★UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016★

not on FOX they have all types of journalist and commentators with different political belief systems thats why I like it you hear all sides not like the other garbage media who shove their liberal agenda down your throat. with faker news and no other opinions.

Example Hannity is conservative O'Reilly is independent Smith is liberal Juan WIlliams is liberal so are Geraldo Rivera, Kristen Powell, Alan Colmes and others, Kimberly is conservative Bolling and Judge Judy are conservatives and others etc etc etc each are allowed to give their arguments the way they see it. No other MSM does that

thats why they call FOX fair and balanced.

 

Wow wow wow wow wow hold on here.

Lets not say FOX news if fair and balanced here. FOX news is a republican news channel.
They've been open republican since decades by having way more airtime, they were also created by a republican.
Even on frikking wikipedia it says they are openly republican biased.

I dont mind a news channel being biased thats just the way it is, every newschannel is biased to something.
But saying its fair and balanced just makes you look like a republican that cant admit that fox news is biased.
Thats even worse.

 

but its not biased, it depends whos show you watch on FOX, if you are going to watch hannity yes hes a staunch conservative but on FOX you have a choice in fact since ailes is gone the murdocks who run it now have a more left tendency and are not conservatives.
watch the 5 or watch Orielly you see debates between left and right all the time.
Liberal journalists have shows and specials on FOX ie Rivera, Colmes and others. The liberal journalsits.commentators are on daily on the 5 and Oreilly, as well as Bret's Baeir' show and others I jsut dont watch til the evening so not sure how the other shows are.

Kelly is a liberal and attacked trump non stop on her show.

all the other MSM only have liberal journalist and commentators

 

If you honestly believe that in your heart that FOX news is not biased then I wont convince you it is.
There is no sin in being biased cause everyone is.

 

I stated it depends whose show you watch. but you dont get that anywhere else.

 

Do you know who Jaun Williams is? He a black journalists who is very left and he used to work for NPR a very left organization he got fired from NPR and Orielly was upset at how he was treated unfairly at NPR and got fired for no legitimate reason and got Juan hired on FOX..

 

It is biased. All MSM media is. However, there are varying degrees of biasedness.

CNN I would say is the MOST biased out of all of them. They run with anything anti republican. At least MSNBC and ABC have the decency to try and verify what they are running first.

FOX is definitely biased towards republicans, but it also does attempt to show the other side... to an extent. I believe the method FOX uses towards being unbiased is being biased for Republicans that it trys to counter out the liberal bias from other media sources. However, this election we even saw FOX turn on Trump to an extent *Cough* Megyn *cough*, but now she's replaced by Tucker... who is better I think.

 

oh for sure. lets check wikipedia

ah yes hes one of those black guys who wants everyone to start pulling up their pants. very liberal.

lets hope hes also not into assaulting women like his inspiration is

oh wait he is (in case you didnt know clarence thomas is republican. weird that a "very left" person somehow loves to defend republicans. weird.... its almost as if hes not.)

i'd love to go on and on but its likely you wouldnt read and continue to think that fox news is somehow the most neutral news source in the world

 

"o reilly factor" more like "o really love to assault women and so do my contributors factor"

 

lol @ wikipedia I can edit it and write anything I want, you obviously dont know anything about his political views.

 

dont watch the women beater's show that hes on but i know a political hack when i see one. someone who uses an "angle" in order to be relevant like that trump-loving bernie supporter

 

I'd like to point out that filing a charge doesn't mean he did it. I think you killed JFK, doesn't mean you did it but I could publicly claim it.

If it says he's guilty, which I will admit I didn't read, then yea he's guilty.

 

this isnt a courtroom. its a forum that 3 people visit.

its quite obvious the type of person he is

 

We can admit that stastically speaking people that get charged for a something they did are more likely to have done it that someone who was not charged with that crime.
So Ima go ahead and believe it since wikipedia is ma homie that got me through some rough periods

 

Hows those sexual assault cases vs Trump turning out?

 

The p value in most statistics is set at 95 percent because statistics only describes an approximation, the best approximation of reality. However reality has outliers that cannot be statistically measured.
Stats bro

also not because you arent proven guilty, you aint guilty
henceforth my argument is still perfectly valid, that if you are charged of a crime you are more likely to have done the crime than not have done the crime

 

This is such a good read

" If everything is fake, your news consumption is just a dietary choice "

" Now, as we can clearly see, anyone who disagrees with a piece of news - even if it is NEWS, not an editorial - feels free to call it "Fake News." In fact there is a two step process. First, one assumes that all news is agenda-driven and editorial (this was already achieved for many heavily propagandized Americans by the mid-2000s). Second, all news that is embarrassing to your side must be editorial and fabricated. The enemy is just making things up constantly, a never ending churn of lies." -> I dont wanna call someone out but this sounds like someone we knoooowww

https://np.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/5ntjh2/all_this_fake_news/dceozzo/

 

While I don't want to get into this thread again, and I think it should be locked, that guy is very clearly biased. He is against Trump based on the wording of his reply and points the whole blame of fake news solely on Republicans ruining it. Both sides are equally guilty of this, especially the MSM reporting on BS.

How about this "Russian hacked the election thing"

Or Trump "molested a child" (Case was dropped)

Or how about this latest report about Trump hiring hookers to piss on Obama's bed and that the Russians have this as blackmail?


Both sides are guilty. Don't pretend liberals are innocent and Republicans are the only ones who are wrong or you might be participating in spreading fake news. It really does suck that over the last 18 years there has been a clear bias against Republicans, but this year it came out to an almost undeniable level for most people.

Look at our news 24/7, it is agenda driven and you even earlier in this thread said that it was biased. FOX, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NPR are all biased. Our education system is liberally biased, our radio talk-shows are republican biased. Claiming there isn't bias or saying that it's stupid to think that it's all biased is probably one of the most retarded things I have ever read. Bias is an extent of propaganda as well, if you paint someone as bad constantly... that is propaganda.

I skimmed it so don't flame me for misreading it.

 

You clearly misread it. The guy isnt biased at all. Hes litterally explaining how propaganda is working in its fake news context. He never gave an example of any political party nor does he imply to be anti republican. I'm pretty baffled how you seem to think this guy is biased when hes just explaining how shit works. You're his post into what ever you want again for no apparant reason. His post never blamed republicans or designated a single party to do this.

Noone here is pretending both sides are or are not doing this.
I pulled this up because I want to inform people on how information should be obtained and perceived.

Nothing in his post said or pointed at any of your last 2 paragraphs.

My point was that in this thread there was a lot of " fake " calling by vicki that describes perfectly what he says. And I wanted to point that out not to undermine political beliefs but to undermine information gathering itself.

 

Oh, right.

Well in America, Liberals usually call Republicans Nazi's, racists, hate supporters so you can see when he uses the paragraph here:
"____ have chosen hate because hate is a faith to them; at the outset they have chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease they feel as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions appear to them. If out of courtesy they consent for a moment to defend their point of view, they lend themselves but do not give themselves. They try simply to project their intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse.

Never believe that ______ are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The ____ have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.

They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. If then, as we have been able to observe, the ____ is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious."

why I might construe that as him having an anti-republican bias. Why do I also say this? Because if you frequent reddit, 90% of the site has been screaming that Reddit.com/r/The_Donald is a place that supports hate, anti-semitism, racism, sexism etc which is essentially what this post is referring to. Especially because when he says "top kek, libcuck tears" that is lines straight from republican bastion /r/The_Donald. Yea some of them over there are retarded, but they can USUALLY back it up with sources.

People all the time use historical quotes, remove group X with _____, and then use it as a justification in their argument against their opponents and I definitely got that vibe here. Say what you want, but he is definetly against /r/The_Donald which, traditionally, means hes anti-republican.

Edit: He also uses titles of Articles that are solely republican based:

• "You Won't Believe Obama's Plan To Declare Martial Law!"
  
  
• "Hillary Has Lung, Brain, Stomach, And Ass Cancer - SIX WEEKS TO LIVE!"

Why doesn't he also post fake news articles from Democrats if he wants to appear neutral?