matthew wrote:

LAD wrote:Dear Matthew,

I see from your My Space account that you are 26 years old.

This is unsettling information.

It is a fact that I am 26 years old.

So...?

So, if we define literacy, broadly, as the ability to locate, understand, and critically evaluate information using a variety of resources (and to then be able to engage in coherent dialogue with others regarding this information), I would have thought you were about twelve years old.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:I said that Fox News has the most unbiased reporting of all the major television new media outlets..........this is not to say that there is NO bias......of course not......I mean, everyone has bias. But, Fox News has the LEAST biased reporting of all the major network news media outlets.

When those who examine such things academically prove you wrong, and when flagrant examples of bias are presented to you, can you still cling to this position?

proceed

Can you find equivalent academic and evidentiary examples to support your position?

after you.

Or are you merely presenting the non-specific "feeling" you get that other news media are "more" biased?

No, I am drawing on what I have have seen and read and experienced in my life.

What do you make of the evidence that Fox News viewers are more ill-informed

, and cling to more non-factual positions than those of "other" (in your mind, more biased) media? That Fox is less biased, but has a more idiotic viewership?

I sense hybris and snobbery on your part, Mr Albini, in regards to this statement. I say this with all due respect as well since this is your forum and you own it.

matthew wrote:

steve wrote:Or are you merely presenting the non-specific "feeling" you get that other news media are "more" biased?

No, I am drawing on what I have have seen and read and experienced in my life.

So, your life experience gives you the authority to say that the Guardian is:

matthew wrote:crappy

and that Fox is unbiased.

Is that anything to do with your admiration for Reagan and Thatcher?

I'm just curious.

matthew wrote:...after you.

I refer to the linked articles above.

No, I am drawing on what I have have seen and read and experienced in my life.

So, a general "feeling," then.

I sense hybris and snobbery on your part, Mr Albini, in regards to this statement. I say this with all due respect as well since this is your forum and you own it.

Again, I refer you to the linked articles above. I don't think it snobbery to prefer accuracy and truth to their counterparts in the right-wing media. And whatever "hybris" is, I'll assume you meant hubris, and there is no way to construe what has gone on here as hubristic. I'm sure I've been guilty of hubris before, but not now.

Cranius wrote:

matthew wrote:

steve wrote:Or are you merely presenting the non-specific "feeling" you get that other news media are "more" biased?

No, I am drawing on what I have have seen and read and experienced in my life.

So, your life experience gives you the authority to say that the Guardian is:

matthew wrote:crappy

and that Fox is unbiased.

Is that anything to do with your admiration for Reagan and Thatcher?

I'm just curious.

I will satisfy your curiosity:

1. I did not say that Fox is unbiased

2. There is alot of crap in The Guardian in my opinion.

Amen.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:...after you.

I refer to the linked articles above.

No, I am drawing on what I have have seen and read and experienced in my life.

So, a general "feeling," then.

I sense hybris and snobbery on your part, Mr Albini, in regards to this statement. I say this with all due respect as well since this is your forum and you own it.

Again, I refer you to the linked articles above. I don't think it snobbery to prefer accuracy and truth to their counterparts in the right-wing media. And whatever "hybris" is, I'll assume you meant hubris, and there is no way to construe what has gone on here as hubristic. I'm sure I've been guilty of hubris before, but not now.

Reread what I have written.




I did mean hybris, by the way.......transliterated, it can be spelled either "hybris" or "hubris".

matthew wrote:I will satisfy your curiosity:

1. I did not say that Fox is unbiased

2. There is alot of crap in The Guardian in my opinion.

Amen.

Okay, more accurately you said:

matthew wrote:Fox News has the most unbiased reporting of all the network news programs on TV.

Is not this 'feeling' you describe merely the satisfaction that Fox's reporting more accurately mirrors your own politcal outlook--an outlook formed by your own life experience?

I imagine you would perhaps not be best able to detect their particular bias. This bias is generally manifested by what they don't say, as LAD highlighted in that FAIR report.

I think the best thing about newspapers is that, due to the sheer volume of reporting on any given day, a lot interesting stuff will actually be passed over by the editors and filter through to the readership. Whereas the TV newsroom is a much more tightly controlled environment.

Matthew:

I'd really like to see some scholarly articles that support your idiotic assertion. You have been provided with evidence of Fox's bias. So please give us some kind of study that supports this "least biased of all the networks" crap. Don't keep bullshitting. Link us to a study of some kind.

Connor

steve: 1. matt: 0.

this is better than tv.

RE: Fox News

I recently tuned in as the wife figured out that if the "rabbit ears" were tweaked just so, we could get that channel........

Anyway, what I witnessed was pretty appalling. They played the Smashing Pumpkins during their intro and before going to commercials. This was along with a sort of "wacky", care-free style of reporting that really didn't sit well with me.

I felt like I was watching the popular kids trying to be funny while delivering the "news".

Is everyone's version of Fox News so "hip"?

Crap.