Media Bias-Fox News or MSNBC

[Sdaeriji]

Cut the crap already. I could go on Wikipedia and find a small blurb about a liberal commentator as well, doesn't make them any more valid in the OPINION GENRE...

Perhaps you should do that then. Actually, I would like to see if there is a wikipedia page dedicated to criticisms of a single liberal commentator like there is for Bill O'Reilly. Not even Limbaugh has a whole wiki page dedicated to criticisms of him with over 60 references.

When wikipedia is crawling with people like yourself that isn't really a feat worth bragging about. Tell me, how often do you watch a complete episode of the OReilly factor rather than going off of Media Matters clips or nonsense on youtube that always seems to have the title "BILL OREILLY OWNED"?

Do you even know how Wikipedia works? Those little superscript numbers are sources, used as citations to provide further supporting documentation of the statement made in the article. Regardless of your factually incorrect opinions of Wikipedia, the information contained on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ommentator) is demonstrably true, except potentially in any cases where it says [citation needed].

[Phenia]

O'Reilly, meanwhile, tells truths that the DLM would rather not have brought to light.

DLM?

Don's Light & Magic?
Del Monte Foods?
Democratic Liberal Media?
Dark Lord's Media?

Well, whoever they are, I'm sure they're all in on the conspiracy.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Do you even know how Wikipedia works? Those little superscript numbers are sources, used as citations to provide further supporting documentation of the statement made in the article. Regardless of your factually incorrect opinions of Wikipedia, the information contained on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ommentator) is demonstrably true, except potentially in any cases where it says [citation needed].

That has been a challenge for me when I tried to get one of the Zimbabwe money articles to Good Article status.

Meanwhile, I get most of my news from neither of the mentioned. In fact I use BBC or a closer news source like Reuters and AP. News without the fancy packaging, as I know it.

[Feazanthia]

Do you even know how Wikipedia works? Those little superscript numbers are sources, used as citations to provide further supporting documentation of the statement made in the article. Regardless of your factually incorrect opinions of Wikipedia, the information contained on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ommentator) is demonstrably true, except potentially in any cases where it says [citation needed].

That has been a challenge for me when I tried to get one of the Zimbabwe money articles to Good Article status.

Meanwhile, I get most of my news from neither of the above. In fact I use BBC or a closer news source like Reuters and AP. News without the fancy packaging, as I know it.

BBC is good. People need to use BBC more.

[Aloha Mars 2]

O'Reilly, meanwhile, tells truths that the DLM would rather not have brought to light.

DLM?

Don's Light & Magic?
Del Monte Foods?
Democratic Liberal Media?
Dark Lord's Media?

Well, whoever they are, I'm sure they're all in on the conspiracy.

Dishonest Liberal Media. Ive heard the meme before.

[Parthenon]

Perhaps you should do that then. Actually, I would like to see if there is a wikipedia page dedicated to criticisms of a single liberal commentator like there is for Bill O'Reilly. Not even Limbaugh has a whole wiki page dedicated to criticisms of him with over 60 references.

When wikipedia is crawling with people like yourself that isn't really a feat worth bragging about. Tell me, how often do you watch a complete episode of the OReilly factor rather than going off of Media Matters clips or nonsense on youtube that always seems to have the title "BILL OREILLY OWNED"?

Do you even know how Wikipedia works? Those little superscript numbers are sources, used as citations to provide further supporting documentation of the statement made in the article. Regardless of your factually incorrect opinions of Wikipedia, the information contained on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ommentator) is demonstrably true, except potentially in any cases where it says [citation needed].

Do you not see where the majority of those come from far-left websites devoted to hating Fox News? Hell, Media Matters accounts for a majority of them.

I could go out and make a website devoted towards taking MSNBC clips out of context and link Olbermann's wiki to them all day. Doesn't make it any more applicable.

[Grave_n_idle]

MSNBC

Keith Olbermann is ten times worse than Bill could ever try to be.

Parthenon says that it is MSNBC.

I think, then, that the actual answer is painfully obvious.

[Sdaeriji]

I could go out and make a website devoted towards taking MSNBC clips out of context and link Olbermann's wiki to them all day. Doesn't make it any more applicable.

Then debate the relative merits of the sources linked in the Wiki article. Don't just spout off some bullshit about how Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and therefore invalid. Put some effort into things.

[Phenia]

Do you not see where the majority of those come from far-left websites devoted to hating Fox News? Hell, Media Matters accounts for a majority of them.

Ah, the Fox News martyr card defense.

Fox News lied for your sins!

[The_pantless_hero]

Do you not see where the majority of those come from far-left websites devoted to hating Fox News?

Page 3 and it's a conspiracy against conservatives already.

[Parthenon]

I could go out and make a website devoted towards taking MSNBC clips out of context and link Olbermann's wiki to them all day. Doesn't make it any more applicable.

Then debate the relative merits of the sources linked in the Wiki article. Don't just spout off some bullshit about how Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and therefore invalid. Put some effort into things.

Did you even read this thread? Honestly?

[Aloha Mars 2]

Do you not see where the majority of those come from far-left websites devoted to hating Fox News?

Page 3 and it's a conspiracy against conservatives already.

An NSG record! Congrats Parthanon!

[Maurepas]

MSNBC

Keith Olbermann is ten times worse than Bill could ever try to be.

Parthenon says that it is MSNBC.

I think, then, that the actual answer is painfully obvious.

[The_pantless_hero]

Did you even read this thread? Honestly?

I saw you claiming MSNBC is the devil and Fox is the victim of a vast left wing conspiracy and other people saying they are both biased.

[Phenia]

Do you not see where the majority of those come from far-left websites devoted to hating Fox News?

Page 3 and it's a conspiracy against conservatives already.

Actually page 2, if you count NM's rant about the evil lefties of Del Monte Foods who are broken-hearted that the liberal control of the world's media does not apply to the bastion of truthiness that is Fox.

[Parthenon]

Did you even read this thread? Honestly?

I saw you claiming MSNBC is the devil and Fox is the victim of a vast left wing conspiracy and other people saying they are both biased.

Apparently you didn't notice who that post was directed at?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Imagine trying to watch the news and all I get is a blue screen of death... it must be MSNBC.

[Pevisopolis]

Have you ever considered that, perhaps, all major "News" stations are biased? To their own political ideas, of course, but mostly to their money.

[Aloha Mars 2]

Have you ever considered that, perhaps, all major "News" stations are biased? To their own political ideas, of course, but mostly to their money.

Seriously how many ways can we say, they both are.

[Maurepas]

Have you ever considered that, perhaps, all major "News" stations are biased? To their own political ideas, of course, but mostly to their money.

Some of us do...there are others however who are in the know about the fact that it is really a liberal conspiracy,

[Warner Channel]

Definitely FOX.

[Sdaeriji]

I could go out and make a website devoted towards taking MSNBC clips out of context and link Olbermann's wiki to them all day. Doesn't make it any more applicable.

Then debate the relative merits of the sources linked in the Wiki article. Don't just spout off some bullshit about how Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and therefore invalid. Put some effort into things.

Did you even read this thread? Honestly?

You probably could have saved us all a lot of time if you had just been honest and said "No" when I asked you if you knew how Wikipedia works.

[Parthenon]

Then debate the relative merits of the sources linked in the Wiki article. Don't just spout off some bullshit about how Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and therefore invalid. Put some effort into things.

Did you even read this thread? Honestly?

You probably could have saved us all a lot of time if you had just been honest and said "No" when I asked you if you knew how Wikipedia works.

I installed and operated a mediawiki setup for a state agency as part of a job back in college. I know perfectly well how it works, probably more so than yourself when you get down to the coding of it.

[Musicolo]

Have you ever considered that, perhaps, all major "News" stations are biased? To their own political ideas, of course, but mostly to their money.

Definitly the most intelligent thing anyone's said so far. But personally I think O'reily has anger managment issues and lies and abuses the people he invites on his show. Olbermann is just cocky and extreme. So which is worse?

[Poliwanacraca]

I don't have cable, and so my contact with both stations has been fairly limited. I've seen a great deal more of FOX than MSNBC, however, largely because my grandfather tended to leave it on in the background for hours on end, so I couldn't really help hearing a good deal of it when I visited my grandparents every week or two. Its bias was painfully, ridiculously, makes-me-want-to-throw-things-at-the-TV obvious, and so I really can't imagine MSNBC being more biased unless its commentators typically open every news segment with, "We want Republicans to DIE!" It might manage equally biased, though, and if I'd seen more than about ten minutes of MSNBC in my life, I'd have an opinion on whether or not that's the case.