PDA

View Full Version : No More Evidence of Faux bias needed




Trassin
09-07-2007, 02:49 AM
So for anyone that might still think the debate Wednesday night wasn't completely bias I bring you this digg.

Link (http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_secret_behind_the_fake_restaurant_diners_durin g_the_Fox_News_debate)

If you click on the link to the actual article it will take you to the web site of Youngs Restaurant and Coffee Shop. This is the same place that "average" people were supposedly eating dinner last night during the debate.

There is only one thing wrong with that idea. Youngs Restaurant is only open till 2:00pm in the afternoon during the week. Seems strange to me that Faux was able to find people to interview in a place that wasn't even open during the debate.

john_anderson_ii
09-07-2007, 03:04 AM
Their bias is blatantly obvious. I just wish I understood the "why" of it. I really don't even think they are anti Ron Paul per se, he's just a casualty of their pro war agenda. He will end the war, so Faux must be against him. Why the strong pro war agenda? Are they raking in such ratings and revenue from covering the war that they would get servicemen killed to keep those ratings? Any theories backed by facts are welcome, even the tin foil hat ones.

jmunjr
09-07-2007, 03:07 AM
Well, the mall closes here at 9pm Monday through Saturday. During the X-Mas holidays it is open until 11pm....

The restaurant probably either voluntarily opened or was asked to open for this special event. I am sure in this town it was a big deal.

Anything is possible though I suppose.

Madison
09-07-2007, 03:09 AM
I just wish I understood the "why" of it.

It's a propaganda tool of the state. Not the first time corrupt dictators have used the media to spread lies.

devil21
09-07-2007, 03:47 AM
The good part is pretty much all of their interviews skewed the "top tier".

Lois
09-07-2007, 04:18 AM
Yeah - I loved the question about Giuliani's private life :)

And what about Mitt's sons being compared to those serving in Iraq.

markpa
09-07-2007, 05:42 AM
I for one will work against foxnews until I die. I haven't watched tv for a few years (highly recommended) so it was a shock to see the complete bias of the debate. foxnews in particular are obviously just repeating what they are told to by the Gov. (read neocons).

There isn't much I can do but I will tell everyone I can that foxnews is corrupt and cannot be conisdered news. Plus I will never go see any movie distrbuted by fox again. :mad:

madcat033
09-07-2007, 07:28 AM
I went to the debate, and afterwards I walked by Young's Restaurant. They had a sign in front that said "closed for private event." So yeah, I can guarantee it was staged.

But you guys KNOW that if it was really open to whoever that the crowd would have been 99% Ron Paul supporters.

Ridiculous
09-07-2007, 07:35 AM
Their bias is blatantly obvious. I just wish I understood the "why" of it. I really don't even think they are anti Ron Paul per se, he's just a casualty of their pro war agenda. He will end the war, so Faux must be against him. Why the strong pro war agenda? Are they raking in such ratings and revenue from covering the war that they would get servicemen killed to keep those ratings? Any theories backed by facts are welcome, even the tin foil hat ones.

It isn't really even a tin foil hat theory. Government contractors make HUGE profits during wartime. It is just one aspect of the evolving military industrial complex. Certain companies stocks are sure to rise when the government engages in nation building.

The top Neocons and Rupert Murdoch are more than likely heavily invested in the war machine. Why fuck up a sure thing?

For example, check out Haliburton's five year. You would have made a nice chunk of change if you laid down some money with them at the beginning of the war. War time profiteering with political backing isn't exactly free market economics. No bid contracts.....

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y

apropos
09-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Fox was founded with the sole purpose of providing a balance to the normally liberal slant of the MSM. Whereas the NYT, LA Times, etc and the Dan Rathers of the world are democratic voices, Fox made themselves the republican version.

Someone like Paul, who straddles both democratic and republican viewpoints, is going to be disliked by both. It's ironic, because George Washington explicitly warned us against blind loyalty to a political party.

Ridiculous
09-07-2007, 08:06 AM
Just because Fox is supposedly a conservative voice doesn't mean that they have to have such a blindly pro-war agenda.