Fox News Buys Al-Jazeera
 

It's been said enough, add comment.

No comment = closed thread!

LAST WARNING!

[domokun] *rawr* [/domokun]

Is this for real?

Somehow this seems like a big practical joke. April fools coming early this year?

CShine, this is in the Satire section of MSNBC news. It is fake. Did you really think Hannity and Hussain was in production?

Mods, this one might fit nicely into humor or nonsense.

It's a satire article. If you follow the link, it declares it as such. Still, it's a pretty funny article.

"Hannity and Hussein"? Heh.

I saw this listed as "satire" on Fark...

its a joke. it was on MSNBC's satire blog page.

Fox News buys Al-Jazeera. Stay tuned for "Hannity and Heussein"

It is hard to believe that a liberal news organization like FOX would buy such a biased anti-American outfit like Al-Jazeera. Just goes to show how far left the major news organizations have become.

------------->IT IS A JOKE. THIS IS NOT REAL.<--------------
Please take the article above for what it is; a joke. The Al Jazeera Network would probably rather die than join Fox News. That comedy is that the polar opposites would combine. Jeez.

Can't you see the irony in my..Oh nevermind, LOL.

Double sarcasm is the best! :thumbsup: Are the mods going to move this?

Now I know where Ultra-Fark is.

/been wondering

i find this situation to be funny on many levels.

one of the funniest moments in the film "control room"--which is about al jazeera--comes when the news producer (one of the film's central characters and who seems like an interesting guy to have a drink or six with) says:
"if fox news offered me a job, i would take it"
and then tries
for a short time
to keep a straight face.

so now you have this article.
which shows that the author saw the film.

That scared the shit out of me when i saw it yesterday... I think my head might have exploded if it had been real.

Oh thank the Lord this isn't for real...
It had me fooled until somewhere around replacing Bush with Ted Kennedy.

Funny...wrong...but funny!

thats great. but they should by aljazeera and just shut it down.

sure--god forbid that any news outlet not totally in the service of the americans should exist out there. the american propaganda shell should be everywhere and should be absolute. great idea.

As long as its main purpose is anti-american propaganda, then yes, shut it down.

You're name wouldn't happen to be Jeb, would it?

the problem for the american right is that al jazeera simply operates outside its control.
that does not make it "anti-american"
but you can believe what you like, really" statements made by asshats like rumsfeld about al jazeera on the assumption that you have neither watched it nor seen its webversion--or you could actually read/watch and figure it out for yourself.

which may be an anti-american suggestion--bushworld is not big on independence of thinking.

great point :lol:

so you're saying you watch aljazzy and believe it to paint an honest picture of america. If so, you're more twisted than I initially suspected.

My name's not Jeb, but he's my neighbor. :thumbsup:

So you're saying you watch Fox News and believe it to paint an honest picture of anything at all? If so, you're more gullible than I thought was possible...

If you don't think FNC paints an honest picture of anything at all there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

look at that, finally one of your posts I can respond to civilly...

you're right! there really isn't any point in you discussing anything with me.

I've never got how FNC is so bad nor wrong? I realize the bias is pretty obvious. Any takers care to enlighten me?

well mojo,

First of all corperations are bad and rupert has a real big one, that makes him real bad. Second, fox news displays the flag, and is always in red, white, & blue. Third, they say a lot of things liberals don't want to hear. So when you add it up, FNC is nothing more than a corperate conservative mouthpiece that will do and say anything to keep bush in power, because with rupert's help they're gonna put an end to term limits and we'll all have to go to church on sunday and denounce evolution.

You're trolling right? Please tell me you're trolling...

But yeah, I guess you're right. Fox IS fair and balanced news, and anyone that says something that could be considered being "anti-american" should be taken off the air and preferably locked up. What is this freedom of speech thing anyway?

In my opinion it's the fact that they do not report the news in a objective way, they always mix in their own opinions in the news.
Now, I don't mind this in say a debate show or anything, for example I do dislike Bill O'Reilly, but still I think he has the right to say whatever he please on his own show. News reporting should be just that though, reporting news. No personal spin on everything.
(And yes, of course I realize that other networks most likely put their own spin to news they report. No one however does it as painfully obvious as Fox)

Well, at least with fox you know what your getting. Their 'bias' stands out so blatantly because the of way the mainstream press has been disguising their bias all these years. To the naive, they make it look like they report in an unbiased fasion, but once you look from the outside, and see a bigger picture, CNN and MSNBC are just as biased, if not more so, than FNC.

Us on the right have learned to live with the liberal bias in the media, and fox news came about to fill a niche that was open. But those on the left can't seem to get over the fact that fox acts differently than the other new outlets, and inserts both sides of the arguement even if it is right more than left.

So stop crying about it and change the channel back to your CNN comfort zone if what fox says gets you so mad.

CNN and MSNBC more biased than Fox... Ok, whatever you say...

conservatives talk about personal responsibility while never accepting any of it--so here, when the problems with fox news are obvious to anyone who looks, you get a series of bland relativizing moves the point of which is to diffuse responsibility. fox is not like other networks.
aparently that gets too close to something wrong that conservatives might have to acknowledge.
so "well, cnn and msnbc are blah blah blah..."

it would be funny if it were not so...o what's the word...spineless.

and this from the same political position that advocates a kind of high school machiavelli as forgein policy guide, that advocates bombing the shit out of everyplace understood as 'anti-american" blah blah blah. the kind of militarism that can only happen if you know other people will die while you talk; the kind of personal responsibility that always, only, applies to other people.

to say that fox news is much more conservative than other tv networks is true. to say that fox news is on the conservative side of america's center is also probably true.

however, that in itself says nothing to the accuracy of their reporting. imagine a scale from 1 to 100 that gauges the bias inherent in any news source. 1 is ultra-conservative slant, 100 extreme-liberal propaanda, 50 is the perfect reporting of all issues with complete objectivity.

if you group the majority of tv news sources at 75 and foxnews at 35 you satisfy most people's claims. fox is radically conservative for a tv network, it certainly has a right-wing bias... but its score is nearer the center than other networks.

so you see, to atomically make the claim that foxnews has a conservative bias can be at once correct and irrelevant.

objectivity is an illusion.
people look for it so they can go to sleep while processing "information"
you think that because there is a camera involved that what is shown is necessarily accurate, it seems.
that is really pretty naieve.

the only problem with knowing this is that you cant really trust any single source of information--you have to gather, coalate, sift, interpret--all actively.

fox is problematic at the level of information, how it is staged, how it is interpreted. fox is even more obviously problematic in its editorial slant, but at least there you know what you are in for and have a remote presumably.
in a perverse way, its obviousness is something to be admired, since it apporaches a honesty within more general stream of falsehoods (fair and balanced, say)

fox is obviously dimissable source if you are looking for information not already packaged in terms of conservative presuppositions.
and would you not think that there should be something to information beyond the reinforcement of arbitrary political predispositions? something--maybe--that makes you think a little rather than something that functions to reionforce a sense of mastery of the world based on assumptions that you know--evne if you do not agree--can be understood as removed from the reality that other folk know about?

is that so? i'm not sure how you can give an argument like that without cutting off any branch you choose to stand on. you can say that people are incapable of being perfectly objective... true. but it's equally true to say that no one is perfect. even so, i can point to some people who are more perfect than others. similarly, some journalists are more objective than others.

if it weren't such a silly thing to say i'd be insulted.

who would argue? who is saying that any source of news is the best source in every instance? if you knew anything about me you'd understand that i consider tv coverage to be the medium least adept to covering news... severely handicapping the stock i put into ANY tv network's news.

the presuppositions are granted. however, if perfect objectivity is unattainable (or an illusion if you prefer) then you must assume that all news coverage is built on presuppositions. why criticize fox so much if all news is the same? i think the answer is that it most offends your sensibilities, not that you can demonstrate it is more beholden to a particular bias than other networks.


of course, who could you be speaking to? your whole post seemed to be geared on the faulty (and imagined) premise that anyone encourages foxnews as the sole source of news gathering.

perhaps so, irate. i succumb to the illusions generated by a message board once again. my apologies if my inferences about your position ran counter to how you operate in 3-d life.

i guess the problem is that you take your news gathering habits to be universal, just as i took my assumptions about yours to fit into a pattern that i--for better or worse--know about from quantitative data--there is a really quite depressing study from cornell about american attitudes toward muslims that contains a range of quite damning data about patterns of news gathering and conservative politics--i dont have time at the moment to search the link up, but you could probably get it via the title (which is i think accurate) and the cornell affiliation.

as for the point that started your post--well sure....well no----you assume that the premises of the argument i made would operate in the same register as claims to objectivity. they dont. you were tricked by the form of the statement. or because all there was was the statement, you reached reasonable conclusions that turn out to be false.
this one would be easy to explain over a beer in real life--i could attempt a version here if you like, but only after i take a certain impatient husky for a walk. but in th meantime, think how this question would be resolved from a roughly marxist viewpoint, and you'll work out the premises for yourself.