Skip to main content

Fox News appears to be confused about "bias..."

For as long as I can remember, I've contended that Fox News is as perplexed about bias as a newborn is about quantum physics. A recent segment of theirs regarding the Michael Brown shooting once again lends credence to that theory (closer to fact).

First of all, allow me to define "bias" for those at Fox News. Bias is "to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, especially unfairly."

On Monday's Fox & Friends, the following was a headline used to prompt discussion: "Media Bias: Is 'Unarmed Teen' Description Misleading?"

Fox News contributor Linda Chavez asked that very question, and followed it up with the following commentary:

"That description in and of itself actually colors the way in which we look at this story. We're talking about an 18-year-old man who is 6'4'' and weighs almost 300 pounds, who is videotaped just moments before the confrontation with a police officer strong arming an employee an robbing a convenience store."

Let's check to see if the media is being biased with their description of Michael Brown being an unarmed teen.

Media: "Michael Brown - unarmed teen"

Facts: "Brown was unarmed and 18-years-old, which many believe qualifies him as a teen."

What did Ms. Chavez want the headline to be?

"Huge Unarmed Teen Killed By Police, But He Was So Large, He Could Probably Have Reflected the Bullets Off His Massive Hands and Killed the Officers, So The Police Were Acting In Self-Defense"

It's really no wonder why Fox News is so puzzled by "bias," considering their tagline is, "Fox News: Fair and Balanced," and the only thing less fair and balanced might be a drunken high-heeled clown on a tight rope - my apologies to the clown...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/fox-news-michael-brown-unarmed-teen_n_5710179.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more