I tried in this question, and got broad links to things like "oreily sucks dot com"
Here, Let me hold your hand, andgive you an example of what specific means. Here are two stories, about the same thing.
The fox story tells you all the information, including the things that look bad for the bush administration, while the washington post concentrates only on the negative information toward the bush administration:
http://tinyurl.com/rxgu8
http://tinyurl.com/fkymn
Do you think you understand the question, now? Since you are all so quick to denounce fox news, give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of why their reporting is bad, and compare it to another story.
if you can not, then that makes you a hypocrite.
2006-10-30 11:50:57 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
------
rather than I rent a movie that tells me, how about you just give me one specific example, as I asked.
2006-10-30 11:56:26 · update #1
another link to a website dedicated against fox.
GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE, AND COMPARE IT TO ANOTHER STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-30 11:57:29 · update #2
Ok, sure. You want ONE?
O'Reilly claimed that Bush had decreased the percentage of people living in poverty since Clinton. He took the percentage from the middle of the Clinton presidency and compared it to the percentage in the middle of the Bush presidency.
Fair and balanced, right?
Except it turns out that the percentage decreased every year under Clinton until his final year, and it has increased every year under Bush. The raw number of the year plucked from Clinton happened to be a shade higher than the raw number of the year plucked from Bush.
Typically O'Reilly distorted factoid. Takes a "fact" completely out of context and draws an opposite conclusion from reality.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509140004
and here's O'Reilly defending his "truthiness":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509160002
2006-10-30 12:16:20 · answer #1 · answered by thehiddenangle 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a Libertarian who used to be a Republican, and still has mild Republican leanings. If you don't believe it, look at the history of my posts on this forum. FOX News is FAR AND AWAY the most biased news network out there. That's why it is winning in the ratings. All the other networks are also biased, but if there were such a thing as objective reporting, and it were rated a zero on the bias meter, FOX is a ten on bias, and the other networks vary from threes to sixes on the bias meter in the opposite direction from FOX. Because FOX owns all the territory to the right of zero, it has more viewers while the other have to split their viewers among many. Seriously, they have coverage where they go after Democrats for using Nazi analogies and then have Nazi analogies on their air (directed at Dems) a mere couple hours later. Jon Stewart pointed this out. Bill O'Reilly the issued a rebuttal which did not deny the claim at all, but merely attempted to justify it.
2016-05-22 13:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just watch them with an open mind. The other day I flipped it on (guess I felt masochistic). A panel/talk show was on. They just kept talking about how our "great leader" (one of them even used that phrase... reminded me of nazi Germany) has saved this nation and is working to save the world. And the whole time, a large monitor on the front of their table showing flattering pictures of George Bush giving speeches. That reminded me of the pictures of Stalin, Lenin and Chairman Mao.
And O-Really? is just a joke, like Rash Limburgher. Bring in the falafels!
2006-10-30 11:58:20 · answer #3 · answered by Don P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a liberal and I have not heard anything bad about fox news, nor have I thought it. So what is the point in you making ridiculous generalizations?
2006-10-30 12:02:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hahah.. Yea, because Fox news is the only "non-liberal" "fair and balanced" media outlet in the world... Everything else is just "liberal" nonsense.. Give me a break!! Use yer brain.. You've still got some left don't ya??
2006-10-30 11:59:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Old, deteriorating artillery shells and shell casings are not WMD's despite the claims of Republican partisans.
2006-10-30 11:56:51 · answer #6 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree, fox news almost always brings on people from BOTH sides to debate while other news only let their own reporters spew propoganda.
2006-10-30 11:54:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Do you expect an answer? They can't & won't. They scream FOX IS BIASED & claim never to watch it. Am I the only 1 who sees something wrong here?
2006-10-30 14:26:09 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Under a photo of Mark Foley it said "Democrat".
What was that, a mistake?
2006-10-30 11:55:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
2006-10-30 11:54:17 · answer #10 · answered by dstr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋