Fox still does not admit Geraldo is off the air. But he has not been seen for over two days. Something about he is going to have a long report later. Would that mean they shut him up. Geraldo had to buy in or he would have jumbed ship like he did last year. Fox beats the chit out of anyone else from any network not just NBC. But seems to forget about this fair and balanced stuff when they have a screw up. I think all media should eat there words when wrong.
Fox Geraldo Rivera
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
Fox has no integrity whats so ever. This Geraldo thing just proves it. They said yesterday that there was not a problem. They are not fair and balanced. They are not even Republican. They are Conservative Republican only. They even villanized McCain when he was running against Bush. Now they use him as a spokesman. That news channel is a disgrace to journalism. It is the type of news station that we are fighting to rid Iraq of.
dude Geraldo is a liberal.....if FOX was so conservative then why would they hang on to a liberal?
That is my point Six-Five they dissed him then because they were supporting the other candidate.
Geraldo is a liberal???? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is funny. At best he is a hired gun. He swings whichever way the wind blows.
Geraldo is a liberal???? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Now that is funny. At best he is a hired gun. He swings whichever way the wind blows.
Last edited:
geraldo is like
geraldo is like
dick morris,william crystol and arrianna huffington......even they don`t have a clue who they are or what ideology they represent.....whichever way the wind blows.....whatever opportunity presents itself.....hard to put much credence in their positions...
geraldo is like
dick morris,william crystol and arrianna huffington......even they don`t have a clue who they are or what ideology they represent.....whichever way the wind blows.....whatever opportunity presents itself.....hard to put much credence in their positions...
dr. freeze said:
FOX's "liberal" personalities are somewhat dubious people. I mean, Geraldo and Dick Morris? C'mon, these guys have some serious credibility issues to begin with. Alan Colmes, the former stand-up comedian, looks like a geek sitting next to the preppy looking and photogenic Sean Hannity. Mort Kondracke is a right leaning Democrat. Juan Williams, yeah, he's liberal. Mara Liasson sits on the board of the conservative Freedom House organization.
But FOX consistently airs "CONSERVATIVE" points of view in its commentaries and analysis. That's no surprise given that their most prominent personalites have conservative ties:
It all starts from the top. ROGER AILES, FOX News Channel's Chairman, is a longtime Republican political operative. He worked in the Nixon and Reagan campaigns, and was the top media advisor to the successful 1988 Bush presidential campaign. He also produced Rush Limbaugh's TV show.
Managing editor BRIT HUME has contributed to conservative pubs Weekly Standard and American Spectator.
FOX News Sunday host TONY SNOW was a frequent guest host on the Rush Limbaugh TV show. He's a conservative columnist, and in 1996 while working for FOX, actually endorsed Bob Dole for President in the Rising Tide Republican Nat'l Committee magazine.
Self-described "humble correspondent" BILL O' REILLY, who has always eschewed party affilitation, was revealed in 2000 to have been a registered Republican after all. He's a frequent contributor to the unabashedly conservative e-zine WorldNet Daily.
DAVID ASMAN (who I actually like the most) was on the admitted right-leaning editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and a member of the conservative Manhattan Institute.
In 2001, Jeff Cohen's Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) media watchdog group did a study of the type of guests who appeared on FOX News Channel's flagship show, Special Report, and concluded that a good majority of them were conservatives:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html
Keep in mind that I'm an independent who voted for George W. Bush and support this war. Just trying to shed some light on FOX News and its tilt to the conservative side.
Gecko, I am glad that you, for one, can admit to being a Republican and can atest to the fact that Fox News is slanted to the right. That does not mean that other networks are not slanted one way or the other but for sure Fox is.
Thank you for that elegant description.
Thank you for that elegant description.
ok then name the conservatives on the other stations.....
hmmm....old man Bob Novak and whats her names kid....
Brokaw, Jennings, Rather all liberals....and everone who anchors CNN other than Paula Zahn who i cant tell where she comes from
hmmm....old man Bob Novak and whats her names kid....
Brokaw, Jennings, Rather all liberals....and everone who anchors CNN other than Paula Zahn who i cant tell where she comes from
Guys my only point was. If you can thro chit you better be able to eat your own chit. All media. But Fox Ducks the best. Maybe they should get a pat onthe back for that. Today with Colin Powel visiting Turkey we are reminded why Turkey had a tough time helping us. There people are 89% against this war. If the fealing is that high against. Well we need to honor that. I saw the report on all three networks. None were called Fox. They should give both sides. It would help folks to know this to understand why.
Instead they dont report it any many people who only watch Fox would love to kill everyone from Turkey. Including many here and that was me to. Then I, as they say got the rest of the story. Some place else.
Instead they dont report it any many people who only watch Fox would love to kill everyone from Turkey. Including many here and that was me to. Then I, as they say got the rest of the story. Some place else.
Listen, I never said I was a Republican. I did vote for GWB, but I'm an INDEPENDENT! 
FOX just does a good job (obvious to many) of coloring some of its news and much of its commentary with conservative points of view. Heck, even the Fox & Friends morning show is rah-rah when it comes to it, even more so than the other shows. It's entertaining to watch but I just think it does a disservice to the news profession.
My point was that there are prominent FOX News employees who have had strong, documented affilations with the conservative movement and/or Republican party. That lends credibility to the argument that FOX leans to the right.
Dr. Freeze, most people subscribe to some kind of political ideology. That's human nature. You and I know Dan Rather made a speech at a liberal organization a few years ago, but then so has Tony Snow and Bill O' Reilly, at the conservative David Horowitz gatherings. So instead of making a blanket statement about America's mass media, can you dig up specific information linking them to liberal organizations or the Democratic party? You might be glad ya did.
FOX just does a good job (obvious to many) of coloring some of its news and much of its commentary with conservative points of view. Heck, even the Fox & Friends morning show is rah-rah when it comes to it, even more so than the other shows. It's entertaining to watch but I just think it does a disservice to the news profession.
My point was that there are prominent FOX News employees who have had strong, documented affilations with the conservative movement and/or Republican party. That lends credibility to the argument that FOX leans to the right.
Dr. Freeze, most people subscribe to some kind of political ideology. That's human nature. You and I know Dan Rather made a speech at a liberal organization a few years ago, but then so has Tony Snow and Bill O' Reilly, at the conservative David Horowitz gatherings. So instead of making a blanket statement about America's mass media, can you dig up specific information linking them to liberal organizations or the Democratic party? You might be glad ya did.
a few years back a survey was done at major news organizations and over 90% were registered dem's....
agreed 6-5....AM radio obviously conservative....
just dont understand why left can't admit that newspaper (majoritiy) and TV aren't left
just dont understand why left can't admit that newspaper (majoritiy) and TV aren't left
freeze,
In 1992, the Freedom Forum did a survey of some 320 journalists who in some way covered Capitol Hill. Of those 320 surveys, only 130 were returned. Of those it was found that 90% had voted for Bill Clinton over President Bush.
So did that reinforce the lonstanding accusation that the press was "liberal"? The conservative Washington Times jumped on the response as proof of a liberal bias in the news media. Right-wing press critic Brent Bozell did the same and soon the result echoed through conservative radio talk shows. The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz took it as conclusive proof of a liberal media bias, too.
But obviously, that survey had a serious flaw. The sample size was not nearly large enough to be meaningful. And of course, the fact that they had voted for Clinton didn't necessarily mean they were Democrats or liberal.
And here's the kicker: (flawed methodology)
According to the Roper Center, the polling firm that handled the Freedom Forum's data, the list of news organizations which the survey was sent out to was indeed spread out over the U.S. But it was not what many would expect when they think about the Washington news media. Major national media outlets were represented, but not in very high numbers. Only 60 questionnaires (less than 20%) had gone to the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, US News, the Associated Press and Reuters.
The bulk of those surveyed were regional daily newspapers, such as the Modesto Bee, Boston Globe, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Richmond Times Dispatch and San Jose Mercury News. News services for newspaper chains, such as Knight-Ridder and Newhouse News Service, were included, too.
But more than 80 of the newspapers were much smaller, often with only one reporter or "bureau chief" in Washington. One questionnaire went to the 58,000-circulation Green Bay Press-Gazette, for instance. Another went to the 27,000-circulation Sheboygan Press. Also on the list were the Mississippi Press, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Idaho Statesman, Thibodaux Daily Comet, Hemet News and many other newspapers that are not normally counted as part of "the national news media." Other publications receiving the survey were even smaller and more obscure, such as Indian Country Today, El Pregonero, Senior Advocate, Small Newspaper Group, Washington Citizen, Washington Blade and Government Standard.
So to conclude that this survey proved that the mass media was liberal would be misguided and simply not true.
In 1992, the Freedom Forum did a survey of some 320 journalists who in some way covered Capitol Hill. Of those 320 surveys, only 130 were returned. Of those it was found that 90% had voted for Bill Clinton over President Bush.
So did that reinforce the lonstanding accusation that the press was "liberal"? The conservative Washington Times jumped on the response as proof of a liberal bias in the news media. Right-wing press critic Brent Bozell did the same and soon the result echoed through conservative radio talk shows. The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz took it as conclusive proof of a liberal media bias, too.
But obviously, that survey had a serious flaw. The sample size was not nearly large enough to be meaningful. And of course, the fact that they had voted for Clinton didn't necessarily mean they were Democrats or liberal.
And here's the kicker: (flawed methodology)
According to the Roper Center, the polling firm that handled the Freedom Forum's data, the list of news organizations which the survey was sent out to was indeed spread out over the U.S. But it was not what many would expect when they think about the Washington news media. Major national media outlets were represented, but not in very high numbers. Only 60 questionnaires (less than 20%) had gone to the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, US News, the Associated Press and Reuters.
The bulk of those surveyed were regional daily newspapers, such as the Modesto Bee, Boston Globe, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Richmond Times Dispatch and San Jose Mercury News. News services for newspaper chains, such as Knight-Ridder and Newhouse News Service, were included, too.
But more than 80 of the newspapers were much smaller, often with only one reporter or "bureau chief" in Washington. One questionnaire went to the 58,000-circulation Green Bay Press-Gazette, for instance. Another went to the 27,000-circulation Sheboygan Press. Also on the list were the Mississippi Press, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Idaho Statesman, Thibodaux Daily Comet, Hemet News and many other newspapers that are not normally counted as part of "the national news media." Other publications receiving the survey were even smaller and more obscure, such as Indian Country Today, El Pregonero, Senior Advocate, Small Newspaper Group, Washington Citizen, Washington Blade and Government Standard.
So to conclude that this survey proved that the mass media was liberal would be misguided and simply not true.
Last edited:
If you look at the 'history' of the current ownership of Fox, you're inclined to better understand their slant on things. Remember Newt Gingrich (sp) the Republican Georgia senator that was the leader of the senate that caused quite a stir years ago with the book deal? The book he wrote was just a ordinary history book with no particular ground shaking insights. However, Newt got an advance of about 10 times what he should have received from a book of this nature. The book publisher that advanced this huge sum to Newt was one of Rupert Murdoch's wholly owned subsidiaries.
At that time there was federal legislation that limited foreign ownership of certain forms of business enterprizes in the U.S. (tv, radio stations and newspapers) Later that year or the next year, it was coming up for closer examination and possible amendment. It's passing eventually allowed Murdoch to operate as he does today with his business ventures in the U.S. (aquiring fox). The advance on the book was viewed by both parties as an attempt to influence Newt Gingrich on this upcoming legislation. One can only wonder how many more palms were greased behind closed doors as Rupert showed he was more than willing to do so to get the amendment passed.
Murdoch has since built this Republican conservative propaganda machine he's successfully disguised as Fox's views on things.
At that time there was federal legislation that limited foreign ownership of certain forms of business enterprizes in the U.S. (tv, radio stations and newspapers) Later that year or the next year, it was coming up for closer examination and possible amendment. It's passing eventually allowed Murdoch to operate as he does today with his business ventures in the U.S. (aquiring fox). The advance on the book was viewed by both parties as an attempt to influence Newt Gingrich on this upcoming legislation. One can only wonder how many more palms were greased behind closed doors as Rupert showed he was more than willing to do so to get the amendment passed.
Murdoch has since built this Republican conservative propaganda machine he's successfully disguised as Fox's views on things.
Last edited:
Fox News -- "asking the questions the other guys aren't dumb enough to ask."
Fox News -- "asking the questions the other guys aren't dumb enough to ask."
You guys can call newspapers and TV liberal all you want but there's just no comparison to what FOX News is doing with this war.
Washington Post (liberal) headlines from today.
'She Was Fighting to the Death': Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier's Capture and Rescue (Post, April 3, 2003)
Blair's Policies Driven By International Vision (Post, April 3, 2003)
Jubilant Crowds Greet Troops Near Shrine: As Firefights Continue, U.S. Soldiers Push Closer to Center of City (Post, April 3, 2003)
British Use Raids to Wear Down Iraqi Fighters (Post, April 3, 2003)
U.S., Allies Clash Over Plan to Use Iraqi Oil Profits for Rebuilding (Post, April 3, 2003)
And from the New York Times (also liberal)...
U.S. Guard Face Little Resistance En Route to Capital
U.S. Army Helicopter Shot Down; 7 Killed
Is Hussein Still Alive? Speculation Intensifies
Rescue in Iraq and a 'Big Stir' in West Virginia
Iraqi Shadow Government Cools Its Heels in Kuwait
Iraq Shows Casualties in Hospital
These are news stories, mixed in with some personal interest stories. FOX News might as well be a recruiting video for the US army -- flags waving, slamming protestors, telling you just want you want to hear. It's not a news station, it's a propaganda vehicle, and they're proud of it.
Here's an article by the Baltimore Sun's television critic that appeard in yesterday's paper. Note how in the anecdote told, Cavuto chooses not to address the issues raised, but instead just wants to attack the person who said them and steer the discussion towards tangential issues (e.g doesn't actually want to discuss his bias, but would rather just point out you can't do it in Iraq. DUH!). The similarities to certain posters around here should be obvious.
Here's the article.
Obnoxious, pontificating jerk." "Self-absorbed, condescending imbecile." "Ivy League intellectual Lilliputian."
These were among the choice phrases deployed by Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto Friday to rebut criticism that the anchor had abandoned objectivity for overt nationalism on the air.
The complaint was made in a letter written to the network by a journalism professor who Cavuto didn't further identify.
"There is nothing wrong with taking sides here, professor," Cavuto said during his show. "You see no difference between a government that oppresses people, and one that does not, but I do."
Taken as a whole, the anchor's jeremiad neatly defines the tone of Fox News at war: It is patriotic, it is pugilistic, and it takes things personally.
Shrimp's note: jeremiad = A literary work or speech expressing a bitter lament or a righteous prophecy of doom. (I had to look it up).
As the invasion of Iraq unfolds, this visceral approach has become more the rule than the exception at Fox News. Always presented as an alternative to the rest of the establishment press, Fox has switched into even higher gear, encouraging a resolutely pro-American, sometimes explicitly pro-war stance.
Almost every Fox News program includes a flag in the left-hand corner and the use of the Defense Department's name for the war - "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - as the network's own catchphrase for its coverage. The United States quickly becomes "our" in reporters' parlance.
Those elements aren't so different from what can be found elsewhere. American media outlets report U.S. casualties with far greater urgency than those of Iraqis. Correspondents proudly express their affinity for the military units with which they are traveling. MSNBC flies its own flag in one corner of its screen.
But Fox News exudes patriotism to a far greater degree. Nationalism pervades the remarks of Fox's reporters and anchors, not just its commentators. And that tone has played well. Fox News' ratings continue above those of its cable competitors, notably CNN. Through a spokesman, Fox executives declined to be interviewed.
Founded in 1996 by media magnate Rupert Murdoch, Fox News has a core of capable reporters, such as Jim Angle at the White House, Major Garrett covering the Pentagon, Rick Leventhal, currently reporting from Iraq, and Brit Hume, the channel's Washington managing editor. Under the leadership of Roger Ailes, the channel has strong appeal for those who find the media too elitist or liberal.
"As a ferocious news consumer, I like watching the Fox News network a lot," says Kent S. Collins, broadcast chairman of the University of Missouri's journalism school.
Even so, Collins says he seeks out other news accounts to make sure he's getting the full picture. "I would not want to see the world only through the Fox News network," he says.
War correspondents
On Monday, Peter Arnett's remarks on Iraqi television that praised the resolve of Saddam Hussein's troops drew criticism from Fox News media critic Eric Burns, among others. NBC fired Arnett after the incident.
Fox anchor David Asman pressed Burns. "Aiding enemy propaganda?" Asman asked. "You don't think that's traitorous?" Burns demurred.
Fox News pounced on the Arnett episode with glee and focused on several stories with the common theme of anti-Americanism. Fox gave extensive coverage to remarks by a Columbia University anthropology professor who seemed to want American deaths and defeat. During an anti-war demonstration in midtown Manhattan last week, the Fox News ticker switched from headlines to taunts aimed at the protesters.
Yesterday, the network's morning anchors encouraged viewers to send in pictures of their families showing support for the troops and the war effort. "There are so many pictures of protesters out there," said Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy. "We want to show pictures of pro-Americans."
War correspondent Geraldo Rivera, adopting the rhetoric of the Bush administration, referred to Saddam Hussein as "the Iraqi Hitler." While interviewing an army major, Rivera asked about graffiti apparently written by U.S. troops in a captured Iraqi bunker: "When people read things like 'My foot is up your rear end,' how do they respond?"
The major, looking sheepish, said, "I don't know who wrote that," prompting Rivera's quick retort: "I would have written it." Fox News said yesterday that it would withdraw Rivera from Iraq after U.S. military officials said his stories jeopardized troop security.
Fox also features Oliver North, the former Marine lieutenant colonel turned talk show host whose role in the Iran-Contra scandal made him a hero to many conservatives. North is accompanying a Marine unit inside Iraq and he appears bent on rebutting any reports that the invasion has not proceeded as planned.
On Monday night, North volunteered, "I say General [Tommy] Franks should be commended - that's a U.S. Marine saying that about an Army general." North interviewed a Marine yesterday morning to "give the lie to some of those stories back home" about disrupted military supply lines.
Although he files reports that look in form much like those of other "embedded" correspondents, North is considered a commentator, a Fox spokeswoman said. She compared him to the former military officials who appear from network studios.
A slanted tone
Fox's Leventhal, traveling with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 1st Marine Division within Iraq, was one of the reporters with stories this week about military units running low on meals and other supplies.
The network has 10 teams of reporters and camera operators integrated into U.S. military units and others scattered around the Persian Gulf. CNN has far more, with more than 200 journalists in the Persian Gulf region. But Fox seems to delight in doing more with less - not least because of the sharper tone Fox adopts in selecting and presenting the news.
"I look at it the way I look at the European newspapers," says University of Maryland journalism professor Christopher Hanson, who covered the 1991 gulf war for Hearst newspapers. "The slant tends to be much more pronounced."
Cavuto put his approach this way in his reply to his critic: "So am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet I am, professor. I'm more in favor of a system that lets me say what I'm saying here rather than one who would be killing me for doing the same thing over there ...
"You say I wear my biases on my sleeve? Better that than pretend you have none, but show them clearly in your work."
Fox News -- "asking the questions the other guys aren't dumb enough to ask."
You guys can call newspapers and TV liberal all you want but there's just no comparison to what FOX News is doing with this war.
Washington Post (liberal) headlines from today.
'She Was Fighting to the Death': Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier's Capture and Rescue (Post, April 3, 2003)
Blair's Policies Driven By International Vision (Post, April 3, 2003)
Jubilant Crowds Greet Troops Near Shrine: As Firefights Continue, U.S. Soldiers Push Closer to Center of City (Post, April 3, 2003)
British Use Raids to Wear Down Iraqi Fighters (Post, April 3, 2003)
U.S., Allies Clash Over Plan to Use Iraqi Oil Profits for Rebuilding (Post, April 3, 2003)
And from the New York Times (also liberal)...
U.S. Guard Face Little Resistance En Route to Capital
U.S. Army Helicopter Shot Down; 7 Killed
Is Hussein Still Alive? Speculation Intensifies
Rescue in Iraq and a 'Big Stir' in West Virginia
Iraqi Shadow Government Cools Its Heels in Kuwait
Iraq Shows Casualties in Hospital
These are news stories, mixed in with some personal interest stories. FOX News might as well be a recruiting video for the US army -- flags waving, slamming protestors, telling you just want you want to hear. It's not a news station, it's a propaganda vehicle, and they're proud of it.
Here's an article by the Baltimore Sun's television critic that appeard in yesterday's paper. Note how in the anecdote told, Cavuto chooses not to address the issues raised, but instead just wants to attack the person who said them and steer the discussion towards tangential issues (e.g doesn't actually want to discuss his bias, but would rather just point out you can't do it in Iraq. DUH!). The similarities to certain posters around here should be obvious.
Here's the article.
Obnoxious, pontificating jerk." "Self-absorbed, condescending imbecile." "Ivy League intellectual Lilliputian."
These were among the choice phrases deployed by Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto Friday to rebut criticism that the anchor had abandoned objectivity for overt nationalism on the air.
The complaint was made in a letter written to the network by a journalism professor who Cavuto didn't further identify.
"There is nothing wrong with taking sides here, professor," Cavuto said during his show. "You see no difference between a government that oppresses people, and one that does not, but I do."
Taken as a whole, the anchor's jeremiad neatly defines the tone of Fox News at war: It is patriotic, it is pugilistic, and it takes things personally.
Shrimp's note: jeremiad = A literary work or speech expressing a bitter lament or a righteous prophecy of doom. (I had to look it up).
As the invasion of Iraq unfolds, this visceral approach has become more the rule than the exception at Fox News. Always presented as an alternative to the rest of the establishment press, Fox has switched into even higher gear, encouraging a resolutely pro-American, sometimes explicitly pro-war stance.
Almost every Fox News program includes a flag in the left-hand corner and the use of the Defense Department's name for the war - "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - as the network's own catchphrase for its coverage. The United States quickly becomes "our" in reporters' parlance.
Those elements aren't so different from what can be found elsewhere. American media outlets report U.S. casualties with far greater urgency than those of Iraqis. Correspondents proudly express their affinity for the military units with which they are traveling. MSNBC flies its own flag in one corner of its screen.
But Fox News exudes patriotism to a far greater degree. Nationalism pervades the remarks of Fox's reporters and anchors, not just its commentators. And that tone has played well. Fox News' ratings continue above those of its cable competitors, notably CNN. Through a spokesman, Fox executives declined to be interviewed.
Founded in 1996 by media magnate Rupert Murdoch, Fox News has a core of capable reporters, such as Jim Angle at the White House, Major Garrett covering the Pentagon, Rick Leventhal, currently reporting from Iraq, and Brit Hume, the channel's Washington managing editor. Under the leadership of Roger Ailes, the channel has strong appeal for those who find the media too elitist or liberal.
"As a ferocious news consumer, I like watching the Fox News network a lot," says Kent S. Collins, broadcast chairman of the University of Missouri's journalism school.
Even so, Collins says he seeks out other news accounts to make sure he's getting the full picture. "I would not want to see the world only through the Fox News network," he says.
War correspondents
On Monday, Peter Arnett's remarks on Iraqi television that praised the resolve of Saddam Hussein's troops drew criticism from Fox News media critic Eric Burns, among others. NBC fired Arnett after the incident.
Fox anchor David Asman pressed Burns. "Aiding enemy propaganda?" Asman asked. "You don't think that's traitorous?" Burns demurred.
Fox News pounced on the Arnett episode with glee and focused on several stories with the common theme of anti-Americanism. Fox gave extensive coverage to remarks by a Columbia University anthropology professor who seemed to want American deaths and defeat. During an anti-war demonstration in midtown Manhattan last week, the Fox News ticker switched from headlines to taunts aimed at the protesters.
Yesterday, the network's morning anchors encouraged viewers to send in pictures of their families showing support for the troops and the war effort. "There are so many pictures of protesters out there," said Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy. "We want to show pictures of pro-Americans."
War correspondent Geraldo Rivera, adopting the rhetoric of the Bush administration, referred to Saddam Hussein as "the Iraqi Hitler." While interviewing an army major, Rivera asked about graffiti apparently written by U.S. troops in a captured Iraqi bunker: "When people read things like 'My foot is up your rear end,' how do they respond?"
The major, looking sheepish, said, "I don't know who wrote that," prompting Rivera's quick retort: "I would have written it." Fox News said yesterday that it would withdraw Rivera from Iraq after U.S. military officials said his stories jeopardized troop security.
Fox also features Oliver North, the former Marine lieutenant colonel turned talk show host whose role in the Iran-Contra scandal made him a hero to many conservatives. North is accompanying a Marine unit inside Iraq and he appears bent on rebutting any reports that the invasion has not proceeded as planned.
On Monday night, North volunteered, "I say General [Tommy] Franks should be commended - that's a U.S. Marine saying that about an Army general." North interviewed a Marine yesterday morning to "give the lie to some of those stories back home" about disrupted military supply lines.
Although he files reports that look in form much like those of other "embedded" correspondents, North is considered a commentator, a Fox spokeswoman said. She compared him to the former military officials who appear from network studios.
A slanted tone
Fox's Leventhal, traveling with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 1st Marine Division within Iraq, was one of the reporters with stories this week about military units running low on meals and other supplies.
The network has 10 teams of reporters and camera operators integrated into U.S. military units and others scattered around the Persian Gulf. CNN has far more, with more than 200 journalists in the Persian Gulf region. But Fox seems to delight in doing more with less - not least because of the sharper tone Fox adopts in selecting and presenting the news.
"I look at it the way I look at the European newspapers," says University of Maryland journalism professor Christopher Hanson, who covered the 1991 gulf war for Hearst newspapers. "The slant tends to be much more pronounced."
Cavuto put his approach this way in his reply to his critic: "So am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet I am, professor. I'm more in favor of a system that lets me say what I'm saying here rather than one who would be killing me for doing the same thing over there ...
"You say I wear my biases on my sleeve? Better that than pretend you have none, but show them clearly in your work."
actually, Dr. Freeze, I was referring to NPR (National Public Radio) which is wholly liberal with the likes of Chokie Roberts. The AM radio feed in your area may lean conservative, but there are also plenty from the left in that area as well. I get GG Liddy, Rush, and O'Reilly here during the week, but the weekend shows are pretty liberal based.
yeah NPR is a joke.....they NEVER EVER have any conservative coherency on it....
best guy i listen to is Michael Savage
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
TheShrimp....i'm sorry we dont have a network that "cheers" for Hussein Regime that you could follow
I don't think its wrong for an American Flag to be flowing on my television.....I, along with many of my countrymen, love that flag and my country....
I dont think its wrong to call a guy who tortures and mutilates his people "Hitler"
a story came out today on the radio....a 19 year kid was an Iraqi POW.....he was wounded in battle....was forced out of his college dormitory and placed in between the ruling BAATH party and the US forces and given a gun.....well, as we were taking him into a tent the kid was screaming and kicking.....you see, he thought he was going into a torture tent.....well, after an hour or so of surgery.....he was seen by the same soldier smiling and gleefully referring to his surgeon as "Doc".....
TheShrimp.....these stories of torture and such are NOT "bias"....the are the TRUTH....they demonstrate that the Iraqi people is HAPPY that we are there and that we have NO IDEA the atrocities that Hussein does to his people.....yet you "enlightened" people seem to think that this way of life is no worse than ours -- after all, who are we to judge what life is better? (i know the liberal mindset by now and can figure out what your next response will be).......
YES our anchors are FOR THE UNITED STATES and if some idiot professor who has never had a real job in the real world wants to see someone cheering for the Iraqi's and wants there to be another 1000 Mogidishu's.....well he can take his ass and go to Mogidishu and live as far as i am concerned
best guy i listen to is Michael Savage
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
TheShrimp....i'm sorry we dont have a network that "cheers" for Hussein Regime that you could follow
I don't think its wrong for an American Flag to be flowing on my television.....I, along with many of my countrymen, love that flag and my country....
I dont think its wrong to call a guy who tortures and mutilates his people "Hitler"
a story came out today on the radio....a 19 year kid was an Iraqi POW.....he was wounded in battle....was forced out of his college dormitory and placed in between the ruling BAATH party and the US forces and given a gun.....well, as we were taking him into a tent the kid was screaming and kicking.....you see, he thought he was going into a torture tent.....well, after an hour or so of surgery.....he was seen by the same soldier smiling and gleefully referring to his surgeon as "Doc".....
TheShrimp.....these stories of torture and such are NOT "bias"....the are the TRUTH....they demonstrate that the Iraqi people is HAPPY that we are there and that we have NO IDEA the atrocities that Hussein does to his people.....yet you "enlightened" people seem to think that this way of life is no worse than ours -- after all, who are we to judge what life is better? (i know the liberal mindset by now and can figure out what your next response will be).......
YES our anchors are FOR THE UNITED STATES and if some idiot professor who has never had a real job in the real world wants to see someone cheering for the Iraqi's and wants there to be another 1000 Mogidishu's.....well he can take his ass and go to Mogidishu and live as far as i am concerned
