I apologize and you are right--Fox commentary is bias.

There are millions of people who think like I do. Even Dr.Guy agree that Fox commentary is bias. People like you are becoming the minority.

Maybe you should try critical thinking the other thing is not working so well for you. Both the Dr. and I agree that commentary is biased. All commentary is biased it is not news. Your statement was that the news was biased. Try to Google reading comprehension. Study it. Then re-read what was written.

According to Matt Wells, the Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly patriotic stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is under investigation by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias.
The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.
If the network is found to have breached the ITC's "due impartiality" rules, it could be forced out.
In 1999 the ITC revoked the licence of Med TV, a channel aimed at the Kurdish diaspora, for failing to conform to the impartiality rules.
Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the ITC to act against Fox News: "I'm not in favour of censorship, but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms.
"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."

By this reasoning, we should avoid CNN (Ted Turner), CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC because their owners/CEOs are raving liberals.

So in the order of fairness, watch one of the above, and then Fox and balance the 2.

Somehow, "Obama is the Democrat Nominee apparent" sounds the same on both CNN and Fox. But YMMV.

Look over carefully the fellow who is trying to sell you his way of life and make sure his way is as good as your own.

That is why the MSM is losing viewer and readership. People are tired of being sold their snake oil.

CNN's once dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents. By comparison, the Fox News Channel's believability ratings have remained steady both overall and within partisan groups. Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say that about Fox News Channel (32% vs. 25%).

Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003-2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to some Fox News hosts in order to influence discourse and content. Though it is not uncommon for White House officials to provide press releases to the media, McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news, they were to provide Fox News commentators—not journalists—with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.

You really need to study the topic you wish to discuss or debate. In the UK they have laws that prohibit the news from doing anything more than reporting the facts, the presenter is not allowed to comment in any way or it is biased and can be fined under their laws. With that said when Fox News and American based News organization broadcasted the war they rooted for America to win. This might have violated UK laws. This does not mean that Fox News is biased in their reporting of the news, it means that rooting for your country to win the war is not considered a good thing in the UK.

The reason Fox News was so highly acclaimed was the fact that for once in recent history a news organization was showing the upside of our troops rather than finding a cloud of suspicion and doubt to counter balance any good news. The reports of bad things were reported but equally so were the good things the troops did.



The English translation is if we allow Mr. Murdoch to do to BBC what he did to CNN people will not watch us any more and we can’t compete with the truth without a left lean. CNN is a left leaning biased network and it is not being challenged in the UK but Fox New is. This is how people avoid competition. This is why we got rid of the fairness doctrine in the US and the UK has not.

I guess the UK doesn't air CNN's sister channel where extreme righty Glenn Beck is king.

Mr. Beck, if that is his real name, is not even a republican he is a conservative. How do you justify your claim?

Which all goes to prove my point. Fox is number 1, not for growing viewership, bue due to declines on the other networks. People (mostly non-viewers I suspect) rate CNN higher, but neither gets a good mark. People dont trust them to be honest. Why? Their bias has been exposed and yet they continue to deny it. When someone catches you in a lie, they are a lot less likely to believe you. The MSM has been lying a long time.

Why is talk radio so popular? They state up front they are biased! So people trust them to give a biased view of the news. And they get what they expect.



Actually he claims to be a libertarian, if that is his real persuasion.

Contempt prior to examination is the major weakness of most thinking.

If you don’t know, have the courage to admit it and you will be well on the road toward learning.

A prudent individual knows that it is futile to resist change.

But Don Quixote was more about human nature than one man.

Do you wish to elucidate on this statement?



Okay, I fail to see the relevance could you please communicate in a way that does not make it seem as if you have lost touch with the topic?



I also fail to see the relevance here. Fox News Channel is changing the way news is reported yet you are against this change. Did I misunderstand what you wrote or is this a liberal way of gracefully bowing out of the discussion?

Well, if you have contempt for someone or something, you have a tendency to disregard the truth and are more willing to lean toward bias opinions and propaganda.

Oh, come now! Conservatives vote Republican despite their disappointment over Bush and MAC.

Thanks, now I know why I can't stand O'Reilly and Beck.  

Okay I understand now, thank you. I agree with you. I debated a person for a while until I found out that he lied about his background. From that point on I could not discuss any topic because I did not trust him anymore. I don’t know about leaning towards biased opinion or propaganda but if the person who is taking the other side has been making stuff up just to make points rather than an honest mistake why would you want to listen to the person? It all becomes and issue of integrity. If you honestly believe your point is correct that is fine with me. If you are shown that your point is incorrect and still cling to that point then you are intellectually dishonest. When you make up things to support your incorrect position, then you are untrustworthy and a waste of time. Sure they may be telling the truth on another point but having proven a liar why take the chance.



I don’t know who MAC is. Conservatives vote for the one that most closely represents their thinking. We knew Mr. Bush was a liberal just like his father but he got the votes because the alternative was worse. Conservatives will not support someone that does not at least respect our views. Look at what happened to President George H. Bush, he was too liberal and we ended up with Mr. Clinton. Then the choice was Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush and we dove for cover and voted for Mr. Bush. He was not as bad as we feared but still a liberal.

Oh, he was bad! Don't keep pulling the wool over your eyes. As for calling either Bush liberal is ridiculous, especially the son. Raising taxes[read my lips] or spending[for a war and 9/11] does not make one liberal.

This part did not bother me, it was an obvious liberal trap and the president fell into it. He was going to get most of what he wanted if he allowed a modest tax hike. I see the logic behind it. I was surprised that the trap worked so well. It did not work on Mr. Reagan because he did not try to promise what he might have to back down on. He like Mr. Bush did the best he could and got as much as he could. It was not the read my lips thing that got conservatives upset it was the other things he did or didn’t do like finish the war in Iraq. Read my lips was a red herring that the liberal democrats thought worked and it may have on their side but not with conservatives. Remember we did not want him as president in the first place but he was all we had after Mr. Reagan left office. We hoped he would not be so liberal but he could not go against his nature and people were not inspired to vote for him. We knew Mr. Clinton was a dirt bag and no one wanted either as president. Remember in both elections Mr. Clinton never even got 50% of the vote. Mr. Bush 43 on the other hand had Mr. Gore as an opponent and no one wanted that on my side and a lot of the democrats did not want him either. For the last election it was not even a hint who the people trusted out of the two choices we had.



That does not bother me either. It is the growth of the federal government that I don’t like. I am an employee of a sorts for the feds and I still don’t like the size of our government.

The elder I can easily see. He is from the New England wing of the Republican party, and for the most part, they are liberal (Chafee and Jeffords anyone??). Moderate would probably be closer to the truth (althoug while anyone right of Kerry looks conservative to liberals, anyone left of Hagel looks liberal to conservatives).

Bush Jr, was a solid moderate. Some conservative, some liberal. Over all, a C- in both camps (for the ones not consumed by hate).



It did me. for 2 reasons - that he made such a strong statement, and then broke his promise. And that he was so stupid as to fall for the liberal trap. It is not like they have not tried that line before - many times.

Dr. remember president Reagan? He got the tax cuts passed because he was willing to let the democrats have some of what they wanted. What they wanted was to kill the tax cuts. Mr. Reagan got 50% of what he wanted and in his mind brought him 50% closer to his goal. Mr. Bush said no new taxes, the democrats gave him 75% of what he wanted it was a good deal for America bad for him politically. He put the nation above himself.