Ever noticed when he goes on vacation he always has a far right winger to cover for him. Before it was John Kasick a former Republican senator, then Laura Ingraham, right wing radio host and Regan Speech writer, and now Michelle Malkin right wing blogger. He does has yet to have anyone from the left substitute for him, and even if he has a conservative on they are well known for being heavy right wing spinners.
2007-08-31
09:36:19
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Yes I understand there is left wing news and radio, but you do not hear them claiming to be fair and balanced and being the NO SPin zone.
2007-08-31
09:50:40 ·
update #1
Yes I understand there is left wing news and radio, but you do not hear them claiming to be fair and balanced and being the NO SPin zone.
2007-08-31
09:50:43 ·
update #2
O'Reilly is an opinion program on Fox News Network, not a news program.
Haven't you figured that out yet?
Here's a contrast for you, is Al Franken a news program?
2007-08-31 09:45:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
6⤊
3⤋
Bill O'Reilly is not fair and balanced... he can't be, he is a commentator.
I wish Fox News woul not claim that ridiculous phrase "fair and balanced" as some kind of motto. It just isn't true... and that's okay. There are a lot of people that want a news network that is very far right of the center. But its watchers are fooling themselves if they buy that.
I watch Fox at times (but I don't watch the commentary shows like O'Reilly and Hannity unless I want a laugh)... but I don't rely on Fox for information unless its stock related or non-political issues.
2007-08-31 09:52:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
John Kasick was a congressman from columbus,ohio he
2007-08-31 10:00:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by paulcondo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Bill O'Rielly doesnt get Liberals to fill in for him because he has the slightest bit of dignity left.
2007-09-01 13:26:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by idbangrobertplant 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
DO listen to this man:
A bad peace is even worse than war.
A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all.
All things atrocious and shameless flock from all parts to Rome.
Fear is not in the habit of speaking truth; when perfect sincerity is expected, perfect freedom must be allowed; nor has anyone who is apt to be angry when he hears the truth any cause to wonder that he does not hear it.
In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.
The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws.
It is less difficult to bear misfortunes than to remain uncorrupted by pleasure.
C. P. Tacitus ( Roman Senator b. 55 c.e. d. 120 c.e.)
SOUND FAMILIAR, or rather, SEEM RELEVANT?
2007-08-31 09:50:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
Everything on FOX Opinion is not Fair or Balanced, they always feel that they need to tell you how to think about everything they cover!!! People like us not needing to be told how to feel, have a problem with Bill and Fox. As for Michelle he has her on there because he can tell her what to cover and how to cover it, she has no mind!!!!! Bill and Fox love the simple minded!!!
2007-08-31 09:46:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
He shouts down anyone he does not agree and calls them idiots. He is a person you can not reason with.
I have yet seen an ancherman who actually does his job like he is suspose to and report all the news properly without doing journalistic editing to distort a story.
2007-08-31 09:43:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Edge Caliber 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
Ah yes,I remember all the people on the right on "Air America". Oh wait,it 's all leftists. What was I thinking.
2007-08-31 09:45:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tin Foil Fez 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Fair and Balanced????
THEY SUED FOR THE RIGHT TO LIE
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
The Right to Lie in the "News"
If ever we needed to know why the biggest media consumers in the world are so badly informed, this pretty well tells it all. The Media Can Legally Lie.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.
Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows.
[...] FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation."
In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
OK, pick your jaw up off the floor. That some court thinks they CAN is bad enough, that these people assert their right to do so pretty well kicks it all down the hole. And these guys wonder why their credibility is in the toilet and the net is burning them left right and centre.
Oh, and February 2003, 30 days before Iraq.
2007-08-31 09:42:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
6⤋
You have to look at O'Reilly's record with guests. If it was a Pro-War or Pro-Bush point of view the guest could speak at length.
If the guest was Anti-War or critical of Bush they were interrupted, shouted over or heard: "Shut Up!" or "Pull His Mike!"
2007-08-31 15:24:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Richard V 6
·
0⤊
3⤋