What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.146 Comments
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -11/+112Ugh, for the 1000th time....
They employ Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, both of whom perfected their journalistic methods in the tabloid arena.
It's not about Fox news losing credibility; they never had it in the first place.
(waiting for the neocon "marked as inaccurate" onslaught) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+65Here is the official outfoxed site.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
And some more clips.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8163026835437148262&q=Outfoxed
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/bill-oreilly-outfoxed.html
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/how-fox-news-killed-kerry.html
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/fox-news-techniques.html
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/fox-news-memos.html
After watching all these I don’t think anyone can honestly call them a news channel. If you know anyone who watches Fox show them these so they can see what really goes on there. - RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48First of all, I don't know *why* people care that FOX has a right-wing bias. It's part of their marketing strategy and frankly they have every right to be biased. (Besides, a blind person can see it in a minute.) Instead, I think criticism of the network should be focused on their fear mongering, ***** programming, and employment of douchebags like Geraldo and O'Reilly. Watching the network is like torture.
The Wall Street Journal is generally considered to be a conservative-leaning media outlet. But no one rags on them because they approach it with intelligence and professionalism. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38Anonymous + normal person + internet = jackass
- pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
- diggity_dank, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Ahh that old chestnut! "The media has a liberal bias" I can almost remember when that was true. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.
By the way, now that the right-wing controls EVERYTHING when are they just going to admit it? I know how much they LOVE to play the victim, but come on! - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Anonymitity is very important. It's one of the reasons that Japan's 2channel is so important and influential.
- pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Just because truth is something you don't want to hear, that doesn't mean it's biased.
- jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Left of center or left of where you are? The point is none of them should be biased at all; they should report the facts as they are, not use creative editing and spin to force an opinion on you. Watching a news program biased heavily towards the right, then watching one biased heavily towards the left, DOES NOT mean you have a balanced view of what is going on. It means you've been watching ***** from both sides.
- spahn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26when was the last time the president deserved a compliment? I'm still trying to find the first reason from the past 6 years.
- templest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17All I can say is, "Wow... no *****. Really!?"
This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. I mean, if you're just finding this out now... then welcome to the real world, sucker, where've you been all this time? - SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Excellent. Way to get the word out finally. I know most people already realize they're slanted, but many may not know just how far...
- zorpscorp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"(waiting for the neocon "marked as inaccurate" onslaught)"
There it is! - afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16First of all, why is this marked inaccurate? There is nothing inaccurate in the video. Its all first hand accounts and observable situations. If you can prove one thing inaccurate in the video, please tell me.
Furthermore, I just cannot stand the conservatives who defend Fox News by saying every other media outlet is liberal, and yet provide no proof. This is verifiably false. I appreciate the person who linked the article from the UCLA study. However, I have a huge problem with it. It provides no data whatsoever, it just states vaguely the methods and results. Whenever FAIR does a study on the media, not only do they deliver their results, but they also go in depth with all their numerical data, which can be verified by any interested third party with the time to do so. And while I admit FAIR in and of itself may be a left leaning organization, its quite difficult to make public data lie. And EVERY SINGLE STUDY they have conducted has shown that ALL major media in America is right-leaning, pure and simple.
Sometimes I think I'm watching Colbert with some of these comments. 'I feel it to be true in my gut, so therefore, it must be true.' Learn to look at things a bit more objectively here folks. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31I've said it before and I'll say it again:
FOX News -- Best for the quickest breaking news. When the news is broken,
CNN -- Best for its sources and connections, and, therefore, can get interviews from good people. When the talking is getting annoying,
MSNBC -- They're great because they generally have the least amount of commentary and definitely the smallest amount of editing. For instance, when there are live video feeds of something important happening, or a sport event, for instance, the other two news channels will play the video with the sound down low and talk about the video as it's happening, as well as cut out anything that's semi-slow. MSNBC, however, will play the video in its entirety and they usually shutup and let you listen to the video's audio until it is finished. - bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"t FOX has a right-wing bias. It's part of their marketing strategy and frankly they have every right to be biased."
Well yes this is true,
BUT
the problem is that they claim to be "fair and balanced news" when that is obviously not the case. In reality they are slanted to the extreme right and a lot of what they report wouldn't be considered news using the definition of news == cold hard facts and data. So they are being intentionally deceptive, and that's my problem with it.
Of course the real truth is, if you want to get news, digg.com is the place to be ;)
(i have no beef with fark or /. either) - cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15From the video:
"From the top we were ordered to carry right-wing propaganda."
*acts shocked* - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13elth31-
Yeah, 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton...thank god that nightmare is finally over and we can get back to war.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
(The Onion, written as satire January 17, 2001. Not so funny when it all came true, or maybe more funny) - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The reason the president recieves no compliments on other news channels is for two reasons:
News isn't intended to give out compliments.
Bush deserves NO compliments. - jscro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"I feel there is a lot of liberal bias here at DIgg!!!"
Are you joking? Every liberal slanted post on here is marked as innaccurate. This is a video, with OPINIONS, and it's marked as innaccurate? When is editorial content ever innaccurate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Brit Hume is a moron, just like every Fox anchor.
- hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Did you get those "facts" from fox news?
- davidro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, I love his Grapevine segment, which is about 60% negative gossip about Democratic politicians. Only 60% though. Theres some celebrity news, too.
- ludwik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu9M6dUCac (Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre and drugs companies)
- bloo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13a very good documentary, but completely irrelevant to this thread.
- gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If you call media outlets that report both sides of a story "left leaning", then I guess all of the rest of the MSM is "liberal"
- manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I always found it odd that state owned news networks have a lot less bias than private enterprise. Lot's of European countries as well as Canada don't have the problems plagued by the american news media. I don't consider US as a democracy anymore, more like a oligarchy.
- slowdive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This is /definitely/ a film worth seeing, regardless of what your impression of FOX News is right now. The research that went into this film was clearly intense..
The same film team have a new movie coming out in a month or two called IRAQ FOR SALE which looks fascinating as well -- http://iraqforsale.org - inkgrok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The Wall Street Journal has a really great news section not known for conservative bias. In fact they've broken many stories that rile conservatives. The Wall Street Journal's editorial section, however, is run by a bunch of loons.
- begbegbegbegbeg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21Wow. A unit of the news media is biased. Imagine that. Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that rain is made from water.
Let me clue you in, Skeezix: ALL news outlets are biased. ALL of them. ALL of the time. If you can't fathom this, then you've got problems beyond Fox News. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I always see that ass a conservative comeback when people accuse Fox of being conservative: "Oh yeah? well every other news outlet on the face of the Earth has a llib'rul bias!!" Come on...with that kind of talk you'd think they're all having athiest anti war talk shows 24/7. Just because one outlet is conservative doesn't mean every other one has to be the oppositte.
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9A little while ago a website hosted Out Foxed and I watched it. It's an insightful documentary, a little obvious, but they prove what everyone's suspected with insider emails and accounts.
- BIGmog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"I feel sorry for Americans who don't have a public news network (i.e not privately owned)"
This is NPR. National Public Radio.
http://www.npr.org - SwabTheDeck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@eonblue
the reason it's editted is because people like us have NO FREAKIN' ATTENTION SPAN and interviewees often have long pauses that add greatly to the run time of the program. it's also done so that the most important points are emphasized, and all the fluff that lies between them is eliminated. this happens in every news organization, radio, television and print (every time you see "..." and [something] in a written article, they're doing the same thing as the cutting going on in a video) because the average person being interviewed does not have the continuous flow of speech that a news anchor has. this particular video is certainly not unique in the least and i can't believe you're not used to it by now. get over it, it's not going away any time soon unless everyone learns how to say only things that are important and not take any time figuring out how to phrase things. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"i give this post 30 more minutes before the neocons all bury it as inaccurate."
apparently this statement was too spot on for the neo-cons to allow it so they buried it. -5 diggs. Why? Because I was just plain wrong to say it.... but if i was wrong... why was this post deemed possibly inaccurate?
This site needs to require people to make an actual post outlining what a post's inaccuracies are because as it is now, if someone doesnt like that a post makes them look bad it is deemed as possibly inaccurate. Everyone needs to repeat this message over and over because irresponsible people abuse features designed to warn people about discrepencies an article may have, NOT about a VIDEO that they might not agree with because it might may certain people look bad for believing in certain things. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Yeah why is it that every partisan article on digg gets marked as inaccurate? I think we need a better system than this, people can't be trusted with that button.
- Rob5246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7No news channel cares about reporting quality news, it's all about how many viewers they get and ads they sell.
- Dissonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree massamunecyrus.
But BBC is just the best news coverage in the world. I wish more Americans had access to it. - NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7meh, no surprise... but then again... lots of news companies are bias... and lots of them put that propaganda stuff on...
Besides... all they care about is that they get ratings... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@Oates
Wow.
Everyone who read your comment is now stupider. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7its not about sides, but you obviously have no idea what anyone is talking about. Its about the fact that the media is pushing a certain political agenda proving that the media is biased and should be out of business. It just so happens they are pushing the right wing's agenda, the right wing being most closely associated with rich people willing to buy off upper levels of the media so their agenda is pushed. Im not liberal, nor a democrat, but i AM anti-media and anti-neocons.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This video is amazing, but really scary as well. It has affirmed almost all of my fears of FOX news.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I want to thank you for posting those videos. I've always known that Faux News was full of the proverbial *****. If only other people would awaken and see that they're nothing but a propaganda outlet.
The O'Reilly clip really got me though. Bill O'Reilly is a bully, plain and simple. But get e on his show. I can outshout a bully any day of the week. I'd be launching across the table to get my hands around O'Reilly's throat.
And the thing about the producers urging Glick to leave because they were afraid O'Reilly might assault him, oh my, I would have deliberately stayed there just to see his reaction and then to file charges. - a10webb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"When was the last time you saw MSNBC compliment the president on anything? Anything???"
Since when is the media supposed to compliment anyone? The media is supposed to report what is happening/has happened, not to speculate or throw out opinions about things. All these 24 hour "news" channels are nothing but sensationalistic propaganda pushers for whoever pays their bills. Stick to the print, and get more than one source. - Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5NOT INNACCURATE
Republican neo-con Digg trolls strike again. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Don't hate the media, become the media" - Jello Biafra
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"*School Attendance is up 80%"
Schools in a war-torn nation don't meet as often as those in peacetime. Lots of, um, traffic accidents...
"*More than 1,500 schools renovated"
100s of municipal buildings destroyed since the invasion.
"*According to a UNICEF report at the end of 2003, more than 3 1/2 million children had been immunized."
Great! It's just that 1000s are killed by bullets in Iraq, not disease.
"*According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics were operating as of December, 2003."
With such huge number of incoming patients, this is nothing to boast about.
"* An interim constitution has been signed"
The country is in a civil war. Constitutions mean little if the people cannot agree on it.
"* Girls are allowed to attend school"
Then where do they go? A non-existant economy (barring the Northern area)?
"* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs, the list goes on and on..."
Awesome... Nothing bad there!
"Good" progress, can easily (and righteously is) shadowded by more significant harmful events. It's not that these good things aren't good, it's just that when you're in a state of civil war, these do not matter nearly as much as the war.
I think it's right for the media to criticize what goes on in Iraq - that's the only way it'll see change. By praising minute efforts, all you're doing is promoting the status quo...
and oh yea, BBC NEWS = :-) - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It'd be nice to see some proof of actual thought.
Actual thought means not parrotting Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, and the rest of the extremist talking heads.
If you use the same "facts" as they do and resort to the same knee jerk responses with "Move On" "Michael Moore" and "Clinton blowjob" you're not thinking. You're just one more shill, but you don't get paid like the talking heads do. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5IF the money actually goes to what its supposed to then yes, good for Bush, he's doing something that has the potential to help someone. However I wouldnt just automatically assume that since they said thats where the money is going to that its actually going there. Our's is a government that loves keeping secrets from the public and the Bush Admin is one that loves lie to the people.
- Siroro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Was I the only one annoyed at the constant short pauses that much of the time were not needed in this film?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is