Heh. I saw a preview for “The Pulse” in which the voice over said something like, “Is this eerie picture real?” The picture in question was that of the tourist on the WTC with the plane in the background…
This is something that was debunked so long ago, that it serves to show how pitiful “The Pulse” is at coming up with new subjects.
Nanook, is “our troops” used consistently in all Fox news reports? If it’s a Fox editorial decision to always use the word “our”, then I don’t have as much of a problem with it. But I would be curious to see if they still use it during negative news stories concerning US or coalition forces. Say during news reports concerning friendly fire incidents (like the mistaken bombing of Canadian troops), civilian casualty figures in Afghanistan, or news stories like the recent wedding bombing incident. If those reports refer to “US troops” or “coalition forces” instead, that strikes me as Fox trying to distances itself from the association with US forces when the news is bad.
Maybe I’m just making a big deal over semantics, but if the network wants to align itself with US troops, for whatever reason, it should be consistent.
Well, the reason they were crowing about the WTC picture story is because they were presenting as a world exclusive the first televised interview with the guy in the photo. Whatta scoop, eh? Eh? Eh?
Still, it was a hoot to see them show a few of the spoof versions of the picture (although they could have picked funnier ones, IMO).
Geraldo will always be looking for the spotlight, and unless your a hottie (like Alicia Acuna) you ain’t gonna be the lead on a big story if one of the head hionchos wants it. That’s the way it’s always been Fox News or not.
BY the way, I think Fox does a better job OVERALL of presenting the news. I mean O’REilly is pretty independaent and angry, but then you have Greta Van Susteren and Alan Colmes. Fox just got Major Garrett, while CNN has Connie CHung (terrible) and MSNBWho? has Donahue (Brontasaurus)…
If anything, Fox News Channel has shaken up the cable news industry and is setting the tone - gotta hand it to them.
By the way: QuasiModem - you aren’t the Geek writer are you?
You done it now.
They’re gonna jump all over her politically incorrect religion, like that determines her journalistic abilities.
She beats the hell out of Rivera, scientologist or not.
Greta’s a scientologist?
Anybody else think she made a BIG mistake with the facelift/makeover? I remember seeing her pic on the cover of People magazine and saying “Oh, my God.” :eek:
She doesn’t look very different when you see her speaking; just no baggy eyes. Those pics were some kind of glamour shots or something, as when I get a haircut and look halfway cool for about half an hour.
But I digress.
To trash CNN: I’m reading about a damn train wreck, and on the right is a pic of some wenie smiling coyly around his hand selling watches that cost more than my car.
This is what Mama calls “tacky”; bad taste, rude, ugly.
Is it because they are owned by AOL? Like they don’t make enough money wanting me to pay to see their damn video clips?
I seem to have about the opposite opinion of many here. I watch local or network news and just laugh at how silly it is. The liberal slant, combined with the genaral dumbing down of everything is just not interesting to me at all.
Granted, I watching prime time, not during the day. I think this is when Fox sinks to showing the 4 hour car chases and stuff. But, compared with network news, I choose fox every time.
As far as local news goes: I don’t care about sports at all, or the weather. I have the weather.com and the weather channel for that. So, what am I supposed to do during these two segments, that comprise about a third of the broadcast?
And the network news: It really bothers me that they make decisions based on what they will and will not report on. Why doesn’t anybody but Fox talk about Jesse Jackson’s accounting scandals? Or talk about controllng illegal immigration?
I have no idea actually. I don’t watch Fox News(I prefer CNN for those very rare times that I actually watch all news channels). You were the one who brought it up, I was just asking for clarification. As for your examples, eh it seems like such a minor point to get worked up over. There are much bigger issues to get upset about I think, like refusing to use the word terrorist(Reuters wasn’t it?).
Unfortunately, most of America isn’t that smart. Heck the vast majority don’t own passports.
Greta is a smart lawyer. What’s the deal with Scientology anyway?
What does smart have to do with passports? A poor genius can’t travel overseas.
Greta? I figure it’s tax dodge, but then I am frequently surprised at the religious beliefs of people, both intelligent and not so intelligent.
What exactly does being smart have to do with having a passport?
Production values and sensationalism aside, my take on Fox News has always been the following: if they want to present themselves as a conservative counterweight to what they perceive to be an overarchingly liberal network news media, that’s one thing. I may disagree with their perception, but they’re perfectly justified in offering an ideological alternative. But when they set themselves up as–in contrast to the rest of the news–neutral, apolitical, and unbiased (cf their “We Report, You Decide” schtick), that’s a little beyond the pale. I don’t mind it if you have a point of view–just don’t insult my intelligence by trying to explicitly present yourself as something you’re not. Even accepting their premise that the rest of the news has a liberal cast–something which, as I’ve said many times before, I take various degrees of issue with–they’re at best no more ideological than the alternatives. It’s therefore disingenuous to claim that the’yre less so.