Fox News.

[JimboUK]

I know it's The Sun but this is what we have to put up with over here....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898713/Sun-unearths-alarming-smears-against-Tories-by-state-owned-BBC.html

 

I complained about the bias on their political editors blog only to have my post removed and a warning via email about making "defamatory comments".

 

Isn't The Sun owned by 'Good Old' Rupert? That 'could' explain the bias, he he. However, their response to your comment is an obvious reaction by any news program across the board. I would ask you to post the same thing in Fox's, MSNBC's, and any others I don't know about, and I guarantee they would delete it or reply angrily to it.

 

@Kendo

 

Oh ho! Offering me some Texas Moonshine? Something else to fear!

 

The Sun is owned by Murdoch as is the BBCs main competition Sky (they own a large share anyway). It's not only The Sun who have bought it up, other non-lefty outlets have also commented on it many times. It wouldn't be so bad if weren't forced to pay for the damn thing. Good blog here about the BBC http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

[Kendo 2]

@Trandoshan

>:( If you don't stop with the 'three degrees of Murdoch' thing I'm going to stop posting. STOP BEING RIGHT all of the damn time. It's annoying. ;D

[Trandoshan]

The Sun is owned by Murdoch as is the BBCs main competition Sky (they own a large share anyway). It's not only The Sun who have bought it up, other non-lefty outlets have also commented on it many times. It wouldn't be so bad if weren't forced to pay for the damn thing. Good blog here about the BBC http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

 

Rupert Murdoch seems to be the most important man in this thread.

 

I looked at the forum you posted, and I have to comment at the sheer size of it! I mean, there are about 1000 posts total. Though for good reason, surely.

 

About Sky... Correct me if I'm wrong

 

Sky, known as BSkyB(?) nowadays, is the combination of Murdoch's fail 'Sky Broadcasting', and British Satellite Broadcasting. It, apparently, is doing fine today, but back then it was unpopular. Despite everyone's want to have news that is unbiased, nobody watches unbiased news do to a lack of drama. It applies everywhere. 'Real News' is not very interesting to the masses. Add some drama, some nationalism, and some good ole fashioned 'somebody gets murdered', and suddenly things get popular.

 

Edit:

@Kendo

 

OK, I'll leave Murdoch out of this from here on out. Though it's going to be hard. Fox revolves around him, like planets around a sun...

 

This is probably the ONLY topic I'm going to have this much information on....

[Kendo 2]

I was just teasing, man. So the guy owns half of all media. What can we do, make an Obama plan to steal it from him?

[Maxwell the Fool]

Right, and then we could end up like Venezuela, with the great Chairman..... Sorry, president Chavez....... You know, shutting down all of the contradictory news sources....

[Trandoshan]

Right, and then we could end up like Venezuela, with the great Chairman..... Sorry, president Chavez....... You know, shutting down all of the contradictory news sources....

 

110% chance of the Third American Rebellion if that ever happens. Especially if Obama did it. Do you know who would lead the Revolution? Glen Beck, that's who. I would be on the frontlines, protecting my democracy that barely is. When they take the freedom that is news, despite it being as biased as hell, then they take away American freedom. It will not, and never will happen luckily. Even the prez can't do that kind of crap.

[JimboUK]

The Sun is owned by Murdoch as is the BBCs main competition Sky (they own a large share anyway). It's not only The Sun who have bought it up, other non-lefty outlets have also commented on it many times. It wouldn't be so bad if weren't forced to pay for the damn thing. Good blog here about the BBC http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

 

Rupert Murdoch seems to be the most important man in this thread.

 

I looked at the forum you posted, and I have to comment at the sheer size of it! I mean, there are about 1000 posts total. Though for good reason, surely.

 

About Sky... Correct me if I'm wrong

 

Sky, known as BSkyB(?) nowadays, is the combination of Murdoch's fail 'Sky Broadcasting', and British Satellite Broadcasting. It, apparently, is doing fine today, but back then it was unpopular. Despite everyone's want to have news that is unbiased, nobody watches unbiased news do to a lack of drama. It applies everywhere. 'Real News' is not very interesting to the masses. Add some drama, some nationalism, and some good ole fashioned 'somebody gets murdered', and suddenly things get popular.

 

Edit:

@Kendo

 

OK, I'll leave Murdoch out of this from here on out. Though it's going to be hard. Fox revolves around him, like planets around a sun...

 

This is probably the ONLY topic I'm going to have this much information on....

 

Yeah Both Sky and BSB merged to create BSkyB, the market wasn't big enough at the time to support both. I don't think News International have a controlling stake but enough to get family members on the board. I don't think Sky is unpopular, we don't bother with them opting instead for a motorised satellite system allowing us to get a lot more for free, you don't need a huge dish to get most of Europe. Can't get Fox News anymore though, wherever we point the dish it's encrypted.

[Kendo 2]

Even the prez can't do that kind of crap.

 

Uh...Wud choo talk'n 'bout Trandoshan? You mean like FDR's Executive Order 8958? (Most records are still classified so good luck finding references). Or do you mean FDR's creation of The United States Office of Censorship? You know the 'voluntary' ergo compulsory censorship of the media during WW2 that was meant to protect the war effort but used by him to silence oppostion from his own party on radio broadcasts? Or do you mean the time before that when he followed Hitler's lead and signed The Commincations Act of 1934? I'm confused as to which time he didn't limit the media and ultimately place it under government control.

 

"In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous. … With ruthless determination the State must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the service of the State and the Nation."

 

Looks to me like ol' FDR took a game plan right out of psycho Hitler's playbook, Mein Kampf.

 

..and yeah, Democrats would never do anything like that and certainly not an honest man like Obama. After all, there is no precedent? Right?

 

"Kendo-is-at-the-center-line-he-shoots-HE-SCORES-three-points!" :woot: ...and the crowd goes wild.

 

AND of course you know I'm just giving you a hard time. I like butting heads with you.

[Trandoshan]

 

 

Uh...Wud choo talk'n 'bout Trandoshan? You mean like FDR's Executive Order 8958? (Most records are still classified so good luck finding references). Or do you mean FDR's creation of The United States Office of Censorship? You know the 'voluntary' ergo compulsory censorship of the media during WW2 that was meant to protect the war effort but used by him to silence oppostion from his own party on radio broadcasts? Or do you mean the time before that when he followed Hitler's lead and signed The Commincations Act of 1934? I'm confused as to which time he didn't limit the media and ultimately place it under government control.

 

"In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press continues the work of education even in adult life. Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous. … With ruthless determination the State must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the service of the State and the Nation."

 

Looks to me like ol' FDR took a game plan right out of psycho Hitler's playbook, Mein Kampf.

 

..and yeah, Democrats would never do anything like that and certainly not an honest man like Obama. After all, there is no precedent? Right?

 

"Kendo-is-at-the-center-line-he-shoots-HE-SCORES-three-points!" :woot: ...and the crowd goes wild.

 

AND of course you know I'm just giving you a hard time. I like butting heads with you.

 

Of course, bud. Forgive me if I slip and take something seriously though, I'm sensitive when it comes to offending people.

 

Bringing up FDR... That's quite the trump card you have right there. I think that washes away what I said, minus the part about the possible revolution if it does happen. I want to keep Hitler out of the discussion, but I have to admit that America at current can't be put down by the government as of yet. We still have guns, and Germany's public didn't. That may be the differentiating factor between their public stagnation, and our revolution. Words like these put me on watch lists just like they did in Germany, true, but it is still in different situations.

 

Of course, although it seems like I support the government, it is in the contrary. I have seen many-a-documentary that relates what happens in America to What happens in Reichland. I try not to believe it though, my Nationalistic pride is still strong.

 

F.D.R.'s actions on the throne (Note the word 'Throne') were not 'Radical', and we were distracted by war to really notice it. Wait.... Distracted by war.... Familiar.... Afgha.... no nothing...

 

Never mind, typing from the soul again. Point is, they can't do anything radical right now. They have to do it slowly, over generations, in order to bring us down to Russia's level. Probably not in my lifetime, thankfully. My children, however, will probably be so desensitized to government violation of rights that they may be supportive of it.

 

I'm too worried about this. I'm only 19 for God's Sake.

[Maxwell the Fool]

These people never let a crisis go to waste........

 

Oh, and I'd be right there with you, a 22 in one hand and a bowl of ramen in the other....... I know it's bad for me, that's why I like it!

 

Also, so long as we're talking about joke presidents, what about Wilson? Alien and Sedition Acts....... Largest limitations put on free speech ever. You spoke out against the war or a particular politician than you were put in jail or shot. Back to FDR...... Did you realize that the caps being put on Obama's power are being bypassed by the same methods FDR used/created? For example, writing executive orders or well....... Writing executive orders. I think that between Wilson and Roosevelt (both of them, by the way.....) we gave the president to much power, kinda like the Romans and Caesar. Good thing that worked out well for their empire..... Wait a second............

 

Loads of people claim FDR was loved, I personally don't see that. If he was so loved that they elected him thrice, then why did they keep anyone from ever serving that long again? Maybe because they saw the nation devolving into a dictatorship. I'm not suggesting that Obama's rekindling this..... No, not me :ninja: