|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News
business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney occurred during breaking news coverage of the attacks on London subways and buses on the July 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 - believe it or not - was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. ** But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened. ** VARNEY: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again. http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005 |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox
News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney You do know about Fox, don't you? M. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
Claims Assistance wrote:
The following exchange between Fox News Fox News is the laughing stock of the civilised world, which does not include the USA of course. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
marcb wrote:
The following exchange between Fox News host Brian Kilmeade and Fox News business contributor and substitute host Stuart Varney You do know about Fox, don't you? Obviously not as anyone who had any concern for his street cred wouldn't even utter these words except to put down this pathetic excuse for a news channel. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
You do know about Fox, don't you? You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... ITYM "calling a spade the annual production of JCB" |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
"John of Aix" wrote in message ... Claims Assistance wrote: The following exchange between Fox News Fox News is the laughing stock of the civilised world, which does not include the USA of course. Murdoch puts his own tabloid spin on everything. You just have to look at the coverage of todays events on Sky and compare them to BBC News 24. Sky virtually made sensational claims whenever they liked with no substance to a lot of their headlines. 3 buses for example. A. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:51:07 +0100, "londoncityslicker"
wrote: Sky virtually made sensational claims whenever they liked with no substance to a lot of their headlines. 3 buses for example. To be fair, the BBC did speculate that at one point as well - all it turned out to be was 3 different people reporting 1 explosion but none of them knowing exactly where it took place. That said, I do dislike Sky News's sensationalist style, and think that BBC News 24 is vastly superior and hugely more professional. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:07:14 GMT, CMOT TMPV
said: As an American I can tell you I find FoxNews terribly unbalanced, often offensive, and just plain rotten. I've given up watching it entirely (except for their weather which is quite good....) Do Fox viewers get less hurricanes than (eg) CNN viewers? :-) -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:43:56 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:07:14 GMT, CMOT TMPV said: As an American I can tell you I find FoxNews terribly unbalanced, often offensive, and just plain rotten. I've given up watching it entirely (except for their weather which is quite good....) Do Fox viewers get less hurricanes than (eg) CNN viewers? Unlikely, though they might get fewer hurricanes. :) -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:05:10 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
Nick Cooper wrote:
Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. Indeed. B. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:06:51 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:44:33 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:05:10 GMT, wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. That you think you're not doesn't justify yours. Follow the money... Read the Royal Charter and then **** off. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. So, it appears that you're saying that your government has no control over what can and cannot be transmitted via television. Interesting. Under normal circumstances that's correct, and it really does **** some of them off. :-) |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:11:36 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. So, it appears that you're saying that your government has no control over what can and cannot be transmitted via television. Interesting. It has no operational control over what the BBC broadcasts any more than the FCC in the US has any operational control over what networks in the US broadcast. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk