Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Performers have to fix an image in their minds of who they're talking to in order to be convincing. They present themselves -- or, their schtick -- as a certain personality and they speak to a certain personality.
Why do those words make me think of just what kind of speeches Oba mao delivered during the campaign? They even sound a lot like the ones he delivers these days. I haven't heard him talking to ACORN and SEIU like he did in 2007 and 2008 but then his speech writers aren't dummies. Those old ones were delivered before anyone knew he was going to run for President.
Actually those words sound like they can work for any politician.
It might also sound familiar; I remember a few weeks ago reminding you that Glennie does it too.
Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
***
Rather than in any way maturing, Fox has in recent months become more boisterous and demagogic.
***
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups.....For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.
Your Newsweek source is from the same participant that joined Fox in having the Florida Appeals court say "that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States".
Your Newsweek source is from the same participant that joined Fox in having the Florida Appeals court say "that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States".
You may want to look for another source.
Jacob Weisberg? This is an editorial, USN. I know it's hard for Faux fans to tell the difference.
Jacob Weisberg? This is an editorial, USN. I know it's hard for Faux fans to tell the difference.
Oh, so now an editorial is the truth? From a newsmagazine that sued to tell lies? Is an editorial basically commentary from an writer, expressing their opinion?
What's the difference then what the commentators on Fox are doing?
In my opinion, the people who cannot see for themselves the bigotry and hate pushed by FOX "News" are precisely the people FOX "News" counts on. Any examples offered that would conflict with their own twisted views would simply be ignored. So why bother?
Exactly, they are the same demographic as those who read the National Enquirer,lol.
No sources to cite, no analytical thought,just trash for cash mentality.
Oh, so now an editorial is the truth? From a newsmagazine that sued to tell lies? Is an editorial basically commentary from an writer, expressing their opinion?
What's the difference then what the commentators on Fox are doing?
I didnt present the OP as a news story. Are you recanting your allegiance to Faux as a trustworthy news source?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.