Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign

[kaydee457 13]

All coming from what kind of "unbiased" sources??

Right wing sources and those groups founded solely for the purpose of debunking and discrediting those people out there that think differently than those that remember the days when people accepted, submitted, and celebrated being told what to do by their superiors.

You seem to be pretty quick to point the ignorant finger while continually making a fool of yourself. Funny how things turn out when once again the brown stuff starts to hit the fan against your point of view.

Thank you. You just reinforced my notion that you don't even bother reading the sources.........Why respond to these threads, mav? Just to cheerlead for Number6?

You never have anything substantive to say, nor do you appear to have an informed opinion on any of these subjects. I don't believe that I've ever seen you post a link to a source. I'll bet I can't find one in this thread either, can I?

Take my advice and push the Nintendo aside, along with the comics and try to keep up with the rest of us.

Seems to be your opinion. As for making yet again a fool of yourself... its not surprising. As for thinking you're somehow telepathic... well, on top of making a fool of yourself that's just simply freaky and nutty.

Spelled out- your sources reek of right winger groups- that is, since you're accusing me of not looking at the sources, maybe we can look at who writes these "objective" reports:

1. http://www.aim.org/about/who-we-are/

2. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...aign-bias-study

(Funny how their slogan is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" aka http://newsbusters.org/about, or in other words a staunchly anti-liberal blog of the MRC:

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research. )

3. Another blog... http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/node/115, with yet another attack slogan: "Exposing Liberal Bias In The Oregonian"

4. MRC again.

5. CBN... right wing Christian news source. Wow... really objective there, K.

I don't know, maybe its your style to make a continuous fool of yourself... that's OK I guess.

Finally... science is correctly done via hypothesis-driven experimentation, not by asserting a conclusion before entering a biased observation.

Yes, but this is your uninformed opinion. How about some sources to refute, or rebuke these studies? How about the Harvard study? Is that too Right Wing?

I think it's best you stick with "LOL's", and the other clownish type ( indignant) postings that you're so good at.

If that works for you, why change now? <shrug>

[HAL 9000 96]

All coming from what kind of "unbiased" sources??

Right wing sources and those groups founded solely for the purpose of debunking and discrediting those people out there that think differently than those that remember the days when people accepted, submitted, and celebrated being told what to do by their superiors.

You seem to be pretty quick to point the ignorant finger while continually making a fool of yourself. Funny how things turn out when once again the brown stuff starts to hit the fan against your point of view.

Thank you. You just reinforced my notion that you don't even bother reading the sources.........Why respond to these threads, mav? Just to cheerlead for Number6?

You never have anything substantive to say, nor do you appear to have an informed opinion on any of these subjects. I don't believe that I've ever seen you post a link to a source. I'll bet I can't find one in this thread either, can I?

Take my advice and push the Nintendo aside, along with the comics and try to keep up with the rest of us.

Seems to be your opinion. As for making yet again a fool of yourself... its not surprising. As for thinking you're somehow telepathic... well, on top of making a fool of yourself that's just simply freaky and nutty.

Spelled out- your sources reek of right winger groups- that is, since you're accusing me of not looking at the sources, maybe we can look at who writes these "objective" reports:

1. http://www.aim.org/about/who-we-are/

2. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...aign-bias-study

(Funny how their slogan is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" aka http://newsbusters.org/about, or in other words a staunchly anti-liberal blog of the MRC:

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research. )

3. Another blog... http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/node/115, with yet another attack slogan: "Exposing Liberal Bias In The Oregonian"

4. MRC again.

5. CBN... right wing Christian news source. Wow... really objective there, K.

I don't know, maybe its your style to make a continuous fool of yourself... that's OK I guess.

Finally... science is correctly done via hypothesis-driven experimentation, not by asserting a conclusion before entering a biased observation.

Yes, but this is your uninformed opinion. How about some sources to refute, or rebuke these studies? How about the Harvard study? Is that too Right Wing?

I think it's best you stick with "LOL's", and the other clownish type ( indignant) postings that you're so good at.

If that works for you, why change now? <shrug>

So uninformed as reading what they say they are on their own site or uninformed as in having the capacity to read the site's own words in saying what they say they are?

If I promise to stick with my good humor and my LOLs, will you at least promise to continue making a fool of yourself?

As for the Harvard study, what part of the research do you want to cover? The part that is statistically relevant in the obvious media coverage or the part that is the blog analysis in the smelly fish site that liberals are supposed to be pointed to when they once again remind conservatives that the media in this country is entirely controlled by conservative interests?

[kaydee457 13]

All coming from what kind of "unbiased" sources??

Right wing sources and those groups founded solely for the purpose of debunking and discrediting those people out there that think differently than those that remember the days when people accepted, submitted, and celebrated being told what to do by their superiors.

You seem to be pretty quick to point the ignorant finger while continually making a fool of yourself. Funny how things turn out when once again the brown stuff starts to hit the fan against your point of view.

Thank you. You just reinforced my notion that you don't even bother reading the sources.........Why respond to these threads, mav? Just to cheerlead for Number6?

You never have anything substantive to say, nor do you appear to have an informed opinion on any of these subjects. I don't believe that I've ever seen you post a link to a source. I'll bet I can't find one in this thread either, can I?

Take my advice and push the Nintendo aside, along with the comics and try to keep up with the rest of us.

Seems to be your opinion. As for making yet again a fool of yourself... its not surprising. As for thinking you're somehow telepathic... well, on top of making a fool of yourself that's just simply freaky and nutty.

Spelled out- your sources reek of right winger groups- that is, since you're accusing me of not looking at the sources, maybe we can look at who writes these "objective" reports:

1. http://www.aim.org/about/who-we-are/

2. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...aign-bias-study

(Funny how their slogan is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" aka http://newsbusters.org/about, or in other words a staunchly anti-liberal blog of the MRC:

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research. )

3. Another blog... http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/node/115, with yet another attack slogan: "Exposing Liberal Bias In The Oregonian"

4. MRC again.

5. CBN... right wing Christian news source. Wow... really objective there, K.

I don't know, maybe its your style to make a continuous fool of yourself... that's OK I guess.

Finally... science is correctly done via hypothesis-driven experimentation, not by asserting a conclusion before entering a biased observation.

Yes, but this is your uninformed opinion. How about some sources to refute, or rebuke these studies? How about the Harvard study? Is that too Right Wing?

I think it's best you stick with "LOL's", and the other clownish type ( indignant) postings that you're so good at.

If that works for you, why change now? <shrug>

So uninformed as reading what they say they are on their own site or uninformed as in having the capacity to read the site's own words in saying what they say they are?

If I promise to stick with my good humor and my LOLs, will you at least promise to continue making a fool of yourself?

As for the Harvard study, what part of the research do you want to cover? The part that is statistically relevant in the obvious media coverage or the part that is the blog analysis in the smelly fish site that liberals are supposed to be pointed to when they once again remind conservatives that the media in this country is entirely controlled by conservative interests?

Seriously, how old are you? Do you think I've made a fool of myself? Here's my LOL!

When you can cite some references of your own to refute the referenced studies then come again.......

In the meantime, this thread is about the misconception that FOX's content is biased to the right, when in fact most of the supposed cable news opeartors that are said to be not biased, are..........

Edited March 17, 2008 by kaydee457

[HAL 9000 96]

All coming from what kind of "unbiased" sources??

Right wing sources and those groups founded solely for the purpose of debunking and discrediting those people out there that think differently than those that remember the days when people accepted, submitted, and celebrated being told what to do by their superiors.

You seem to be pretty quick to point the ignorant finger while continually making a fool of yourself. Funny how things turn out when once again the brown stuff starts to hit the fan against your point of view.

Thank you. You just reinforced my notion that you don't even bother reading the sources.........Why respond to these threads, mav? Just to cheerlead for Number6?

You never have anything substantive to say, nor do you appear to have an informed opinion on any of these subjects. I don't believe that I've ever seen you post a link to a source. I'll bet I can't find one in this thread either, can I?

Take my advice and push the Nintendo aside, along with the comics and try to keep up with the rest of us.

Seems to be your opinion. As for making yet again a fool of yourself... its not surprising. As for thinking you're somehow telepathic... well, on top of making a fool of yourself that's just simply freaky and nutty.

Spelled out- your sources reek of right winger groups- that is, since you're accusing me of not looking at the sources, maybe we can look at who writes these "objective" reports:

1. http://www.aim.org/about/who-we-are/

2. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...aign-bias-study

(Funny how their slogan is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" aka http://newsbusters.org/about, or in other words a staunchly anti-liberal blog of the MRC:

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research. )

3. Another blog... http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/node/115, with yet another attack slogan: "Exposing Liberal Bias In The Oregonian"

4. MRC again.

5. CBN... right wing Christian news source. Wow... really objective there, K.

I don't know, maybe its your style to make a continuous fool of yourself... that's OK I guess.

Finally... science is correctly done via hypothesis-driven experimentation, not by asserting a conclusion before entering a biased observation.

Yes, but this is your uninformed opinion. How about some sources to refute, or rebuke these studies? How about the Harvard study? Is that too Right Wing?

I think it's best you stick with "LOL's", and the other clownish type ( indignant) postings that you're so good at.

If that works for you, why change now? <shrug>

So uninformed as reading what they say they are on their own site or uninformed as in having the capacity to read the site's own words in saying what they say they are?

If I promise to stick with my good humor and my LOLs, will you at least promise to continue making a fool of yourself?

As for the Harvard study, what part of the research do you want to cover? The part that is statistically relevant in the obvious media coverage or the part that is the blog analysis in the smelly fish site that liberals are supposed to be pointed to when they once again remind conservatives that the media in this country is entirely controlled by conservative interests?

Seriously, how old are you? Do you think I've made a fool of myself? Here's my LOL!

When you can cite some references of your own to refute the referenced studies then come again.......

In the meantime, this thread is about the misconception that FOX's content is biased to the right, when in fact most of the supposed cable news opeartors that are said to be not biased, are..........

Now age is a factor in making a fool of oneself. I prefer to make opinions based on rationally logical thought, not ludicrously slanted beliefs. Boo to you if you can't figure that out K.

Yes, this thread is precisely about that, other than it obviously not being a misconception, and grammatically confirmed in previous posts by co-religionaries of yours... And the title of the thread is a Reply to the Study. Hence, its opinionated.

Plus the links are good enough to refute themselves. Why ask for obvious information that is clearly Google-able? I mean, if you want to find a certificate of lack of critical thought, you can Google it and color it whichever way you wish.

Edited March 17, 2008 by maviwaro

[Mags 112]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this and just stick to the thread topic, please. Any more insults and I'm going to lock it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I agree. Any more insults to me can be sent to me via PM as usual.

[Mags 112]

I agree. Any more insults to me can be sent to me via PM as usual.

If that's the way you wish to continue this then that's fine. If you don't wish to have insulting PMs sent to you, then the Ignore button is a feature you should implement regarding members here you dislike or do not wish to hear from.

Any more insults in this thread will not be tolerated. Thank you.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Mags

[garya505 2]

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

[HAL 9000 96]

Well I wish I didn't get them... but I can't control the immature rantings of others Nevertheless I still believe people have the ability to think a little more clearly.

Besides, its not up to me to tell people how to behave. I wish there was some way of storing favorite posts to back oneself up when the fecal matter hits the fan in a post... most of us are too lazy to copy & paste to Word every time someone begins a personal barage without actually substantiating the material they post. Oh Well... another day in OT. No biggie.

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

I don't agree with that... but in terms of what's out there... sure, why not? It depends how you define left and right.

[Mags 112]

Well I wish I didn't get them... but I can't control the immature rantings of others Nevertheless I still believe people have the ability to think a little more clearly.

Besides, its not up to me to tell people how to behave. I wish there was some way of storing favorite posts to back oneself up when the fecal matter hits the fan in a post... most of us are too lazy to copy & paste to Word every time someone begins a personal barage without actually substantiating the material they post. Oh Well... another day in OT. No biggie.

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

I don't agree with that... but in terms of what's out there... sure, why not? It depends how you define left and right.

As I mentioned, the Ignore button means that you cannot receive PMs from the person you have blocked. If someone sends you a nasty PM, click "block" and "hey presto" no more nasty PMs.

Now, I'm going to draw a line under this now and we can move on. No more last words, no more insults, no more digs. Finito.

[HAL 9000 96]

Finito finito

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is indeed a problem with experimenter bias in these studies, not to say that their results are invalid - but it is there, and it would be foolish to deny it.

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

I don't think it matters in relation to commentators - they're supposed to be biased. Its in the nature of what they do.

[HAL 9000 96]

There is indeed a problem with experimenter bias in these studies, not to say that their results are invalid - but it is there, and it would be foolish to deny it.

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

I don't think it matters in relation to commentators - they're supposed to be biased. Its in the nature of what they do.

This is the point. Commentary is not exactly objectivist in nature.

[kaydee457 13]

There is indeed a problem with experimenter bias in these studies, not to say that their results are invalid - but it is there, and it would be foolish to deny it.

Let's try this.

O'Reilly and Olbermann probably represent the most right and most left on the news networks. Who is more biased?

I don't think it matters in relation to commentators - they're supposed to be biased. Its in the nature of what they do.

Absolutely, OReilly, Hannity, and Olbermann are editorial commentators" and what they say is not to be taken as "news"......

Unfortunately, the line becomes blurred when networks choose "commentators" such as Chris Matthews as a "moderator" at functions such as debates.

Can anyone ever think that the gushing schoolgirl Chris could ever get over his crush on Obama and treat Hillary fairly in a debate?

Or was that a ewpublican debate? Can't remember........

Edited March 17, 2008 by kaydee457

[Heracles 417]

The idea that the news media should represent two sides that shill for party politics is part of the problem.

The media is *supposed* to be independent.

Which can never happen since, as stated above, it is a human trait.

MSNBC leans more to the left than my ####. Yet as Gary said earlier, you hardly ever see anyone dissing it. How many people hate O'reilly for stating his own opinion yet cheer on a stupid clown like Keith Olbermann; An idiot who spends 75% of his show criticizing other people's views. This is why I hate liberal Americans as they adamantly support the misinterpretation of the first amendment. Yet ironically cannot stand anyone who has opposing opinions to theirs.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!