I knew it, I knew it--you are getting your information from the propaganda, so call news channel, most biased name in news, the extraordinary right-wing tilted Fox News Channel.

So it is your contention that the news story was a lie? Going to the MMS site you will find the same information. It is just that I watched the new for the last week the day I replied to you and I remembered the story.

I knew it! I knew it! You are a left wing nut job with no solutions to the problem just excuses why other people’s solutions won’t work.
So far your solution is to let the price go up and then people will use alternative sources of fuel and energy. The problem with that is there are no alternative sources of energy or fuel that is closer than 10 years away. Solar cars are impractical, wind power does not work, and no one will buy a nuclear powered car. And the consequences of your solution are people freezing to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes when winter comes.

You see the high price of oil is more than gasoline. Oil heats homes, provides electricity (to heat homes) diesel fuel to move produce and products to market. Higher oil prices mean that the cost of everything goes up. When your chewing gum costs a dollar, because of high oil prices you will complain that the president is not helping the poor and middle class. So what if every nut job thinks that higher prices are good to save the planet and reduce pollution. But in saving the planet and reducing pollution people that don’t even own or drive cars will suffer. The cost of food is going up with the price of oil. I think it is called unintended consequences. So thinking short term the idea sounds good but long term the idea will kill people.

Get serious! It is not the most biased (that goes to CBS and Dan Rather who commit fraud to prove a point), nor even is the news biased against anyone (the commentary is another matter).

learn the difference between News and Commentary - or be doomed to look the fool.

No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve.

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

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. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

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.)

Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago.

Accurate thinking is based upon two fundamentals, namely:

Induction: The act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from particulars to generals, from the individual to the universal.
Deduction: The use of inference by which a conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

The accurate thinker takes these important steps as a means of making his thinking effective:

He separates fact from fiction, or hearsay evidence.
He separates facts into two classes: important and unimportant.

The accurate thinker scrutinizes everything he reads in books or newspapers, everything he hears and sees over radio and television. He never accepts any statement as fact merely because he has read it or has heard it spoken. And he knows that statements bearing some portion of facts are often intentionally or carelessly colored, modified and exaggerated to give them an erroneous meaning.

Before the accurate thinker accepts the statements of others as facts, he tries to find the motive which prompted the statements, for he knows that no one ever does anything, and seldom says anything, without a definite motive. The accurate thinker examines with care all statement made by people who have obvious motives. He is equally careful about accepting the statements of over-zealous people who have the habit of allowing their imagination to run wild.

The accurate thinker learns to use his own judgment, and to be cautious, no matter who may endeavor to influence him. If a statement does not seem reasonable to him, or does not harmonize with his experience, he holds it in abeyance for further examination. He knows that a falsehood has a peculiar way of bringing with it some warning, perhaps in the tone of voice, or the facial expression of the speaker, if it is a spoken falsehood. And it is one of the unexplained facts of psychology that written words carry with them something of a warning as to their truth or falsehood, something which corresponds precisely to the mental attitude and the belief or unbelief of the writer.

I am glad you understand the process now can you exercise it by being intellectually honest? I have never seen the news slanted one way or another on fox. I have seen commentators on fox state opinions one way or the other. You my friend need to learn the difference between people presenting the news and those commenting on the news.

The other networks don’t make a distinction between their opinion and how they present the news so it all comes out the same. This is why Fox News has only 2 million potential viewers against the 300 million potential viewers for the other networks and still has the highest ratings. Are you suggesting that liberals don’t watch Fox news, or that only 2 million people in the country are conservative?

CNN used to be the most popular news network in the world, not because it was unbiased but because it was on 24/7 and you could get some news any time you needed a fix. When Fox News came along they decided to be fair in their reporting of the news. They did not slant left or right they gave you the story as news organizations are supposed to do. Bill O’Riley gets hammered by left and right because his opinions are his, some are liberal some are conservative depending on the subject. Special Report is different. They just give you the news. The last 20 minutes they have people come on and state their opinions of the news presented that day. They have one conservative and two liberals on one day and the next they have two conservatives and one liberal and alternate each day. No one side gets the upper hand and no one is favored above the other.

It is just that when the rest of the news organizations are left and far left and really far left and in the case of MSNBC so far left you can’t see the left leaning people any more, and you come up with a news organization like Fox that tries to go down the middle they seem far right. They say this is what happened this is what the left said this is what the right said next story. You are left to judge who is right or wrong. The left scream that doing that is not right because there is no political spin in their direction so it must be conservative.

By the way that article you quoted was explaining the difference between Fox news and the BBC which has been far left for decades but never admitted it. While on Fox you have people say this is where I stand on the issue. Based on that you know that he or she as a bias and what direction they lean. This allows you to judge the value of the comment. You don’t get that with BBC or CBC.

This is where that accurate thinking comes into play.

Again, no fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve.

They sound bias, they look bias; therefore, they must be bias.

So you agree that Fix news is bias?

Most so-called thinking is nothing but an expression of feeling through the emotions. And the emotions are not dependable. The accurate thinker submits his emotional desires and decisions to reason for judiciary examination before he relies upon them as being sound. He knows the mind is more dependable than the heart.

You either did not read, did not comprehend, or are pretending to ignore the reality. It calls for nothing other than the willingness to admit you are wrong. Fox NEWS is not biased. Fox COMMENTARY is. Learn the difference and free your mind.

Well, based on your two emotional responses and your choice to ignore the information presented to you, I would have to accurately think that; although you understand the principle; you have not learned to put it into practical application. This calls your judgment and credibility into question. Due to your intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension, or your chosen ignorance, you have demonstrated your inability to discern fact from fiction and allow your emotions to guide you.

I apologize and you are right--Fox commentary is bias.

There are millions of people who think like I do. Even Dr.Guy agree that Fox commentary is bias. People like you are becoming the minority.

Maybe you should try critical thinking the other thing is not working so well for you. Both the Dr. and I agree that commentary is biased. All commentary is biased it is not news. Your statement was that the news was biased. Try to Google reading comprehension. Study it. Then re-read what was written.

According to Matt Wells, the Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly patriotic stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is under investigation by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias.
The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.
If the network is found to have breached the ITC's "due impartiality" rules, it could be forced out.
In 1999 the ITC revoked the licence of Med TV, a channel aimed at the Kurdish diaspora, for failing to conform to the impartiality rules.
Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the ITC to act against Fox News: "I'm not in favour of censorship, but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms.
"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."

By this reasoning, we should avoid CNN (Ted Turner), CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC because their owners/CEOs are raving liberals.

So in the order of fairness, watch one of the above, and then Fox and balance the 2.

Somehow, "Obama is the Democrat Nominee apparent" sounds the same on both CNN and Fox. But YMMV.