<p>I challenge anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature to watch “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”, and come tell me that Fox is a credible news source.</p>
<p>Oh please. What exactly were you expecting? It’s the media for crying out loud. </p>
<p>Besides, why are you so eager to cut down Fox News? What exactly threatens you that you feel the need to attack?</p>
<p>[mediabistro.com:</a> FishbowlDC](<a href=“http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/journo_love_for_obama_74502.asp]mediabistro.com:”>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/journo_love_for_obama_74502.asp)</p>
<p>Also read the book about liberal bias at CBS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL and speechless</p>
<p>I challenge anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature to watch “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”, and come tell me that Fox is a credible news source.</p>
<p>what makes that show or movie more credible than FOX News. The truth is everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt, only fools trust everything they hear</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The media that people trust to get their info. How many people cross-reference what they hear on mainstream media with alternative sources?</p>
<p>Leal, you know I respect you, but what makes you think that the avg American cross-reference? </p>
<p>What I find comical is that Hillary and Obama are now going on Fox…they haven’t for years (Hil went on the first time in 10 yrs, Obama just did his first this week) If they are so evil why are they doing the circuit…afterall the dems refused to debate on fox, but now they are happy to get face time</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They don’t. That’s my point. People rely on the mainstream media to be ‘fair and balanced.’</p>
<p>I never called anyone evil. As to why the dems are utilizing Faux, I would speculate that they are happy to utilize whatever exposure they can get.</p>
<p>"People rely on the mainstream media to be ‘fair and balanced.’</p>
<p>In the wake of Dan Rather, people absolutely do not rely on the mainstream media to be fair and balanced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not people like you, as you are obviously more questioning than most. But do you think most people bother to cross-reference info they see on tv?</p>
<p>In 2003 the majority of Republicans who were Fox News viewers actually believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq long after it had been publicly admitted there were none there - that’s how brainwashed they were. People on the right complaining about “balance” in the media are generally seeking to “balance” truth with propaganda - as this latest incident illustrates.</p>
<p>But try telling that to the propaganda addicts…</p>
<p>Yeah, zooser - think about it, there’s not even that many people relatively that follow the elections on TV. Of those people, how many do you honestly think cross-reference what they hear for validity (or even consider that it could be biased at all)? I bet its a small minority.</p>
<p>kluge please back up the 2003 fact with a link to prove it</p>
<p>Here’s a fact for you to chew on from mediaresearch.org</p>
<p>A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”</p>
<p>Bulletandpima - go to [American</a> attitudes: Program on International Policy Attitudes](<a href=“http://www.pipa.org%5DAmerican”>http://www.pipa.org). They survey the American public on lots of stuff. The series on Americans’ awareness of the actual facts about what was going on in Iraq - not interpretations, but just plain facts - in 2003, was staggering. FOX viewers were the most consistent believers of out-and-out falsehoods of any segment of society. </p>
<p>I don’t care if they describe themselves as “Martians” if people aren’t more likely to believe falsehoods than facts after listening to them. And right now “conservative” is looking pretty close to “truth means whatever is in my best interest for you to believe” based on real-life experience.</p>
<p>As another example, check this out:</p>
<p><a href=“ronpaul.com”>ronpaul.com;
<p>Scroll down to the screen shot from Faux News, where it says ‘Fair and balanced? You be the judge.’</p>
<p>oops, here’s the updated link:</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Dose » Blog Archive » Fair and Balanced?](<a href=“ronpaul.com”>ronpaul.com)</p>
<p>" go to American attitudes: Program on International Policy Attitudes"</p>
<p>Thanks for the link. I have an obnoxious business associate who is frequently throwing out poll results to “prove” his point. I now see where he may be getting his numbers. I always thought he was pulling them from somewhere else. PIPA has an interesting list of topics for their “polls”. I think what is not listed is even more interesting.</p>
<p>Fox News is Fair and Balanced and this OP is wrong. “There were two versions of the AP story. An earlier one that omitted Pauls name and was picked up by numerous news organizations, including Fox. And a later one that was corrected. If you werent running around in an anti-Fox dudgeon you would have done a little research ”</p>
<p>Nope, the earlier one was the correct one. FAUX made the omission, seemingly intentionally.</p>
<p>razor, what is your explanation for their posting huckabee’s pic in 3rd place when Ron Paul won 3rd place? Oh, and what is your explanation for them excluding him from the debates when he had placed higher than guiliani and Thompson, who were both invited to the debates?</p>
<p>Gosh, looks like someone owns stock in FAUX News.</p>