stan3186 wrote:
I watch Fox and find it definitely leans conservative. With that said, it also does try to portray both sides of an argument. One of my favorite show on Fox is "The Five" where they sit and discuss (argue) the current topics of the day, as well as beat on some older ones. 4 of the 5 are conservatives but there is always a liberal in the mix. Usually it is "Bob" who is about as liberal as Al Sharpton most of the time. He makes me ill and angry but he does get his say. How would you present a "far and balanced" program otherwise? Should it be split 50/50 liberal and conservative? I don't know but I would say that we should have news shows that are about the news and not personal commentary which all of them are today. I have seen reports on things happening in the world that are reported on Fox and you never see it even mentioned on the MSM programs at all. Is that a fair representation of the news of today. A couple of new anchors from the MSM have resigned because the editors are refusing to allow their reports to be reported if they are not portraying the left as favorable. If hey are critical of the left (meaning Obama) then they are not allowed to air. That is ridiculous and not their jobs. It should be somehow enforced that the media report the news without any political slant or they lose their license to be aired.
I watch Fox and find it definitely leans conservat... (
show quote)
On the thought of fair and balanced. I have some general philosophical questions, take them as you will.
First, every time, we demand that ObamaCare be repealed, the left always wants to know what conservatives will, "replace it with. "
This is the sickness of, "fair and balanced."
Ben Carson said, if you remove a cancerous tumour from the brain.........
What do you replace it with....................................?
I try to imagine myself back in the 1930's, in N**i Germany.
How would Fox News report on Adolph Hitler's N**i Party, in a fair and balanced way?
If they did their job they would have found out that Hitler wanted one super race that would own the world after all inferior races were executed or prevented from reproducing and he wanted to start with removing the Jews.
Under our Constitution, God's law and the natural laws of man, such a thought would be evil and forbidden. It would violate the very principle of a nation of laws and not men and their individual rights.
But, to say that, that would not be fair and balanced.
Evil cannot be called evil and it must have the same opportunity to be implemented, as good does.
So I ask myself, as I watch Fox New's, The Five, what would that look like back in the 1930's?
I'll play the roll of Hitler, you play the roll of one of the five and remember
you must be fair and balanced, you cannot tell me I'm wrong or evil and
I have as much right for my arguments to have as much weight and consideration as yours.
Here we go:
Hitler- I want to k**l and exterminate every single Jew on the planet.
This would solve all the conflicts of history with the Jews, because, this would eliminated them once and for all and all of the conflicts with them.
I'll call this, "My Final Solution."
The Five- Well, that wouldn't be nice or fair.
Hitler- The world has been at war with the Jews since the beginning of time, all I want is too institute a peace that will last forever. You must be against peace and just want war.
The Five- well some Jews are willing to keep their mouths shut, do as their told and live as second class citizens, is it fair to k**l them with the others.
Hitler- OK OK....I won't k**l every last Jew in the world.
I'll just k**l every last Jew that is in any territory I can control.
Hitler- I think that is a good compromise, I wanted to k**l every last Jew on the planet, instead Ill just k**l about six million of them, that's my last offer.
The Five- Well that seems fair and balanced. you wanted to k**l them all and now your only going to k**l six million. I'm glad we were able to compromise.
The Five- Because to make a stand that k*****g is wrong is to make a judgement based on our moral codes which would be putting our religious beliefs and morals onto you. That would not be fair.
We could make the case that what your talking about is so wrong that not only should it not be discussed, but wholly rejected and condemned and you yourself should be prosecuted and instituted for even thinking of such a thing, never mind suggesting implementing or defending such a plan.
But, that would not be fair and balanced.
Bob, what do you think?
As long as it's a liberal idea, I'm for it.