Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mind-numbed Robot
I can't deny there are a few of the personalities that I like. A few of the news babes and Doocy are fun, and O'Reilly can occasionally snipe at a guest I'll despise, but when I want actual news which has been corroborated and fleshed out to some extent (and not some tabloid rumor put up as a "Fox News Alert"), I go elsewhere.
41 posted on 09/04/2003 10:26:35 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (that ain't workin', thats the way you do it...you play the guitar on the MTV....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Chancellor Palpatine
There are very few shows that present "actual news which has been corroborated and fleshed out to some extent". For that we have to wait several months or years for the documentaries to come out. The broadcast news companies certainly don't do it. In fact, all the media organizations fail miserably at putting things into their proper historical perspective and are 'chicken-littles' for the most part. Lou Dobbs and Brit Hume are better than most. The unfortunately short-lived WSJ Editorial Board with Stuart Varney on CNBC was outstanding. But for most others, it's much ado about nothing - hyping events that nobody will remember three weeks from now - things that are essentially meaningless in the big picture.
42 posted on 09/04/2003 11:15:58 AM PDT by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
A few of the news babes and Doocy are fun, and O'Reilly can occasionally snipe at a guest I'll despise, but when I want actual news which has been corroborated and fleshed out to some extent (and not some tabloid rumor put up as a "Fox News Alert"), I go elsewhere.

Well, it is obvious that you watch Fox quite a bit but your description of "actual news" makes one wonder why you trust one source over another, especially the ones you listed who have documented histories of bias and untruth and are rapidly losing audience, as sources of "actual news". How are you able to determine the reliability of the news you consider trustworthy? Clairvoyance? If so, you don't even need a tv to know what is going on, you just know.

I suspect instead that you are the typical liberal who lies to himself about reality and therefore trust nothing and feels equally free to lie to the rest of us. Once it becomes a habit, liars lie out of habit more often than what they for what they consider necessity. Lying for no reason simply further imbeds the neurosis. And there you have it, my description of a liberal.

47 posted on 09/04/2003 12:19:00 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson