Their coverage of Egypt is excellent. In fact, I'd love to see an Aljazeera iPad app-- having been largely shut out of the US broadcast market (for reasons having more to do with popular belligerence after 9/11 than any non-existent "death to America" nonsense) they've done pretty well for themselves with their web presence. An iPad app would be a great way to extend that end-run around US corporate media.
Really, anyone imagining that Aljazeera involves turbaned "Arabs" shouting about Allah should take a quick look, you might learn something.
They do have a streaming video iPhone app, which is fantastic.
But you're right, an iPad app would be superb, especially if it simply provides a nicer interface to view the website content.
Problem is, I only care about MAYBE 20% of this gorgeous interactive magazine's content. The rest is a waste of interface, storage space, and update time.
Maybe I'm not representative of most users, but I think I represent a lot who flip to their favorite sections or most eye-catching headlines and ignore the rest.
"MyYahoo" page, back in the day, gave me my local sports, weather, news, and topics and features that I was interested in, updated more frequently than daily. Agreed, there was far less production value, editorial insight, etc... But it was/is the most usable form of "newspaper" I've come across.
Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?
Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.
Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.
Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?
We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.
Why do extremist liberals even bother to comment on this thread? I wish there was a button to filter out all liberal replies, because most are irrelevant to the topic and have nothing to do with the app at all. I don't care about your extremist views and your biases. There's websites for extremist liberals to rant on, like Huffington Post and Daily Kos.
If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.
Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.
Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?
Not at all, and if you knew me you wouldn't have said that silly thing you just said. I have worked in news organizations for many years and no one ever told anyone to slant a story one way or the other. In fact people got in trouble when they did such a thing on purpose. If you think that there is no difference between Fox and the other media outlets besides the direction they lean then you are not informed. Okay maybe MSNBC is an exception since they seem to purposely lean left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Wait, I thought he was shilling his political message? You mean he just wants to make money? That ruffian!
I swear, when did being successful become something to be socially scorned? What kind of a wussy assed country are we turning into anyway?
I didn't say he was shilling his message. I have no idea what Murdoch personal message is. Roger Ailes is an unrepentant, conservative thug. We know what his message is. I also didn't say there was anything wrong with Murdoch making a bunch of money. Put words in peoples' mouths much?
Color me confused, but I really want this. I never picked up an iPad 1 because of weight, screen refresh rates, no FaceTime, and the fact that I have an iPhone 4, a new MBP at home, and an iMac at work...
All along I've been glad for Apple with their iPad success, but haven't been tempted to buy an iPad. Until now.
I know. Call me crazy. But this is a killer app for me. Or at least it has the potential to be, as I've only read reviews like this one and not experienced it for myself.
Quick Story: My mom with iPad in tow visited my sister in London recently. My sister has two young children (2 & 4) and they loved the iPad. Just loved it! Now that my mom is gone, my sister says her children keep rubbing their hands all over the television trying to get it to respond. They do it on her MacBook, too.
It just goes to show how intuitive it is to expect to interact with your media.
My fingers are crossed for a great product in The Daily and a nice update in iPad v.2.
Today's the first day I have really wished I owned one.
Have to agree. This seals my purchase when iPad 2 is released (2 of them for the household)
Why do extremist liberals even bother to comment on this thread? I wish there was a button to filter out all liberal replies, because most are irrelevant to the topic and have nothing to do with the app at all. I don't care about your extremist views and your biases. There's websites for extremist liberals to rant on, like Huffington Post and Daily Kos.
If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.
Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.
Case in point. I reckon you imagine Aljazeera is synonymous with Al-Qaeda because that's what you've been told and you can't be bothered to check.
And relatively moderate liberals occasionally break cover hear abouts because we get tired of the influx of batshit crazy wingers who have assumed their batshit crazy worldview has been normalized. It hasn't. It never will be. There is still such a thing as reality. Although, of course, with your four posts and all, I can understand why you would figure you had ownership of the place and are free to set standards.
Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.
Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.
Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?
We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?
Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.
And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."
You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.
When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.
Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?
Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.
And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."
You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.
When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.
I didn't say there were only two sides - apparently you did. I didn't refer to Soros - you did - why?
If you want 'articles of faith' then we could start with climate change - a wonderful example of bias directed research and conclusions. I would suggest, if you have any technical ability, to go to the final IPCC-2007 report and look at the section which concludes that there will be a 1.6C temp increase (number may be wrong due to memory). I believe it was section 4 but its been a couple of years since I went through it in detail. Using only the data in the report it was impossible to to support the conclusion reached without applying a-priori assumptions (or biases) to the data presented. Specifically when ALL modeled effects presented in the section are combined to predict a temperature change the net result is 0 within the error bars. The predicted increase in the conclusion is only reached by excluding the major possible cooling effects in the model. The reason for this exclusion is not unreasonable but casts doubt on the entire process - the reason being that the cooling effects have not been studied sufficiently to have the same level of confidence as the heating effects. This is where the bias comes in - heating effect studies have had the great majority of the funding because???? My BIASED but INFORMED conclusion based on my own research experience with the funding methodologies currently in use, is that this is because those on the review panels believe in warming and move funding toward those studies as they view them as better designed. Not necessarily maliciously but because of built in bias. This is actually borne out by the 'climate-gate' emails from the CRU if you read the originals - which I have. These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.
You're right, that's the perfect example making my point. I'm too busy to do the old climate change two step today, if your'e actually interested in looking at the scientific literature instead of relying on oil industry funded disinformation sites (and, inevitably, Fox) to cherry pick "controversial" errata that are nothing more than the background noise of science as it is done, that would be probably be helpful.
These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.
Because scientists who "claim" to think global warming is a real and serious problem are actually part of a communist plot to destroy the world's economy. That's why "those emails" would be "malicious", right?
Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.
Great comment.
I hope paid journalism comes back in a big way and whilst I personally don't like News Corps content as much as some other newspapers (they have reduced The Times to a shadow of it's former self) hopefully if this does well it will encourage a resurgence from all the news organizations.
Whilst I can see why some people are ok to use free content, I'm willing to pay a fair price to support high quality journalism.
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
You shouldn't even bother. He obviously thinks Fox News is evil, and that his beloved NYT is some kind of journalistic standard
Obviously anyone so threatened by the consumeristic popcorn journalism that is TV/newpaper industry is clearly not a Reason reader, nor a very strenuous thinker. It's also a clear signal of an emotional, upset elitist leftie when you see someone get worked up over Fox News. Obviously if 1 in 20 news channels needs your direct involvement it clearly has some power over you, and thus the need to label it as a prickly threat to your fragile bubble life.
I just can't get worked up over a channel that I don't watch. I wonder if abadaba is also emotionally invested in the Lifetime channel as well? Damn that Sally Field and her bias towards women-targeted relationship dramas! She's just a covert operative thug for the greeting card industry and clearly 911 was an inside job to help sell tissues and fragrant body washes!
Is it me or is there nothing more amusing than a grown man who confuses Fox News with Cobra Command? Look out its Glenn Beck, better run home and get Snake Eyes and Snow Job to stop him! Oh no, he's got the TV news playset - we better make sure we bring the hovercraft!
----And for CNN/Amanpour/TV news fans-----
She's just reading Life magazine style content on TV, nothing deep going on there. She spends more time getting her hair done than doing journalism. People on TV (Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Bob Villa) aren't special or magical. Worshipping people who read the news? Really? Obviously they are such important thinkers that they can spare their precious time to read stories to you. Clearly no one but the absolute brightest of humanity can read 2 minute blurbs! Imagine how bright those who can extend the discussion for 20 minutes (with a few commercial breaks) must be? For only they are the light of understanding, and thru their perfectly quaffed hair pieces will they bring us from the darkness of ignorance. Or think about growing up sometime.
I so crush you all, time to enjoy a cold beverage from my glorious throne in your hell.
Comments
Their coverage of Egypt is excellent. In fact, I'd love to see an Aljazeera iPad app-- having been largely shut out of the US broadcast market (for reasons having more to do with popular belligerence after 9/11 than any non-existent "death to America" nonsense) they've done pretty well for themselves with their web presence. An iPad app would be a great way to extend that end-run around US corporate media.
Really, anyone imagining that Aljazeera involves turbaned "Arabs" shouting about Allah should take a quick look, you might learn something.
They do have a streaming video iPhone app, which is fantastic.
But you're right, an iPad app would be superb, especially if it simply provides a nicer interface to view the website content.
Maybe I'm not representative of most users, but I think I represent a lot who flip to their favorite sections or most eye-catching headlines and ignore the rest.
"MyYahoo" page, back in the day, gave me my local sports, weather, news, and topics and features that I was interested in, updated more frequently than daily. Agreed, there was far less production value, editorial insight, etc... But it was/is the most usable form of "newspaper" I've come across.
Anyhoo...
Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?
Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.
Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.
Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?
We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/...rm_public.html
If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.
Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.
Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?
Not at all, and if you knew me you wouldn't have said that silly thing you just said. I have worked in news organizations for many years and no one ever told anyone to slant a story one way or the other. In fact people got in trouble when they did such a thing on purpose. If you think that there is no difference between Fox and the other media outlets besides the direction they lean then you are not informed. Okay maybe MSNBC is an exception since they seem to purposely lean left.
Wait, I thought he was shilling his political message? You mean he just wants to make money? That ruffian!
I swear, when did being successful become something to be socially scorned? What kind of a wussy assed country are we turning into anyway?
I didn't say he was shilling his message. I have no idea what Murdoch personal message is. Roger Ailes is an unrepentant, conservative thug. We know what his message is. I also didn't say there was anything wrong with Murdoch making a bunch of money. Put words in peoples' mouths much?
Color me confused, but I really want this. I never picked up an iPad 1 because of weight, screen refresh rates, no FaceTime, and the fact that I have an iPhone 4, a new MBP at home, and an iMac at work...
All along I've been glad for Apple with their iPad success, but haven't been tempted to buy an iPad. Until now.
I know. Call me crazy. But this is a killer app for me. Or at least it has the potential to be, as I've only read reviews like this one and not experienced it for myself.
Quick Story: My mom with iPad in tow visited my sister in London recently. My sister has two young children (2 & 4) and they loved the iPad. Just loved it! Now that my mom is gone, my sister says her children keep rubbing their hands all over the television trying to get it to respond. They do it on her MacBook, too.
It just goes to show how intuitive it is to expect to interact with your media.
My fingers are crossed for a great product in The Daily and a nice update in iPad v.2.
Today's the first day I have really wished I owned one.
Have to agree. This seals my purchase when iPad 2 is released (2 of them for the household)
Why do extremist liberals even bother to comment on this thread? I wish there was a button to filter out all liberal replies, because most are irrelevant to the topic and have nothing to do with the app at all. I don't care about your extremist views and your biases. There's websites for extremist liberals to rant on, like Huffington Post and Daily Kos.
If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.
Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.
Case in point. I reckon you imagine Aljazeera is synonymous with Al-Qaeda because that's what you've been told and you can't be bothered to check.
And relatively moderate liberals occasionally break cover hear abouts because we get tired of the influx of batshit crazy wingers who have assumed their batshit crazy worldview has been normalized. It hasn't. It never will be. There is still such a thing as reality. Although, of course, with your four posts and all, I can understand why you would figure you had ownership of the place and are free to set standards.
Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.
Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.
Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?
We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?
Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.
And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."
You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.
When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.
If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS......
Just about the only intelligent thing on US television (along with Big Bang Theory)!
Is it available to anyone else outside the US iTunes store?
Al-Jazeera is just out there.
Perhaps you watch it a lot and are informed enough to make that statement, but you sure do sound just like Mubarak!
Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?
Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.
And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."
You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.
When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.
I didn't say there were only two sides - apparently you did. I didn't refer to Soros - you did - why?
If you want 'articles of faith' then we could start with climate change - a wonderful example of bias directed research and conclusions. I would suggest, if you have any technical ability, to go to the final IPCC-2007 report and look at the section which concludes that there will be a 1.6C temp increase (number may be wrong due to memory). I believe it was section 4 but its been a couple of years since I went through it in detail. Using only the data in the report it was impossible to to support the conclusion reached without applying a-priori assumptions (or biases) to the data presented. Specifically when ALL modeled effects presented in the section are combined to predict a temperature change the net result is 0 within the error bars. The predicted increase in the conclusion is only reached by excluding the major possible cooling effects in the model. The reason for this exclusion is not unreasonable but casts doubt on the entire process - the reason being that the cooling effects have not been studied sufficiently to have the same level of confidence as the heating effects. This is where the bias comes in - heating effect studies have had the great majority of the funding because???? My BIASED but INFORMED conclusion based on my own research experience with the funding methodologies currently in use, is that this is because those on the review panels believe in warming and move funding toward those studies as they view them as better designed. Not necessarily maliciously but because of built in bias. This is actually borne out by the 'climate-gate' emails from the CRU if you read the originals - which I have. These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.
There is but 1 example
There is but 1 example
You're right, that's the perfect example making my point. I'm too busy to do the old climate change two step today, if your'e actually interested in looking at the scientific literature instead of relying on oil industry funded disinformation sites (and, inevitably, Fox) to cherry pick "controversial" errata that are nothing more than the background noise of science as it is done, that would be probably be helpful.
These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.
Because scientists who "claim" to think global warming is a real and serious problem are actually part of a communist plot to destroy the world's economy. That's why "those emails" would be "malicious", right?
And what addabox said.
Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.
Great comment.
I hope paid journalism comes back in a big way and whilst I personally don't like News Corps content as much as some other newspapers (they have reduced The Times to a shadow of it's former self) hopefully if this does well it will encourage a resurgence from all the news organizations.
Whilst I can see why some people are ok to use free content, I'm willing to pay a fair price to support high quality journalism.
Murdoch is a hell of a lot better than ABCNNBCBS.
Don?t worry, The New York Times isn?t publishing this. Misinformation and propaganda will therefore be held to a minimum.
ROTFLMAO!!! Some really are clueless.
You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
You shouldn't even bother. He obviously thinks Fox News is evil, and that his beloved NYT is some kind of journalistic standard
Obviously anyone so threatened by the consumeristic popcorn journalism that is TV/newpaper industry is clearly not a Reason reader, nor a very strenuous thinker. It's also a clear signal of an emotional, upset elitist leftie when you see someone get worked up over Fox News. Obviously if 1 in 20 news channels needs your direct involvement it clearly has some power over you, and thus the need to label it as a prickly threat to your fragile bubble life.
I just can't get worked up over a channel that I don't watch. I wonder if abadaba is also emotionally invested in the Lifetime channel as well? Damn that Sally Field and her bias towards women-targeted relationship dramas! She's just a covert operative thug for the greeting card industry and clearly 911 was an inside job to help sell tissues and fragrant body washes!
Is it me or is there nothing more amusing than a grown man who confuses Fox News with Cobra Command? Look out its Glenn Beck, better run home and get Snake Eyes and Snow Job to stop him! Oh no, he's got the TV news playset - we better make sure we bring the hovercraft!
----And for CNN/Amanpour/TV news fans-----
She's just reading Life magazine style content on TV, nothing deep going on there. She spends more time getting her hair done than doing journalism. People on TV (Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Bob Villa) aren't special or magical. Worshipping people who read the news? Really? Obviously they are such important thinkers that they can spare their precious time to read stories to you. Clearly no one but the absolute brightest of humanity can read 2 minute blurbs! Imagine how bright those who can extend the discussion for 20 minutes (with a few commercial breaks) must be? For only they are the light of understanding, and thru their perfectly quaffed hair pieces will they bring us from the darkness of ignorance. Or think about growing up sometime.
I so crush you all, time to enjoy a cold beverage from my glorious throne in your hell.