I don't watch John Gibson's show on Fox, because I find him to be repugnant, but I surf Fox's website all the time and when I see some ridiculous view Gibson has taken, I stop to read it - just to see how out there it is. Lately, he has really out done himself.

Here's some samples of his recent "work":

#1 - Praising the Brits for having the "cojones" to go after terror suspects - something I think is good too - but in this case he praises them for shooting and killing a "suspect" that turned out to have nothing to do with the bombings, as well all know now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163420,00.html

#2 - Here he praises Karl Rove, saying he deserves a medal, if he did in fact out the CIA agent. Why? Basically all in the name of partisan politics, which shows Gibson's "fairness", or should I say lack thereof? So screw the fact that, if it did happen, Rove outed an undercover agent who worked on WMD proliferation - something that is quite important in this day and age, don't you think? Also, he claims again that Wilson claimed to be sent by Cheney - which has been debunked. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html - first paragraph:
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said the agent’s husband Joe Wilson falsely claimed Vice President Cheney authorized his trip to Africa – a claim Wilson never actually made.
So he not only praises a likely traitor (who only did it to discredit someone who went against the administration and oh, BTW, turned out to be right), but he also passes off lies as truth - something the news should not do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163030,00.html

#3 - Here he compares a would-be democratic investigation of the leak to a "soviet-style show trial". Yeah, why investigate a potential national security leak that comes from the White House? Then he goes on to repeat another lie: just because Plame was working at a desk she could nto have also been undercover, therefore it is OK. But other CIA agents have since come out and said that working a desk is routine in between covert operations and means nothing. So while he does anything he can to back the RNC, he accuses everyone else of partisan politics, neat huh?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162576,00.html

#4 - Here he criticizes the world for caring about Africa while we still have terrorism going on, as if we can't address both. Why would anyone hate the fact that people want to help Africa? He also tears into Bono for no apparent reason - I guess he thinks Bono is a bad person for trying to draw attention to poverty stricken, war torn, disease ridden Africa. The nerve of Bono.   
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161997,00.html

#5 - If ever someone tells you Fox News isn't a supporter of the Bush administration, look at this - Gibson uses the attacks in London to boost up the invasive Patriot Act.
And for this exact reason, I think the Patriot Act and other powers the feds have asked for to keep an eye on potential terrorists are important and should be put in place and kept in place and the police should use those powers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161864,00.html

#6 - The final insult, for now, is in this article where he claims that the IOC should have chosen Paris, not London, for 2012 because if some terrorist bombed Paris, who would care?
But, alas, they picked London. I like the Brits. I like London. I hate to see them going through all this garbage when it would have been just fine in Paris.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161750,00.html


So, what do you think? I'll tell you what I think - I think Gibson is a pee brained hack. I think Fox News has shown itself to be as far from "fair and balanced" (a term they trademarked, BTW) as possible. And that's my word.

Choice A, the scary part is he actually thinks this crap is absolute truth and unbiased journalism.

Quoting KC135R (Thread starter): "fair and balanced"

Why do they advertise that lie every 10 minutes?

  

Just another big haired whore who passes off as a journalist.

Apparently, Fox News only accepts those "journalists" who got their degrees from one of those internet based "universities" approved by the GOP.

wait..they are "Fair and Balanced"....  

I'm an unashamed fan of Fox News, but even I've gotta call a spade here...

...this guy is a dumbass of the first rank.


Anyone see his JK Rowling overview... took him nearly three minutes to figure out it was a woman!

I thought they are "Fair and Balanced"....   

Quoting KC135R (Thread starter): So, what do you think?

You hate the Fox network and it's people yet you watch and have all this info on them?

Kind of silly if you ask me.

Quoting 787 (Reply 6): You hate the Fox network and it's people yet you watch and have all this info on them?

Well let's see - that does happen with some people, but you have me all wrong. First of all, did I ever say I hated the network? NO. I said I don't like John Gibson, specifically, and pointed out I use their website for information all the time. I then went on to lay out a very good case as to how Gibson acted in a partisan manner, and how some of what he said I found ridiculous. I never attack Fox as a whole, so your accusation is way off base. Of course, you don't know enough about me to know that you were wrong - so you just jumped to a convenient conclusion.

I watch some shows on Fox news because I like their format better than the competition. I read their website because there, free from the comments of their biased commentators, is a well set up website full of news. I don't hate Fox news - although I do dislike some of their commentators - namely Gibson, Brit Hume, and nowadays Bill O'Reilly - who I used to enjoy. I dislike their commentators for the reasons I stated before: if they are supposed to be "fair and balanced" they should act like it. Gibson's comments (and Hume does it all the time too) are very partisan, and if you pass yourself off as a fair news person and then interject partisan comments - you are not fair and I don't like that.

So you know what I think about your unfounded accusations? They're kind of silly if you ask me.  

[Edited 2005-07-25 00:01:11]

Quoting KC135R (Thread starter): I think Fox News has shown itself to be as far from "fair and balanced" (a term they trademarked, BTW) as possible.

Ok ok ok. But you watch a network that shows itself to be far from fair and balanced? And you still watch it for all the criticisms you seem to have?

My question is why if you think that way? I think my conclusion was closer than even you may realize it is.  

Can't watch the network for more than 5 minutes without feeling like I have to toss my lunch-get the same feeling if I turn on a car radio, and Rush Limbaugh is on. They're not even journalists, as far as I'm concerned-they're rah-rah men and women for Bush and the GOP, and the arrogance of American power, nothing else.

I lost all respect when Brit Hume gave the network kudo's for helping the GOP win the '02 midterms.

FOX-Fair and balanced, only if you're unfair and unbalanced......

Quoting 787 (Reply 8): But you watch a network that shows itself to be far from fair and balanced? And you still watch it for all the criticisms you seem to have?

Actually, I have mostly stopped watching it on TV - I do go to their website for news though, which I do like - mostly because the website has a good format. If I watch the TV shows I try to watch something without all the commentary - like the Fox Report, which is mostly just hard news, or Fox News live - I specifically skip the prime time commentary shows for the very reasons I stated - they are too biased, in my opinion. Plus, I like to make up my own mind based on facts, I don't need to turn to some talking head to tell me what to think.

As to what you quoted me on - perhaps I should have said:
"I think some on Fox News have shown themselves..."
But, I did not - only because the network as a whole claims to be fair and balanced, but they allow some hosts to be pretty far right wing - Hume and Gibson most notably - and they don't counter them with a left winger, so it's not really balanced - see what I mean?

For example, I don't complain about Hannity and Colmes because they debate both sides - that is balance. But if you give John Gibson an hour on your station, and claim to be balanced, you should balance him with someone like Al Franken (or some other left winger) to truly make it "fair and balanced"!! That's all I am saying.

my home page........


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/default.stm   


Fox News="fair and balanced".....  

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11): my home page........

They must be doing something right - Gibson doesn't like them either:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163167,00.html

 

I find the following statement from the last link KC135R provided to be hilarious:

Quote: He'll hang in with a moronic theory as long as somebody is willing to discuss it and pick up the bar bill.

No argument here. I believe that he and the majority of the news networks, the "neocons," and the White House do exactly the following. They are really good at preying on fears and scaring people:

Quote: Guess who created the illusion? American neocons. Guess who benefits? The folks with the darkest imaginations — that might include me — who use a phantom threat to frighten you into following their instructions. That group might also include the White House

Texan

Quoting KC135R (Reply 10): For example, I don't complain about Hannity and Colmes because they debate both sides - that is balance.

No it's not. Don't let them fool you. That show should be titled:

HANNITY and (colmes)

Colmes is nothing more than a dorky, elitist looking, Casper Milktoast, set up to be Seany boy's punching bag and make the left look weak.

It's totally see thru.

B

truth be told...

...one would be seriously mistaken to believe ANY media outlet is truly (or even closely) "Fair & Balanced"

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 14): No it's not. Don't let them fool you. That show should be titled:

Well yeah, I know that and I agree with you - Hannity definitely "overpowers" Colmes - what I should have said is that show at least makes an attempt at being balanced.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16): Well yeah, I know that and I agree with you - Hannity definitely "overpowers" Colmes - what I should have said is that show at least makes an attempt at being balanced.

....would've loved to see Ellis Henican in his place instead, a much better yang for Hannity's yin!

Plus, Hannity & Henican just sounds better  

truth be told...

...one would be seriously mistaken to believe ANY media outlet is truly (or even closely) "Fair & Balanced"


.. except one which is funded entirely free of political or commercial interests. Hence... www.bbc.co.uk  


Mark

Quoting BananaBoY (Reply 18): Hence... www.bbc.co.uk

...please tell me you're joking with this?  

I'm an unashamed fan of Fox News

.....please tell me you're joking with this?


Fredster,

I wouldn't expect any other response from you. I would rather have my BBC version of "reality" than the Fox inspired fiction you are an "unashamed" fan of.



Mark

[Edited 2005-07-25 10:51:05]

...course, the difference here Cupcake; is that while I'm a fan of FNC, I by no means take it as a sole nor unbiased source.

You, apparently, seem to be of a difference persuasion vis-a-vis the (*chortling*  ) BBC.

...course, the difference here Cupcake; is that while I'm a fan of FNC, I by no means take it as a sole nor unbiased source.

I would never have guessed.


Mark

PS... and its Mister Cupcake.  

[Edited 2005-07-25 11:16:57]