I just saw a documentairy and it scares me how a (corporate owned) news channel, can and may send pure BS straight in to the homes of US citizens. With flashy screens with lines as 'Fair and Balanced' they completely copy the republican agenda, show Bush as a messiah and Kerry as a french devil. There's no unbiased journalism involved here, it's even misleading. From polls amogst viewers of Fox news and another news channel is shows that 33% of the Fox viewers believe WMD WERE found in Iraq against 11% of another news channel, a link between Al Quieda and Iraq is believed to exists by 67% of the Fox viewers. Well as most people around the world know (accept for some Fox viewers) both arent proven and most likely war propaganda aka lies.

If it wasnt for Fox the US presindential allection might have resulted in another president. The Florida count was unclear while Fox (John Ellis) gave Florida to Bush, where for Roger Aisles later apologised to the viewer for telling a lie and misleading the public. And now counts down to the -realection- of GW, amazing how they can label themselves 'Fair and Balanced'.

What maybe scares me more is that kinda behavoir is copied by other news channels because it seems there is money in suporting the flag and showing 1 sided news coverage, news is suposed to be neutral and show the truth making the viewer the judge of what happens, instead of shoving an opinion down your throat.

From all i can see this channel is a republican institute, that doesnt fear telling lies, drills for fear, enlarges on any possible threat, copying republican white house agenda and strategy, while trying to embarrass the democratic candidate.

I haven't had a chance to see this yet, but I know all you'll get here is a bunch of conservatives saying that this is just another Moore-like piece of crap etc etc. Funny though, all it took was 4 years of Bush and you have people from all over the country producing quality exposes on the right wing and their distortions.

Wonderful documentary! Highly reccomend to everyone!





Oh yeah...

We Distort
You Decide

When I saw it I saw so shocked by the complete bluntness of their bias. They don't even try to hide it, they just state their opinion as if it were pure fact. My jaw hurt from being clinched throughout the entire thing.

Check out the trailer.

http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Trailer_A.wmv

and the website.

http://www.outfoxed.org

Take a look at this piece of work here! Hillarious! Krugman vs. O'Reilly: http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krugman ... ly_200.mov

Lies, Lies, Lies...I can't belive the bullshit O'Reilly is attempting to spew here either. Losing any respect I ever had for him here with this interview. He's always comming across so arogent, and he has "proveable" things, yet never brings them up. Never mentions the memo's other then they are bullshit, but they are available for everyone to read...

Since when is O'Reilly "news"? Or Krugman for that matter?

If you need a documentary to tell you FoxNews is a bunch of shit (or corporate news in any form RE: Jon Stewart a la 60 Minutes), then you're a fucking moron. ("You" is rhetorical, I did not mean to infer anyone in this thread to be a fucking moron.)

I'm not reacting as in i feel addressed by 'you', but as a foreighner, that read about Fox and CBS and such here and now gets an animated picture of what these "news" broadcasts provide, i'm almost shocked that this is possible. Sure i've got the message before that it isnt a good news source, but this bad and 1 sided.. I'd never thought! And if this is a mayor news 'suplier' than a huge portion of the american people is lied to and mislead on a daily basis.

I saw some interview with the son of a 9/11 victim and this O'Reilly didnt even give him the chance to tell his view, that wasnt an interview it was a long rant telling the guy he was wrong. O'Reilly is a joke as a journalist, a liar, a bad debater that just points at other people and uses stupid arguements the way a 7 yr old would do.

I think the real fear comes when people call men like O'Reilly journalists.

I take a firm belief in two things:

1) Televised news is entertainment.
2) Print news is ad space.

Kinda sucks not knowing who to trust.

For the record, Glick was cut off by O'Reilly because he wanted to rant about Bush being responsible for Sept. 11th. You can decide on you own if O'Reilly wasn't justified in that cut-off.

kinda sorta...oreilly said his father would be ashamed of him and he said no, he thought bush was an illegitiamte president and would feelt he same way because we funded teh creation of al-qaeda in the 80's and armed and funded their terrorist training camps, so in a way this administration (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle....) ARE resposnible for 9/11.

Number one reason I have a hard time understanding the left.

what's so hard to understand??? These people helped fund, arm and train al-qaeda...they used our tax money to support their terrorist training camps. It's like giving start up money to hitler. if i gave hitler all this support to kill some ppl i didn't like then after he finished that he turned to the jews and all the others he killed, would i not be partly repsonible?

Let's say I protect, arm, fund, train, support a serial rapist cos he's raping ppl i don't like....then he rapes your mom, would you blame me at all for all the help i gave him before? Would you aboslve m e? WOuld the law absolve me?

we should be going after ousevles and bombing the US because we supported the terrorists at one point...which i think is our goal now..either "with us or against us"

Fixed.



k, no, they didn't. There were no terrorist training camps. There were CIA camps training militia to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan.



No, it's not, really.



Well, considering those people you wanted him to kill weren't a massive communist empire trying to take over the world... that's a bad analogy.



This is just silly.



If you raped my mom, I'd kill you. That still means nothing in the context of this "debate"... though the terminology is questionable.



I'm assuming you're voting for Kerry. Let me hurt your feelings: Kerry doesn't want to bomb the US.

You're not winning any smart points here, kids. Take a few hours to put your thoughts together and come back later. I wouldn't want you embarrassing the smarter people on your side of the political spectrum any further.

haha. but your responses of "no, not really" are much smarter and more thought out huh?


Yea , take me literally...i want to elect kerry to bomb the shit out of us...

good one.

To me it seemed he asked him some things without giving him any chance to answer any of them, because he had oposite views than o'reilly. As foar as justification, dont ask things if yuo dont want the answer..

They are. Really.



I take you literally because you offer nothing else to be considered as intellectual insight.

I explained frankly that we trained bad people to kill worse people. I understand they have turned against us. Welcome to Foreign Policy 101; those you help by putting on a leash will soon turn on the leash holder.

The whole "teeth of the tiger" argument.

so as long as they were killing soviets (not us) it's ok what they do? Maybe we should be a little more careful who we arm and support, eh?



k, no, they didn't. There were no terrorist training camps. There were CIA camps training militia to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan.[/quote]

a militia force who happened to be called al-Qa'ida you mean? Look up the CIA fact sheet on bin Laden, he's the one who ran these training camps.



Well, considering those people you wanted him to kill weren't a massive communist empire trying to take over the world... that's a bad analogy.[/quote]

please, after stalin the soviets weren't a real threat to us or teh world. So they wanted part of Afghanistan, like we don't? We have military bases and puppet governments all over the world, but that's ok, as long as it's us and not them. So in other words, a soviets life is worth less than an american life.



This is just silly.



If you raped my mom, I'd kill you. That still means nothing in the context of this "debate"... though the terminology is questionable.[/quote]

I didn't say I raped your mom, maybe you should look into flash cards for sight words and someone can go over them with you. What's the difference? We armed, funded and trained them to kill people we didn't like....then they came and killed us...how is that much different than saying 'arming, funding and training a rapist to rape ppl i don;t like....' other than one's killing and the other is brutalizing

plz explain how the soviets in the 80's-90's were 'worse' than bin laden and al-qa'ida???