderstanding him. You are beginning to border on your obnoxious self again.
From your point of view, what is there to reason if it is not a pet project of the liberals. That just requires blindly following the liberal agenda. You are successful if this is your purpose in life.
I was a slow learner. My first day on the site, I was caught in a crossfire between Bud and Bru. I didn't realize there were two people, all I saw was residing in Atlanta and from Parkersburg. I ended up apologizing for interrupting and unknowingly getting onto THEIR personal site. One of them finally admitted that they did not own the site. At that point, we got on first name basis. Not sure I ever got over that rude welcome to the board.
LOL...I don't engage with as many of the whackos as I used to, in fact I've taken full advantage of the ignore feature with a couple morons. But every now and then I dig into a thread and still can't believe what I see.
Just making fun of your ridiculous line of reasoning. Somebody points out that Fox News is dishonest (they did afterall, defend their right, in court, to lie), and you point out viewership numbers as a counter ... as if one has anything at all to do with the other.
I simply pointed out how ridiculous the premise of your statement was using extreme examples.
Last edited:
By fair and balanced, Fox presents an opposing and affirming view, for the most part. The host has his or her own agenda. On the Communist New Network and MSNBC, you only had people who agreed with each other.