SHMECKIE'S PROFILE

author=Atavus Dei link=topic=389.msg68190#msg68190 date=1238113748
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.

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. Hell, ABC News just recently had a story on weather or not Satan might exist.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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... Unless you're from another country, and this is some posturing national pride deal. In which case: ::)

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 (CNN less so, but they have their moments, i.e. the loaded YouTube questions in the Reublican debate), 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."

Figured this would be a good idea; I post some of my character designs and bits of comic-style art for good ol' critique and commentary! What better way to improve, eh?

So I'll start by showing the cover of my current project I'm pitching to some publishers. Pencils were done by me, inks were done by the supremely talented Stacy Smith.

author=harmonic link=topic=389.msg68177#msg68177 date=1238110919
If this crap was happening on MSNBC, we'd be hearing much less outcry.

That's because no one's watching MSNBC. ;)

I do agree with what you're saying, though, but I try not to worry about it too much. The internet's full of big sillies, y'just gotta laugh 'em off and move on.

I know about Mr. Rogers. I watched him as a kid. But I fail to see how this is in bad taste at all. It's not like they're saying Mr. Rogers raped some children. They're just saying "such-and-such says Mr. Rogers actually taught the wrong message. Thoughts?"

author=Feldschlacht IV link=topic=389.msg68146#msg68146 date=1238104216
Well, I'm not breaking down crying or anything. It's a shame to see what they pass off as professional journalism doing something that's more or less baseless slander on one of the most goodhearted people around. There's nothing wrong with being angry over it.

I must again reitterate that this was from Fox News' morning fluff show. It's their equivalent of Good Morning America. Also, they're not slandering anyone. This isn't even close to being slander. It's not even in the Slander Ballpark.

author=Blitzen link=topic=389.msg68141#msg68141 date=1238102800
I have to have vehemnt disagreement and I feel personally offended that FOX News would make an attack on the reputation on one of the most goodhearted and well intentioned people in the history of television. This is because I have always felt like Mr Rogers and I have some kind of a personal connection. We are neighbours, after all.

I understand people love Mr. Rogers and all, but you guys are acting like he's Jesus. He was just a kid's show host who was really nice on his show. And Fox News isn't attacking anyone, they're reporting some new study or article or whatever it was, then discussing it, while the hosts giggle at how stupid it is.