Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Spinning Against OpenDocument Via Fox News
srwalter writes "As previously reported, Fox News previously ran an article by James Prendergast criticizing Massachussetts for switching to OpenDocument format. Today, Fox News has distanced itself from that article significantly. In a new front page story they post several emails in defense of Massachussetts and OpenDocument in general, as well as apologize for not acknowledging that Prendergast's organization is funded by Microsoft."
And to the parent, you are a fucking retard.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
I guess this means we can add "well researched" to their "fair and balanced" calling card.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
FoxNews is clearly scared that all their usual "anonymous sources" are getting indicted. They need to recruit new sources from the public, and not hew so closely to their favorite monopolists' propaganda.
--
make install -not war
Id take the NYT over that anyday.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
I thought it was always:
"We decide what to report, you listen and repeat"
What a joke
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
One post claims Fox News is fair and balanced. Someone replies with links to other new organizations pointing out their slogan is not correct. That's a troll? My guess is that whomever moderated the post as a "troll" is right-winger. Because right-wingers don't ever want to hear a different viewpoint. 'Support us or you're a terrorist'... or a troll perhaps.
The two sides in the abortion debate call themselves "pro-choice" and "pro-life", each reflecting the value that seems most important to them in that debate. However, when the Washington Post or CNN report on abortion issues, the terms they use are "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." Those terms, justified by both as being 'more accurate' are a reflection of the bias of those organizations. In the worldview of their editors, the opposite of "pro-choice" is "antiabortion", regardless of how those "antiabortionists" actually see themselves.
And David Koresh called himself God. That doesn't mean that the media should report it that way. That the media doesn't call someone by their chosen label doesn't immediately indicate sensationalism. If they had reported "God having sex with little girls and arming to take on the US military" it would have been more sensational.
As for the abortion item, I see their point. The debate is solely about laws. Do the laws allow a choice, or do they not. A personal belief of whether abortion is wrong or not is irrelevant to what you think the laws should be. The "pro-life" camp trivializes and demonizes people like me. I hate abortion. I wish there never was another. But I'm not going to support legislation to create a slave class of child bearers. The true pro-life crowd were the ones that outlawed it for Roe, who wanted to abort the child that was the result of a rape. They want to put the fetus and mother's health on the same plane, requiring her to carry it at significant risk to her own health. They are the fanatics that are "pro-life" to the point that they kill (like the clinic bombings).
That the newspaper recognizes the implicit "anti-life" stab at anyone that doesn't claim to be "pro-life" and changes the working to eliminate that built-in bias isn't leaning left. It's leaning to the center. If "life" was so important to the pro-lifers, why does it seem most are pro-death penalty? It's not the life they want to protect, it's their control over others. The "pro-life" group also wants to outlaw drugs and homosexuality. They aren't "pro" anything. They are anti-choice, and that is all they are. Bitter whiny evangelical Christians dominate the group and make it impossible for there to be any discussion on the subject.
Learn to love Alaska