Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (518136)	1/1/2004 2:06:09 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I said that you could not back up an argument, and this is how you replied. I stand by the post. OK then we need to revisit what was said then, which is the evidence that needs no explanation: First of all, nobody gets "all" their news from one source, at least nobody informed enough to be posting political commentary on the internet. Second, Fox News does just as good a job digging out stories as any broadcast network news operation does, probably even better. To which I replied: I rest my case. It appears that you cannot see the evidence in the above. I thought it was obvious. Let me enumerate: 1. "Nobody gets all their news from one source." In this case the statement is ingenuous, as if a person did get their news from a number of sources, then they could not say "Fox News does just as good a job digging out stories as any broadcast network news operation does, probably even better", because this is simply not the case. Unless you are talking about "digging out" dead stories and attempting to breath new life into them. 2. "at least nobody informed enough to be posting political commentary on the internet". This qualifier statement should stand alone in indicting the writer completely, however you may not be able to see, what even T Watson would clearly see as an "Idiot identification event cue". There is no threshold of "informed enough" which qualifies someone to post political commentary on the internet. The writer is attempting some form of self agrandization by his feeble attempts to post "political commentary", as if the act itself is some form of licensure. If this is not enough evidence as of yet to rest ones case, then further consider the fact, of which is widely known about Fox News: Fox News presents the news from a conservative viewpoint. Therefore, if the news is presented from a conservative viewpoint, it is no longer news, but can be more fairly represented as commentary or opinion. Fox New's banner statement, "Fair and Balanced", is truly a misnomer. For they are a self confessed conservative organization. O'Reilly is not news. It's conservative commentary. Same with Hannity and Cavuto. So in reality, the name of the station, "Fox News", is a lie too, because it's not news. It's commentary. Opinion. So therefore it would be obvious to most, that Fox News does not report news. Fox News spins events in political commentary and opinion. This would be especially obvious to anyone who gets their "news" from broad sources. It will be less obvious to those who immerse themselves in sources such as Fox News, The National Weekly and Rush Limbaugh. Orca