Why Isn't Fox News Offered On True Ubc?

[garro]

Before Murdoch came along it was hard to notice the big 4 were all leftist.

Yes FNC is Amerocentric. It's the reason I like it. CNN makes me ill.

What's the most endangered species on CNN? White American males. LOL.

What in the world are you talking about? Three of the most popular personalities on (US domestic) CNN are Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Nancy Grace; all ultra conservatives. During the election coverage CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer went back and forth between a panel of Democrat supporters and a panel of Republican supporters asking the same questions to both groups. Neither received any more airtime than the other. Both groups remained civil to one another and discussed the results intelligently. So just what is it about CNN that gives you the impression that they are so liberal? Maybe they need to pick up that dope head high school drop out Rush Limbaugh to balance things out. Rush is after all the spokesman for every trailer-dwelling, Wal-Mart shopping, uneducated retard who ever loved his Mama, his guns, his television evangelist, and his crystal meth. Now there's an intelligent conservative all us Americans can be proud of. JFHC! give us a break.

\

Can the mods please remove this flame?

I like Rush but I'm not a retard.

I am a conservative - ergo I am opposed to the mulatto's promise to hand out tax payer funded abortion to all comers - including under age girls who do not have to inform their parents.

I am not sure that somebody who posted the following <deleted> should be in any position to whinge about what posts should be removed on the forum.

What's the most endangered species on CNN? White American males. LOL

[dotcom]

Haven't you made enough enemies over on that PC thread?

I was making a joke. Way over your level of comprehension.

[Groongthep]

I like Rush but I'm not a retard.

Are you sure? The latest Fox News/Gallup Poll has found that 95% of retards prefer Rush Limbaugh over an ice cream cone to the forehead.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Groongthep

[garro]

Haven't you made enough enemies over on that PC thread?

I was making a joke. Way over your level of comprehension.

Yes of course you're right, your level of humour is far too sophisticated for me.

Enemies, eh. I'll need to watch my back and hope that they don't share your cunning level of comprehension.

[nikster]

Have you ever met someone who thought that the fights on the WWF (World Wide Wrestling) are real rather than just for show? I have - it's impossible to discuss the WWF with them.

Same for FOX news. Some people believe these are actual news, and nothing can convince them otherwise. Once you've bought it's actual news rather than a nefarious propaganda channel pushing its own agenda, you'll probably also buy that they are "fair". In reality they can't be fair. Aside from its "news", FOX also relentlessly indoctrinates its viewers on the first line of defense against heretics: They are left wing liberals, probably European, or worse, French. Foxies buy it hook, line, and sinker - it provides for a rather large viewership. It's the Televangelist of Television.

That CNN at some point decided to be a mini-me version of Fox only helps the cause. Whenever I see CNN I get the feeling their motto is "We are FOX news, only not so extreme". That's a strategy that is guaranteed to fail (and makes for some terrible TV, too).

BBC Thailand is amazingly boring but I have been told by English people it's much better back home. I'll take their word for it ...

Somewhat ironically, Al Jazeera seems to have adopted the original CNN's philosophy. I happened upon it randomly in some hotels, didn't know what it was, and found myself surprised that there are still real news channels around. It's still TV so they can only do so much but - good effort.

It's not all bad though - here is why I *love* FOX news and the whole retarded brigade of "conservative, flag-waving, ranting" talk show hosts: The Colbert Report. Thank you FOX!

[Naam]

I like Rush but I'm not a retard.

prove it!

[garro]

Have you ever met someone who thought that the fights on the WWF (World Wide Wrestling) are real rather than just for show? I have - it's impossible to discuss the WWF with them.

Same for FOX news. Some people believe these are actual news, and nothing can convince them otherwise. Once you've bought it's actual news rather than a nefarious propaganda channel pushing its own agenda, you'll probably also buy that they are "fair". In reality they can't be fair. Aside from its "news", FOX also relentlessly indoctrinates its viewers on the first line of defense against heretics: They are left wing liberals, probably European, or worse, French. Foxies buy it hook, line, and sinker - it provides for a rather large viewership. It's the Televangelist of Television.

That CNN at some point decided to be a mini-me version of Fox only helps the cause. Whenever I see CNN I get the feeling their motto is "We are FOX news, only not so extreme". That's a strategy that is guaranteed to fail (and makes for some terrible TV, too).

BBC Thailand is amazingly boring but I have been told by English people it's much better back home. I'll take their word for it ...

Somewhat ironically, Al Jazeera seems to have adopted the original CNN's philosophy. I happened upon it randomly in some hotels, didn't know what it was, and found myself surprised that there are still real news channels around. It's still TV so they can only do so much but - good effort.

It's not all bad though - here is why I *love* FOX news and the whole retarded brigade of "conservative, flag-waving, ranting" talk show hosts: The Colbert Report. Thank you FOX!

I agree with a lot of what you say.

The one thing that I have noticed on this thread is that there seems to be many complaints about style issues in news presenting on different channels. Since when did news reporting become overtaken by the need to be entertaining? Why have news reporters become celebrities? I find it a bit disconcerting to turn on the news and find that the anchor man is trying to promote his new book or his latest line in t-shirts.

Edited January 2, 2009 by garro

[slackula]

I like Rush but I'm not a retard.

Only 50% of this statement can be true.

[Groongthep]

I like Rush but I'm not a retard.

I am a conservative - ergo I am opposed to hand outs of tax payer funded abortions to all comers - including under age girls who do not have to inform their parents.

(edited to remove racial slur)

Rush Limbaugh fan preparing to defend the Constitution against pregnant teenage girls.

[JSixpack]

OK, for efficiency let's get the major anti-Fox calumnies out of the way at once, before the thread dies or the mods close it.

samuibeachcomber wrote:

>fox is so american,

BIG problem, that. Makes others feels so, well--inconsequential, among

other things. It fails to recognize their true superiority.

Not to worry much longer, however: "Russian Scholar Predicts

Economic Crisis Will Rip America Apart"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html

>all they do is shout at each other

Is that ALL they do? Somebody ain't fair and balanced here!

> and when trying

>to hold a debate they continually talk over each other

You got to listen with both ears, you see. Gets the information out a

lot faster and avoids a lot of monopolization by long-winded politicians

among others. Takes a quick mind, however, which could be a problem.

> with that

>terrible nasal twang

Lends character that's at once both charming and loveable. Had some

Scotswoman on BBC the other day who was nearly incomprehensible.

>................giver me CNN anyday.

UBC givers it to yer EVERday, mate. It has the same twang, however.

Yer not complaining about it there, though--hmmmm.

garro wrote:

>Perhaps the bosses at UBC resented paying for a news channel that so

>obviously wasn't one?

Impossible, as UBC pays for other channels that even more obviously

aren't. Seems your own biases are showing again. Fox has only one

comprehensive news hour: The Shepherd Smith Report. Note that it's all

news, with no "footie"/Asian business/Africa segments taking up 50% as on BBC

and CNN. The other programs are discussion, analysis, or

investigation. And everyone knows that, nor does Fox pretend

otherwise. Let's get real, shall we?

NovaBlue05 wrote:

>One of the reasons they yell a lot at Fox is because they usually

>have a 50/50 mix of left/right guests discussing/yelling at each

>other. CNN typically tables a panel primarily of Democratic

>strategists with maybe one token Republican for appearance sake. It's

>easy to be calm when everyone in the room agrees.

Very true. And BBC even omits the token opposition, for a truly harmonious leftist

love fest.

garro wrote:

>news full of manipulation

How so? This website says the BBC is far, far worse; why not go and

read it: http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ I think if I were a Brit,

paying the licensing fees ("The latest licence fee settlement will

give the BBC at least £20 billion from licence payers over six years"),

I'd be a LOT more concerned about that. We 'Mercuns get Fox for free!

For example, surely you've forgotten the Hutton Inquiry that led to the

resignation of the BBC's chairman and director-general and Andrew

Gilligan over false reports and lack of oversight.

To jog your memory, Fox presenter John Gibson summed it up well, as

he was legally able to do so on a free network:

the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was

obsessive, irrational and dishonest"; that the BBC "felt entitled to

lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying

reporters and executives"; that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in

Baghdad during the US invasion, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi

army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military"; and

that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a

right to lie - exaggerate - because, well, the BBC knew that the war

was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to

be right".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jun/1...adcasting.ofcom

And then there's stuff like this surfacing:

The starting issue was whether the BBC could have prevented a

misleading video of the Queen being shown to the press with a

misleading analysis offered by the controller of its biggest channel.

Then, by coincidence, Ofcom published its report on the sins committed

by broadcasters in the past to make money improperly from premium rate

phone-ins. The BBC was in the firing line alongside all other

terrestrial broadcasters. Some were said to be "in denial" of those

sins.

Stage three, enter the disclosure element - the list of confessions

made by BBC staff themselves about past abuses under the terms of what

amounts to an amnesty from their bosses. The attempt to draw a line

and move on, a favourite BBC management tactic, had reaped an

astonishing harvest of self-generated allegations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...eebslistofshame

But pardon my interjection of mere evidence. Why has all of such

escaped your attention? Why no outrage?

>and people shouting their views.

Happens on occasion, eh? But since it lets you save time by hearing both sides

of different views simultaneously and cuts short tedious long-winded

rhetoric, let's simply call it a feature--i.e., a good thing. Listen with both ears.

Contrast with a scripted roundtable "discussion" on the BBC in which members of the chorus

merely sing solos round-robin, led by the conductor.

Or you may wish to adopt an anthropological viewpoint. It's a

different culture--a foreign culture to you. Defend it with the same

fanaticism as you would a Thai cultural characteristic.

Last, you could simply, well, travel about the world more and learn urbanity.

> All the

>negativity started to get to me quickly.

Negative in what way? You mean, the positives seem like negatives to

you? Which ones, exactly?

>some people probably do get their views from there

>and that's tragic.

Ah, what if they get them from Alan Colmes, the liberal half of

Hannity and Colmes? Now that would be quite fine, of course. You see, both

sides are represented. Again contrast with the BBC, of which Alex

Deane, a barrister, author and former Chief of Staff to David Cameron,

writes:

On British television, the stories of the day are approached entirely

from a liberal perspective. The family, immigration, taxation, the

NHS, education – on all of these vital issues, TV in the UK doesn’t

even reflect the fact that an alternative view exists; when it comes,

media criticism of the Government generally suggests that it’s not

left wing enough. Internationally, news programmes on all the domestic

channels always do our own country down and always apologise for those

that hate us. It is rare that a Eurosceptic or pro-Israeli or pro-Iraq

war position is even glimpsed.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform...deane_we_n.html

Problem is, even the conservative Brits have to pay the licensing

fees! It's so unfair as to be unbelievable. If I were some miserable, whinging

Brit, I'd be screaming! No wonder the brainwashing!

Huey wrote:

>Farce News is an embarrassment to the American people

How so? And how can it be that this respectable, prominent Brit wishes that

Britain had just such an embarrassment to provide a different perspective:

A FOX News UK would be a voice for the all-but-silent majority. It

would be unashamedly conservative, patriotic, supporting the

national interest. The channel would show the public the other side

of the argument. It would demonstrate to the political elite that

there’s a market for properly conservative beliefs. And it would

pressurise the party to move towards us, constantly reminding the

PCP of the grassroots, popular conservatism that got them elected.

It would act as a melting pot for new ideas, encouraging creative

thinking in a rightwards direction.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform...deane_we_n.html

endure wrote:

>while all the other news channels were broadcasting news of the

>victims of the tsunami Fox was broadcasting news of the donations

>that the citizens of the USA were making. It was the most disgusting

>self-serving chunk of television that I've ever seen.

Oh, but they did BOTH, you see; guess you tuned in too late and left

too early to hit the bars. FOX broadcast news of the victims AND

they reported on what the citizens of the USA were getting for their

tax dollars, a laudable oversight of the government by a private--

rather than unquestioning, quasi-government--domestic news

organization. As an additional benefit, other countries should be

reminded of who's helping them, as they tend to forget quickly.

garro wrote:

>How a television station that just shouts opinions can be considered

>a news channel is beyond me though.

Well, now that that's been addressed above, it should be no longer beyond

you, unless you wish to opt for the urbanity approach.

>Of course some people may see women in lots of make-up to be more

>important than news reporting.

Utter nonsense. Suggest you watch a debate among O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly

(J.D., Albany), and Lisa Wiehl, (J.D., Harvard, currently associate

professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law). Greta

Van Susteren, with a law degree from Georgetown, does quite a

lot of reporting and legal analysis. I could go on and on.

>If somebody in the real world kept trying to tell me that they were

>fair and balanced I would worry that they were trying to cheat me -

>the same with Fox.

I trust your fears have been put to rest now and you can eat. But I

note we haven't heard of your worry about any other product's slogan.

Fox's slogan survived a legal challenge, BTW.

Jimjim wrote:

>You may not like BBC, but it has much higher standards than Fox News.

>>they should just report the news unbiased as possible

Cough. See http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Should take you a month

to read through all that evidence and leave you convinced that the BBC

is possibly exceeded only by North Korea TV run by the official Korean

Central News Agency.

>they fail miserably when they spend their whole morning show

>defending Sarah Palin against media attacks.

On the contrary, they succeeded admirably since the media attacks were themselves biased.

Logic! Logic!

nikster wrote:

>a nefarious propaganda channel pushing its own agenda,

How is profit-seeking by presenting alternative viewpoints in a free

media market nefarious?

[garro]

jsixpack, well it is nice to hear somebody try to defend Fox even if your arguments seem to me very weak and easily refuted.

The idea that Fox gives equal treatment to both sides of an argument is a bit laughable. Even the idea that you can divide the world into liberals and proper Americans is nothing short of ignorant. Yes, they make frequent reference that they are providing two sides of an argument, but this is done in such a way as to favour one side. The guests they choose to represent the other side of the argument are always out of their depth, and if by some miracle they do get to put a valid point across they will be shouted down. You mention Hannity and Colmes as an example of fairness, but Colmes has actually admitted that he is not really a liberal.

You criticise the BBC and most people would agree that of course there is bias at the BBC. Every news programme will have a bias but most educated viewers will be aware of this. The bias on Fox is far greater than any other news channel that I have ever seen, and yet its viewers stil don't seem to see it.

Ex-employees of Fox news have painted a terrifying picture of the cynical manipulation of the public that this channel is knowingly conducting.

[JSixpack]

garro wrote:

> jsixpack, well it is nice to hear somebody try to defend Fox even if

> your arguments seem to me very weak and easily refuted.

Poor me. I guess they are SO weak and easily refuted that it would be

too boring, not to say beneath you, to bother actually to do the

refutation.

OF COURSE they seem weak to you! And, um, misguided, unenlightened,

fascist, wrong-headed, etc., etc.

And nothing you've said has been refuted or put into a proper perspective.

> The idea that Fox gives equal treatment to both sides of an argument

> is a bit laughable. Even the idea that you can divide the world into

> liberals and proper Americans is nothing short of ignorant.

Who gave you that idea?

> Yes, they make frequent reference that they are providing two sides

> of an argument, but this is done in such a way as to favour one

> side. The guests they choose to represent the other side of the

> argument are always out of their depth,

No, the truth is that they choose a very broad range of guests right

up to Hillary Clinton and Obama himself. Go check out the guest lists

and the lists of regulars.

Those out of their depth are chosen because of all the noise they

make--and hence are newsworthy--while imagining that they are in their

depth. It's a public service to enlighten them and their constituency.

Notice your frequent use of "always."

> and if by some miracle they

> do get to put a valid point across they will be shouted down.

On those rare occasions when they are shouted down, usually by another

guest, they haven't necessarily made a valid point, though it may seem

so to those out of their depths; or they've already made it and want to

run the clock. Barney Frank, for example, richly deserved to be chewed

up by O'Reilly for his role in causing the financial crisis. He stayed

in denial and intended to monopolize the discussion until the

interview time ran out.

> You

> mention Hannity and Colmes as an example of fairness, but Colmes has

> actually admitted that he is not really a liberal.

Well, now, Colmes website is after all entitled "Alan Colmes Liberaland"

http://www.alan.com/.

Wikipedia describes him thus:

Alan Colmes (born September 24, 1950) is an American radio/television

host and liberal political commentator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Colmes

Colmes' book is entitled Red, White & Liberal: How Left is Right

and Right is Wrong (ISBN 0-06-056297-8).

And he inevitably attacks all conservative guests by using liberal

arguments and expresses the orthodox liberal views in opposition to Hannity.

What more could you possibly want? Yes, the sky isn't really blue, we just

perceive it so.

Sigh.

>

> You criticise the BBC and most people would agree that of course

> there is bias at the BBC. Every news programme will have a bias but

> most educated viewers will be aware of this. The bias on Fox is far

> greater than any other news channel that I have ever seen, and yet

> its viewers stil don't seem to see it.

No, in fact BBC viewers can't see it, as they've been indoctrinated into

socialism from primary school onwards. Or, if they do see it, they

like it and want more.

Note prominent Brit Alex Deane says,

media criticism of the Government generally suggests that it’s not

left wing enough.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform...deane_we_n.html

This is why he wants a Fox News UK.

And hence you will imagine bias at Fox whenever you hear

any anti-liberal views. They are too shocking to hear on a public medium

after hearing and thinking nothing but socialism from birth.

What's especially alarming is the rationality of those views.

There's a reason that it's rare to encounter any Brit

on TV forums who doesn't complain about the state of Britain-stan,

especially its changed ethnicity.

>

> Ex-employees of Fox news have painted a terrifying picture of the

> cynical manipulation of the public that this channel is knowingly

> conducting.

How absurd to be "terrified" by any hearsay from disgruntled

ex-employees, which can hardly be taken seriously, except by

those who have their own agendas. If the

ex-employees had had any case, it would have been at least heard in

open court: none was. Besides, business is business.

On the other hand, we have very clear, thoroughly investigated reports

of cynical manipulation of the public by the BBC, e.g., the Hutton

Inquiry and the Ofcom report. We've already had resignation of the

BBC's chairman AND the director-general AND Andrew Gilligan over false

reports and lack of oversight. And there's much more.

Where's your outrage?

Well, dear garro, you're just going to sing the same little

comforting song while sitting in the same old bathwater, so I'll not

bother to present you with further evidence and rational perspective,

which you will of course simply ignore. "Who breaks a butterfly upon a

wheel?"

In sum, I hope UBC will subscribe to Fox News here in Thailand. I suspect the reason they don't

is that its audience would be too small to warrant the fees, as it is not really an international channel but rather

a USA domestic channel.

[adjan jb]

Fox News channel, however it is highly popular world wide.

Most Europeans/Africans/Asians/South Americans/Australians don't watch Faux News. I think it's highly popular only among Americans.

Edited January 3, 2009 by adjan jb

[garro]

jsixpack,

please do not presume that you know what I was or wasn't 'indoctrinated' by. I am not from the UK and did not grow up watching the BBC. This seems to a major problem for Fox fans; they have ignorant views about people and these views have no basis in reality. I have no wish to support the BBC because I am not a BBC fan, but I would say that at least it makes an attempt at some journalistic standards. The BBC is not a great news station, but at least it is a news station.

Now Fox provides plenty of evidence to support the claims that it is not as bad as others make out and you are repeating those here. This evidence is cherry-picked though and does not support the arguments that Fox claims it supports. Like Fox, your arguments also manipulate facts in order to reach a conclusion and ignore evidence against them. In fact, if I was more suspicious I would say that you got your arguments straight from their website.

You use the Wikipedia to support your claims that Colmes is a liberal, but in Fox 'news' fashion you choose to ignore the claims Wikipedia that he is not really a liberal and that his job is to 'lose every argument'. Just like Fox you have no problem using a source that supports any claim you make and ignoring conflicting arguments from the same source. This is called cherry-picking

Of course, you will continue to think that it is I who is brainwashed here, and that is up to you. I will tell you this though that I do not rely on any one source of information for my opinions, and I always examine the opposite views not matter how disturbing these can sometimes seem. I do not, like Fox, claim that everyone who has a different view is a traitor or somehow deviant, and I do not, like Fox, believe that bullying and shouting at people is the way to truth. I think that repeating key words and phrases is a good way of selling products, but a cynical way of manipulating viewers who believe they are watching the news.

You earlier mentioned that Fox survived a legal challenge about their name 'fair and balanced'. This though has nothing to do with Fox's claim to the title but more to do with the fact that it is an impossible legal challenge to make. 'Fair' and 'balanced' are words which are too vague to be contested legally. The Nazi party could use the title 'fair and balanced' and it would be impossible to legally refute it. Fox's legal team knows this. Of course, they make a point to say that this proves how fair and balanced they are.

There is actually no news station that I would fully trust, but there are some they I respect more then others. A 'news' station which is all about self-promotion and opinion is not for me at all.

So jsixpack, you enjoy your Fox 'news'; fair and balanced.

Edited January 3, 2009 by garro

[Groongthep]

Fox News channel, however it is highly popular world wide.

Most Europeans/Africans/Asians/South Americans/Australians don't watch Faux News. I think it's highly popular only among Americans.

If this were true this thread would not exist.

[hughden]

I recommend downloading "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism".

[dotcom]

Garro. I love your avatar. Reminds me of a guy who recently ran for President.

[dotcom]

Most Europeans/Africans/Asians/South Americans/Australians don't watch Faux News. I think it's highly popular only among Americans.

Got it in one.

Thanks Joe Sixpack for the other side of the story. The libs hate that.

[garro]

Garro. I love your avatar. Reminds me of a guy who recently ran for President.

Yep, you got to hand it to Fox; they certainly attract the more classy type of viewer.

[longball53098]

Fox News channel, however it is highly popular world wide.

Most Europeans/Africans/Asians/South Americans/Australians don't watch Faux News. I think it's highly popular only among Americans.

It is exactly that! Popular among Americans. The rest of the viewing population don't come from the USA and Fox is a USA channel in it's entirety. It not meant to be a International channel and they never say they are as far as I know. If and when Fox decides to make it an international format like the others I would expect it would appear very different and possibly appeal to the others.

I hope True sees fit to include it in their channel lineup simply to offset what I see as "unbalanced" broadcasting now. Bu I suspect they never will.

[joncl]

It's the money. True/UBC does not want to pay for it. Plane and simple.

No wrong ...

True have been offering in BKK only, Fox News for about 3 years now on their IPTV service. Google True IPTV and you too can get it.

[Mobi]

Well I have already posted my opinion on Fox News, and general I quite like it, along with the other news channels I watch, in order to get a balanced coverage.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some of you folks get so worked up about a news channel and post such vitriol. If you don't like it don't watch it, but for goodness sake, it's really not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

For those who say it is just people shouting at each other, I can tell you that you are plain wrong. I watch Fox on a daily basis and the times when the debates reach shouting levels are relatively rare.

For the most part, the interviews, and "expert" panels, debate in a sensible, intelligent and generally friendly manner. Their panels always contain view points from both the the conservative and liberal points of view, and sometimes when debating a highly controversial issue, such as gay marriages or being allowed to put an fiercely anti religious message next to a nativity scene in Washington, then it's hardly surprising that sometimes tempers get frayed. These are Americans who are noted for the loud voices - I don't particularly like it, but I accept it is part of the culture.

For those who are suggesting that Fox adopt and international format like CNN or BBC, I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. If they did that I would probably stop watching it. I watch Fox because it is American, and gives you an American perspective on their own domestic events, and you get an insight on what is important to them. In a similar way I listen to BBC radio 5 and watch Sky News to get a perspective on what's going on in England, and the news and issues that are important to them. Ditto the Australian Channel.

Fox News is just fine the way it is, and Bill O'Reilly is great entertainment. And before you start attacking him as being a rabid right wing nutter, remember that his show has topped the ratings for the past 7 years, every book he has written has topped the best seller charts, and all the money from his books and other stuff that they sell on Fox goes to charity.

[garro]

Well I have already posted my opinion on Fox News, and general I quite like it, along with the other news channels I watch, in order to get a balanced coverage.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some of you folks get so worked up about a news channel and post such vitriol. If you don't like it don't watch it, but for goodness sake, it's really not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

For those who say it is just people shouting at each other, I can tell you that you are plain wrong. I watch Fox on a daily basis and the times when the debates reach shouting levels are relatively rare.

For the most part, the interviews, and "expert" panels, debate in a sensible, intelligent and generally friendly manner. Their panels always contain view points from both the the conservative and liberal points of view, and sometimes when debating a highly controversial issue, such as gay marriages or being allowed to put an fiercely anti religious message next to a nativity scene in Washington, then it's hardly surprising that sometimes tempers get frayed. These are Americans who are noted for the loud voices - I don't particularly like it, but I accept it is part of the culture.

For those who are suggesting that Fox adopt and international format like CNN or BBC, I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. If they did that I would probably stop watching it. I watch Fox because it is American, and gives you an American perspective on their own domestic events, and you get an insight on what is important to them. In a similar way I listen to BBC radio 5 and watch Sky News to get a perspective on what's going on in England, and the news and issues that are important to them. Ditto the Australian Channel.

Fox News is just fine the way it is, and Bill O'Reilly is great entertainment. And before you start attacking him as being a rabid right wing nutter, remember that his show has topped the ratings for the past 7 years, every book he has written has topped the best seller charts, and all the money from his books and other stuff that they sell on Fox goes to charity.

Perhaps you should apply your own advice to yourself, and if you don't like posts which criticise Fox just don't read them. I don't believe popularity has anything to do with the value of a thing. After all smoking was once very popular too. If you, or anyone else, want's to watch Fox then go ahead, but I will continue to express my opinion that it is anti-intellectual, fear-mongering, xenophobic station which appeals to the lowest common denominator. That's just my opinon though of course.

[Mobi]

Perhaps you should apply your own advice to yourself, and if you don't like posts which criticise Fox just don't read them. I don't believe popularity has anything to do with the value of a thing. After all smoking was once very popular too. If you, or anyone else, wants to watch Fox then go ahead, but I will continue to express my opinion that it is anti-intellectual, fear-mongering, xenophobic station which appeals to the lowest common denominator. That's just my opinion though of course.

You can criticise Fox News until the cows come home.

I couldn't give two hoots.

What I am surprised at the the sheer hatred and vitriol dripping from your keyboard, which is so over the top for such a relatively trivial subject. ("fear -mongering!! Xenophobic!!" come on now )

BTW, you forgot warmongering

I wonder how you respond to anything half way serious?

Chill out my friend, life is too short to get worked up about a News Channel

[dotcom]

The Obama drones.

Fall in line with Nobama or get sent to the Gulag.

[garro]

Perhaps you should apply your own advice to yourself, and if you don't like posts which criticise Fox just don't read them. I don't believe popularity has anything to do with the value of a thing. After all smoking was once very popular too. If you, or anyone else, wants to watch Fox then go ahead, but I will continue to express my opinion that it is anti-intellectual, fear-mongering, xenophobic station which appeals to the lowest common denominator. That's just my opinion though of course.

You can criticise Fox News until the cows come home.

I couldn't give two hoots.

What I am surprised at the the sheer hatred and vitriol dripping from your keyboard, which is so over the top for such a relatively trivial subject. ("fear -mongering!! Xenophobic!!" come on now )

BTW, you forgot warmongering

I wonder how you respond to anything half way serious?

Chill out my friend, life is too short to get worked up about a News Channel

the sheer hatred and vitriol dripping from your keyboard? Are you currently dong a creative writing course or something??

I hope it's not with Fox's Online University.

[dotcom]

What I said about CNN is this. If I were to go to coke town & apply for a job with CNN (Nobama News Network) I would expect my chances at no more than 1 in 100. Why? Because I don't fit the racial profile they are looking for.

[Mobi]

the sheer hatred and vitriol dripping from your keyboard? Are you currently dong a creative writing course or something??

I hope it's not with Fox's Online University.

Yes, I'm currently doing a dong

I didn't know Fox had an online university - do they specialise in shouting?

Can you provide a link?

[garro]

the sheer hatred and vitriol dripping from your keyboard? Are you currently dong a creative writing course or something??

I hope it's not with Fox's Online University.

Yes, I'm currently doing a dong

I didn't know Fox had an online university - do they specialise in shouting?

Can you provide a link?

http://dumbdownuniversity.org/english.htm

[LadyHeather]

Chill out my friend, life is too short to get worked up about a News Channel

Most intelligent post yet made in this thread. I am astounded that one person gets so worked up over this.