Report: Fox most balanced in reporting on candidates

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen these types of games played all the time where conservative commentators have a single line that, taken out of context, means the opposite of what they were saying to create false outrage. O'Reilly was clearly attacking Sen. Edwards on a false generalization in which he was blaming President Bush's economic policies for homeless veterans as a part of his whole "two Americas" spiel.

As for the numbers, they didn't come from "O'Reilly's" guy. They came from a Democrat he invited on. I don't know why the numbers came up different from your source, but it could just be a matter of who you're counting (I suspect he was only including the chronically homeless and not those that pass through a shelter for a few months).



He probably got it from this report from the Heritage Foundation.

Also, my source is cited. Check again.

cnn and msnbc also engage in spin like fox news does but the thing i find abhorrent about fox news is just how much they engage in yellow journalism or sometimes just out and out lies.

Hmm, here's a link to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Here's their stats



Huh, surprising amount are from Nam. So, with 76% with addiction or mental illness, Califano might have been overstating his case (or, as the book was published sometime is 2007, the treatment programs may simply have been very effective. I doubt that though, as the site lists the same average number of homeless veterans.)

Regarding Califano's inaccurate figures, here's a link to a review of the book he was promoting in the transcript. Apparently he`s been caught distorting figures before.



So you did, should have looked harder. And thanks for finding the Heritage Foundation report

Now, I`m going to argue that O`Reilly purposely invited a person known to distort his figures in order to make his critisms of Edwards look more convincing then they are, to which I suspect you will accuse me of liberal bias, which I admit is a possibility. Basically a stalemate. So I figure, how about I try to do another youtube attack and you try to rebut me? That`s the best way I can think of for either of us to argue our points. I promise that I`ll try to stay away from the flat out mean stuff.

Also, I`ll admit I was hasty to accuse O`Reilly so strongly. IMO he`s strongly biased, and that he frequently spins the facts, but saying he doesn`t care about the troops was wrong, and I apologize.

Was flicking thru the channels one day and came accross O'Reilly's BS fest. Now I know why I prefer Sky. BTW, don't these 'tards realise even honest journalism is an anachronism? All they are is a bunch of parasites feeding off the flesh of the public carcass at the public's expense. Bill O'Reilly..... if only the famed test cricketer from Australia knew this a**hole had the same name, he'd turn in his grave. And Rush Limbaugh? Bill Hicks was right - he is a scatmuncher...

Besides, US politics is dead boring; what's wrong with 6 week campaigns like we have here?

if it's not shane warne, i don't care.





i'm always up for a good bill hicks reference. he died at the right time...cause if he were alive today, he'd kill himself.

We downloaded his stuff at the right time. Oh, for the peaceful serenity of.... Arizona Bay.