Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I know it is seen as the height if intellectualism by some on this board to belittle FoxNews (with juvy names now). To come on and say that "I never watch FoxNews" yet wax poetically about how bad the news is from Fox. Hmmmm....
It seems that slashing FoxNews is a way to get your intellectual stripes in this forum. Ad hominem attacks on sources and especially people disagreeable to your position is the obvious path to intelectual superiority.
Of the six times I have watched Foxnews in my lifetime I have never seen anything that would make believe that it is a bad news source. No worse or better than CNN and BBC which I watch daily or the NYT and Reuters which I read daily. They have plenty of excellent veteran new reporters, news chiefs, and news casters on their payroll.
Now the point of this thread....which I again am amazed that I need to explain. NYT and the BBC have been under criticism for some time now. NYT for, wrongly IMO, exposing a LEGAL covert-op bank surveilance. The BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority. NYT have since day one been backpedalling and now this from their ombudsman. BBC as well getting exposed for their biases.
I know, I know...I am part of the great NEO-con conspiracy to cover GW's complicity in whatever world domination scheme Dole has thought of this week.  |
You're defending the "same" Fox News that ran information claiming that sex predator and Republican politican Foley was in actuality a Democrat? And never a word about an apology. Yeah, that's an organization who is filled with "excellence".
You know why people use FoxNews to make fun of the garbage you post? Its because it adheres to the same intellectual level and follows the same simplistic thought process. FauxNews twists stories to the point where they no longer resemble the facts or the truth. They attack the messenger, not the message. The content is less important that the presentation. That is you in a nutshell. People rip your theories to pieces and wait for a response, but you make a lame drive by or post something unsupportive or irrelevant in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Its the exact same M.O. that FauxNews follows. Just take this thread.
You're going on and on about this "covert-op bank surveilance", and how the NYT made a transgression by somehow covering it. I gotta question what you're thinking, if you are thinking at all. First, there were two other independent media outlets that covered the exact same story. Where is your faux outrage about them? Secondly, it has been repeatedly PROVEN that Bush himself openly spoke of this program since 2002. Not very "covert" when President Screwup is talking about the program in pressers and speeches. This is common knowledge now. Jesus, the Daily Show did bits on this for a WEEK just to show what a load of petty politiking it is. So it would seem that your focus on this is lame. The NYT admits nothing that you suggest. The program was not some super secret covert operation. The only thing you're doing is embarassing yourself and exposing the fact that you don't know what you're talking about (surprise surprise).
Next, "the BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority" is also ludicrous. They are a news agency. They are not supposed to represent the views of the majority, they are to report the news and inform the people. The fact that you think they SHOULD be representative of the majority speaks volumes of your failure to understand the function of the media and the importance of their role in our democracy. The news is not supposed to be about ratings and appealing to the majority, it is supposed to be about providing oversight and uncovering the truth.
I've read posts where people intellectually fall on their swords, but this one is a classic. You not only fall on it once, but pick yourself up and throw yourself on the instrument repeatedly. The display of ignorance is beyond belief.