Unbiased reporting?

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: I thought it would be fair considering the beating anyone associated with right leaning media takes around here. Fair and balanced reporting is what I'm here for [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Keep 'em coming Morgeruat - I, for one, am all in favour of equal bashing for both sides in this forum and poor old Fox does get its fair share of abuse [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: Fair and balanced reporting is what I'm here for [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Gee - I was thinking you weren't as rabidly biased as "that lot". I was giving you more credit than FOX (which is to say you have an account in credit whereas FOX would be refused a tab).

I am all for seeing cracks taken at bias be it right or left, and there are elements in your article that can be picked out and supported, but the writer does not do credit to a topic attacking bias by surrounding those gems with so much of his own biased dross.

PS : For those "persecuted few" that think I am anti-right, I just voted again on the weekend in our state election. And once again, despite the right wing party having loony expenditure ideas and suffering the most embarassing of gaffes 2 days before the election (when the costing of all their promises had more holes than a FOX News conjecture) I still voted for them because I just can't bring myself to vote for the left.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Davros: Gee - I was thinking you weren't as rabidly biased as "that lot". I was giving you more credit than FOX (which is to say you have an account in credit whereas FOX would be refused a tab). I am all for seeing cracks taken at bias be it right or left, and there are elements in your article that can be picked out and supported, but the writer does not do credit to a topic attacking bias by surrounding those gems with so much of his own biased dross. PS : For those "persecuted few" that think I am anti-right, I just voted again on the weekend in our state election. And once again, despite the right wing party having loony expenditure ideas and suffering the most embarassing of gaffes 2 days before the election (when the costing of all their promises had more holes than a FOX News conjecture) I still voted for them because I just can't bring myself to vote for the left.

I was under the impression that the "left" and "right" sides of the political spectrum were different in Euro countries than in the U.S. Is the same not true of Australia? Or are your "left" and "right" parties more closely aligned with the American perspectives of these party descriptions?

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: For those on the "looney left" who think so poorly of Fox News, one of the heroes of leftist media has quite a history of twisting the news to suit HIS agenda.

Speaking of twisting, the site you pulled this from is anything but an unbiased source. As a bit of humor, your post is pretty good, as a coherent argument however, it's pathetic.
Attempting to present an argument by constantly using sources that are incredibly biased is laughably poor form. Opening a post with a general insult to the people you're attempting to debate with is rude.

Not that anything better can be expected of you... [/QUOTE]YOU need to chill, Absynthe. That was totally uncalled for.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Cerek: I was under the impression that the "left" and "right" sides of the political spectrum were different in Euro countries than in the U.S. Is the same not true of Australia? Or are your "left" and "right" parties more closely aligned with the American perspectives of these party descriptions?

I don't think it's so much that our left and right wings are defined differently - it seems everywhere sees it as, put simply, left=socialist right=capitalist, but we seem to use 'liberal' in a different sense to you. Down here, the liberal party is capitalist.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by LennonCook: quote: Originally posted by Cerek: I was under the impression that the "left" and "right" sides of the political spectrum were different in Euro countries than in the U.S. Is the same not true of Australia? Or are your "left" and "right" parties more closely aligned with the American perspectives of these party descriptions?

I don't think it's so much that our left and right wings are defined differently - it seems everywhere sees it as, put simply, left=socialist right=capitalist, but we seem to use 'liberal' in a different sense to you. Down here, the liberal party is capitalist. [/QUOTE]That must have been what I was thinking of, then. Thanks for the clarification, LennonCook. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Davros]

To clarify Cerek - I voted for the down with unions, to heck with the envionment, cut my huge taxes please, trim welfare handouts thank you, control inflation and interest rates first, cut expenditure party.

We call them the Liberal's, but they are our version of the Conservatives. We have the Labour party - the leftist union loving tree hugger party, and I just can't bring myself to vote for them even though this time they were a more credible alternative.

Does that explain things?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Davros: To clarify Cerek - I voted for the down with unions, to heck with the envionment, cut my huge taxes please, trim welfare handouts thank you, control inflation and interest rates first, cut expenditure party. We call them the Liberal's, but they are our version of the Conservatives. We have the Labour party - the leftist union loving tree hugger party, and I just can't bring myself to vote for them even though this time they were a more credible alternative. Does that explain things?

Yes and No.

If you truly believe they were the more credible alternative, why couldn't you bring yourself to vote for them? I myself had to give a LOT of consideration to which candidate would get my vote last November. In the end, I decided that Bush was the more "credible alternative" (but just barely), so I voted for him. During the two weeks preceeding the election, I seriously considered Kerry and examined his positions much more closely than I had been doing. I also took time to watch the final debate between the two.

George Bush certainly doesn't represent my vision of an "ideal" candidate, but I do consider him a better alternative than Kerry. Now if Howard Dean had remained in the front running and gotten the nomination, my position may have been different. I really regretted how one minor incident (which I personally thought actually showed some backbone on Dean's part) cost him the nomination overnight.

Right now, I'm really interested to see what choices we will have in 2008. It will be the first time I can remember the incumbant(sp?) VP or President not getting the automatic nomination.

For the first time since I've been old enough to vote, we will actually have two "fresh faces" to choose from. Should be interesting.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: For those on the "looney left" who think so poorly of Fox News, one of the heroes of leftist media has quite a history of twisting the news to suit HIS agenda.

Speaking of twisting, the site you pulled this from is anything but an unbiased source. As a bit of humor, your post is pretty good, as a coherent argument however, it's pathetic.
Attempting to present an argument by constantly using sources that are incredibly biased is laughably poor form. Opening a post with a general insult to the people you're attempting to debate with is rude.

Not that anything better can be expected of you... [/QUOTE]That rudeness wouldn't happen to be the same kind as illustrated with the statement: "Not that anything better can be expected of you..." now would it?
Or prehaps the same kind as illustrated by the statement made a month or so ago about mastering Grammar and spelling, now would it?

Originally posted by Ziroc: quote: Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: For those on the "looney left" who think so poorly of Fox News, one of the heroes of leftist media has quite a history of twisting the news to suit HIS agenda.

Speaking of twisting, the site you pulled this from is anything but an unbiased source. As a bit of humor, your post is pretty good, as a coherent argument however, it's pathetic.
Attempting to present an argument by constantly using sources that are incredibly biased is laughably poor form. Opening a post with a general insult to the people you're attempting to debate with is rude.

Not that anything better can be expected of you... [/QUOTE]YOU need to chill, Absynthe. That was totally uncalled for. [/QUOTE]That's really too bad.
If this is how you want the forums to run, consider me gone. It's really too bad that ignorance, rudeness, and spitefulness is acceptable and now apparently even encouraged. I'd say I'm going to miss it, but what there is to miss has pretty much been squeezed out and stomped down in the last couple of years.
There was a time when debates about politics or religion went on for pages without any problems, but that ended when some people lost their cool. Now it's okay to be a jerk, but only if you're on the one side of the argument.
I truly hope this gets better, but with the way things are going now, it's not likely.