Fox News does the unthinkable... and SHOWS INTEGRITY!!!!!

Recommended Videos

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
I'm not sure... my insticts tell me it's a trap... was he being sarcastic...?

It was one apology on one story so I'm just to mark this as an improbable anomaly until further notice.
 

A Weary Exile

New member
Aug 24, 2009
3,784
0
0
*Looks outside to see if it's raining frogs*

That's...weird, maybe they'll stop all this Yellow Journalism (Vocabulary words! Thanks World History!) and start doing real reporting sometime soon, although I highly doubt it.
 

NeoFenrir

New member
Mar 28, 2008
4
0
0
300lb. Samoan said:
cognitive dissonance is when an individual or source of information willingly holds two contradictory ideals without ever resolving their conflicting premises. like when Bill O'Reilly ambushes a private citizen on a bus with a camera crew and mocks him for not complying with his questioning, then proceeding immediately to proclaim that celebrities' privacy should be protected from tabloid reporters. yea, that's an example that was featured on the daily show early this year.
Well, no, that's not really what cognitive dissonance is. The example is... fine, sort of (your second example is better), but your definition's off. Cognitive dissonance is a mental state where a person is given information that conflicts with their beliefs about themselves. To resolve this dissonance, the dissenting information is often (unconsciously) ignored. The person doesn't know they're doing it most of the time, so it's not "willingly." As an example, if we assume that most or all of the Fox reporters believe themselves to be competent, unbiased journalists, then information that their journalism is neither would be unconsciously ignored to protect their self-image.

Interestingly, there is information that the "drunk goggles" effect making people seem more attractive is actually a function of cognitive dissonance rather than impairment via alcohol: one tends to be more drunk at the end of an evening at the bar than at the beginning, and if one assumes that most of the "attractive" people "pair off" early on, then if you haven't it would imply that you are unattractive, which for many creates cognitive dissonance, which is unconsciously resolved by perceiving the other unpaired people as more attractive than you might have thought at the beginning of the night. Of course, this study gives only correlational data, so no causal link can be established, and there may very well be hidden variables. Also, this information comes from a short lecture given by a psychology professor who performed the study to a class of intro-level Psych students, so I'm unsure how reliable and valid the results were. [/tangent]
 

dmase

New member
Mar 12, 2009
2,117
0
0
Well I think the blond reporter when asked about the democratic candidate should have said,"he couldn't be reached for comment as he was too busy killing babies and helping the anti-christ push for healthcare reform".

FYI, the blond women they have on there reguarly seems like the biggest nut job, on fox and friends i think. I wouldn't want to be left alone in a room with her, and she is hot so thats saying something.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Shep Smith has always struck me as being the least biased out of the bunch, anyway. Still, that's a respectable thing he did. I wish the other reporters on the station would follow suit.
 

Deef

New member
Mar 11, 2009
1,252
0
0
Now if only it would take a step up from admitting it's unbalanced, and become balanced. Now that would be something.
 

lwm3398

New member
Apr 15, 2009
2,896
0
0
GreyWolf257 said:
Wait, why is nobody getting onto MSNBC? Never mind, don't answer that.
I agree, people say Fox does the bidding of right wingers. Most other news-channels are just as biased. But I don't think Fox is all the unbalanced, but it's definitely right wing.
 

blindthrall

New member
Oct 14, 2009
1,151
0
0
Oh please. He asked a question he shouldn't have, live, and the curtain fell for a second. It was damage control, plain and simple. His handler might get fired, but Murdoch isn't stupid enough to fire the anchor after saying that. FOX probably thinks he did a good job.
 

paragon1

New member
Dec 8, 2008
1,121
0
0
300lb. Samoan said:
Woodsey said:
Wow. Now all they have to do is drown Glenn Beck in a sack like a puppy and they'll almost have made up for everything.
you know what I'd much rather see? I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly punch him in the face. I bet ol' Papa Bear could really beat the shit out of someone, and I bet he'd hit stupid Glenn so hard his neckfat would pop like a zit.

After that's done, I get to punch Bill.
When did Bill O'Reilly become Fox's (moderately) sane guy anyway?
 

Nuke_em_05

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
828
0
21
BrotherhoodOfSteel said:
Wow.... That's the first time I felt any shread of respect for them since they apologized for that "Mass Effect" debate...
Did they actually apologize? Copper Lawrence did, but she's just a "call-in expert", and barely apologized at that. EA asked for a retraction or clarification from FOX, the response being "come on the show and tell them yourself". Which at FOX means "we'll put you in a chair and yell at you for being evil and not let you get a word in edgewise, any word you get in at all will be twisted right back at you, if not flat-out ignored." I don't think EA accepted.

OT: Stunt. Written all over it. Not that any other "news" group is better. I don't watch network news anyway. Or listen to political campaigns. The way a politician votes, or the bills they submit, will tell you what their motives are, and I don't need them or a "news" organization to "interpret it" for me.
 

300lb. Samoan

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,765
0
0
I'M BACK! briefly...
NeoFenrir said:
300lb. Samoan said:
cognitive dissonance is when an individual or source of information willingly holds two contradictory ideals without ever resolving their conflicting premises. like when Bill O'Reilly ambushes a private citizen on a bus with a camera crew and mocks him for not complying with his questioning, then proceeding immediately to proclaim that celebrities' privacy should be protected from tabloid reporters. yea, that's an example that was featured on the daily show early this year.
Well, no, that's not really what cognitive dissonance is. The example is... fine, sort of (your second example is better), but your definition's off. Cognitive dissonance is a mental state where a person is given information that conflicts with their beliefs about themselves. To resolve this dissonance, the dissenting information is often (unconsciously) ignored. The person doesn't know they're doing it most of the time, so it's not "willingly." As an example, if we assume that most or all of the Fox reporters believe themselves to be competent, unbiased journalists, then information that their journalism is neither would be unconsciously ignored to protect their self-image.
Hm, interesting. That does seem like a more cohesive definition. I've always associated the term with "double-think" from 1984, I always thought the two were synonymous. I guess in reality double-think is a manifestation of cognitive dissonance.

Looking over it, 'willingly' isn't the right word. I didn't mean that as in 'consciously', rather I meant that the contradictory ideals coexist without it ever occurring to the individual that they are mutually exclusive. Although in 1984, even when the individual is confronted about the contradiction they will actively refute that there's any conflict. And I'm sure if we asked O'Reilly how he reconciles those two stories he'd defend himself by dismissing us as pinheads.

Zombie_Fish said:
I find it ironic that you're describing having a very bad trip, whilst having an avatar from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Or at least it looks like it's from that movie.
You know, I guess it is a little ironic seeing as I'm not enjoying it. Dr. Gonzo would have a blast even during the worst trip.
 

Little Duck

Diving Space Muffin
Oct 22, 2009
860
0
0
They're still pricks who yield to their advertisers, so I don't care AT ALL for them.

We have the BBC here in the UK which is the closest thing to balanced in the world as it isn't ad run, but more publicly run.
 

L33tsauce_Marty

New member
Jun 26, 2008
1,198
0
0
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l154/truetechnohawk/Fox%20News/LaCosaNewstra.jpg

(can't remember how to embed, do'h!)

Case in point.
 

Newmera

New member
May 23, 2009
15
0
0
It really, really, reallyyy doesn't matter. So this guy has a conscious and admits something....it doesn't make a difference which news station he works for...all news you will ever read anywhere will always be rumors, theories, lies and all of them will be biased....maybe a few truths thrown in there. if were lucky.
 

G1eet

New member
Mar 25, 2009
2,090
0
0
jpoon said:
Bah, both sides are fake news. Both have good and bad sides. The funny thing I tend to see is that the left only sees the right's news as wrong and they are fine with MSNBC and the other ilk typically if you actually watch a full evening of Fox news you will see both right and left viewpoints.

I say watch both sides but trust neither!
Well said. I don't get any of my news from the telly, barring the occasional snow day update.

Ever since the whole Jackson death, burial, and frantic search for his corpse, I gave up on the television journalists and hopped onto BBC.

L33tsauce_Marty said:
Case in point.
Fixed.