Bill "scumbag" O'Reilly and FOX Noobs lying? LMAO that's common nature mate, FOX is the worst media outlet in the entire world, why do you think the USA has got so many sheeeeeeple?
LOL. That page is hilarious. I love how they zoomed into the story to show where the NYT had it. Lemme redo that page, just a little bit: The blurb there is 1 paragraph. And says see details on some page. If you call a paragraph on page 1 "front page coverage" then I guess you have a point. But be honest; this story was buried with a blurb on that page, to make you turn to the make of the section to read the actual details. If the story was about anything else, would that same blurb, in the spot of the page, count as front page coverage to you? Of course not. Honestly
Being in 2 countries, I can say it's the same in all countries. Everyone has a major channel like that, whether you call it democracy or communism or whatever else.
Fox lie? We are kind of use to them spinning the news so much that we watch it for comedy. If only Fox News new that people are laughing at them.
Here ya go. I've made it even simpler for you. The "indepth expose on the terrorist coverage" takes 1.8% of the NYT front page. The cello picture, to the left takes up 11% of the front page. Therefore, cellos are 10x more important to the NYT than a terrorist. Interesting. Think progress needs to rethink this as front page coverage
Whichever way you try and "spin" it there is no doubt FOX News is the worst news channel in the entire world for helping to control the dumb sheeple. It's a complete joke, utterly controlled and 100% sheeple friendly. Ideal for you eh lorien?
So you agreeing with my premise that the NYT didn't actually 'cover' this story on the front page, aren't you? And are now turning it into a general "fox news sucks" thread. If so; that's fine. Just be clear on the original premise being wrong.
I'm dealing with the terrorist supporter Bill O'Reilly mate. We all know Bill is the biggest sheeple controlling mouthpiece FOX News has to offer. O'Reilly gets my vote for being the worst person in America, even worse than the terrorist Bush, because Bush is very dumb and just does what his controllers tell him to do, O'Reilly on the other hand is intelligent, but he supports terrorists like Bush, which makes him far worse in my opinion.
As long as you insist then yes I agree, but I need to see it confirmed on "FOX News - News you can trust" before I believe you.
This could be argued in a couple ways. A quick mention paragraph is not covering the story. The story is covered on page 37. Also be reminded that a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. It is possible that Oreilly didn't know about the small paragraph. He would then be guilty of having bad staff and not checking sources etc. but not lying. But I'll go with the first argument.
A blurb is -not- coverage. A blurb is a way to get people to look at the inner pages of the newspaper. Movie reviews, recipes, etc always appear there. Think progress arguing that a "blurb" - about 30 words long, or less - is coverage is silly. O'Reilly is right here. NYT did not cover that on their front page. Whether its an indicator of bias or anything; who knows. But did they cover it on the front page? Clearly no.
You guys are right, the news has become opinionated and maybe this sounds really really stupid but I have no idea when this all started. Years ago, in news reporting it was considered to be honorable to leave your opinion and personal bias out of your reporting. They would just report the facts, you would never know if they were republican, democrat or other. But now it seems major media sources have become spokepeople for certain political parties and are biased. Maybe it is better to avoid the main media sources altogether and stick with independant news sources that have no other agenda but to give you the facts.
Independent sites have an agenda too. The problem is, is that the audience is so fractured - because of internet, more channels - that you get more extreme views on all the channels, because that's who their audience wants to see. When you had 3 channels delivering the news, you had to present a viewpoint that catered to everyone to get the biggest audience. With all the choices, you have to hit your audience with the extremes to make sure they stay.
Very interesting thanks for that, it makes sense of why things have changed. I still like it the old way though, just to get the facts and then come up with your own conclusion.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid Fox Noobs--worst of a bad lot.
Even Briant agrees with my premise, as he is deflecting the thread into a general "fox sucks" thread. thanks Briant!