Fox News Attacks Environmentally Conscious Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Prince Regent:
O_O

Now, like many I'm no fan of FoX News, but this must be the single most ludicrous thing they have ever reported on.

Fox Is now officialy agains games in wich you shoot stuff AND games in wich you don't.

They're actually on the "You can't have fun unless you're rolling a hoop with a stick" platform.

Horny Ico:

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
Well, (A) The key word was "underfunded", (B) Even without leaks, it's still a terrible idea for many reasons, and (C) That "minor problem" gives people cancer and utterly destroys everything it touches for more than a few seconds.

Oh, and since Sim City is just being built up, so it is just starting on nuclear technology. I don't remember any nationality attached to Sim City.

That's just it though: you're judging by amateur nuclear technology which can also be kept at a safe (but greater) distance. No, it's not just that; you're blatantly exaggerating the dangers of nuclear waste considering nobody in the field is dumb enough to leave it around just anywhere. And I figured that it would be implied that a city of all things could be started at any time during a country's development; why isn't the player given the choice of a few starting technologies?

OH MY GOD, IT'S A GAME.

Nobody took these facts into consideration when they were making it. I'm almost entirely certain hardly ANYONE took these facts into consideration when they were playing it. If they did, they probably weren't having any fun, and should probably go back to reporting on Iran or North Korea or something.

My god! How fucking DARE they have different opinions to us! It's almost as if they believe in free speech and freedom of opinions!

Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!

rembrandtqeinstein:
What is funny is that Fox is behaving as cartoonishly as those strawman villains on captain planet.

This pretty much sums up my reaction exactly. I love the credentials the hysterically laughing clown has ("parent" ie: none).

TLS14:

notedwordsmith:
It mentions children crying about virtual polar bears.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

You...

I fucking love you.

That is all.

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. Changing the media one charity spoof at a time.

DTWolfwood:
What, so its ok to push the Conservative Agenda and not the Liberal Agenda?

Fox news dubs itself as fair and balanced and yet it's conservative.

Edit: never mind I misunderstood what you were saying.

trollpwner:
My god! How fucking DARE they have different opinions to us!

Oh knock off the fucking straw men. Nobody's been saying they shouldn't be allowed to say their stupid crap.

Edit: Wait are you making fun of Fox News or the Escapist?

Well, obviously Fox News is making a valid point: no media should advocate a political agenda.

The logical conclusion: shut down Fox News.

Can't stand Fox News, eh?

I locked a bunch of mothers in a room and forced them to watch the segment. Conclusion?

Your Mom Hates Fox News Too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RsDobH64tc

Andrew Eisen

Father Time:

Clonekiller:

"It doesn't seem like he was". That's the point. That's the point of context corruption, to make someone say whatever you want them to say, so that your audience will believe it. That's part of the humor value, since "omg-i-cant-believe-he-said-that-lol" is a pretty standard reaction to his kind of show. Unfortunately, proving this style wrong is rather difficult, since I would need a copy of the original broadcast that Pat was quoting.

As for telltale signs, Pat uses lots of incomplete quotes in his show. If I were to go on national television and say something like this: "Believing african americans are stupid is idiotic. African americans are very intelligent people." If Pat decided he didn't like me, he could trim the video so that the only remaining quote was "african americans are stupid". The result is obvious, taking a statement that was originally an advocation for equal rights, and making it a highly racist statement. If you didn't have my original quote, and you took Pat's word for it, you would think I was an uber racist. There are a lot of incomplete quotes in that show.

Unfortunately, the only way to check the context is to find the original show and check it against what Pat says. That would take much more time than I am willing to spend, so I can't provide proof. However, if it's that big a deal to you, you could probably do it yourself.

Why do you keep calling him Pat? There's no one on the show named Pat. But show me a specific instance where he took someone out of context. Using incomplete quotes is not proof that he did.

As I said, he gives off signs that that's the case. However, I cant prove it without spending a bunch of time doing so. Ergo, I wont. Just pointing out, using this guy as a source is about as reliable as using Glenn Beck.

Father Time:

Edit: Wait are you making fun of Fox News or the Escapist?

trollpwner:
My god! How fucking DARE they have different opinions to us!

Oh knock off the fucking straw men. Nobody's been saying they shouldn't be allowed to say their stupid crap.

Edit: Wait are you making fun of Fox News or the Escapist?

No, it's what they're saying. They say "it's bad for children to have liberal views, because it's not what we believe in". That's stupid. They also say "it's bad for children to think about things that aren't widely publicised by the right-wing media.". That's also stupid. Believe me, I am not defending these pricks!

EDIT: I saw your edit....it was fox.

conflictofinterests:
OH MY GOD, IT'S A GAME.

Nobody took these facts into consideration when they were making it. I'm almost entirely certain hardly ANYONE took these facts into consideration when they were playing it. If they did, they probably weren't having any fun, and should probably go back to reporting on Iran or North Korea or something.

I've had it backwards but it's all so clear now: fun can only be achieved by doing a shitty job!

Seriously, but incorporating inaccuracies like this, weight is given to Fox News' insane ramblings and that's just about the worst thing anybody could do.

Clonekiller:

Father Time:

Clonekiller:

"It doesn't seem like he was". That's the point. That's the point of context corruption, to make someone say whatever you want them to say, so that your audience will believe it. That's part of the humor value, since "omg-i-cant-believe-he-said-that-lol" is a pretty standard reaction to his kind of show. Unfortunately, proving this style wrong is rather difficult, since I would need a copy of the original broadcast that Pat was quoting.

As for telltale signs, Pat uses lots of incomplete quotes in his show. If I were to go on national television and say something like this: "Believing african americans are stupid is idiotic. African americans are very intelligent people." If Pat decided he didn't like me, he could trim the video so that the only remaining quote was "african americans are stupid". The result is obvious, taking a statement that was originally an advocation for equal rights, and making it a highly racist statement. If you didn't have my original quote, and you took Pat's word for it, you would think I was an uber racist. There are a lot of incomplete quotes in that show.

Unfortunately, the only way to check the context is to find the original show and check it against what Pat says. That would take much more time than I am willing to spend, so I can't provide proof. However, if it's that big a deal to you, you could probably do it yourself.

Why do you keep calling him Pat? There's no one on the show named Pat. But show me a specific instance where he took someone out of context. Using incomplete quotes is not proof that he did.

As I said, he gives off signs that that's the case. However, I cant prove it without spending a bunch of time doing so. Ergo, I wont. Just pointing out, using this guy as a source is about as reliable as using Glenn Beck.

Anyone can take quotes out of context. Pointing out that he may be doing it is about as useful as saying that he's breathing oxygen.

Has Fox News ever claimed they were being taken out of context?

Hmm I wonder what that sound is? Oh wait its the sound of fox scraping the bottom of barrel of things to blame games on. This really is laughable, I nearly split my sides reading the title alone.

Fox News exists to turn a profit with provocative headlines-just ignore them. Eventually bashing video games on mainstream media will be as unusual as raging against comic books or trashy novels.

Esh, so much hate. It's probaly too late with 11 pages so far but I'll say this anyway.

Fox News isn't the only one responsible for bashing video games. It's used by every hack agenda that wants to try and make a mark. I mean all activies went through this, comic books, TV, radio for gods sake.

I mean Fox News yeah...this was stupid, even if it was on your early morning show but really CNN and other news organzations you can find clips of them spreading hate of video games and other media sources. It's just one of those things. Still yikes... I like Fox News but this is just stupid guys.

The other problem with this in the media is that the media still see's video games like Mario, Halo, or the God of War. Good games, but none the less they aren't the artistic or games that we argue take the genere into the art catgory so there you go.

...Seriously?

This is a new level of stupid for fox! They're just making themselves more of a laughing stock then Jeff Dunham's puppets! (And not in the good way!)

I mean what's next, the reporter is going to blow in his hand and a beautiful woman comes out!

*it happens*

...

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

Flower is about one thing.

PLANTING. MORE. OF. THESE.
image

What's wrong about that? Oh, that's right.

Planting foreign flowers is senseless propaganda and is just as bad as flagburning.

Whatever your political point of view, teaching kids to be aware of the impact their actions have on the environment is a good idea.

Sure--the problem is when the wrong lessons are being taught. For instance, what the environmental movement of today seems to be telling us is that the worst and most dangerous form of pollution in the world is not something like mercury or lead, but the completely non-toxic gas carbon dioxide. They have made it sound like a small--fractional, even--increase in overall emissions will result in the annihilation of every living thing on the planet, a premise that SHOULD be ridiculed as absurd and hyperbolic, but instead is held up as the greatest of all truths.

The result of pursuing the boogeyman of carbon dioxide will mean industries will be gutted, electricity prices will skyrocket, and economies will be ruined... and sadly, for all their efforts, the global warming alarmists will fail to reduce the Earth's global temperatures by even a single degree. Even when they fail, however, instead of realizing the extent of their hubris they will merely insist that we haven't done enough and cause even more damage.

...but then again, Fate of the World is, as noted, not a game for kids, and it's unlikely that anyone except for global warming acolytes will play it anyway.

ZahrDalsk:
Isn't "liberal agenda" a euphemism for a set of intelligent plans that benefit everyone?

I'd say if only, but here's the answer.

EDIT:I pretty much understand that Fox News actually attack organizations that point them out for being wrong more than the other media stations, and go on the defensive, and keep asking why they get attacked when they pull crap like this.

I already thought the bar was set so low for Fox that it was right around the level of Satans plumbing, aparently the imposible happened, and it has hit bedrock (and you can't break through bedrock ;)

it's faux news, you don't take them seriously. At this point they are nothing more than a trolling news group. No this does not surprise me in the least, hell It's actually funny in way to me.. still it's just not that shocking as some are making it out to be.

RDubayoo:

Whatever your political point of view, teaching kids to be aware of the impact their actions have on the environment is a good idea.

Sure--the problem is when the wrong lessons are being taught. For instance, what the environmental movement of today seems to be telling us is that the worst and most dangerous form of pollution in the world is not something like mercury or lead, but the completely non-toxic gas carbon dioxide. They have made it sound like a small--fractional, even--increase in overall emissions will result in the annihilation of every living thing on the planet, a premise that SHOULD be ridiculed as absurd and hyperbolic, but instead is held up as the greatest of all truths.

The result of pursuing the boogeyman of carbon dioxide will mean industries will be gutted, electricity prices will skyrocket, and economies will be ruined... and sadly, for all their efforts, the global warming alarmists will fail to reduce the Earth's global temperatures by even a single degree. Even when they fail, however, instead of realizing the extent of their hubris they will merely insist that we haven't done enough and cause even more damage.

...but then again, Fate of the World is, as noted, not a game for kids, and it's unlikely that anyone except for global warming acolytes will play it anyway.

Can you point me to the environmental news that says that a small factional release of this gas will annihilate all life? I havent heard that.

UltraHammer:

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
People resent the network because most of their programming distort statistics,

How many distort statistics? Did you get statistics on this?

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
use inflammatory language,

What shows use inflammatory language?
I'm sure some nasty comments have surfaced sometimes, but can the home of MovieBob and Yahtzee really be preaching the gospel of clean tongues?

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
and sometimes outright lie about many things.

What are some of their outright lies?

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
Having some perceivable Lefties does not change the fact that the network is incredibly biased and has a very great deal of sway with their audience.

It doesn't change the fact that FN is biased? Okay, prove that fact to me in the first place. Show me a list of all the things Fox does recently. Prove to me that the right-wing people significantly outweigh the left-wing people.

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
They promote harmful stances, such as anti-environmentalism,

What exactly is the definition of 'environmentalism' here?

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
I'm not against any political view,

Except for anti-environmentalism.

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
and are part of the horribly misguided Right Wing of American politics...the polarized, stagnant, ineffectual state of affairs in America are harming the rest of the world, and Fox is a part of that.

So what you're saying is, Fox News should not present extremely right-wing ideals or give them any voice at all. Or at least very little? What about extremely left-wing ideals?

Look at this:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Now, I acknowledge that CNN has their own biases, but what is important is the statistics they are reporting on. 82% of the 3146 environmental scientists surveyed agreed that human activity has had "A significant impact" on global warming.

Now look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJDaPlCHzU

"A lot of scientists say it's this, a lot say it's that." No. 82% say it's man made, which means 18% are not on their side. Distortion of statistics

There's also a difference between rude or foul language, and inflammatory language. A good example of inflammatory language is terms like "Liberal Agenda" or "Socialist" being used as epithets in order to debase alternative opinions. It is a similar practice to using the N-Word back in the day to annihilate a Black person's arguement. Plus, if you wish to lump swears and subversion in together, I didn't hire Yahtzee, and Movie Bob doesn't really go beyond what one could expect from contemporary, Western young adult conversation.

Outright lies? Well..."You get points for [act of violence]" in refference to video games never gets old.

Fox & Friends: 4 or 5 hosts, all of which have Right wing biases; Red Eye: Host is very Right, 2-3 panelists ranging from Middle Right to Far Right; Bill O'Reilly; 8/10 people to have hosted "The Five", with the Red Eye host as one of them, and Geraldo as one of the 2/10; Sean Hannity; Mike Huckabee; and rather than going on name-by-name, a cumulative tally, wherein I used Wikipedia's chart of FNC's lineup as a guide, and I automatically threw out anybody who was as far as Center Right, I still came up with ~60% of all anchors, not shows, having a Right Wing bias. Couple that with the fact that almost all of the ~40% being outnumbered on their shows by representatives of the ~60%, the fact that they use hard-line Right Wing experts like Ann Coulter far more often than, say, a Bill-Mahr-type (who is just as hard line and unfair to Conservatism as she is to Liberalism), and the fact that their biggest draws are O'Reilly, Hannity, and the Fox and Friends crew, and it is a fair statement to make that the Rights outnumber the Lefts, and that the message of the network is biased.

"Environmentalism", in the typical Western political vernacular means supporting sustainability, conservationism, and the reduction of pollution, which they consistently speak out against using aforementioned points.

And no, I am not against anti-environmentalism as a political movement, because it is not a political movement (or at least if it is, it is a very small movement with no world exposure). Literally any ideology, from Centrism to Fascism to Anarchism, if properly implemented can have a positive effect. Even ideologies which I oppose, which funny enough typically fall on the Left, I will argue against, as I am not in their favour, but I will not argue that the ideology as a whole is invalid.

And no, News is not about ideology. John Stewart and the such are Moderate Left, but they are also entertainers. They make no bones about being biased, nor do they claim to be legitimate News. Fox, as a station which passes itself off as real news shouldn't have bias in their programming. They should have anchors simply report on the state of affairs, what is happening based on facts and data. Their more in-depth analysis of things such as politics should have Political Science experts talking about the impact an action of a politician will have on a demographic in terms of tangible fact, or as much evidence as possible to support projections.

NEWS. SHOULD. NOT. HAVE. ANY. BIASSES. LEFT. OR. RIGHT.

Clonekiller:

CarlMinez:

Yeah, that's sorta a subjective statement to begin with. So I don't need to back it up with facts. Also, Fox News is a joke. You don't need a source, just ask any rationally thinking human being and you'll get the same answer.

Ah. I see. So, anyone who thinks Fox News is bad is obviously and intelligent human being, and anyone who favors Fox News is an unintelligent fool. Sure, Fox News might have the largest and most diverse viewership among cable news networks, but who needs those pesky facts getting in the way. It's a whole lot easier to say "only idiots watch Fox News".

Why trust a news source that lies? If i read something in a paper, i want to be reasonably sure its true. If not, whats the point? Its a fact that people who watch fox news come out even more ignorant on news then before, thats a statistical fact. Why? Because they misinform people. Why,if they misinform people, its just "the way the are", but other news misinform people, they need to APOLOGIZE, because they did something WRONG. THink about it. I mean, if they started STEALING, i guess anyone who says "stealing is wrong. Fox news shouldnt do that" is an idiot, right?

Lying is wrong.

Fox News needs to stop doing that.

Pretty simple.

Horny Ico:

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
Well, (A) The key word was "underfunded", (B) Even without leaks, it's still a terrible idea for many reasons, and (C) That "minor problem" gives people cancer and utterly destroys everything it touches for more than a few seconds.

Oh, and since Sim City is just being built up, so it is just starting on nuclear technology. I don't remember any nationality attached to Sim City.

That's just it though: you're judging by amateur nuclear technology which can also be kept at a safe (but greater) distance. No, it's not just that; you're blatantly exaggerating the dangers of nuclear waste considering nobody in the field is dumb enough to leave it around just anywhere. And I figured that it would be implied that a city of all things could be started at any time during a country's development; why isn't the player given the choice of a few starting technologies?

Nuclear plants melt down. They fall down. The safe distance from a nuclear meltdown is not even the other end of a city. You've got to go MILES to be safe from it, and even that is changed significantly by the wind. And really? Nobody's ever just dumped waste somewhere it shouldn't be? Like, oh, say, under a road in an urban region? And Sim City isn't in a nation, nor anything really analogous to a modern society. It's a city that just magically springs up with approximately 1960-present Western levels of technology, but plays by our world's rules. And nuclear waste, like many, many other things doesn't entirely leave what it touches, nor can you truly clean it all up. It seeps (if in Hard Water) or leaves behind flecks (if it's the actual material), which cause earth to become dead, and the same goes for anything alive.

Clonekiller:
[

Ilyak1986:

As a reporting channel, Fox is ho hum. NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN all do better in that regard.

Its schtick is that it's a bullhorn for the repugnican party, aka the theocratic lunatics that want to give all our money to the ultra-rich and tell everyone else to die in a fire who need to be kept out of power at any and all costs within the confines of the law.

Okay... So, small government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility = neo-nazi, racist greed bags. Totally logical conclusion right there.

That's gotta be a joke. Right? RIGHT? 50% of people don't pay income taxes as it stands, so there's no point in doing the whole lower taxes schtick. The difference between the republicans and the dems isn't lower taxes, but lower taxes on the ultra-wealthy vs. not. As for fiscal responsibility, when was the last time the deficit decreased under a republican president?

Moral of the story: pay attention to their actions, not their words. Repugnicans are a plague on the U.S.

Anodos:

Can you point me to the environmental news that says that a small factional release of this gas will annihilate all life? I havent heard that.

I may have exaggerated--SLIGHTLY--but this comes pretty close:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=politics&sid=aBMsEXvtfiZI

The article mentions "more powerful hurricanes, devastating droughts and rising coastal waters" and "One global warming study warns that the Arctic ice cap might melt completely in as little as 34 years".

Sounds like a doomsday scenario to me!

RDubayoo:

Anodos:

Can you point me to the environmental news that says that a small factional release of this gas will annihilate all life? I havent heard that.

I may have exaggerated--SLIGHTLY--but this comes pretty close:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=politics&sid=aBMsEXvtfiZI

The article mentions "more powerful hurricanes, devastating droughts and rising coastal waters" and "One global warming study warns that the Arctic ice cap might melt completely in as little as 34 years".

Sounds like a doomsday scenario to me!

Ok, and what is your criticism of this? Ice doesnt melt?

Edit: Not saying i agree with what theyre saying. But you dont give a counter arguement. Besides you saying that the gas is non-toxic (it is toxic) and that it doesnt create a greenhouse effect (it does)

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
Nuclear plants melt down. They fall down. The safe distance from a nuclear meltdown is not even the other end of a city. You've got to go MILES to be safe from it, and even that is changed significantly by the wind. And really? Nobody's ever just dumped waste somewhere it shouldn't be? Like, oh, say, under a road in an urban region? And Sim City isn't in a nation, nor anything really analogous to a modern society. It's a city that just magically springs up with approximately 1960-present Western levels of technology, but plays by our world's rules. And nuclear waste, like many, many other things doesn't entirely leave what it touches, nor can you truly clean it all up. It seeps (if in Hard Water) or leaves behind flecks (if it's the actual material), which cause earth to become dead, and the same goes for anything alive.

Once again, you grotesquely over-estimate the probability of danger. The ONLY way to achieve a meltdown is to remove a very specific central component, which only happened at Three Mile Island because of eco terrorist sabotage and at Chernobyl because Socialists can't do anything right. And your rant about how horrible nuclear waste is is exactly the technology has been refined to produce as little of it as possible. As for the waste that we're going to assume is discarded, I fail to see the sense in punishing the many for the crimes of the few. Your Captain Planet-influenced knowledge (that's not a compliment) ignores the fact that a business must avoid wasting resources to maximize profit.

Of course, you indirectly admit you weren't properly reading my post anyway. I was plainly talking about how cities are IN countries and you read that as "cities are countries" because you're an illiterate bafoon. So the game portrays without a country, fine. But if they're going to show the dangers of nuclear power, they should do it right by allowing the player to refine the feature thus eliminating that danger.

Anodos:

Ok, and what is your criticism of this? Ice doesnt melt?

Edit: Not saying i agree with what theyre saying. But you dont give a counter arguement. Besides you saying that the gas is non-toxic (it is toxic) and that it doesnt create a greenhouse effect (it does)

Um. No. Of course ice melts. My point is that environmentalists are overstating their case so as to throw the populace into a panic. And I'll grant that CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect. What I don't grant is that the increase of emissions will amount to anything any time soon, or that the environmentalists have even properly done their research at all. It's all politically motivated alarmism.

Also, what, CO2 is toxic? Huh? You're aware that you breathe that stuff every day, aren't you? Exhale it, even?

Oh no! God forbid I actually allow my children to be exposed to other people's viewpoints! As responsible adults we're supposed to be able to control every single thought and idea our children have! WHAT'S THIS WORLD COMING TO!!?!?! ZOMGWTFBBQPWN!!!!

Honestly, this is typical Fox News for you. The only thing that surprises me about this is that they didn't start bitching about Catherine. Fox News: Apparently, they think a game where you cheat on your significant other is not even worth mentioning, but exposing our children to a game where you play as A FUCKING FLOWER PETAL is corrupting their innocent little minds.

Horny Ico:

KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life:
Nuclear plants melt down. They fall down. The safe distance from a nuclear meltdown is not even the other end of a city. You've got to go MILES to be safe from it, and even that is changed significantly by the wind. And really? Nobody's ever just dumped waste somewhere it shouldn't be? Like, oh, say, under a road in an urban region? And Sim City isn't in a nation, nor anything really analogous to a modern society. It's a city that just magically springs up with approximately 1960-present Western levels of technology, but plays by our world's rules. And nuclear waste, like many, many other things doesn't entirely leave what it touches, nor can you truly clean it all up. It seeps (if in Hard Water) or leaves behind flecks (if it's the actual material), which cause earth to become dead, and the same goes for anything alive.

Once again, you grotesquely over-estimate the probability of danger. The ONLY way to achieve a meltdown is to remove a very specific central component, which only happened at Three Mile Island because of eco terrorist sabotage and at Chernobyl because Socialists can't do anything right. And your rant about how horrible nuclear waste is is exactly the technology has been refined to produce as little of it as possible. As for the waste that we're going to assume is discarded, I fail to see the sense in punishing the many for the crimes of the few. Your Captain Planet-influenced knowledge (that's not a compliment) ignores the fact that a business must avoid wasting resources to maximize profit.

Of course, you indirectly admit you weren't properly reading my post anyway. I was plainly talking about how cities are IN countries and you read that as "cities are countries" because you're an illiterate bafoon. So the game portrays without a country, fine. But if they're going to show the dangers of nuclear power, they should do it right by allowing the player to refine the feature thus eliminating that danger.

Alright, when did we decide throwing insults around accomplished anything? This is a discussion on the Internet, not a debate on real life funding or validity. You've clearly become far too emotionally invested in the discussion to even bother with it anymore. And don't bother saying I backed down from your superior Capitalist logic, because if I felt a discussion like this had any merit left, I'd surely continue it.

(PS. Spell buffoon right before you assert that someone is one).

More frustrating than Fox's stance on the liberal slant of the games is their assumption that these are meant for children, or that children will even be able to understand them.

This is especially true for McDonald's: the Game. Molleindustria makes no secret about their socially provacative leanings - they are intended for and enjoyed by an informed audience. Do they think a kid is going to enjoy or understand "Every Day the Same Dream"? Similarly, there's no way Fate of the World is going to hold the average 5-year-old's attention.

Fox can't wrap their heads around the fact that adults actually do play video games.

Anodos:

Clonekiller:

Ah. I see. So, anyone who thinks Fox News is bad is obviously and intelligent human being, and anyone who favors Fox News is an unintelligent fool. Sure, Fox News might have the largest and most diverse viewership among cable news networks, but who needs those pesky facts getting in the way. It's a whole lot easier to say "only idiots watch Fox News".

Why trust a news source that lies? If i read something in a paper, i want to be reasonably sure its true. If not, whats the point? Its a fact that people who watch fox news come out even more ignorant on news then before, thats a statistical fact. Why? Because they misinform people. Why,if they misinform people, its just "the way the are", but other news misinform people, they need to APOLOGIZE, because they did something WRONG. THink about it. I mean, if they started STEALING, i guess anyone who says "stealing is wrong. Fox news shouldnt do that" is an idiot, right?

Lying is wrong.

Fox News needs to stop doing that.

Pretty simple.

Good point. Very well then, I'll make you a deal. If you, or anyone else reading this post for that matter, can provide me with definitive proof that Fox News presents its audience with incorrect information, (including but not limited to misquotes, fudged numbers, and so on) I'll gladly join the Fox-News-is-bad club. Here's the catch. The proof needs to involve a Fox News reporter or news anchor. Guests and opinion show hosts don't count.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here