Is this really Faux news??? The faux news we love to disparage?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
Not all people at faux news suck.
Damn it.
Another Moore thread? I’ll go shoot myself now.
This Year’s Model, if it weren’t against the rules to wish death on someone, I would tell you to take careful aim and try not to miss. But it is against the rules, so I won’t do it. But, you didn’t specify which part of your body you intended to shoot, so maybe you didn’t intend it to be a fatal shot after all. Maybe you only intended to wound yourself and if that is the case, then I guess it would be okay for me to tell you to take careful aim and try not to miss. Just don’t shoot yourself in the nether regions.
Is there any way I can see F911 for free? Because I want to see it so I can argue about it until I’m blue in the face!
I just don’t want to… y’know. Pay.
The review was unbelievable, as not believable for Faux news. I am sure we’ll wake up tomorrow to find that the Faux News website has been spoofed.
Seriously, I am beginning to anxiously await the release of the movie in a similar fashion to LotR
It’s interesting that Roger Friedman left out the name of another well-known television commentator – Bill O’Reilly. Two other televisions news sources mentioned that he was present.
I watched enough of his show this morning to see if he was going to comment, and either he didn’t or I went to sleep. I forget which.
He mentioned on his show today. There are two takes:
-
He ducked out early and was confronted my Moore to which he stammered “I have to tape something”.
-
The movie started 40 minutes late and he did have a previous engament and left early.
:shrug:
I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
“And in related news, Roger Friedman has been abruptly fired from Fox News for failing to comply with corporate directives to smear monkey feces on Michael Moore and his works at every opportunity. ‘He never really fit in,’ Fox spokeswoman Tiffy Airhead told reporters. ‘We just knew he was a closet subversive from day 1, and this proves it.’”
I’ve said it about al Jazeera, I’ll say it about Fox.
When it comes to basic reporting, both do a pretty accurate and even balanced job. The editorial and ownership may be biased, but they do a fair job of covering it up in the actual news reporting.
I assure you that this is no web-site spoof and I doubt that the scribe who made this gets fired for it. If you idiots would actually read the websites occasionally, you might find them suprisingly balanced. Ideology isn’t flattering on anyone. Fox News has covered the F9/11 distribution saga in its entirety as well as the Cannes Film Festival awards.
(Psst…the thing you’re typing at is called the internet. The film will probably be available there before it actually hits theaters…)
-Joe, whispery kinda guy
I suppose you could go to a multiplex that’s showing Fahrenheit 9/11, buy a ticket for some other movie, then sneak in to see it. That way, you get to see the movie without contributing to Moore’s bottom line or box-office numbers.
Of course, you’d still have to buy a ticket, but if it’s for a movie you want to support, that’s not a problem, right? 
I believe the term you are looking for is cognitive dissonance. It results when the facts of reality don’t align with your preconcieved ideas. A sane person, when encountering such a situation, adjusts his preconceived ideas accordingly. Someone who is not sane will not let go of his preconcieved ideas. The question is, which type are you?
I guess Reeder had expected that Fox News would make the same sort of prejudicial judgment about Moore’s film that Reeder admits making about Fox News.
Could be a misdirection play, something to get us off-balance.
Or, dare we dream it, Fox’s own cognitive dissonance might be breaking down?
Or maybe, just maybe, they’re not as bad (or good, for that matter) as the partisian hacks make them out to be?
You probably believe Hannity and Colmes is a “fair and balanced” program as well, right?
Or did Bill O’Reilly get fired, and I missed the news?
Unless you can prove that Reeder has never watched Fox News, it is incorrect to accuse him of prejudice. He has not pre-judged Fox News; he has judged it.
I think that his own four-question-mark expression of surprise suffices to prove that he, at least in this case, leaned toward one side of the question from other considerations than those belonging to it. Naturally, you disagree.
Actually, you have made an incorrect assumption: That “Fox News” does not include the web site as well as the TV Channel. Clearly Reeder has viewed the web site, per the OP.
Liberal, the two are completely unrelated. Reeder is just some guy. He has no reason to be impartial. Personally, I think any individual person who claims or tries to be 100% impartial is an idiot. Thinking people have opinions.
Major news organizations, on the other hand, are supposed to consist of professionals who strive to present facts with the least about of bias possible. There will always be some bias, of course, but any organization that doesn’t try to minimize it as much as possible is rightly deserving of our scorn.