Busted!

yeah So!

LOL, i could post countless videos showing media bias in the other direction even from faux news.

Bias? You consider this a simple "bias"? How naive. FAUX News is simply the political propoganda wing of the RNC.

Thinking "I don't think Reagan was as wonderful as some others think" is a bias."

Thinking, "How can I spin it to make the masses think RayGun never raised taxes and actually lowered taxes and raised revenue?" is propoganda.

It’s funny that you say this; Hillary said Fox was the ONLY channel that treated her fair & balanced. Now if you want to talk about being in the tank, MSNBC is totally in the tank for Obama/DNC.

I've been able to find Terry McAuliff and Howard Wolfson and plenty of FAUX News pretend comentators suggesting FAUX News was fair & balanced to Hillary. But, I can't find Hillary herself saying it.

Do you have a link?

Read It Here

Well, you may still be correct. However, in the first clip, I heard the FAUX News propoganda reader say, "You're on record as saying FAUX News was the most fair and balanced". Senator Clinton said, "Well, there were a lot of times when I appreciated the FAUX News commentators...."

She didn't say, at least on tat video, "FAUX News was the most fair and balanced..."

The other clip wasn't her.

Try again, tryagain.

Oh, and what does any of this have to do with the original post? They superimposed McSame's face in the clip! FAUX News is just a tool.

I am just responding to your request for a link. I don't care if you believe them or not, I know Fox is much more fair and balanced than any other channel and you can't prove other wise.

Why do you call Fox News FAUX?

He doesn't have to. Fox executives have admitted publicly they're right-wing shills. For example, Fox's London bureau chief, Scott Norvell, wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal Europe (apparently thinking no one on this side of the pond would read it) on May 20:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting.

As Timothy Noah writes about this in Slate:

Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)