"Some people say it's okay for these GIRLS to go WILD"!

[240 is Back]

Damn, Oreilly is having another nice piece on T&A.

Tonight it's "What can we do to stop these girls from taking their clothes off?", complete with clips of bubble-soaped covered girls making out, before every commercial, for a 3 minute clip of OReilly comdemning it at the end.

You know, he's selling more GGW clips than he's stopping.


Fans of the show, with all the issues facing our nation, why does OReilly do a piece on this every 3 weeks like clockwork? 

[kh300]

didnt seem like he had much to talk about.. hes a perv just like the rest of us- just trying to fill up airtime.. he makes a good argument though about younger girls that try to act like spears..

[240 is Back]

didnt seem like he had much to talk about.. hes a perv just like the rest of us- just trying to fill up airtime.. he makes a good argument though about younger girls that try to act like spears..

i was hoping for some neocons oreilly lovers to come on here and talk about what a serious problem these naked girls are.  I mean, we're spending 200 mil a day in Iraq, the world hates us, social security is fucked and many of us don't have health care, and the #1 talk news show addresses these serious problems by not only dedicating a money shot to it at 11:55 pm, but also talking about it before every commercial break.  yes, bubbly gyrating girls making out.  Over and over.

Also, playing it at 11:55 EST on FOX news will ensure that young impressionable youths are able to see it.

(I'm no prude, I just wanna hear people talk about how he's trying to save the world, one titty at a time.)

[BRUCE]

i was hoping for some neocons oreilly lovers to come on here and talk about what a serious problem these naked girls are.  I mean, we're spending 200 mil a day in Iraq, the world hates us, social security is fucked and many of us don't have health care, and the #1 talk news show addresses these serious problems by not only dedicating a money shot to it at 11:55 pm, but also talking about it before every commercial break.  yes, bubbly gyrating girls making out.  Over and over.

Also, playing it at 11:55 EST on FOX news will ensure that young impressionable youths are able to see it.

(I'm no prude, I just wanna hear people talk about how he's trying to save the world, one titty at a time.)

In fairness, even though I'm not a huge fan, O'Reilly has addressed all of those issues at one point in time or another.  Fox News remains the most balanced news network available at the moment, you'll agree they constantly entertain guests of both sides of the debate - which is always more entertaining than group-think.

[Camel Jockey]

In fairness, even though I'm not a huge fan, O'Reilly has addressed all of those issues at one point in time or another.  Fox News remains the most balanced news network available at the moment, you'll agree they constantly entertain guests of both sides of the debate - which is always more entertaining than group-think.

HAHAH most balanced HAHAHA 

He has adressed shit. Evene if he adresses anything his pov is so singular it's laughable.

[BRUCE]

HAHAH most balanced HAHAHA 

He has adressed shit. Evene if he adresses anything his pov is so singular it's laughable.

Possibly the worst phrased, spelled and constructed rant you've put together on here.  Your lack of intellectual weight on this board is evident and reinforced every time you type such things.

[240 is Back]

In fairness, even though I'm not a huge fan, O'Reilly has addressed all of those issues at one point in time or another.  Fox News remains the most balanced news network available at the moment, you'll agree they constantly entertain guests of both sides of the debate - which is always more entertaining than group-think.

OReilly said, right after the election, that it was his mission to make his show show the OTHER side not addressed by the "left wing media".

Not balanced.

No.

Just to show the other side.


WHich would make him right-wing.  And that's fine.  But FOX is definitely not down the middle of the line.  If they were, they would spend 75% of the time showing what 75% of washington is saying (leave iraq) and 25% to bush's angle.  As an avid watcher, I can ABSOLUTELY assure you it is 75% pro-bush, 25% against.

nothting wrong with it - just don't misidentify it.

[BRUCE]

OReilly said, right after the election, that it was his mission to make his show show the OTHER side not addressed by the "left wing media".

Not balanced.

No.

Just to show the other side.


WHich would make him right-wing.  And that's fine.  But FOX is definitely not down the middle of the line.  If they were, they would spend 75% of the time showing what 75% of washington is saying (leave iraq) and 25% to bush's angle.  As an avid watcher, I can ABSOLUTELY assure you it is 75% pro-bush, 25% against.

nothting wrong with it - just don't misidentify it.

Okay let's clarify what I meant by that.  What you're pointing out above is attempting to align a particular news network with what the current polls on Capitol Hill are suggesting - we both know that's impractical from the perspective of guests and presenters.  For me, this isn't even the important part.

What is important is having both sides of a debate represented, and the facts argued so that the viewer may reach a conclusion on the topic in question.  Fox News does this far better than any other TV network I'm aware of.

[240 is Back]

Okay let's clarify what I meant by that.  What you're pointing out above is attempting to align a particular news network with what the current polls on Capitol Hill are suggesting - we both know that's impractical from the perspective of guests and presenters.  For me, this isn't even the important part.

What is important is having both sides of a debate represented, and the facts argued so that the viewer may reach a conclusion on the topic in question.  Fox News does this far better than any other TV network I'm aware of.

I dunno about "both sides of the debate".

They CERTAINLY did not show both sides of the debate when entering Iraq.  90% pro-war. 10% anti-war.

Now, it's at LEAST a 50%+ for pro-war Bush neocon fragment.

You can't base the coverage percentage on polls when public opinion serves republicans, then change to 50/50 coverage when public opinion doesn't.  honestly, it should be 75/25 anti/pro at the moment, to match their old trend.

Their inconsistency shows they shifted their philosophy and I just don't know if they were "fair and balanced" then, or now.  it cna't be both.

[BRUCE]

I dunno about "both sides of the debate".

They CERTAINLY did not show both sides of the debate when entering Iraq.  90% pro-war. 10% anti-war.

Now, it's at LEAST a 50%+ for pro-war Bush neocon fragment.

You can't base the coverage percentage on polls when public opinion serves republicans, then change to 50/50 coverage when public opinion doesn't.  honestly, it should be 75/25 anti/pro at the moment, to match their old trend.

Their inconsistency shows they shifted their philosophy and I just don't know if they were "fair and balanced" then, or now.  it cna't be both.

But even if what you say about a few years ago is correct, surely the purpose of Fox is not to follow trends in polls, rather to foster debate and allow differing views to be presented.  I feel they do this excellently.

[240 is Back]

But even if what you say about a few years ago is correct, surely the purpose of Fox is not to follow trends in polls, rather to foster debate and allow differing views to be presented.  I feel they do this excellently.

Balanced.

If they define balance as "giving equal time to both points of view", they failed in 2002.

If they define balance as "appropriating time based upon American and washington viewpoints", they failed in 2007.

If they alter their definition - as I just evidenced they have - they are not Fair.






I think I just pwned fox news.

[BRUCE]

Balanced.

If they define balance as "giving equal time to both points of view", they failed in 2002.

If they define balance as "appropriating time based upon American and washington viewpoints", they failed in 2007.

If they alter their definition - as I just evidenced they have - they are not Fair.






I think I just pwned fox news.

Haha, maybe not 'pwned' exactly - we can't be sure of the figures you have above.  I do think Fox makes a concerted effort to adequately represent both sides, at least, which we can't say for nearly all other networks.  Perhaps you should start a thread on CNN's lack of balance?

[240 is Back]

i used to LIVE fox news when working at home all day before baby came.  I mean, too much.  8+ hours a day as i worked all day.  The swing is huge.  Their latest commercial bashes "left-wing bias" which should alienate HALF of their own programming.  Does it?

[kh300]

balanced- unbalenced
right wing-left wing

who cares,, fox news dominates- whatever they're doing they got the ratings,, which is what makes libs upset

[240 is Back]

balanced- unbalenced
right wing-left wing

who cares,, fox news dominates- whatever they're doing they got the ratings,, which is what makes libs upset

more democrats watch NBC and CBS all evening instead of oreilly and hannity.  I don't hear the libs complaining about the tv rev $ for Deal or no deal vs. oreilly lol...

cool to see ya admit they have a slant, kh.

[Purge_WTF]

Fox News remains the most balanced news network available at the moment, you'll agree they constantly entertain guests of both sides of the debate - which is always more entertaining than group-think.

  How's the weather over there in Fantasyland?

[Hedgehog]

OReilly said, right after the election, that it was his mission to make his show show the OTHER side not addressed by the "left wing media".

Not balanced.

No.

Just to show the other side.


WHich would make him right-wing.  And that's fine.  But FOX is definitely not down the middle of the line.  If they were, they would spend 75% of the time showing what 75% of washington is saying (leave iraq) and 25% to bush's angle.  As an avid watcher, I can ABSOLUTELY assure you it is 75% pro-bush, 25% against.

nothting wrong with it - just don't misidentify it.

Oh, it's wrong alright.

The code of ethics of journalism calls for unbiased and neutral reporting, always striving to seek the truth (you'll love that part! ), et al.

There are actually rules. FOX are breaking those. The only reason to watch Fox, is to get an idea of what millions of Americans are being fed, by an illustrious propaganda machine.

I recommend everyone to watch Fox. But do it with open eyes.

Al-Jazeera is a decent news station:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm

So is definitely BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Washington Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/

-Hedge

[Eyeball Chambers]

Yep, I'd say thats one of the biggest problems facing our nation. 

[Camel Jockey]

Possibly the worst phrased, spelled and constructed rant you've put together on here.  Your lack of intellectual weight on this board is evident and reinforced every time you type such things.

A typo is not a big deal and trying to construct nice sentences are the least of my priorities. My lack of intellect isn't as bad as your lack of common sense. You called Fox News a balanced network, when they're anything but. They don't provide balanced and insightful news, but what they do provide is biased coverage on some of the most important issues this country faces, such as the war. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CNN is any better, but Fox is the worst of the lot. The only news network I find balanced is BBC news.