Fox News, aka the Faux News Network

[Mister George Kapland]

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

False Dichotomy

No, because the "war on women" is mainstream conservatism.

sure it is. I'm sure that's entirely an unbiased appraisal, rather than the opinion of an outsider in an "us-versus-them" mindset.

It's easy to find evidence that the Republican War on Women is mainstream. Look at recent laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and the numerous calls from the GoP to end abortion, do away with birth control, and otherwise turn women into second class citizens and breeding stock.

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

[Steam Punk Adept]

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

sure it is. I'm sure that's entirely an unbiased appraisal, rather than the opinion of an outsider in an "us-versus-them" mindset.

It's easy to find evidence that the Republican War on Women is mainstream. Look at recent laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and the numerous calls from the GoP to end abortion, do away with birth control, and otherwise turn women into second class citizens and breeding stock.

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

Because multiple sources (and yes, I did quote multiple sources) automatically means biased source because it disagrees with you. Instead of just claiming it to be a biased source, why don't you prove it's a biased source

[Argus Plexus]

Lol I need an adult. Media bias? How about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and about 90% of the rest of the media riding Obama's c**k constantly?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I am so tired of the 'hurr hurr hurr FAUX news' line...

In any event, I dont get what your big stink with Faux is, or, on a larger level, media bias. I stopped believing Santa Claus was real a long time ago, but I still love Christmas. I know that Lucha Libre is not real wrestling, but damned if I dont go and catch a match every time I am in Mexico. Look, the media does have bias sources, and Fox is one. I disagree with John Stewart when he seems to think there is no liberal media bias anywhere. He is correct when he says that there is not a bias in the places the other guy believes, like the NY Times, but I think he should have just been honest and admitted that it does exist.

People need to get over the fact that personal opinions may be in your news and instead just glean the facts out. I can get jumping on Fox or any news source when they make up stuff sure, and I respect Mr. Stewart when he does that. I however dont share this faux-outrage at 'bias in the media'. Reporters are people, and guess what folks? We all have biases, and you are a damn liar if you think you always keep it in check and act purely based on 'facts'.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

sure it is. I'm sure that's entirely an unbiased appraisal, rather than the opinion of an outsider in an "us-versus-them" mindset.

It's easy to find evidence that the Republican War on Women is mainstream. Look at recent laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and the numerous calls from the GoP to end abortion, do away with birth control, and otherwise turn women into second class citizens and breeding stock.

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Love Muffin88

LOL! This guy thinks that Fox News is more so biased than other news networks blaugh

Also OP, do you not see the hypocrisy in complaining about how biased a news network is, when you devote an entire thread to display your bias against said network? Pot calling the kettle black.

His study supports that, and Jon Stewart is correct; every time a study comes out comparing how well informed viewers are of various topics, people who report Fox news as their only or main source of news fair the worst.

I think Jon Stewart put it best when he said the bias in most of the media consists of three things; laziness, sensationalism, and conflict. I also think he was correct to note that, of all the main networks, Fox actually does seem to have a political agenda. I mean hell, even the interviewer guy kind of admitted it when he said that they are there to 'report the other side of the story'. If you are so actual factual, shouldn't you either report what everyone else does or make some claim like, 'we want to report the truth.'.

Not to say that there are not other clearly liberal media outlets. Just dealing with the main sources here.

[Mister George Kapland]

Steam Punk Adept

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

It's easy to find evidence that the Republican War on Women is mainstream. Look at recent laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and the numerous calls from the GoP to end abortion, do away with birth control, and otherwise turn women into second class citizens and breeding stock.

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

Because multiple sources (and yes, I did quote multiple sources) automatically means biased source because it disagrees with you. Instead of just claiming it to be a biased source, why don't you prove it's a biased source

your source disagrees with me? What? Do you even know what you're talking about? No, no you don't because I've yet to make an assertion for your source to disagree with.
http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2011/12/year-in-review-2011-hp-bias.html
Okay, now that's the proof that the huffpost is biased. you'll notice it's a blog.... Which is what your "proof" amounted too.

[Mister George Kapland]

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

Steam Punk Adept

It's easy to find evidence that the Republican War on Women is mainstream. Look at recent laws in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and the numerous calls from the GoP to end abortion, do away with birth control, and otherwise turn women into second class citizens and breeding stock.

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

Like he did with fox?


Booyah

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

Keltoi Samurai

ok, I'm looking . . . gimmie a hint as to where to look, maybe?

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

Quote:

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.

Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription coveInc. Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

Like he did with fox?


Booyah

Did he? He seemed to spend, albeit highly labored, a good deal of time actually referencing some basis for an argument that there is a conscious political aim or bias within Fox. I never read in the OP that he disagreed with Fox simply because it was Fox, nor did I see him say that, like a broken watch, Fox cant be right two times a day.

Booyah indeed. If ever there was a time for a dismissive Frenchman wave, it is here.

[GunsmithKitten]

Argus Plexus

Lol I need an adult. Media bias? How about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and about 90% of the rest of the media riding Obama's c**k constantly?

I already addressed it and acknowledged it. I get on Fox a little more becuase, well, their crap hit close to my backyard, so it makes me a little madder than general asshattery.

[Bubsy]

daChaosKitty

Bubsy

Here is a pretty obvious one

http://mediamatters.org/research/201204020017

Here is another one

http://mediamatters.org/research/201204260027

Oh yes, let us not forget that whole Barack Obama and his Birth Certificate fiasco that Fox News only made worse by having Donald Trump on.

Or you could go here and browse all you want

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel?page=2

At first it may not seem that bad, its just the sheer amount builds up over time to create a larger interesting picture.

Is that "all" of their news?

On the flipside, there's also heavy hate from the left about the tea party,movement, thing.

Its not a zero sum game. I wasn't trying to imply that they are all bias all the time, I am trying to point out however they are the most.

The whole tea party business is another subject entirely.

[Bubsy]

Argus Plexus

Lol I need an adult. Media bias? How about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and about 90% of the rest of the media riding Obama's c**k constantly?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/study-obama-s-media-coverage-more-negative-than-romney-s-20120423

Make up your mind.

[Mister George Kapland]

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

Like he did with fox?


Booyah

Did he? He seemed to spend, albeit highly labored, a good deal of time actually referencing some basis for an argument that there is a conscious political aim or bias within Fox. I never read in the OP that he disagreed with Fox simply because it was Fox, nor did I see him say that, like a broken watch, Fox cant be right two times a day.

Booyah indeed. If ever there was a time for a dismissive Frenchman wave, it is here.

He did, directly to me, first page I believe something about "only thing on fox is lies and propaganda"

[Steam Punk Adept]

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Steam Punk Adept

http://Ppwww.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Just as an example

You don't get to point out bias with a biased source, numbnuts.

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

Like he did with fox?


Booyah

Did he? He seemed to spend, albeit highly labored, a good deal of time actually referencing some basis for an argument that there is a conscious political aim or bias within Fox. I never read in the OP that he disagreed with Fox simply because it was Fox, nor did I see him say that, like a broken watch, Fox cant be right two times a day.

Booyah indeed. If ever there was a time for a dismissive Frenchman wave, it is here.

He did, directly to me, first page I believe something about "only thing on fox is lies and propaganda"

That's not disagreeing with Fox for being Fox, but rather disagreeing with Fox because of the contents of their broadcast.

[Mister George Kapland]

Steam Punk Adept

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

Mister George Kapland

Riviera de la Mancha

And neither should you be allowed to dismiss a legitimate report based on nothing more than a disagreement between you and the source.

Like he did with fox?


Booyah

Did he? He seemed to spend, albeit highly labored, a good deal of time actually referencing some basis for an argument that there is a conscious political aim or bias within Fox. I never read in the OP that he disagreed with Fox simply because it was Fox, nor did I see him say that, like a broken watch, Fox cant be right two times a day.

Booyah indeed. If ever there was a time for a dismissive Frenchman wave, it is here.

He did, directly to me, first page I believe something about "only thing on fox is lies and propaganda"

That's not disagreeing with Fox for being Fox, but rather disagreeing with Fox because of the contents of their broadcast.

A distinction that's only reflected in the semantics of the wording.