"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Ngakunui, I don't know where you live. Here in the US, Fox News is probably the most reliable news source.Ngakunui wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... old-souls/
May not be the most reliable source since it's Fox News, but worth posting nonetheless.
That is exactly what I was going to say! I tested them against the other "news" channels and found that they were the best!RickD wrote:Ngakunui, I don't know where you live. Here in the US, Fox News is probably the most reliable news source.Ngakunui wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... old-souls/
May not be the most reliable source since it's Fox News, but worth posting nonetheless.
The11thDr., You're in Britain, correct? I suspect Fox News Britain isn't the same as Fox News in the US.The11thDr. wrote:rofl, have you seen fox news attack mass effect for "FULL DIGITAL NUDITY", when all it is is a single cutscene that shows the side of an alien boob.
Its quite sad actually, they attack this game as if its being sold to children, but dont M titles require a person of 18 or above to buy? faux news is propoganda and nonsense, but mostly nonsense.
I guess that I think Fox News is better than most because most news has a left-leaning, liberal agenda. Whereas Fox News is more conservative to middle of the road in their views. I can see how a left-wing socialist wouldn't like Fox because Fox speaks out against liberalism. While I don't completely agree with Fox, they are better than any I've seen. No news station is going to be completely unbiased, because no human is completely unbiased.The11thDr. wrote:its the same when you watch it on youtube, fox news is american anyway there is not a bristish variety. So dont try and defend foxnews because they are not very good, wow you get your news from pretty trustworthy sources dont you?
I think as long as the organisation reports the facts there is nothing wrong with airing its bias. As Rick said we are all biased. Newspapers report the facts (most of the time!) and declare their political allegiances. Truth must be upheld, but man has conviction and we aint gonna ever stifle that.The11thDr. wrote:actually im not much of a socialist, nor liberal. Electing the liberals would kill this country. But news should be nuetral shouldn't it? Also accurate, when fox gets things wrong its hilarious. I guess they dont get it wrong all the time then do they?
Danny, I'm just talking about liberalism in a political sense. Nothing wrong with the word liberal in and of itself. I was just referring to left wing liberalism. I just think most news stations are further to the left Whereas Fox is closer to the center(fairer & more balanced). Far right in my opinion is just as bad as far left.DannyM wrote:I think we should also remember that 'liberal' is not, or shouldn't be, a dirty word. We call these ultra-left, weird types "liberals" but have we perhaps bastardised the word? Some great thinkers were 'liberal'. I think 'liberal' is a rather generous term for some in the media, not least because they can be decidedly ILLIBERAL in their actions. The irony is simply depressing. No criticism here; just thinking out loud.
I think Fox is more neutral or balanced than other news stations. We have a local news station here that is constantly making errors on their wording of headlines on screen. I sometimes just watch to look for their errors.The11thDr. wrote:actually im not much of a socialist, nor liberal. Electing the liberals would kill this country. But news should be nuetral shouldn't it? Also accurate, when fox gets things wrong its hilarious. I guess they dont get it wrong all the time then do they?
Rick, I think we are all guilty of applying the term 'liberal' too, erm, liberally when talking about some of the leftist media and political organisations. I have done it and will probably continue to do it. What much of the Left has done is proclaim themselves 'liberal' while in practice being far more intolerant of the views of the conservative Right, who they accuse of being, umm, intolerant!RickD wrote:Danny, I'm just talking about liberalism in a political sense. Nothing wrong with the word liberal in and of itself. I was just referring to left wing liberalism. I just think most news stations are further to the left Whereas Fox is closer to the center(fairer & more balanced). Far right in my opinion is just as bad as far left.DannyM wrote:I think we should also remember that 'liberal' is not, or shouldn't be, a dirty word. We call these ultra-left, weird types "liberals" but have we perhaps bastardised the word? Some great thinkers were 'liberal'. I think 'liberal' is a rather generous term for some in the media, not least because they can be decidedly ILLIBERAL in their actions. The irony is simply depressing. No criticism here; just thinking out loud.