Fox News v CNN v MSNBC

[Gunny]

The answer is: D None of the above. I get better news from the local affiliates in the morning than any of those 3.

It's a choice of watching a bunch of leftwing propaganda on CNN and MSNBC or watching those 3 goofs on Fox and Friends try to be witty and cover everything BUT the news.

[LongTermGuy]

*Good evening Gunny...Good for you:thumb:

[Gunny]

*Good evening Gunny...Good for you:thumb:

Laying around on the sofa for a week, I got a chance to watch all 3. CNN actually presents the most news. I'm not going to say it's left wing; however, it presents the left a bit more favorably than it does the right. Fox News is less critical of the right and more critical of the left. Now, I am talking about the actual news, not the pundits. ALL of them are all over the place.

OReilly's on a crusade against pot in the name of saving our children.. Hannity's got a new toy with the prisoner escape he's OCD-ing on.

Here's a clue Bill: Alcohol and tobacco is illegal for minors. So is pot. Those that are going to use ANY of the three, are going to. They already were. IMO, he's making the same argument against pot that the loonies make about banning firearms. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away.

Hannity will probably go off his hinge tonight about the shark attack and ask a myriad of guests the same questions over and over again.

CNN's and MSNBC's pundits I couldn't listen to at all.

[LongTermGuy]

Laying around on the sofa for a week, I got a chance to watch all 3. CNN actually presents the most news. I'm not going to say it's left wing; however, it presents the left a bit more favorably than it does the right. Fox News is less critical of the right and more critical of the left. Now, I am talking about the actual news, not the pundits. ALL of them are all over the place.

OReilly's on a crusade against pot in the name of saving our children.. Hannity's got a new toy with the prisoner escape he's OCD-ing on.

Here's a clue Bill: Alcohol and tobacco is illegal for minors. So is pot. Those that are going to use ANY of the three, are going to. They already were. IMO, he's making the same argument against pot that the loonies make about banning firearms. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away.

Hannity will probably go off his hinge tonight about the shark attack and ask a myriad of guests the same questions over and over again.

CNN's and MSNBC's pundits I couldn't listen to at all.


Love and enjoy my Fox News....One thing for sure...They got the smarts to put very Liberal commentators on "their" pay-roll....mixes things up a bit...I get a lot of online info also.....news never stops....interesting times.

[Gunny]

Love and enjoy my Fox News....One thing for sure...They got the smarts to put very Liberal commentators on "their" pay-roll....mixes things up a bit...I get a lot of online info also.....news never stops....interesting times.

They have some conservatives on CNN. The show that was on today, anyway. The reason I quit watching CNN back when was because you get 4-5 people, all talking at once. I don't watch a lot of ESPN nor NFL live for the same reason.

HOWEVER, Hannity and OReilly will talk over their guests and never let them finish a sentence if they aren't in full agreement with them. Hannity is the worst. I'm like, "Why'd you bother having them on?" Being louder and ruder doesn't make you right.

Or they'll have these "panels" and bring on a race-baiter and a conservative black and the race-baiter won't let ANYONE get a word in.

Take the issue of the girl in McKinney, TX. Doesn't anyone watch cops? They throw you to the ground, roll your legs up behind you and put their knee in your head while dislocating your shoulders cuffing you, and claim you're resisting just because your shoulder doesn't move that way.

That's NOT racist. That's what cops do, and we as a society allow it. I DON' agree with it, BTW. But Oh Hell NO. Not to the race-baiter. White cop black girl. Never mind those kids were on private property trying to go to a pool residents have to pay for and they don't. Never mind the kids WERE all over the place and being little assholes.

None of that matters. It was racist. He wouldn't even let Hannity talk. Someone shut HIM up for once.

[Gunny]

Then there is Greta and Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace could irritate Jesus. She obviously has no clue about voice inflection. If over-dramatize EVERY word, it's just an annoy screech to me. And I remember her from Court TV. The defendent was automatically guilty, get out the rope. I can't watch her even if I'm interested in the topic.

Both are lawyers and both ask THE dumbest, most irrelevant questions, usually from people who wouldn't know the answer if everyone else did.

[LongTermGuy]

*CNN & MSNBC ...Most Americans feel they SUCK....bad....:thumb:

[Bilgerat]

I don't mind watching Morning Joe. (Until the last 15 minutes, then it's the Mika woman power show)

A good clue to check things out is when Mika gets her panties in a bunch. I note it, then check whatever they are talking about on the interwebs.

That way you can sort the wheat from the chaff :laugh:

[Drummond]

They have some conservatives on CNN. The show that was on today, anyway. The reason I quit watching CNN back when was because you get 4-5 people, all talking at once. I don't watch a lot of ESPN nor NFL live for the same reason.

HOWEVER, Hannity and OReilly will talk over their guests and never let them finish a sentence if they aren't in full agreement with them. Hannity is the worst. I'm like, "Why'd you bother having them on?" Being louder and ruder doesn't make you right.

Or they'll have these "panels" and bring on a race-baiter and a conservative black and the race-baiter won't let ANYONE get a word in.

Take the issue of the girl in McKinney, TX. Doesn't anyone watch cops? They throw you to the ground, roll your legs up behind you and put their knee in your head while dislocating your shoulders cuffing you, and claim you're resisting just because your shoulder doesn't move that way.

That's NOT racist. That's what cops do, and we as a society allow it. I DON' agree with it, BTW. But Oh Hell NO. Not to the race-baiter. White cop black girl. Never mind those kids were on private property trying to go to a pool residents have to pay for and they don't. Never mind the kids WERE all over the place and being little assholes.

None of that matters. It was racist. He wouldn't even let Hannity talk. Someone shut HIM up for once.

It's been a long time since I've seen a Hannity interview. Still, his interview with Anjem Choudary comes to mind (a transatlantic one, with the radical Islamic trash he was speaking to based in London). Hannity took a lot from Choudary ... and got him to admit that he wanted America to live under Sharia Law. Some might call Hannity's style intolerant and oppressive. But that's one way of getting your opposition to open up, and show themselves in their true colours.

Hannity called Choudary out on his :bsflag::bsflag::bsflag: ... and did a great job. In my opinion, he deserves much praise.

[CSM]

IMO, if any of them would just report the NEWS, complete with FACTS instead of speculation or sensationalism, I would jump up and cheer. As it is, they all bring on some talking head/journalist to slant what they are presenting as news and turn it into a political/moral debate. One has to really dig to get the facts behind the bumper sticker/sound bite crap. All of them are more like propaganda machines than real news sources.

[LongTermGuy]

IMO, if any of them would just report the NEWS, complete with FACTS instead of speculation or sensationalism, I would jump up and cheer. As it is, they all bring on some talking head/journalist to slant what they are presenting as news and turn it into a political/moral debate. One has to really dig to get the facts behind the bumper sticker/sound bite crap. All of them are more like propaganda machines than real news sources.

*Very neutral and safe comment for most to agree on.....like saying all apples are bad...not true..The people choose carefully the apples they want to "use" and eat from the apple tree ....If one looks close enough one can find some blemish and fault anywhere...Thank God for Fox News to bring out the ignorance and hypocrisy of the self serving left leaning "media"...Which makes it Americas most "viewed" news source.... Thank god we still have freedom of choice and opinion and a remote to change the channel if not satisfied....For all you Fox News haters...change the focking channel to something you enjoy and move on with life.:coffee:

[aboutime]

*CNN & MSNBC ...Most Americans feel they SUCK....bad....:thumb:

Which is why many call it...http://icansayit.com/images/pmsnbc.jpg

[CSM]

*Very neutral and safe comment for most to agree on.....like saying all apples are bad...not true..The people choose carefully the apples they want to "use" and eat from the apple tree ....If one looks close enough one can find some blemish and fault anywhere...Thank God for Fox News to bring out the ignorance and hypocrisy of the self serving left leaning "media"...Which makes it Americas most "viewed" news source.... Thank god we still have freedom of choice and opinion and a remote to change the channel if not satisfied....For all you Fox News haters...change the focking channel to something you enjoy and move on with life.:coffee:

Actually, I watch FOX more than the others. CNN once in a great while and MSNBC almost never.

[Gunny]

*Very neutral and safe comment for most to agree on.....like saying all apples are bad...not true..The people choose carefully the apples they want to "use" and eat from the apple tree ....If one looks close enough one can find some blemish and fault anywhere...Thank God for Fox News to bring out the ignorance and hypocrisy of the self serving left leaning "media"...Which makes it Americas most "viewed" news source.... Thank god we still have freedom of choice and opinion and a remote to change the channel if not satisfied....For all you Fox News haters...change the focking channel to something you enjoy and move on with life.:coffee:

Fox News is no better than CNN for presenting talking heads with a slant. Of course the people are carefully chosen. If OReilly or Hannity wish to present a certain POV, they get a "Fox contributor" talking head and let them talk. If they want to allegedly present an opposing view, both will talk right over that person and never let them finish a sentence. That is NOT presenting an opposing view.

They also like to employ the two guest "technique". One, a hand-picked, well-mannered conservative; the other, a hand-picked, foaming at the mouth left wing radical. That is hardly "fair and balanced".

One thing I DID retain from 4 years of journalism is the basic tenet of presenting the facts in a manner that leads the reader/viewer to the conclusion you wish him/her to come to.

[Gunny]

Actually, I watch FOX more than the others. CNN once in a great while and MSNBC almost never.

I actually only watch "Lockup" (a prison documentary that airs weekend nights) on MSNBC. :laugh:

Likewise, I only watch "American Greed" on CNBC. I watch NEITHER for news.

I watch BOTH Fox and CNN for news.

As far as the pundits go, I'll watch a little of both. OReilly's usually good for a laugh and I like Megyn Kelly on Fox. Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper usually have some interesting stuff on CNN.

[LongTermGuy]

Fox News is no better than CNN for presenting talking heads with a slant. Of course the people are carefully chosen. If OReilly or Hannity wish to present a certain POV, they get a "Fox contributor" talking head and let them talk. If they want to allegedly present an opposing view, both will talk right over that person and never let them finish a sentence. That is NOT presenting an opposing view.

They also like to employ the two guest "technique". One, a hand-picked, well-mannered conservative; the other, a hand-picked, foaming at the mouth left wing radical. That is hardly "fair and balanced".

One thing I DID retain from 4 years of journalism is the basic tenet of presenting the facts in a manner that leads the reader/viewer to the conclusion you wish him/her to come to.


Its all a matter of "opinion"....Fox News is better than CNN and the other left leaning garbage.....numbers dont lie....Like I said before folks can choose their news sources..and with that "option"...Fox remains on top and successful....*The lefts rebuttal to this is people are stupid and dont know any better...and they know what is good for us....

[Gunny]

Its all a matter of "opinion"....Fox News is better than CNN and the other left leaning garbage.....numbers dont lie....Like I said before folks can choose their news sources..and with that "option"...Fox remains on top and successful....*The lefts rebuttal to this is people are stupid and dont know any better...and they know what is good for us....

Sure numbers lie. They usually support the agenda of who is presenting them.

For instance ... Fox claims to be "America's #1 News Network". One, I don't believe that. Two, Fox presents the least amount of actual news of any "news" network.

Fox & Friends, OReilly, Hannity, Baier, Kelly, and Van Susteren are NOT news. I don't know WHAT Fox & Friends is. They spend more time giggling at each others lame jokes than anything else. Unless you want to count their cooking segment as "news"

The rest are pundits. Political commentary. Their sole job is to get you to believe what they want you to about something in the news, that may or may not even be current.

[LongTermGuy]

Sure numbers lie. They usually support the agenda of who is presenting them.

For instance ... Fox claims to be "America's #1 News Network". One, I don't believe that. Two, Fox presents the least amount of actual news of any "news" network.

Fox & Friends, OReilly, Hannity, Baier, Kelly, and Van Susteren are NOT news. I don't know WHAT Fox & Friends is. They spend more time giggling at each others lame jokes than anything else. Unless you want to count their cooking segment as "news"

The rest are pundits. Political commentary. Their sole job is to get you to believe what they want you to about something in the news, that may or may not even be current.


What ever Man...maybe you should turn the channel if you dont care for Fox News...?.....Meanwhile...I and many others will enjoy it....Fair enough.

[Gunny]

What ever Man...maybe you should turn the channel if you dont care for Fox News...?.....Meanwhile...I and many others will enjoy it....Fair enough.

Did you miss the part where I spent 4 years in journalism? I think I just might know what I'm talking about.

You're not really going to pull this "it's either black or white" crap, are you? CNN is not some leftwing BS and Fox all-truthful and angelic. BOTH lead you to believe what they want you to. It's called "yellow" journalism and it's been around since the printing press was invented. Horace Greeley and William Randolph Hurst perfected it, but it's been in use since the Boston rag pre-Revolutionary War. It's just fact.

I didn't make the rules. I'm just telling you what they are.

Take OReilly on pot: Think his argument isn't slanted to his viewpoint. Legalizing marijuana somehow has something in his mind that it has to do with kids smoking pot and he would have you believe that too and his entire episode is slanted toward making the viewer believe one has something to do with the other when, in fact, it doesn't.

[Drummond]

Fox News is no better than CNN for presenting talking heads with a slant. Of course the people are carefully chosen. If OReilly or Hannity wish to present a certain POV, they get a "Fox contributor" talking head and let them talk. If they want to allegedly present an opposing view, both will talk right over that person and never let them finish a sentence. That is NOT presenting an opposing view.

They also like to employ the two guest "technique". One, a hand-picked, well-mannered conservative; the other, a hand-picked, foaming at the mouth left wing radical. That is hardly "fair and balanced".

One thing I DID retain from 4 years of journalism is the basic tenet of presenting the facts in a manner that leads the reader/viewer to the conclusion you wish him/her to come to.

Gunny, I'd like your view on the Hannity interview I'm posting below. Simple question ... do you, or do you not, believe he treated Anjem Choudary as fairly as he deserved (or possibly, much BETTER than he deserved) ?

It's not the interview I had in mind before, by the way .. but a later one. I actually PREFER this one from Hannity ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znLj476oq2E

I suggest that the American media have a need for Hannity, and his style of interviewing. I for one value it.

[Gunny]

Gunny, I'd like your view on the Hannity interview I'm posting below. Simple question ... do you, or do you not, believe he treated Anjem Choudary as fairly as he deserved (or possibly, much BETTER than he deserved) ?

It's not the interview I had in mind before, by the way .. but a later one. I actually PREFER this one from Hannity ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znLj476oq2E

I suggest that the American media have a need for Hannity, and his style of interviewing. I for one value it.

I suggest the American media has a need for honest, truthful people, but people in Hell need ice water too.

Hannity, IMO, is everything wrong with the GOP in a nutshell.

Oh, and they have to be nice to these radical Imams or they won't come back. Just getting them ON Fox is a coup.

[LongTermGuy]

[QUOTE=Gunny;741908]Did you miss the part where I spent 4 years in journalism? I think I just might know what I'm talking about.


Good for you...And Could care less.....^^^

*Many like Fox News *to make it number one....why you so concerned about Fox News...? Change the channel man if you dont like it...and move on to things you really like...If you hate them that much write them a letter about your feelings...we all know already here....and already have our minds made up on our personal choices....all is good man.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Gunny;741908]Did you miss the part where I spent 4 years in journalism? I think I just might know what I'm talking about.


Good for you...And Could care less.....^^^

*Many like Fox News *to make it number one....why you so concerned about Fox News...? Change the channel man if you dont like it...and move on to things you really like...If you hate them that much write them a letter about your feelings...we all know already here....and already have our minds made up on our personal choices....all is good man.

Why could you care less about listening to someone who is educated on a topic instead of trying to learn something?

I don't hate Fox News. You have this black or white mentality. 100% for 100% against. I'm simply saying they are no different than any other media outlet. I'm not saying they're worse. I'm just saying they're no better. And they aren't.

And YOUR post are proof of what is wrong with ALL of them. You believe every word of a single one as gospel and act like the rest are Satan; which, is not true.

[LongTermGuy]

[QUOTE=LongTermGuy;741944]

Why could you care less about listening to someone who is educated on a topic instead of trying to learn something?

I don't hate Fox News. You have this black or white mentality. 100% for 100% against. I'm simply saying they are no different than any other media outlet. I'm not saying they're worse. I'm just saying they're no better. And they aren't.

And YOUR post are proof of what is wrong with ALL of them. You believe every word of a single one as gospel and act like the rest are Satan; which, is not true.


*And you have a short memory like some that watch some of the other special News outlets........We got it Gunny....you keep harping on and on...I get it ..we get it... and appreciate your Opinion and mind-set...not a big deal...we all know here...if you want to expand on your hatred / dislike of Fox News...again write them a letter.....Again we got it....

[Drummond]

I suggest the American media has a need for honest, truthful people, but people in Hell need ice water too.

Hannity, IMO, is everything wrong with the GOP in a nutshell.

Oh, and they have to be nice to these radical Imams or they won't come back. Just getting them ON Fox is a coup.

Thanks for your answer.

I saw nothing in the interview I posted which proved Hannity to be any less than honest and truthful.

As for Choudary, if he were in hell, I'd see no reason to supply him with any ice water. I'm not in the business of being kind or considerate to any terrorist (unlike a certain Leftie on this board, a self-professed 'conservative', who still wants to protect their 'human rights') or any of their supporters. Why would I be ??

But what was wrong in the interview ? Hannity repeatedly asked questions and had nothing but evasion (with propaganda thrown in for 'good' measure) in the replies he was given. Such interviews are valuable, because they illustrate what the enemy is all about.

And certainly where Choudary is concerned, you're wrong. Check out YouTube. You'll find that, regardless of how he's treated, Choudary just comes back for more. He's done multiple interviews with Hannity alone.

Radical Imams, I suggest, want whatever chances they get to preach in the media. Get some involved in hostile interviews, and they'll either claim disproportionate bias, or will go so far as to play the 'racist' or 'victimised' cards. They think they can turn the oxygen of publicity to their advantage.

Some, you see, love to claim that America is a big, bad, imperialistic bully. Get Imams involved with interviews which are hostile to them, and they'll do what they can to get those interviews to add to that picture. Trouble is, as Choudary illustrated, all he really illustrated was a capacity for slimy evasion.

[Max R.]

The answer is: D None of the above. I get better news from the local affiliates in the morning than any of those 3.

It's a choice of watching a bunch of leftwing propaganda on CNN and MSNBC or watching those 3 goofs on Fox and Friends try to be witty and cover everything BUT the news.
Of the three, I do watch CNN for about 30 minutes every day to see what's happening, but if they are on a rant about something, I go to the DVR. I rarely watch Fox, which plays a lot in hotels, and almost never watch MSNBC.

Most of my news comes from my BBC and USAToday apps.

[Gunny]

Thanks for your answer.

I saw nothing in the interview I posted which proved Hannity to be any less than honest and truthful.

As for Choudary, if he were in hell, I'd see no reason to supply him with any ice water. I'm not in the business of being kind or considerate to any terrorist, or any of their supporters. Why would I be ??

But what was wrong in the interview ? Hannity repeatedly asked questions and had nothing but evasion (with propaganda thrown in for 'good' measure) in the replies he was given. Such interviews are valuable, because they illustrate what the enemy is all about.

And certainly where Choudary is concerned, you're wrong. Check out YouTube. You'll find that, regardless of how he's treated, Choudary just comes back for more. He's done multiple interviews with Hannity alone.

Radical Imams, I suggest, want whatever chances they get to preach in the media. Get some involved in hostile interviews, and they'll either claim disproportionate bias, or will go so far as to play the 'racist' or 'victimised' cards. They think they can turn the oxygen of publicity to their advantage.

I'm not wrong about Choudary because I didn't address him specifically. I made a generalization. If Choudary happens to be one that is different from the rest -- which your specifically pointing him out makes me assume he is -- it has nothing to do with a generalization. In general, anyone on the left, or Muslim Imam that Fox News wants back, they dont get the same ramrod treatment someone does that specifically speaking, is a leftiwing, Fox-hired talking head decoration. The get run over like a bus.

[Drummond]

I'm not wrong about Choudary because I didn't address him specifically. I made a generalization. If Choudary happens to be one that is different from the rest -- which your specifically pointing him out makes me assume he is -- it has nothing to do with a generalization. In general, anyone on the left, or Muslim Imam that Fox News wants back, they dont get the same ramrod treatment someone does that specifically speaking, is a leftiwing, Fox-hired talking head decoration. The get run over like a bus.

I concentrated on Choudary because I happen to be more familiar with him than with others, on account of his being from my part of the world (and not least thanks to all the attention the BBC has given him, even inviting him on to a discussion programme as 'an Islamic voice' to be listened to). I don't know, one way or the other, whether there are better-known Imams Stateside who do what Choudary does.

But if his type 'get run over like a bus', I'm all for that. Why ever not ? They are the ENEMY, and deserve no form of deferential treatment WHATSOEVER.

Three cheers for Hannity, for meting out what that vermin deserves.

[Drummond]

Of the three, I do watch CNN for about 30 minutes every day to see what's happening, but if they are on a rant about something, I go to the DVR. I rarely watch Fox, which plays a lot in hotels, and almost never watch MSNBC.

Most of my news comes from my BBC and USAToday apps.

Oh dear. Let me be the first to commiserate !!!!!:(:(

What I wouldn't give to have a British equivalent of Fox News on the British airwaves. We're WAY too enslaved to 'PC' behaviour over here for it to ever happen, unfortunately. There are stations that are less like the BBC, but it's only a question of relative bias. Not of actual abandonment of PC behaviour as such.

And of all the transmission mediums we have, only Sky satellite carries the Fox News feed (to us, it's a satellite channel, not a cable one). No cable company, so far as I know, carries it. And certainly not Freeview (digital terrestrial broadcasting, free to view, if you don't count the legally mandatory BBC licence fee ... received via aerials) ! Ah, but ... AL JAZEERA .. that's totally different. Literally every transmission platform imaginable carries THEIR output !!

[Gunny]

I concentrated on Choudary because I happen to be more familiar with him than with others, on account of his being from my part of the world (and not least thanks to all the attention the BBC has given him, even inviting him on to a discussion programme as 'an Islamic voice' to be listened to). I don't know, one way or the other, whether there are better-known Imams Stateside who do what Choudary does.

But if his type 'get run over like a bus', I'm all for that. Why ever not ? They are the ENEMY, and deserve no form of deferential treatment WHATSOEVER.

Three cheers for Hannity, for meting out what that vermin deserves.

Ah. Why run him over like a bus when you can let him show who and what exactly he is by letting him run his mouth?

I watched Bill OReilly do just that last night with some moron, frothing at the mouth black activist Michael Myers. He ranted incoherently the whole time and Bill let him.

MMy point is it's by design.

[Gunny]

Of the three, I do watch CNN for about 30 minutes every day to see what's happening, but if they are on a rant about something, I go to the DVR. I rarely watch Fox, which plays a lot in hotels, and almost never watch MSNBC.

Most of my news comes from my BBC and USAToday apps.

Fox also has the most commercial breaks. THAT is aggravating.

[Gunny]

Oh dear. Let me be the first to commiserate !!!!!:(:(

What I wouldn't give to have a British equivalent of Fox News on the British airwaves. We're WAY too enslaved to 'PC' behaviour over here for it to ever happen, unfortunately. There are stations that are less like the BBC, but it's only a question of relative bias. Not of actual abandonment of PC behaviour as such.

And of all the transmission mediums we have, only Sky satellite carries the Fox News feed (to us, it's a satellite channel, not a cable one). No cable company, so far as I know, carries it. And certainly not Freeview (digital terrestrial broadcasting, free to view, if you don't count the legally mandatory BBC licence fee ... received via aerials) ! Ah, but ... AL JAZEERA .. that's totally different. Literally every transmission platform imaginable carries THEIR output !!

It doesn't matter. The BBC is another news source, PC or not. And it DOESN'T have a US media agenda. I wish I still got it on TV.

But I guess I have to concede you Al Jazeera. They've got nothing to say I want to hear.

[LongTermGuy]

Of the three, I do watch CNN for about 30 minutes every day to see what's happening, but if they are on a rant about something, I go to the DVR. I rarely watch Fox, which plays a lot in hotels, and almost never watch MSNBC.

Most of my news comes from my BBC and USAToday apps.


I watch Fox....rarely watch CNN...which "I find" is mostly played in Hotels...I get a lot of my news from different sites and forums...everybody usually finds something interesting to share...

[Drummond]

Ah. Why run him over like a bus when you can let him show who and what exactly he is by letting him run his mouth?

Perfectly fair point ... except, of course, it helps if you get him galvanised to turn into a 'motormouth' in the first place.

The interview I posted had some of that in it ..


I watched Bill OReilly do just that last night with some moron, frothing at the mouth black activist Michael Myers. He ranted incoherently the whole time and Bill let him.

MMy point is it's by design.

Sounds interesting. I might've enjoyed watching it.

It depends on who you're talking about as to what tactical interviewing works the best. I recall seeing O'Reilly interview Michael Moore some years ago ... with rigid rules in place, because Moore had insisted on them beforehand. One questioner asks a question .. followed by the other person asking a question of the first person. And so on.

It made for a stilted interview, though still a somewhat revealing one. Moore still came out of it second-best.

Contrast that with the baiting, barracking style of has-been Phil Donahue, which O'Reilly was more than a match for. Now, THERE, in Donahue, was a disgusting Leftie wind-up artist !!!

[Gunny]

Perfectly fair point ... except, of course, it helps if you get him galvanised to turn into a 'motormouth' in the first place.

The interview I posted had some of that in it ..



Sounds interesting. I might've enjoyed watching it.

It depends on who you're talking about as to what tactical interviewing works the best. I recall seeing O'Reilly interview Michael Moore some years ago ... with rigid rules in place, because Moore had insisted on them beforehand. One questioner asks a question .. followed by the other person asking a question of the first person. And so on.

It made for a stilted interview, though still a somewhat revealing one. Moore still came out of it second-best.

Contrast that with the baiting, barracking style of has-been Phil Donahue, which O'Reilly was more than a match for. Now, THERE, in Donahue, was a disgusting Leftie wind-up artist !!!

They're ALL insisted on beforehand. It's a condition to agreeing to be interviewed. Then you have to out-think the conditions and set them up in a benign way to reveal themselves. A zealot ALWAYS will.

And don't be disrespecting Phil. He and Mike Douglas were as good as it gets in 1972. :laugh:

[Max R.]

Fox also has the most commercial breaks. THAT is aggravating.
Which helps explain why they were the wealthiest of the cable news channels.

Fox News runs so many commercials for the same reason a dog likes licking its balls -- because it can.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thanks for your answer.

I saw nothing in the interview I posted which proved Hannity to be any less than honest and truthful.

As for Choudary, if he were in hell, I'd see no reason to supply him with any ice water. I'm not in the business of being kind or considerate to any terrorist (unlike a certain Leftie on this board, a self-professed 'conservative', who still wants to protect their 'human rights') or any of their supporters. Why would I be ??

But what was wrong in the interview ? Hannity repeatedly asked questions and had nothing but evasion (with propaganda thrown in for 'good' measure) in the replies he was given. Such interviews are valuable, because they illustrate what the enemy is all about.

And certainly where Choudary is concerned, you're wrong. Check out YouTube. You'll find that, regardless of how he's treated, Choudary just comes back for more. He's done multiple interviews with Hannity alone.

Radical Imams, I suggest, want whatever chances they get to preach in the media. Get some involved in hostile interviews, and they'll either claim disproportionate bias, or will go so far as to play the 'racist' or 'victimised' cards. They think they can turn the oxygen of publicity to their advantage.

Some, you see, love to claim that America is a big, bad, imperialistic bully. Get Imams involved with interviews which are hostile to them, and they'll do what they can to get those interviews to add to that picture. Trouble is, as Choudary illustrated, all he really illustrated was a capacity for slimy evasion.

:beer: :salute: :beer: --Tyr

[Gunny]

Which helps explain why they were the wealthiest of the cable news channels.

Fox News runs so many commercials for the same reason a dog likes licking its balls -- because it can.

It's too early for you to make me laugh. :laugh:

I hate commercials. It's always some pharmaceutical company pimping its wares or an insurance company. I thought the whole original idea of paying for cable TV was the benefit of NO commercials.

[Max R.]

It's too early for you to make me laugh. :laugh:

I hate commercials. It's always some pharmaceutical company pimping its wares or an insurance company. I thought the whole original idea of paying for cable TV was the benefit of NO commercials.So much of what we do as people is funny. One of my favorite quotes and life philosophies comes from "Auntie Mame" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051383/):
Yes! Live! Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!

Life is too short to spend it in misery. Or, as the saying goes, to be taken seriously.

I'm not a fan of commercials either which is why virtually all my wife and I watch is either DVR'd or streaming. It's only the 30 minutes of news that I have to put up with it. However, I do find it interesting to watch the various sponsors of a show or network. It gives clues to who is their target demographic.

[Gunny]

So much of what we do as people is funny. One of my favorite quotes and life philosophies comes from "Auntie Mame" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051383/):
Yes! Live! Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!

Life is too short to spend it in misery. Or, as the saying goes, to be taken seriously.

I'm not a fan of commercials either which is why virtually all my wife and I watch is either DVR'd or streaming. It's only the 30 minutes of news that I have to put up with it. However, I do find it interesting to watch the various sponsors of a show or network. It gives clues to who is their target demographic.

Judging by Comcast cable ... old people that need drugs and people who don't have auto insurance.:laugh:

And jeez ... the disclaimer on the drugs is 3/4 of the damned commercial. The side effects make me think I don't need their drugs at all.:laugh:

[Max R.]

Judging by Comcast cable ... old people that need drugs and people who don't have auto insurance.:laugh:

And jeez ... the disclaimer on the drugs is 3/4 of the damned commercial. The side effects make me think I don't need their drugs at all.:laugh:
LOL. Correct! Funny, isn't it?

[Gunny]

LOL. Correct! Funny, isn't it?

:laugh: No.

I'd rather live with my ailments than risk those side effects. Especially when they get to may cause death ....

[Max R.]

:laugh: No.

I'd rather live with my ailments than risk those side effects. Especially when they get to may cause death ....
I meant the target demographics of their ads. However, as for side effects, thank the frickin' lawyers. You know, the same people who forced auto sunshade manufacturers to put "Do not drive with shade in place" on their products because one dumbass did so, had an accident and sued the manufacturer.

All drugs have side effects; they either don't work for all or they can have adverse consequences for a very small few. More people are allergic to penicillin and/or eggs.

[Gunny]

I meant the target demographics of their ads. However, as for side effects, thank the frickin' lawyers. You know, the same people who forced auto sunshade manufacturers to put "Do not drive with shade in place" on their products because one dumbass did so, had an accident and sued the manufacturer.

All drugs have side effects; they either don't work for all or they can have adverse consequences for a very small few. More people are allergic to penicillin and/or eggs.

I know what you meant by demographs.

Seems to me what with having a doctor prescribe it and the instructions that come with it, that should be enough without ..."this drug may cause loss of hearing, heart attack, renal failure, prostate cancer, carcinoma, stroke, brain seizures, fuzed bones, broken eyelashes and whatnot ....."

[Max R.]

I know what you meant by demographs.

Seems to me what with having a doctor prescribe it and the instructions that come with it, that should be enough without ..."this drug may cause loss of hearing, heart attack, renal failure, prostate cancer, carcinoma, stroke, brain seizures, fuzed bones, broken eyelashes and whatnot ....."
That's just the pharmaceutical companies CYA'ing via their legal department.

Smart people who have an adverse reaction to a drug either stop taking it or mention the problem to their doctors. Dumbasses just keep taking it, don't keep track of their pills and inadvertently double dose (taking it more times than prescribed per day) and other silly sh*t that puts them in the hospital or the morgue. That's who those disclaimers are written for; the lowest common denominator.

[jimnyc]

I honestly prefer "none of the above". I like the internet, mostly reading all of the stories, but will watch videos from the major sites once in awhile. I will also read foreign news sites in addition. I prefer to read things from 4 different perspectives than just one.

But for the REAL important news, outside of the internet of course, I will hit up ESPN. :gs:

[PixieStix]

Gunny, I'd like your view on the Hannity interview I'm posting below. Simple question ... do you, or do you not, believe he treated Anjem Choudary as fairly as he deserved (or possibly, much BETTER than he deserved) ?

It's not the interview I had in mind before, by the way .. but a later one. I actually PREFER this one from Hannity ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znLj476oq2E

I suggest that the American media have a need for Hannity, and his style of interviewing. I for one value it.

I too value it. I think that many Americans appreciate the light that Hannity shines upon the evils of radical imams, and what these bigots are about, he is really good at getting to the facts of their beliefs and the truth of what they support. It is a necessity. It shows America that we have real problems.

[Gunny]

That's just the pharmaceutical companies CYA'ing via their legal department.

Smart people who have an adverse reaction to a drug either stop taking it or mention the problem to their doctors. Dumbasses just keep taking it, don't keep track of their pills and inadvertently double dose (taking it more times than prescribed per day) and other silly sh*t that puts them in the hospital or the morgue. That's who those disclaimers are written for; the lowest common denominator.

Oh. You must be talking about the car thieves that live in LA county that don't watch Bait Car. :laugh:

[Gunny]

I honestly prefer "none of the above". I like the internet, mostly reading all of the stories, but will watch videos from the major sites once in awhile. I will also read foreign news sites in addition. I prefer to read things from 4 different perspectives than just one.

But for the REAL important news, outside of the internet of course, I will hit up ESPN. :gs:

When you are sick for going on two weeks, you get up to pee and grab some more gatorade. Any other motion besides one finger on the remote is considered unnecessary. You can catch up on a LOT of news (and pharmaceutical commercials). :laugh:

[PixieStix]

If I want basic news I watch One America News.

It is a fledgling network. But seems to be honest and not a lot of bells and whistles at this point.

I can't stand O'Reilly. He is too arrogant for my taste. But he does some pretty good talking points :D But he is also a little to PC for me.

I like Greta, I think she has come a long way since her court TV days. I think she is a good person. Her show is just ok.

I cannot hardly stand The Kelly File. I think she is a female Bill O'Reilly.

But all in all I like Fox, hate AMESSNBC. CNN is not on my radar. Except when I am channel surfing.

[Gunny]

I too value it. I think that many Americans appreciate the light that Hannity shines upon the evils of radical imams, and what these bigots are about, he is really good at getting to the facts of their beliefs and the truth of what they support. It is a necessity. It shows America that we have real problems.

Hannity's a talking head. He'd make a perfect democrat. He shines the light on everything wrong with the GOP and why a lot of conservatives won't support it.

[PixieStix]

Hannity's a talking head. He'd make a perfect democrat. He shines the light on everything wrong with the GOP and why a lot of conservatives won't support it.

I agree that Hannity is bias with his political stance. But if we met him, I bet we would like him. At least I would. He is everything that I think America used to be. A good and decent America, that did not put up with a lot of bull. Especially when it comes to terrorism.

O'Rielly however, is a whole other ball of wax.

[Gunny]

I agree that Hannity is bias with his political stance. But if we met him, I bet we would like him. At least I would. He is everything that I think America used to be. A good and decent America, that did not put up with a lot of bull. Especially when it comes to terrorism.

O'Rielly however, is a whole other ball of wax.

He's a neocon. So if "used to be" is 10 years ago, then yes. Otherwise, no.

[Max R.]

Hannity's a talking head. He'd make a perfect democrat. He shines the light on everything wrong with the GOP and why a lot of conservatives won't support it.
Talking head is correct. That's major issue I have with what passes for news these days. No one ever called Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley talking heads because they weren't. They presented the news and that was it. Now we have infotainment where people like Bill O'Reilly admit they aren't journalists. They're just there spouting off opinions and sheep lap it up.

[PixieStix]

Talking head is correct. That's major issue I have with what passes for news these days. No one ever called Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley talking heads because they weren't. They presented the news and that was it. Now we have infotainment where people like Bill O'Reilly admit they aren't journalists. They're just there spouting off opinions and sheep lap it up.

When I was 9 years old, I watched my Dad watch the news intently. He would curse as the news was being told. I wondered to myself. How does Dad know that they are telling the truth? So I decided to ask him that very question. I will never forget the look on his face. I did not get an answer.

I don't disagree that Hannity is very annoying with his GOP bias

News is different these days. People want commentary and talking heads. if you will. They want to find someone to agree with or to disagree with. News is much like th internet.

We need to make up our own minds.The news has become what people want. I think they call that supply and demand. Sad, especially considering how dumbed down society has become.

[Perianne]

I know what you meant by demographs.

Seems to me what with having a doctor prescribe it and the instructions that come with it, that should be enough without ..."this drug may cause loss of hearing, heart attack, renal failure, prostate cancer, carcinoma, stroke, brain seizures, fuzed bones, broken eyelashes and whatnot ....."

Fused bones, lol. That's a new one to me!! hahahaha

[PixieStix]

Fused bones, lol. That's a new one to me!! hahahaha

I know, that is funny.

I for one, simply mute the commercials. It gives me a minute to go to my girl bathroom :D. Many times I will pause the TV for about 20 minutes then I can fast forward through the commercials

[Gunny]

Talking head is correct. That's major issue I have with what passes for news these days. No one ever called Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley talking heads because they weren't. They presented the news and that was it. Now we have infotainment where people like Bill O'Reilly admit they aren't journalists. They're just there spouting off opinions and sheep lap it up.

Now just how many people do you think know who Chet Huntley and David Brinkley were?:laugh:

[Perianne]

I know, that is funny.

I for one, simply mute the commercials. It gives me a minute to go to my girl bathroom :D. Many times I will pause the TV for about 20 minutes then I can fast forward through the commercials

I do that with football all the time. I love watching the Cowboys, but I will not watch it live. I usually give it a one-hour head start.

[Drummond]

Fox also has the most commercial breaks. THAT is aggravating.

I concede that point myself.

The BBC, for all its myriad of faults, does have one redeeming feature -- NO commercials.

Here in the UK, its basis for operation is the opposite of commercial revenues ... since it's our State broadcaster, all of its homegrown revenue comes from the mandatory Licence Fee, a form of tax which you HAVE to pay, if you want to legally watch ANY television through ANY medium (that includes online, via a computer).

There's talk of decriminalising non-payment. But for right now, it's actually a criminal offence not to pay the BBC their licence fee, if watching TV from within the UK.

[Drummond]

Talking head is correct. That's major issue I have with what passes for news these days. No one ever called Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley talking heads because they weren't. They presented the news and that was it. Now we have infotainment where people like Bill O'Reilly admit they aren't journalists. They're just there spouting off opinions and sheep lap it up.

Wasn't Cronkite ultimately outed as a Left winger ?

My view is this: there's so much Leftie bias out there, that any and all Right wing bias has to be a good thing, just to even things up a little !!

I tell you this. Since I'm living in the UK, and stuck with all the homegrown pap our own media pumps out ... I welcome what I can pick up from the Internet. I've a favourite online radio station ... WSB, Atlanta, which is an extremely reliable feed of high quality sound, which I use to listen to Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, all those Conservative stalwarts.

I say this: it's the radio equivalent of breathing air, to breathing pure and invigorating oxygen. My spirits are invariably lifted once I get my diet of WSB's output !

[CSM]

I concede that point myself.

The BBC, for all its myriad of faults, does have one redeeming feature -- NO commercials.

Here in the UK, its basis for operation is the opposite of commercial revenues ... since it's our State broadcaster, all of its homegrown revenue comes from the mandatory Licence Fee, a form of tax which you HAVE to pay, if you want to legally watch ANY television through ANY medium (that includes online, via a computer).

There's talk of decriminalising non-payment. But for right now, it's actually a criminal offence not to pay the BBC their licence fee, if watching TV from within the UK.

Hmmmm...so you get to pay for the privilege of being lied to from a state run media outlet .... sounds like PBS here in the US

[Max R.]

Oh. You must be talking about the car thieves that live in LA county that don't watch Bait Car. :laugh:
Exactly!

I work with a several ex-cops. All say most criminals are stupid; "the smart crooks put on a 3-piece suit and work on Wall Street. The stupid ones rob a 7-11 for $20"