"David Stuve" wrote in message
news:1YednXTkMtDIjzPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:14 -0800, "David Stuve"
wrote:

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you?
If
you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all
of
the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP
(hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim
from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact
that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on
staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant
that
AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.

Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely
different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was
amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show.
Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION
NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my
experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it
seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other
channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and
seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me
nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at
and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much
more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least
I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree
with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and
Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre
circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I
believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get
people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and
they'll keep watching.

After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize
that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans
report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade
Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes."
It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story
as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued
success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.

Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more
than just one source.


Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we
came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers.
Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters
were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the
action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.

But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that
results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then
parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on
better reasons for the bloodshed.

Merry Christmas all.

And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions
in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.

Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that,
understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different
things.