A repository for all the unbiased, racially-sensitive reporting FNC will do from here until... well probably january 2017:

lets get started with this:


but not forget the terrorist fist jab story

B*stards! How dare they!

Only blacks can use the term "baby's momma".

They didn't use the term remotely properly. The only thing we can infer from their usage is that they just intended to insult Michelle.

ps. lots of white people use the term baby mama. watch jerry springer. in fact, i would say that in terms of absolute numbers more white people say it.

pps. you don't make baby possessive if you want to use it correctly. FNC's hate mongers at least got that correct.

quote:

Originally posted by FTP:
They didn't use the term remotely properly. The only thing we can infer from their usage is that they just intended to insult Michelle.

ps. lots of white people use the term baby mama. watch jerry springer. in fact, i would say that in terms of absolute numbers more white people say it.

pps. you don't make baby possessive if you want to use it correctly. FNC's hate mongers at least got that correct.

Fox isn't fair and balanced? ??? ?

Was it fox that made Obama look darker than he really is or another station?

Doesn't fox have O'Riely who is by far the most fair and balanced person since Rush Limbaugh.

Fox is so pro McCain right now it is sickening.

sticks and stones...

There are some people, I won't name names (coughbeverleycoughstardustcough) who think FNC is still a reasonable source for news. This thread is a repository for all the reasons its not.

I suppose the other news networks aren't biased, either?

quote:

Originally posted by PJ0740:
I suppose the other news networks aren't biased, either?

No every news station is biased. it's why to get a complete distorted picture that the entire media puts forth look at the NY, WSJ, PBS, BBC, and other foreign networks. I don't tend to trust CNN and NBS very much but alot more than fox. Fox tends to be hypocrytical.

And then there's Dan Rather...making up his own news.

Tamesis has pretty much nailed it.

The other difference is that the bias of other networks is generally towards laziness in fact collecting (and just generally sticking with the pre-established narrative for any story) and for maxmizing profits. keith olbermann aside, as hes basically the only non-FNC personality with a demonstratable bias that only leans in one direction. pretty much all the rest will say as much dumb and uninformed stuff about democrats as republicans.

well, other than glenn beck, but he must have naked pictures of someone at cnn because he has the worst ratings and is frequently offensive and somehow stays on the air. so i am not sure he counts. he would fit in better at FNC.

anyways, to get back to what i was saying. for every 'biased' story against conservatives/republicans/bush you see on cnn i could produce one that is biased against liberals/democrats/whatever. so while they are biased, it pretty much evens out in the end.

At fox news you don't get that. its all liberal/democrat-bashing using the most questionable language you can imagine all the time. of course, that is exactly what they set out to do so it should come as no surprise to anyone, but we should at least recognize that.

ps. dan rather wasn't wrong about bush's military service and we all know it. he just got caught with faked proof.

Is this based on a hunch?

If you just want news with no opinion. Watch Headline News, they just report.

quote:

Originally posted by FTP:
ps. dan rather wasn't wrong about bush's military service and we all know it. he just got caught with faked proof.

Oh so that makes him unbiased just because he faked the proof?? Dude, you are UNBELIEVEABLE!!!