Posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
>
> At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?
>
>
> Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?
Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
>I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case? The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
poster:bleauberry
thread:918589
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091001/msgs/919515.html