ATAVUS DEI'S PROFILE

author=Shmeckie link=topic=389.msg68203#msg68203 date=1238120452
Yes, that's exactly how it is. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Fox is not some puppet organization of Rupert Murdoch's. I don't care what you may have read ina blog or whatever. And if you truly, truly believe that Rupert Murdoch himself was the man behind the curtain for some local news sensationalist story, then there is no reasoning with you. Especially since this is commonplace with all local news.

"Something in your household can kill you. What is it? Find out at 11!"
That stereotype has existed long before the first person on the internet noticed that "Fox" and "Faux" were similar-looking words.

You must not understand corporate hierarchy. If the man at the top tells you to do things a certain way, and you do things in a way different from his orders, what exactly is going to happen to you? Chances are you'll be removed from your position at the least, and/or prevented from getting a job anywhere within his group at worst.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Fox is not some puppet organization of Rupert Murdoch's. And if you truly, truly believe that Rupert Murdoch himself was the man behind the curtain for some local news sensationalist story, then there is no reasoning with you.

You should cut it with that strawman. Rupert Murdoch is not a 100% active director of every single station he owns; that's realistically impossible. But you can be damn sure that his subordinates are going to follow his directions, lest they be caught with their pants down at the wrong time.

That's not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about local Fox networks doing stories in the past, and getting chastised by Fox News proper for them.

Which is exactly the sideshow I'm talking about... This doesn't take rocket science to understand.

I doubt you've ever actually watched the news, though. You seem content on hating it thuroughly, though, but I wonder how much of the media you actually pay attention to.

There's a thing called taking things with a grain of salt, and researching deeper into stories than what's initially presented on television. Perhaps even listening to alternative points of view on other networks. I think they call it "critical thinking". You don't have to be all-or-nothing when you listen to newscasters.

But I guess that black and white thought process would suit you well.

Unless you can somehow back up your claim that Fox's hard news reporting is slanted, you're just going to prove harmonic's point. Though you seem more against American news reporting in general, by what you're saying. Which is just goofy... If you're going to try to prove that Sean Hannity's show is biased, that's about as challenging as boxing a baby. Other than that, while I can point to example after example of other networks, MSNBC especially, being littered with bias, I have yet to see it from Fox News' hard news shows. Unless you're going to try and tell me that giving Sean Hannity a show at all is some kind of proof.

Hell, that's what makes them good TV; they present both sides. Why see a bunch of people agreeing with each other when you can watch a Democrat and a Republican duke it out?

However, I'd be interested in who you consider to "make the most sense at the time."

Do you even watch Fox News? Are you desperately grasping at straws to call a spade a heart? They do stupid shit like mislabeling certain bad Republican senators as Democrats, reporting a pro-Obama rally as anti-Republican because the people there said anti-Fox News stuff, casting an unbalanced amount of pro-Republican stories on their channel (of which MSNBC is guilty of on the liberal side, as well), repeat ad infinitum. This has existed for years; how have you not noticed this, being an avid Fox News believer watcher?

Hell, even hardline conservatives I know say Fox News is ridiculous on the slant on occasion. "Fair and balanced my ass." they say.

And to them presenting "both sides"...HAHAHA. That's all I'll say.

author=harmonic link=topic=389.msg68195#msg68195 date=1238118066
Would you be "outraged" and "personally offended" if Barack Obama said this stuff? :P No.

What? You know better than this, harmonic... Never said, myself, that I was outraged or offended, or some such.

Highly doubt Obama would say it, but if he did it would be just as hilariously bad.

author=Shmeckie link=topic=389.msg68189#msg68189 date=1238112796
Rupert Murdoch is not an evil overlord that has direct control over everything with the name Fox on it. He's too busy managing the staff directly under him, who manages the staff directly under them, who manage each individual company under the News Corp umbrella corporation, each with their own--you get the idea. This is a company, not an evil empire. No matter what your political affiliation is.

And who's the one who tells his subordinates what to do? Where do these staff get their directions from? To whom do these managers report their activities? Take a guess. It's not as if these people can totally buck the captain and go their own way.

Hence why pundits on Fox News have actually gone after other Fox networks. I mean, do you really think Rupert Murdoch gives a damn about this?!

It's a sideshow news corporations and their pundits pull a great many number of times to get attention. One example was MSNBC and its parent NBC Corp, where back during the elections, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews were criticized for putting liberal slants to their reporting of the primaries, and were subsequently replaced by David Gregory as main host. However, they were still allowed to do commentary on the primaries even if they were so-called "removed" from the main positions. I guess NBC didn't really feel that grieved about it, huh.

For MSNBC, Fox, and any other American news channel really, this is just another day on the job.

As for what harmonic said...

author=harmonic link=topic=389.msg68177#msg68177 date=1238110919
I can't help but think that there is some STRONG political-agenda-influenced feelings here. Liberals absolutely hate Fox news, no matter what.

So because I don't like Fox News' obviously conservative-biased slant on reporting, I must be a raging liberal? Wow, I love your logic, Shmeckie.

For the record, I have my own problems with MSNBC's reporting too at times about as much as Fox's. Don't have a good pun to call them yet, though, so I'm just calling them by that. I frankly don't give two shits about being a liberal or a conservative; I support whomever makes the most sense at the time.

edit: Just a clearup, conservative-biased and joke of reporting, altogether. Wanted to say that before you mentioned the Mr. Rogers report wasn't partisan.

edit 2: Scratchout.

author=Atavus Dei link=topic=389.msg67841#msg67841 date=1237948987
These are the same people who said "Anonymous" was a secret, evil internet organization that caused havoc around the world. Faux News just likes reporting drama where drama doesn't exist.

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY

Faux News can be hilarious at times. :P

These are the same people who said "Anonymous" was a secret, evil internet organization that caused havoc around the world. Faux News just likes reporting drama where drama doesn't exist.