we are putting a lot s*** into it

Kevan Smith wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:

The difference is that Fox
puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case.

I can't believe you said that seriously. First of all, it's not like
there are only two sides to issues. Second, FOX chooses "liberals" who
aren't really "liberals" at all. The range of "debate" on FOX is
laughable.

Kev, if they put people with your politics on the air, they'd have to
cancel a couple comedies to compensate. ;-)

Fox generally does a very good job getting representative pundits.
Not always, but generally when one side or the other is weak it's
because the polititians involved won't go near Fox because they know
they won't be protected and tossed only softball questions (and yes,
this includes Republican guests).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Baka wrote:

Mark,
The only way I get non-biased news is when I turn on my short wave radio
and listen to the news direct from other countries. It would wake up
most people to hear what they say on their own station about the United
States. I get BBC, Australia, Japan, even China (Red biased) and many
others in 'Engrish'.
We are not as healthy or as popular as what Fox would have people believe.

Well, certainly not according to the BBC (which doesn't exactly keep
me up at nights, to be honest). I judge a media source by the way
they report on a situation I've read up on extensively. If they omit
key information or present information in such a way that a false
conclusion is the likely outcome, I presume it's bias.

That's why you can't get news from any one source, and why it's
important to go out of your way (AND comfort zone) to tune into news
that's ideologically not aligned with your positions (I read some
left-wing blogs daily, for example). My all-time favorite is
www.factcheck.org - just the facts, no spin. Both sides get taken to
task quite often.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

Mark,
The only way I get non-biased news is when I turn on my short wave radio
and listen to the news direct from other countries. It would wake up
most people to hear what they say on their own station about the United
States. I get BBC, Australia, Japan, even China (Red biased) and many
others in 'Engrish'.
We are not as healthy or as popular as what Fox would have people believe.

Well, certainly not according to the BBC (which doesn't exactly keep
me up at nights, to be honest). I judge a media source by the way
they report on a situation I've read up on extensively. If they omit
key information or present information in such a way that a false
conclusion is the likely outcome, I presume it's bias.

That's why you can't get news from any one source, and why it's
important to go out of your way (AND comfort zone) to tune into news
that's ideologically not aligned with your positions (I read some
left-wing blogs daily, for example). My all-time favorite is
www.factcheck.org - just the facts, no spin. Both sides get taken to
task quite often.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

I see that you get my point about multiple sources. You really won't
hear much of the really negative stuff about the US or the Bush regime
on US stations for fear of getting their FCC charter revoked. That
little mentioned reality keeps most stations from really telling it like
it is, Fox or not.
Listening to the world at 3:00 A.M. gives me a new perspective sometimes.
Bill Baka

"Bill" wrote in message
. com...

I see that you get my point about multiple sources. You really won't hear
much of the really negative stuff about the US or the Bush regime on US
stations for fear of getting their FCC charter revoked. That little
mentioned reality keeps most stations from really telling it like it is,
Fox or not.
Listening to the world at 3:00 A.M. gives me a new perspective sometimes.

Ever listen to "Err America" ? You probably don't because no else does
either. It's Bush bashing 24/7.

Bill wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Well, certainly not according to the BBC (which doesn't exactly keep
me up at nights, to be honest). I judge a media source by the way
they report on a situation I've read up on extensively. If they omit
key information or present information in such a way that a false
conclusion is the likely outcome, I presume it's bias.

That's why you can't get news from any one source, and why it's
important to go out of your way (AND comfort zone) to tune into news
that's ideologically not aligned with your positions (I read some
left-wing blogs daily, for example). My all-time favorite is
www.factcheck.org - just the facts, no spin. Both sides get taken to
task quite often.

I see that you get my point about multiple sources. You really won't
hear much of the really negative stuff about the US or the Bush regime
on US stations for fear of getting their FCC charter revoked. That
little mentioned reality keeps most stations from really telling it like
it is, Fox or not.

Ummmm, I can't agree with the "no negative news" bit though... think
about how long Abu Grahib dominated the news. Over and over and over
and over we got to revisit the action of a handful of pervert prison
guards. From reporting on the economy in the US, you'd think that we
were in another Great Depression, even when it's roaring in reality.
I do know that there are types of reporting that doesn't happen as
regularly in the US as overseas, but I think it's clear that almost
all we DO hear from US news sources is "the really negative stuff".

Listening to the world at 3:00 A.M. gives me a new perspective sometimes.

I always liked listening to reporting on the UK politics. Certainly
as contentious as in the US, but the polititians have a way of
infusing their blathering with humor. Errrrr, "humour".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Well, certainly not according to the BBC (which doesn't exactly keep
me up at nights, to be honest). I judge a media source by the way
they report on a situation I've read up on extensively. If they omit
key information or present information in such a way that a false
conclusion is the likely outcome, I presume it's bias.

That's why you can't get news from any one source, and why it's
important to go out of your way (AND comfort zone) to tune into news
that's ideologically not aligned with your positions (I read some
left-wing blogs daily, for example). My all-time favorite is
www.factcheck.org - just the facts, no spin. Both sides get taken to
task quite often.
I see that you get my point about multiple sources. You really won't
hear much of the really negative stuff about the US or the Bush regime
on US stations for fear of getting their FCC charter revoked. That
little mentioned reality keeps most stations from really telling it like
it is, Fox or not.

Ummmm, I can't agree with the "no negative news" bit though... think
about how long Abu Grahib dominated the news. Over and over and over
and over we got to revisit the action of a handful of pervert prison
guards. From reporting on the economy in the US, you'd think that we
were in another Great Depression, even when it's roaring in reality.
I do know that there are types of reporting that doesn't happen as
regularly in the US as overseas, but I think it's clear that almost
all we DO hear from US news sources is "the really negative stuff".

Listening to the world at 3:00 A.M. gives me a new perspective sometimes.

I always liked listening to reporting on the UK politics. Certainly
as contentious as in the US, but the polititians have a way of
infusing their blathering with humor. Errrrr, "humour".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

I don't live in the Bay Area anymore, by choice. I live in the sticks
north of Sacramento and the only thing booming is housing construction
of junk tract houses. These are all being sold to people working in
Sacramento making a whopping $15 to maybe $25/Hr. Many of these houses
have been foreclosed since $3.30 a gallon gas has eaten many of the new
home owners AND SUV commuters alive. It would have been cheaper for them
to just buy in Sacramento. The wages up here suck compared to the Bay
Area but the only way I am going back to work there is if I can find a
really cheap apartment or buy a motor home to stay the week. Motels are
too expensive and eat my almost 6 figure paycheck. It may be a booming
economy down there, but not up here, only about 130 miles difference.
Bill Baka

"donquijote1954" wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of
Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every
indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of
a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or
one guided by political leanings?

The economy may not be struggling but the poor are. Just look at the
skyrocketting prices of housing. And now transportation and gas prices
--without them even having a choice of riding a bicycle. And it ain't
getting better.

Lower unemployment, and more of the poor own a house than ever, so
it's hardly all bad news. In fact, we're at the unemployment level
that's considered "virtual full employment", and that is apparently
true if it takes millions of immigrants to take up the slack (but
that's another thread I suppose).

I agree the energy costs are hitting the poorest the hardest though.
But the solution to our overusage of gas has always been $3 gas.
Nothing else was ever going to reduce the consumer's gravitational
pull toward bigger, faster, heavier vehicles. Hopefully the whole
thing will result in more mass transit and bike commuters. It might
also reduce the tendency of many poor people to drive the biggest car
they can find (which would be a good thing).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame