|
|
![]() |
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Back in the midwest!
|
![]()
__________________
¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right..." -Thomas Paine |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Back in the midwest!
|
![]() ![]() ![]() In reality, we're all arguing TWO different things, that are so closely related that most folks have just been mixing them together. One is an opinion of the journalism of FOX news and other newscasters, particularly an opinion that is somewhat influenced by one's own personal politics. What one "likes" to hear is included in this, or what one "feels" is an accurate representation of the world. If you are big into Political Correctness, than your idea of what you would like to see in a "proper" newscast is going to differ from someone who is not very PC. Either way, not a factual discussion. The other is not opinion, and focuses solely on the facts of the journalistic practices of FOX or another organization in question. Example, BBC is admittedly biased. No personal opinion there. Other's have argued that because FOX typically airs people from both sides of the aisle in a discussion show, that they are not biased, while other's still have pointed out that the hosts of most shows on FOX are right leaning, so therefore the network is biased. In this case, it's a discussion of FACTS to arrive at a conclusion, rather than an opinion. Of course the conclusion arrived at will probably vary a little from person to person and take the form of an opinion... but at the least discussion was factual, right?
__________________
¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right..." -Thomas Paine |
![]() |
![]() |