That's about the best description I've heard. I saw it a couple of times when I was traveling and the truck stop had a T.V. already on in the dining area. I thought, "Who let those bozos on the air?" Sounded like the director of "Dukes of Hazard" had something to do with the show.
Dukes is another jewel I missed (Thank you, God) cause when it came out I was working nights and didn't watch a lot of T.V. on my days off. I didn't find out about it or Dallas till after the first season of reruns was out. I did like Dallas, but that Dukes was the stupidest show ever on air.
Well Fox "news" is second.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

__________________
http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/

"To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society." --- Theodore Roosevelt

Just out of curiousity, did "Fox News" post these "polls"?
What I'm talking about is real.
It compared Fox News to a variety of other resources.



This whole thread is about THE SOURCE.
If you have "facts", then present them.
Otherwise, quit misconstruing what this is all about...


And that's the lie that some conservatives tell themselves to pretend that it's "Fair and Balanced"...

I find it funny that you just talked about "prove the facts wrong", but then you immediately jump to a sweeping condemnation of liberals as "lying" in their arguments.
Physician. Heal thyself!

What is this, your opinion, right? I got one too. And we don't agree on this or the other B.S. mentioned. Sorry my malware scanner is starting to run, later.

That's the funny thing....conservatives stink up the room, and start blaming liberals as the source. LOL. Oh, well, how's a skunk to know?

My ignorance, indeed, might show, because I can't stomach Fox at all.
A commentator? How rich! He is a self-serving egomaniac who is also a sexual predator.
Tucker Carlson....he got fired from Crossfire, and then his own show was dropped because of bad ratings...so what are you bringing him up for?
Hannity, not only "dug up" those sermons, but he single-handedly "demonized" them by playing them over and over again....

Besides FOX new, there are many more places to get your real news on TV and in text.

I call bullshit on this one. The whole "cut his mic" episode on the Factor was because the guy was being totally out of line and hysterical. Also, if you think that the Factor is hard news, you are obviously confused. Also, Hannity and Colmes is in the same category: they are pundits, not journalists.

My company was started by a former Microsoft employee but that doesn't mean we're all "pro-Microsoft" when it comes to taking legal cases. Your point?

There is a history of more than just "the guy". More than just one.
Here's one with Glick.
Transcript: This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow: February 02, 2003 - February 08, 2003 Archives

There's the transcript.
Kindly show me where he gets "out of line and hysterical"...


No. I'm not confused.
I would never classify them as such. I don't classify a lot of what "Fox News" does as such.
A lot of it DOES come off as "punditry" instead of news reporting...

It's a demonstration of people who ARE from Fox News, who PROCLAIM themselves as "moderate" or "balanced", and showing them for what they really are....


I never said "all" were biased.
My point is that relying on ONE guy who was a Fox News contributor, when the REST of the research points to a clear conclusion that Fox News IS biased, gives a pretty clear picture as to why the ONE guy is saying something else...

On the July 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," claiming that Steinberg's June 28 article on the "ominous trend" in Fox News' ratings was a "hit piece." During the segment, however, Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head. Fox News gave no indication that the photos had been altered.

After putting up the photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe, Fox & Friends also featured a photograph of Steinberg's face superimposed over that of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over that of the man holding the poodle's leash.

Below is a screenshot of Fox & Friends featuring the photo it used of Steinberg, with the original photo on its left. Comparing the two photos, it appears that the following changes have been made: Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further.



Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News and the original photo suggests that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back.

Media Matters - Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Absurdly juvenile behavior on Fox?
Must be a Wednesday...

THIS is the article they were responding to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/ar...on/28rati.html
While a person may not agree with some of the comments made, I see nothing even close to comparable with Fox's juvenile behavior.

In fact, I think this Fox piece is part of the problem the article refers to in the first place...