Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 6247134" data-attributes="member: 549629">If you mean they have used the same tactics as CNN etc, but become more popular, we agree. But its not that they do it &#039;better&#039; necessarily, its that they are seen as the only major outlet for conservative viewers. The amazingly liberal biased press created the void that Fox filled. Rupert Murdoch did not make Fox News so popular, the liberal media which hates FNC is what made FNC so popular. I believe you are trying to portray FNC as more devious than the liberial biased stations/programs. If Im interpretting your words incorrectly, I apologize, but I dont think Im coming from left field here. *shrug*Sure, he&#039;s &#039;able&#039; to run for anything. But after the mostly liberal press has presented a case of him being &#039;unelectable&#039; it simply makes his chances of winning that much smaller. I think we all agree that the press, on both sides, sways political winds by presenting some people in a certain light, while others in an entirely different light. I remember CNN walking the streets taking polls of if people thought Clinton was no longer &#039;fit&#039; to be president because of Monica Lewinski. The simple act of asking &#039;can Clinton still be a viable president after the Lewinski situation&#039; presents the situation in a regard of &#039;can he still be president after a scandal that doesn&#039;t involve him governing the country&#039;, which or course loads the question to get expected answers. Where is CNN now with their polls of &#039;can Sanford still be an effective president after having been found to be in a extra marital relationship which does not affect his ability to govern&#039;...? Again, a bias can be easily shown by what the news DOESNT report, not just what it DOES report.This has been fun, you present a respectable case Faulk. One I dont agree with for the most part, but a respectable case one-the-less. But my time for this has run out.Cheers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 6247134, member: 549629"] If you mean they have used the same tactics as CNN etc, but become more popular, we agree. But its not that they do it 'better' necessarily, its that they are seen as the only major outlet for conservative viewers. The amazingly liberal biased press created the void that Fox filled. Rupert Murdoch did not make Fox News so popular, the liberal media which hates FNC is what made FNC so popular. I believe you are trying to portray FNC as more devious than the liberial biased stations/programs. If Im interpretting your words incorrectly, I apologize, but I dont think Im coming from left field here. *shrug* Sure, he's 'able' to run for anything. But after the mostly liberal press has presented a case of him being 'unelectable' it simply makes his chances of winning that much smaller. I think we all agree that the press, on both sides, sways political winds by presenting some people in a certain light, while others in an entirely different light. I remember CNN walking the streets taking polls of if people thought Clinton was no longer 'fit' to be president because of Monica Lewinski. The simple act of asking 'can Clinton still be a viable president after the Lewinski situation' presents the situation in a regard of 'can he still be president after a scandal that doesn't involve him governing the country', which or course loads the question to get expected answers. Where is CNN now with their polls of 'can Sanford still be an effective president after having been found to be in a extra marital relationship which does not affect his ability to govern'...? Again, a bias can be easily shown by what the news DOESNT report, not just what it DOES report. This has been fun, you present a respectable case Faulk. One I dont agree with for the most part, but a respectable case one-the-less. But my time for this has run out. Cheers. [/QUOTE]

Verification