Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[Sarien]

Sigh.. It wasn't even an insult. It quite literally DOES explain everything.
Follow me please, as I take you on a short journey. Fox news is about as close to a political propaganda channel as the USA can possibly have, to be perfectly honest with you. It is completely right wing to the point where if God ran as a "liberal democrat" then they'd stand by God's opponent.
Fox news has had on the payroll:

Geraldo Rivera: Embedded with troops pushing hardcore patriotism while disclosing troop movements that could get people killed.

Oliver North: Reknowned republican disgraced during the Reagan Era during the Iran/Contra affair.

Bill O'Reilly: Second only to Rush Limbaugh in his "current" right-wingism. Harper's Magazine once reported of O'Reilly:

Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly became so infuriated by the son of a 9-ll victim who opposed the war -- "I'm against it and my father would have been against it, too" -- that he cursed the man and even threatened him off-camera.

The bad part about O'Reilly is, he started his rise to popularity by claiming to do his editorials on just "what's right". I saw him with my own eyes shift after 9-11 to going from "what's right" to "what's right-wing", and has become one of the media figures I most despise. About the only thing right I've seen him do in the past 3 years is finally admit that he was wrong, there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Roger Ailes: Worked on the 1988 Bush Sr. Campaign. You'll see this name again.

TV Anchor Neil Cavuto: celebrated the fall of Baghdad by informing all of us who opposed the war in March, "You were sickening then, you are sickening now."

Last November, Charlie Reina, who worked at Fox News for six years, wrote in that every day there is a memo sent out to all of Fox News declaring exactly how it is they are to slant things to the pro-Bush perspective, that day. He swore this was truth, and that he would take a lie detector test to show it.

Now.. Fox News is sometimes jokingly called "Roger's Revenge" or other such names, referring to Roger Ailes, and his belief that Fox News is a stab at what he sees as "liberal democrat media". He also happens to be the personal news advisor to one Rupert Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch, CEO of Fox, Australian. Tabloid press mogul. Take note, not Free Press Journalistic Mogul, but Tabloid press mogul. He'll do anything say anything report anything as long as it sells. His usual mix consists of patriotism (to whatever country), celebrity gossip, and bedroom humor, with just a touchhhh of racial issues. Jimmy Breslin once said that Murdoch would push so hard to use race to sell his newspapers that Murdoch became known as "Tar Baby' Murdoch". Being an Australian and ungodly rich, I can fully believe that channel has a prominent place on your nation's TV. Do you get it yet, Enforcer? Your love of Fox News as your chosen source of information, quite literally explains everything.

Oh, and I forgot to mention. The reason I have a particular distaste for media slanting is I've worked at 4 newspapers during my life, and 3 other members of my family have done or do the same. We sort of have the press in our blood, so to speak.

[Verthanthi]

I'd imagine a printing press wouldn't fit in your veins.

[THE ENFORCER]

Sarien:
Well i think Fox News is still the best news station here and still anyone is yet to tell me a better news station i do tend to the right side so im glad that there is a news station that voices the right side opinon, also i find orielly's opinons on matters such as gay marriage and FCC very senisble. However whenever a fox news reporter/ interview states an opinon i always see another interview stating the opposite view and thats something i dont see on anyother news station. Secondly i dont get all my infomation from fox news it is spread evenly over all the news stations, friends, radio, net and you guys. I just think Fox news is the better station because they tend to provide all arguments and i also more often than not walk away from Fox news siding with them. Maybe thats why you cant follow my reasoning in arguments you tend to side with left wings and i always have trouble convinving leftists. Still there is no need to direct to insulting me like you have done countlessly in this thread and in others.

You dont even know the meaning of bias until you have come to Aust and have seen the local news. All the things you have mentioned are covert, Aust local news is overtally bias and you can tell from just the language and selection of detail its amazing.

[lunch3]

Just putting in two cents for this part. Think The New York Times is one of the most unbiased, truthful, and great at showing multiple perspectives. Their writers are all very intelligent and do show their views too, but at same time they play the part of Devil's advocate and as such I sometimes find it very hard to determine what perspective the writer agrees with. They spit out facts and show relative thought links to stories, you are left to form your own opinion with both sides of the coin at your disposal.

Fox News doesn't seem more unbiased compared to all the other public news channels I see. While I think CNN is biased, they also never stretch the truth and usually provide more relative information and insight. But all in all television news channels distort the truth because of the pictures that are displayed while interpretation is dependent on how someone says something and how you yourself judge that person to be with respect to what they are saying. Written news has much more information and has no real face therefore you are left with your imagination and way of understanding things for most part to form your opinion/perspective. And I think New York Times shows the most depth compared to other newspapers. After reading the NY Times I view the writers of the Washington Post, other cities times and daily's, as people who just graduated a tough high school, while cnn online is like college level and nytimes is graduate level. Just my opinion.

PS The NYTimes is so unbiased that during WW2 it was run by Jewish owners and these owners decided not to print stories about the Holocaust in the front page during the war because they thought others would consider them biased. Instead these stories were on page like 42 or whatever the system was back then. They are very strict about maintaining their reputation, ie like with that guy they caught lying about a several sources. But looking back can anyone disagree on point that Holocaust should have been on front page at least 10 times a year, they didn't even once for like 2-3 years and then only a few times after. Sheesh, was planning just to write a paragraph, I ramble too easily sorry about that.

[bloodzombie]

You guys didn't look at mattey's link, did you?

[Melo]

I honestly think the USA searched for it, arming yourself will only add to the anger and there is always a way to hit an enemy. You can put as much money as you want in the defense, there is still a way in my opinion. On my point of view, I would vote for the green party for the USA because its the only one who seems to understand that fact. I dont wanna make a racist movement or anything but USA seems to have the feeling they need to change everyone to there own ideal and thats what they forced many countries to do after URSS falled. I have other arguments to submit but I wont submit them because I dont think many cares about it even tho its really important. I just look at the presidential elections with the speeches and they seriously make no sense. Yes 9/11 was a tragedy and was not the way to send a message to USA government that they should mind their own buisness but if you look at a bit of history, USA`s constitution is about creating a new world so we cant do much about it if the people dont realize what is going on. Im not sure if population realize whats going on because I am a Canadian. We do agree to vote for someone who agrees with ideals of mr.Bush which is Mr. Paul Martin because the people vote for him because he`s the red party leader. Anyways my vote would go to the green party

[Melo]

I mean I would vote for the green party if I had a party to vote in USA. My vote goes to NPD (Nouveau Partie Démocratique)

[Melo]

Oh and THE ENFORCER, when you say : ``actually dont care that much both of the candidates look good`` you scare me.

[aussie]

Are you telling me that the people in Canada voted for Paul Martin because he had the same ideas as President Bush? Ugh.. I'm sorry but I don't agree with anything that President Bush has done in the past, I don't really pay attention to him anymore, so I don't know if he's done anything better lately. I don't mean to offend anyone at all, but meh. I don't rememebr what I was going to say ... I was just shocked at the Paul Martin comment that Elmo said :/

[Private420]

So "Why aren't we invading other dictorial regimes"

undefinedMONEY$$$$$undefined

[Troll King]

Technically, we didn't vote Paul Martin into being Prime Minister, the Liberal party did. Chretien retired and he was the logical replacement. The same people who selected Martin as leader, that is, the Liberal party, are the same people who agreed with supported Chretien's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as well as other disputes such as the soft lumber dispute. His ascension into the office has nothing to do with Canada-U.S. relations. Any effect this change in leadership has on relations with the States is incidental.

[J4D3D]

Paul Martin was never voted on by the Canadian public. He was the Liberal Party's Finance Minister, who made headlines with his surplus budgeting. Over 90% of the Liberal Party voted him in as party leader in September upon Jean Chretien's timely retirement.

[bloodzombie]

I would consider voting for the green party if I didn't feel that it was so urgent to remove bush.

the green party isn't going to win, and the majority of the votes that they get would be democratic votes if nader wasn't running.

edit: this isn't completely off-topic.. responding to elmo

[Melo]

First of all troll King, Martin did not cooperate with Chretien for a long time so no I dont think he was against it because I see that he plans to have the anti-nuclear missiles defense. Secondly, look at the ``sondage`` (dunno the english word) and he is in a BIG lead and when I need big it means big. Also, yes it will change them troll king because he is more liberalist than Chretien. The point I wanted to do is that most countries dont vote with their head because they dont seem implicated enough in politics.

[Melo]

and by the way, if you were Martin and wanted power but disagreed with a lot of politics decided by Chretien, would you go join the green party or stay because most Liberals support you? It doesnt mean your a Liberal that you will act the same way, the history have proven it.