Slashdot Mirror

Then may I present to you http://newsbusters.org/ http://www.aim.org/, http://www.cato.org/, and http://nlpc.org/.

Never heard of most of those, but I'm sure there is no immediate bias at http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ and even liberals deny being tied to http://mediamatters.org/ .

Gees numb nuts, I don't have to read those crappy News Corps rags everyday, or watch those crappy Fox not-News channels everyday, there are a whole range of web sites that do it for more and show the highlights 'er' lowlights. You know, I don't have to hit my head with a hammer to know it will feel good when I stop, I don't have to walk with my shows full of rocks to know it will feel better when I stop, I don't have to starve for days to know it will feel good when I eat, I don't have to eat chemically laden artificial junk food to know I well feel better when I eat fresh organic and of course my mind doesn't have to wade through cruft http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft day in day out to know I will be far more intellectually satisfied when I obtain my news from better sources.

The crazy idea that I need to read News Corp rags and watch Fox not-News everyday just to appreciate how bad they really are, seriously WTF. I have only got so may free hours in the day for news so I simply go to better sources , now that's common sense. As for the News Corp and Fox not-news lowlights, I wag my head in disbelief and thank people for doing the hard yards of wading through that cruft for me.

Here allow me to save you the pain, you obviously seem to be suffering http://www.newshounds.us/, http://www.fair.org/index.php, http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/, http://mediamatters.org/, http://www.prwatch.org/ ;D.

And I'm sick of people like you dehumanizing people that you've never met, probably never read anything substantive about, getting all of your information from Fox News, and then -- when you have no REAL argument to make other than "they are ANIMALS," you try to call your opponent a hypocrite, and bring their family into it. It's like a goddamn formula with you folks. Happen to see Jeremy Glick on O'Reilly (what am I saying -- you probably saw it live!) -- perfect example of a guy who DID lose a family member and still is not into the bullshit, especially being done in the name of his dead family members.

the CBC is far worse. It's basically anti-America TV

Mr A. C. is right! Canadians are a bunch of socialists, with their medicine and gun control! Me and A.C. know this, because Bill O'Reilly told us so, and he's from the only truly objective, balanced news channel, Fox News.

O'Reilly pointed out that because of their socialist ways, Canada is teetering at the brink of bankruptcy. O'Reilly even said he might declare a boycott of Canada, which would ruin their economy, just like his French boycott did to France.

Sorry - I accidentally posted this as an A.C. above.

the CBC is far worse. It's basically anti-America TV

Mr A. C. is right! Canadians are a bunch of socialists, with their medicine and gun control! Me and A.C. know this, because Bill O'Reilly told us so, and he's from the only truly objective, balanced news channel, Fox News.

O'Reilly pointed out that because of their socialist ways, Canada is teetering at the brink of bankruptcy. O'Reilly even said he might declare a boycott of Canada, which would ruin their economy, just like his French boycott did to France.

Link
Link
Link

I'll undo my moderation done to these discussions just to refute one of your points.

"And as you mentioned, he apologized. I'm not sure how you want him to express distrust, but he doesn't give the president a pass on anything."

Read his editorial on the interview, found here. The man sounds like a walking hard-on for George W Bush. My favorite quote out of the whole thing:

"For example, I am known for confrontational interviews, but you simply cannot tell a sitting President that you, the interviewer, know more than he does. That would make you look like a moron. So open confrontation goes right out the window."

This is funny. If you ever saw O'Reilly and what he did to that kid Jeremy Glick (transcript can be found here, you know that he really has no qualms in letting his confrontational interviews lapse into inappropriate areas. Jeremy Glick, for those of you who don't know, was the kid of a September 11th victim who was part of an organization that opposed aspects of the Bush administrations "War against Terrorism". Specifically, he criticized the lack of responsibility being put on previous administrations for the funding of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the lack of a promise to never make the same mistake again (a look at the situation in Iraq can tell you that, yes, the US is making the mistake of funding a potential enemy again).

Anyway, O'Reilly goes on to rip through Glick, evoke the memory of his dead father and widowed mother to counter his arguments and cuts Glick's mic, despite the fact that Glick throughout the whole interview was very calm and composed. O'Reilly then had Glick escorted by security, but not before telling him that he would tear the shit out of him. Later, O'Reilly claimed in other shows that Glick claimed that George W. Bush planned September 11, though that was clearly not what Glick said.

Suddenly, however, there is a limit to his confrontational interviewing style. Of course, one could argue that it's just because Bush is the president. But it takes just one look at O'Reilly's treatment of Clinton, and his treatment of Kerry will be much the same if he ends up winning the presidency, to realize that such arguments are bullshit. O'Reilly is clearly a huge Bush supporter. Which would be fine, if he didn't insist that he was this unbiased guy (Al Franken's discovery of previous Republican registration by O'Reilly is further proof of that).

Just a side note: at the end of the editorial, O'Reilly says:

"In the middle of my talk with the President, my mind flashed back for just a second to my childhood in Levittown, N.Y."

Though O'Reilly always makes this claim (and indeed has produced a deed to try to prove it) that he lived in some modest, working-class home in Levittown, in actuallity he lived in the Westbury part of Levittown, now known as Salisbury, which is not quite Levittown. The stakes of pointing this out? Well, Westbury wasn't exactly "modest". It was rick kid suburbia. Another one of O'Reilly's many lies.

Yea but then again inside edition "won two peabodies".

Have you ever listened to NPR? Or do you just regurgitate what FOX News tells you? Because that's really a source of non-biased coverage. You know, just because people keep saying the media is liberal doesn't make it true.

NPR is probably one of the more interesting news agencies out there. You'll here stories there that you won't hear anywhere else. Not because of a political stance, but because they are not trying to get ratings to get advertisers. There stories are much more interesting for those with half a brain.

Besides, the current administration deserves as much heat as can be brought on them. They've gotten a very easy ride from this supposed liberal media.

google: fox news bias

Turns up numerous pages with examples of Fox bias.

The classsic:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

More current:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm

Regime change begins at home!