Fox News gets caught almost weekly either running deceptively edited clips or dishonest graphics. And Fox gets out and out lying daily.

But in this instance what Fox is trying to pass off as the truth or actual facts is far from it and at the very least very debatable.

Here's another from HotAir.

*not_secure_link*74.84.198.233/arch...romney-ryan-chanting-on-msnbc/comment-page-1/


And what I feel is an even better explanation from Daily Kos.


Here comes a new "controversy." Scarborough's "Oh Sweet Jesus" Based On Erroneous Report? UPDATE X2

*not_secure_link*www.dailykos.com/s...weet-Jesus-Based-On-Erroneous-MSNBC-Reporting


Notice also Fox News is falsely accusing Scarborough of not responding when he clearly says he will do so tomorrow. And if Scarborough doesn't address the tape on Monday Fox News will have a point but until then they don't.

 

FOX News aired the 1998 Obama video over and over again the day after the 2012 Romney video about the 47% was aired. If anything, that is proof that FOX News is biased.

As an independent, I am less biased than democrats and republicans are.

Yes, I plan to vote for Obama. But, if I thought that independent candidates had the chance of winning, I would probably vote for Jill Stein instead.

All the media is biased because they are only covering news of Obama and Romney, but not Jill Stein.

 

I'm very tempted to vote for her, if only because Obama has an insurmountable lead in California and my vote won't make a difference.

By the way, when did "redistribution" become a dirty word? All income tax policies have a redistributive effect. In fact, all TAX policies do. Republicans just don't like it when the redistribution is downward and not upward.

 

Which is what's been happening for decades now. A redistribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. And as you say that was fine. Its when we try to get back some of that wealth that suddenly redistribution becomes a dirty word.

 

Yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question.

 

I know but I was just to happy to see you I couldn't resist responding with something.

 

The biased conservative media tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill and failed. But, they were desperately trying to cover up Romney's attitude about 47% of the people in the USA. I am voting for Obama and have never been in the 47% percent. Even while I was on unemployment, for a short period, I was still paying taxes.

 

I fully agree with that.

 

The only time to vote for a candidate to the left of the Democrat is when you know that the Democrat is going to win by a landslide. I love Franklin Roosevelt. Nevertheless, if I was voting during the 1930s I would have voted for Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate. That way I would express my support for policies to the left of the New Deal.

As far as redistribution is concerned, Republicans think there is something Divinely ordained about the present maldistribution. When Democrats complain about growing inequality Republicans accuse them of class war. Accusing the Democrats of class war is like accusing a woman of rape when she fights back.

 

Conservatives think that downward redistribution is stealing.

Upward redistribution is stealing.

 

Let us not forget that they edited out the last sentence of Obama's comments. In that last sentence is the proof that he was trying for the opposite position from that which the edited version and fox commentators were trying to prove.

Then there's the 'you did not build that' edit by Faux News. And the taking that quote out of context and spinning it to be something it was not. Republicans ate it up like candy.

Jill Stein has no hope in hell of being elected. So who's votes will she draw off?

 

So, just to be clear, you believe taking from the rich to give to the poor is good public policy? That somehow the rich always get rich by devious, immoral, illegal means, and quite properly should have their ill gotten gains taken away and given to the hard working lower/middle class from whom it was stolen?

 

Hasn't that been the case since we first implemented a progressive income tax structure for nearly 100 years?

No not all rich people got rich by devious, immoral, and illegal means. Many if not most inherited their wealth.

But if we look at who makes up the top 1% and then look at what caused the world economic collapse and the US Great Recession we can sure see many in the top 1% benefiting greatly from that kind of greed and corruption.

Or Mitt Romney is another good example of someone who values profits much more than he values morality and the good of the nation.

 

What the media isn't telling you about our economy

By John Lott
Published October 01, 2012
FoxNews.com

• *not_secure_link*a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/660/371/062112_kennedy_foreclosures_640.jpg
  
  
• *not_secure_link*a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/660/371/economyjobfair.jpg
  Feb. 2, 2012: People wait in line during a job fair for Home Depot at the WorkSource Oregon in Tigard, Ore. (AP)
  

Next SlidePrevious Slide


Judging from the media coverage, you might think that our economy was improving. You’d be wrong.
The truth is that the slowest recovery on record appears destined to set even more records for slow growth. That’s not good news for President Obama. And more bad economic news hit him this past week. Here's a short list of indicators:
-- Slow GDP growth: GDP rose at an annual rate of just 1.25% during April through June*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png, barely keeping up with the growth in population. The economy has been getting slower and slower since the end of last year.
-- Durable goods orders plunged 13.2 percent*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png in August.
-- Median household income has actually fallen. Income has dropped from $53,718 to $50,678 since the “recovery” started in June 2009*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png.
Despite all this, the news media has been uncharacteristically cheerful the last couple of months. Take some of the newspaper headlines from August, when the unemployment rate had gone up again for the second time in three months, rising from 8.2 to 8.3 percent. The Wall Street Journal headline read: “Job Gains Spark Stock Rally.”*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png The New York Times reported: “Hiring Picks Up in July, but Data Gives No Clear Signal.”*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png
These headlines can’t truly be labeled “dishonest,” but they are misleading. Initial job growth was reported to be 163,000 (later revised downward to 141,000*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png), but the working age population had grown by 198,000*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png.
The media decided to emphasize the small grain of positive news that they could find in the report which was the slight uptick in jobs.
But the press isn’t always so consistent. You won't be surprised to learn that when there is a Democratic president in the White House, the media tend to view things in a positive light. When Republicans are at the helm, they are more negative.
Kevin Hassett at the American Enterprise Institute and I recently studied newspaper headlines from 1985 to 2004*not_secure_link*global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png. We looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines that were positive when new economic numbers were released. For example, after accounting for the unemployment rate and new jobs and whether those numbers were increasing or decreasing, we looked at the percentage of newspaper headlines for those stories that could be classified as positive, negative, neutral or mixed.
Here's what we found: For the top 10 largest newspaper, for the same types of unemployment news, the headlines were 15 to 16 percent more positive when a Democrat was president.
Today, it appears that the mainstream press is particularly eager to support President Obama. They are bending over backwards to spin the economic numbers in a positive way.
In September and August the Wall Street Journal and New York Times for gave Mr. Obama slightly more positive headlines than Bill Clinton would have received with the same economic news.
President Obama also got over 20 percent more positive headlines than our data indicated that similarly situated Republicans would have gotten. This more positive coverage has a real impact on people’s perceptions of the economy. More positive headlines raised people’s perceptions that the economy was getting better. The average difference in positive headlines between Democrats and Republicans produced about a four-percentage point increase in respondents viewing the economy as getting better.
In a close election, that difference can mean a lot.





Read more: *not_secure_link*www.foxnews.com/op...isnt-telling-about-our-economy/#ixzz285QzT1N8

 

I you cannot write your own posts using your own thinking and writing do not bore us with the stuff you copy and paste from the internet.

 

Hey you two face douche bag, why is it that you have NEVER said anything about Stumbler and all of his constant day after day copy, cut and paste posts?

He has about a 36000+ cut copy and paste history that you have some how over looked while reading his posts and masturbating to his avatar....

 

quantification

I find it hilarious that folks are now trying desperately to PROVE something that is purely subjective. Bias is subjective. Liberal is subjective. Conservative is subjective.

I also find it laughable when Fox News, none for pushing the conservative agenda, is quoted as an unbiased source for analysis of the bias of the media, that is just too much! What a joke!

 

The one thing Fox News and the right wing false propaganda machine has perfected is what's now called the "echo chamber" were just as you say they can report something and it gets picked up by the MSM just as if it was factual without ever checking it out.

 

Better than GWB who "looked into Putin's eyes and saw a wonderful human being". Putin is just another in a long line of tyrannical Russian dictators.

 

I'm a bit late getting into this discussion but I know one thing for sure and that's the fact that had the, 'Liberal Media, ABC, CBS, NBC & CNN' actually reported the facts in the beginning about Obama not properly being Vetted by Nancy Pelosi as well as the fact that non of these media companies followed Federal guidelines themselves that specified they also are required to throughly investigate anyone they advertise for and didn't, butt rather promoted an Ineligible Illegal Alien making him look like a saint!

That's the Patriotic American way to ensure a Usurper doesn't invade the government though, Right?? Oh Wrong!!

These are all Liberal individuals or Liberal run businesses! So now how do Conservatives fit into this mess?