Give me a BREAK Fox News..
I have seen it all now. Fox news network has a program entitled "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren. With regard to the Scott Peterson case Greta interviews Noreen Renier a psychic. This "psychic" Noreen Reiner gave a bunch of bull over the case based on clothing items such as a shoe and a t-shirt. I have to ask why in the world does this network even give air time to this kind of circus act? I mean come on...
Do any of you believe this psychic nonsense?
I sure don't.
It just amazes me what is given credit on television these days.
Fellowship
Do any of you believe this psychic nonsense?
I sure don't.
It just amazes me what is given credit on television these days.
Fellowship
Comments
Originally posted by Naderfan
Wow, they still do that?? This is why TV news (all stations) should just be banned. Print and radio only.
I doubt that that would be an effective way to prevent the brainless pseudo-propaganda/circus acts that occasionally masquerade as television news on all networks these days. I could just as well write mindless blather in an op-ed piece and have it published in the NY Times. You think radio will solve it? On the one hand we have the liberal NPR and on the other public AM conservative talk radio. I sure hope your comment was in jest.
It's also a bit ironic to find FCiB protesting so strongly against something as mystical, unexplained, and faith-based as a psychic!
Originally posted by Naderfan
Indeed it was. What we really need is someone like me in charge of all news that will be distributed. I promise to be fair and unbiased, at least in my opinion. Everyone loves Big Brother.
Whahahahahaha..
Shades of 1984...
Originally posted by Randycat99
Isn't it entirely possible they just had a big ole block of time to kill, so they opted for some levity on the matter?
It's also a bit ironic to find FCiB protesting so strongly against something as mystical, unexplained, and faith-based as a psychic!
hahahaha just could not resist editing your reply?
One has to discern the truth from deception.
Fellows
Although Fox News exacerbates the problem more than any other cable news network, rampant sensationalism is not exlusive to Fox News. CNN is just as likely to discuss Sylvia Browne instead of real news. MSNBC might invite a crack-pot psychic on one of their shows as well. But Fox News takes sensationalism to the extreme. Combine cheap, tabloid journalism with legitimate news and you have yourself a ratings king!
It's not without precedent within the corporation that runs Fox News. Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp runs several salacious tabloid newspapers such as the New York Post. In television, Fox Broadcasting Network practically invented the sensational, cheap genre of "When blah blah blah 3" and helped along the "Reality TV" genre. Bill O'Reilly himself was a tabloid journalist for "Inside Edition" or "A Current Affair."
So we have history, precedent, and evidence to indict Fox News as the most sensational news channel on television. But the problem is not just Fox News. It's every news channel. Where has hard news gone? Are we just a society that accepts sound bites and headlines as opposed to real journalism? These are some of the questions that will shape television news in the coming years.
I am very doubtful that it will get any better.
I've already turned to the internet for all my news.
It's probably the best bet anyway.
Fox news is not bad 99% of the time but when something like this comes up it really begs one to ask some questions.
Fellowship
How come these stoopidTV executive jocks never get so called psychics to come on TV and read out the Lottery results B4 they are actually drawn.....?
People prefer to believe in any sort of bull except to truth..& you & I know who the truth is......
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What was funny Shawn is that Greta did her best to keep a straight face while asking the questions.
I think that's the entire problem encapsulated right there. We're examining fluff pieces with hard news intensity, and examining hard news with fluff piece attention spans.
This is an industry wide problem.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I think that's the entire problem encapsulated right there. We're examining fluff pieces with hard news intensity, and examining hard news with fluff piece attention spans.
This is an industry wide problem.
Indeed I agree with this 100%
Fellows
where that off switch?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I have seen it all now. Fox news network has a program entitled "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren. With regard to the Scott Peterson case Greta interviews Noreen Renier a psychic. This "psychic" Noreen Reiner gave a bunch of bull over the case based on clothing items such as a shoe and a t-shirt. I have to ask why in the world does this network even give air time to this kind of circus act? I mean come on...
Do any of you believe this psychic nonsense?
I sure don't.
It just amazes me what is given credit on television these days.
Fellowship
They give air time to religious leaders. Why not psychics?
Originally posted by BR
They give air time to religious leaders. Why not psychics?
What have psychics done in the broad scheme of things? Do they focus on helping the poor, the sick, the unfortunate? Do they focus on charity?
Really, BR, as much as you like to prove you're smarter than everyone else because your "ideological nonexistent" stance, and your Neo-Macho attitude: you're just plain wrong here.
You can claim that psychics are no more truthful than religious leaders, but you ignore that psychics mostly charge for their services and call it a day. They have little value to society. At least religious leaders are involved in charity as an inextricable part of their job and a part of their life.
So, no, i'm not "deciding who's right or who's wrong" here. That's not it at all. But when you look at it in the broader scheme of things, religious leaders are more valuable to society than psychics.
If you try to dissemble by asking what constitutes a religous leader, I will sic Fellowship on you!
"Attack!"
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
What have psychics done in the broad scheme of things? Do they focus on helping the poor, the sick, the unfortunate? Do they focus on charity?
Really, BR, as much as you like to prove you're smarter than everyone else because your "ideological nonexistent" stance, and your Neo-Macho attitude: you're just plain wrong here.
You can claim that psychics are no more truthful than religious leaders, but you ignore that psychics mostly charge for their services and call it a day. They have little value to society. At least religious leaders are involved in charity as an inextricable part of their job and a part of their life.
So, no, i'm not "deciding who's right or who's wrong" here. That's not it at all. But when you look at it in the broader scheme of things, religious leaders are more valuable to society than psychics.
If you try to dissemble by asking what constitutes a religous leader, I will sic Fellowship on you!
"Attack!"
This posting is the post of the year in my book. I have never laughed so much. Way to go Shawn!
"ideological nonexistent" stance
That nailed it. Funny how truth can be so funny if it is simply presented as Shawn stated it.
We of course don't intend on running off BR as he has such an interesting and rare viewpoint that is so interesting to deconstruct.
Fellows
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
What have psychics done in the broad scheme of things?
Provided solace and comfort and bilked money from hundreds of thousands of people.
What have religions done?
Provided solace and comfort and bilked money from millions of people.
Same thing, larger scale.
Do they focus on helping the poor, the sick, the unfortunate? Do they focus on charity?
Sure, because all religious leaders do that too. All religions are wholesome and all leaders are trustworthy. HAH!
Really, BR, as much as you like to prove you're smarter than everyone else
My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof
I don?t ever need to prove myself to you
because your "ideological nonexistent" stance,
Just because my ideology differs from yours does not mean it is "nonexistent." I believe in not being afraid of the unknown and dealing with uncertainty. That's an ideology. Moron.
and your Neo-Macho attitude:
You call me a neo-macho because I call you a pussy. The difference is that you really are a pussy and I simply enjoy watching sports and yet can still believe in truly equal rights for both genders.
you're just plain wrong here.
Meow.
You can claim that psychics are no more truthful than religious leaders,
Done and done.
but you ignore that psychics mostly charge for their services and call it a day.
AHAHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA!
That's hilarious. You are kidding yourself if you think that charging for services and calling it a day is limited to psychics. NEWSFLASH: That's just about how everything works today.
They have little value to society.
Define value. That's your opinion. If people didn't think that these psychics were real, they wouldn't be able to stay in business. Obviously people believe in what they say and obviously to those that support them, they do provide a valuable service.
Let's just rephrase that to "They have little value to me in society so therefore they should be eliminated in gas chambers."
At least religious leaders are involved in charity as an inextricable part of their job and a part of their life.
Some. Not all. Not even close.
So, no, i'm not "deciding who's right or who's wrong" here.
Ok, so we are playing the game called "Say One Thing in the Above Paragraphs and then Claim to Not Have Said Those Things." Gotcha.
That's not it at all.
But you just said that was it...
But when you look at it in the broader scheme of things, religious leaders are more valuable to society than psychics...
...to YOU.
If you try to dissemble by asking what constitutes a religous leader, I will sic Fellowship on you!
I'm an honest guy. I don't hide behind semantics like some pussies.
"Attack!"
Oh how neo-macho of you. Bah. That's such a silly phrase. I bet that thong was riding up on you when you decided to adopt it.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
This posting is the post of the year in my book. I have never laughed so much. Way to go Shawn!
That nailed it. Funny how truth can be so funny if it is simply presented as Shawn stated it.
We of course don't intend on running off BR as he has such an interesting and rare viewpoint that is so interesting to deconstruct.
Fellows
Thank you, Fellowship.
[i]We of course don't intend on running off BR as he has such an interesting and rare viewpoint that is so interesting to deconstruct.
Fellows [/B]
I'm not a pussy so a few false accusations aren't going to make me piss and moan or potentially run off the board.