Ace is a beast. Don't piss him off and have him write a Top 10 list about you.

Consider yourself warned. :-)

Bitch don't scare me.

Why is it that when the right gets a story like the one on Dan "I'd rather lie" Rather -- it's a friggin four-alarm ticker tape parade. When the left gets a story like the one on Cameron, the word "little" is used to describe their find.

The right thrives on devaluing everything by using childish tact. Learn how to debate using grown up methods.

PS. Dan Rather is an idiot.

If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

If FOX behaved like CBS, and was in any way comparable, I'd be all over it. I largely let the AP "fake boo" story slide (and I hate the AP), but Rathergate was a concerted effort to swing an election with false documentation.

C'mon ...

Bill, I don't deny what you are saying. Rather was definately mounting an "effort to swing an election". But, the attack dogs on FOX news have been trying to swing the election with lies and deceit all along. Do you really believe that FOX is "Fair and Balanced"?

I call a liar, a liar. Rather lies. Sean Hannity lies. Bill O'Reilly lies, and CNN has turned into a Hollywood production that is only interested in what Brittany Spears is wearing. Our news has turned into entertainment, opinion, speculation, and lies. It's odd to me that nobody seems to be bothered by it. It's the reponsibility of the FCC to hold these people accountable, but I don't see that happening:

"As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.""

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html

I call a liar, a liar. Rather lies. Sean Hannity lies. Bill O'Reilly lies, and CNN has turned into a Hollywood production that is only interested in what Brittany Spears is wearing.

Hannity and O'Reilly are not reporters. They're openly positioned as expressing opinion, and admit their positions and biases.

Rather and CNN claim to be reporters with no slant, no opinion, no bias, who accurately report the news.

Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

And, really, it's not a matter whether Fox is "fair and balanced". They ARE "fairer and more balanced", and that's probably as good as we're going to get for a while.

"Hannity and O'Reilly are not reporters. They're openly positioned as expressing opinion, and admit their positions and biases."

Then I recommend that FOX "News" Channel change their name to FOX "Opinion" Channel. It's a clearer representation of reality, don't you think? I think it's obvious that many people here get their own personal versions of truth from these non-reporters.

Anonymous -

The only reason you find their bias so offensive is because it doesn't agree with you (and yes, ridiculous claims to the contrary, they are way biased, duh).

I feel the same way about CNN, when I watch Judy Woodruff ask Bob Dole 15 times in an interview about teh WWII Memorial - why we are being "defeated" in Iraq.

I get so damn sick and tired of liberal whining about FOX. It's biased, so what? The fact that the left can't recognize that the rest of the press is biased to the left (to varying degrees) and hence FOX makes for a viable alternative viewpoint that has a rightful place in the media pisses me off.

Live with it. I think Lou Dobbs lies about outsourcing. Woodruff lies about Iraq. Lies, lies, lies.

(Hint: they aren't really "lies," persay)

"I get so damn sick and tired of liberal whining about FOX. It's biased, so what?"

1. It's not whining to expect an organization with the moniker "FOX News Channel" to report the news, and not extremely biased commentary. Why is it too much to ask that we have unbiased news delivery? I can formulate my own opinions, I don't need guidance. I dream of a time (long since lost) when people learned politics from books, history, and discussion. Not from FOX, CNN, or any other Hollywood production. But I digress...

2. CNN sucks, you won't hear any complaints from me on that one.

3. I'm too intelligent to be an extreme liberal, just as you are too intelligent to be an extreme conservative.

Sure, but in the meantime, complaints that are specific to FOX News as a bunch of liars are ... pointless? Without context? I dunno.

Cynicism is ofen a curse of intellectualism, by the way. But above that mode of thinking, there is another level of quiet acceptance about the things that just are, and cannot be changed.

Anonymous scientist is clearly an idiot. Here's another outrage AS -- they call it the Food Network, but whenever I tune in, I see people on it!

Christ, what a joke. Like a 24 hour News channel can't offer news analysis.

"Anonymous scientist is clearly an idiot."

Jeff G: Clearly your only defense is an ad hominem attack. Stylistic point deduction for you!

"Cynicism is ofen a curse of intellectualism"

Bill: I'm not cynical. I have trust for most human beings, just not Bush. I have trust in most politicians, just not Bush. I don't sneer at or make jest of your opinions (unlike Jeff G does to me), I just think Bush sucks and I feel compelled to voice my opinions here. Would you prefer that I just leave your forum (this is not up to anyone but Bill)?

"there is another level of quiet acceptance about the things that just are, and cannot be changed."

Bill: I call this level of acceptance apathy.

My only defense?

Um, what about the analogy to the Food Network? Didn't work for you? Or howsabout the suggestion that it seems perfectly in good faith for a News network to offer news analysis programming. No good?

You are an idiot. And what's worse, you are an idiot who seems to believe s/he is not an idiot.

"they call it the Food Network, but whenever I tune in, I see people on it!" ... "Um, what about the analogy to the Food Network? Didn't work for you?"

Jeff G: No that was a real zinger all right. Stopped me in my tracks. Sorry for suggesting that your only defense is calling me an "idiot".

"news analysis programming"

Jeff G: I have an acroynm for you N.A.P. -- go take one, you seem a bit testy.

Bill: I apologize, but I don't take kindly to un-provoked attacks.

"Zinger"? Do you mean analogy? -- one that you haven't yet answered?

Do everybody a favor and if you're going to pontificate, at least follow up. Don't fall back on some "the tone is offputting" dodge.

You try to set yourself up as some sort of neutral observer, but your condescention oozes from your every word. And this, combined with your persistent idiocy, convinces people to bring out the sharp knives.

Ah go ahead, duke it out.

But regarding this:

Bill: I call this level of acceptance apathy.

I would hardly call what I've been doing with the MSM "apathy." It's the wisdom to fight what you can fight, and rage against what can be changed.

Wisdom.

"It's the wisdom to fight what you can fight, and rage against what can be changed."

Bill: I respect this.

I met Ace at a Republican Meetup in Manhattan. Just as you would expect, he is very mild-mannered in person.

"'Zinger'? Do you mean analogy? -- one that you haven't yet answered?"

Jeff G: What did you want me to answer? Did I think your analogy was good? No, I think it was poorly formed (it sucked really). Now I will waste my time telling you why you don't understand analogy.

You tried to make an analogy to my original statement, "It's not whining to expect an organization with the moniker "FOX News Channel" to report the news, and not extremely biased commentary." by countering with this "they call it the Food Network, but whenever I tune in, I see people on it!"

My premise is valid: An organization with moniker "FOX News Channel" should be expected to show news, not fake news.

Are you suggesting (by brilliant analogy) that on the Food Network I should only expect to see food, not people? Who would cook the food then? I would be put off if the Food Network decided gear its programming towards the creation of fake food -- outraged by the restructuring of their programming to cater to the interests of people who make refrigerator magnets and centerpieces for tables.

Time OUT Already! Anonysci needs to digest a bit of something real, something new:

Intellectual Morons
By Jamie Glazov
Daniel J. Flynn discusses how ideology makes smart people fall for stupid ideas.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15363

Time out willem: Jeff G asked me to explain to him why his analogy sucks. I put forth a logical argument, and you counter with reference to a book? I don't see how it's relevant to the explanation I gave regarding a poorly formed analogy.

"smart people fall for stupid ideas" -- what stupid ideas are you suggesting I fell for? Are you trying to say that I'm so smart that I fail to see the light that you and your peers have seen? What's in the light willem? What superior knowledge do you possess? You don't know anything about me willem -- I think it's inappropriate to bash me half assedly.

So if any of Bill's readers out there have started a new blog, the trick to getting linked by Bill is to threaten him with violence. I might even make a few death threats myself. Get me a damn scone!

AS --

You just keep digging and digging, don't you. The point is, the NAME of the network is not so semantically constraining as to disallow for related activity. The FOOD NETWORK, as your brilliant misreading of my analogy points out, requires people to cook the food. To which I say, yes! Precisely! And a 24 hour News Channel requires 24 hours worth of programming, some of which is news analysis, which, to spice things up and to present the various sides of political issues, is broken down along partisan lines.

But you stick to that, "It calls itself a News channel, and yet it has opinion on it" bit. Which will work equally well when you turn your keen mind to deconstructing "newspapers," with their dishonest op-ed pages and their vile Classifieds sections...

Jeff G: It took a long time for your retort. Don't ask me to respond to poorly formed thought anymore. I only kept this up because you insisted that I respond to you -- not once, but twice. I would have been willing to just disregard your error in logic, but you just kept "digging and digging". When you didn't like what I had to say, you called me an "idiot" -- which by the way is one of the lowest forms of defense. Have a great day Jeff G.

"I mean, this guy's a maniac - I only link him every other day because I'm afraid that he'll kill me." - Bill

*ROFL* Nah... Ace is a pussycat. FrankJ is the one you have to watch out for. ;]

Have to agree with AS: it's inappropriate to bash him half assedly.

Bash him full assedly, Jeff, willem - it's much more satisfying for the onlookers here in the cheap seats. ;}

Ironbear: I would prefer a full-assed bashing, because his frontal lobe surely hasn't been helping him win this argument!