Fox News: always 'fair and balanced' (not to mention accurate):

Ha, Ha...WAY too funny:

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/shocking-fox-news-labels-disgrace...

Seriously, enough people these days have been dumbed down enough to believe these 'unintentional' errors. Roger Ailes knows what he's doing...

No votes yet

They know what most of their viewers don't know any better.

Funny, they didn't put "R" next to Edwards or Spitzer's names...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/03/03/toledo-blade-reporter-names-party-gop-auditor-not-governor-dem-who-late-

Toledo Blade Reporter Names Party (GOP) of Auditor, But Not That of Governor (Dem) Who Is Late With Financials

ohio.jpgYou've got to hand it to Jim Provance of the Toledo Blade. He managed only to identify the party of a Republican in a story that is primarily about a Democratic administration's failure to produce timely financial statements.

Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, his administration, and his appointed Democrats in Ohio's Office of Budget and Management are not going to have the state's records in auditable condition until after the General Assembly passes the budget for the NEXT biennium beginning July 1 of this year. This is a situation that Republican State Auditor Mary Taylor yesterday called "unprecedented."

So "naturally," Provance identified Taylor's twice party in his report covering the situation, and failed to specifically name the party of any other statewide official -- or Strickland himself. Oh we can infer it, but inferences don't show up in search engine results. The words "Democrat" or "Democratic" are nowhere to be found.

 Shall I give you more of the dozens of "mistakes" the Toledo Blade spoon feeds you and you Liberals lap up the way a dog eats it's own vomit?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

As you're proud of pointing out...no one reads the blade.

Then where do you get your "opinions" from?

Are your "opinions" sent to you from MoveOn.org? Or are "opinions" given to you by Chris Redfern?

Or, like most Democrats, do you just lick your finger and stick it in the air to find out what you think today?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Ahmadinejad Criticized for “Soft” Response to Sanford Scandal

Iran’s Guardian Council issued a statement today criticizing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his public comments regarding the revelations of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

The twelve-member council, which last week voted 11-7 to uphold the results of Ahmadinejad’s officially declared re-election, expressed their "... profound disappointment in the almost conciliatory tone taken by our chosen President regarding such a potentially dangerous infidel."

Ahmadinejad, when asked by a reporter from the Iranian news agency Mehr for his reaction to the mysterious disappearance and subsequent explanation of the stability-challenged commander of the South Carolina National Guard, responded, "Death to Mark Sanford, death to South Carolina, and death to America!" – comments which have been denounced by prominent hardliners as ‘weak’, ‘insufficient’, ‘totally lacking creativity’, and ‘suggesting that he needs to grow a pair’.

I'm sorry but as a journalist I am more offended at ABC News' Obama health care fiasco.

You make your point about a "blatant" letter on a screenshot. But yet we don't hear the audio. In each case the reporter or commentator could have corrected it. I guess the blind can't be led astray.

However, ABC News not only denied opponents equal time but wouldn't even allow 30 second commercials during it.

Instead they relied on non-journalists to keep it fair. Excuse me I thought that journalists were SUPPOSED to be watch dogs. At least that's what they say when they're trying to release pictures that would serve nothing more than to get our service members killed.

MikeyA

Wow! You didn't even watch the thing and yet you'll open your mouth to comment on it to express some fake out rage?

Well Sensor I do have a life. I do have responsibilities. And unfortunately I was not at home the night it aired.

However, that does not mean I cannot make a judgement on it.

What I've read on it was unimpressive. Definitely not worth the whole fiasco of not letting a competing view give 30 second commercials during it or after it.

And no my outrage is not fake. I had no problem with investigating the Bush admin. I had no problem with criticizing the Bush admin. In fact the only time I took issue with it was when I thought it was unfair or out of bounds. But nothing throughout the whole Bush administration did the media so thoroughly and egregiously lack in their responsibilities to us the people.

MikeyA

"Western networks, including Fox, also gave some coverage to anti-war protests and rallies, anti-U.S. protests in Iraq, and celebrities and politicians that were against the war.[citation needed] Anti-war celebrities appearing frequently on these news networks included actors Tim Robbins, Mike Farrell, Janeane Garofalo, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon and director Michael Moore.[citation needed] Most of these celebrities were able to make anti-war comments in the media and receive little public criticism. ..."

Yet your citations try to give the other side.

"Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.

For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage,..."

or again in this one they even give the other side a chance to comment.

"Former White House chief of staff and Bush’s senior political advisor Karl Rove, who comes in for some of the harshest criticism in the book, suggested that McClellan didn’t even write it."

I would probably see evidence of giving both sides in the other articles but I am behind a firewall right now and cannot view them.

But like I asked in the other post. If it's so fair why in this case did they feel the need to stonewall the opposition from giving their point of view in their own words?

MikeyA

Once again...how do you know it wasn't balanced? You didn't watch it. Sadly the whole thing was tainted by having Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, instead of informed, qualified health care experts, guide the conversation.

All Gibson did was repeat GOP talking points. Gibson interrupted Obama multiple times and ABC had way too many commercials breaks during this thing. They didn’t even really cover the public plan, wanting us to tune into Night Line to hear that part (didn’t get to do that).

Funny though, I don’t hear many conservatives wanting to re-instate the fairness doctrine till something like happens.

LOL

" Sadly the whole thing was tainted by having Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, instead of informed, qualified health care experts, guide the conversation. "

LOL you proved my point by trying to argue against it.

"Gibson interrupted Obama multiple times and ABC had way too many commercials breaks during this thing. They didn’t even really cover the public plan, wanting us to tune into Night Line to hear that part (didn’t get to do that)."

Why couldn't one of those many commercials be from a competing point of view to at least give the appearance of objectivity? Why stonewall?

Which is a great question. If it held any journalistic credibility why the need to stonewall the opposition?

MikeyA

listed as a "comedy" in the United Kingdom's TV Guide®.

I'm serious, I saw it myself!

"If it held any journalistic credibility why the need to stonewall the opposition?"

Charles Gibson is a vacuous ninny. He represents corporate interests and parrots GOP talking points. That's his job.

Pink Slip

ok so?...

It's ok to stifle a fair and objective debate and give a controlling political pundit unprecedented time little challenge from a political expert of a opposition because you feel a journalist is biased. Got it.

Sensor keeps pushing the fairness doctrine. I bet the Dems want the fairness doctrine. It doesn't apply to print media or the internet. So they would eliminate the effective forms of conservative media while their own go without regulation.

LOL besides, the Dems are in POWER. Why do they need the media to be "fair" to them? Isn't fair - questioning what they do? After all they are in power. To take away the power to question is control. For more information on how to control people and what gets said and aired on television and radio see Iran.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.