According to news ISI fear from israeli army in the world.
And Faux news channel is the one most guilty of this.The western media is full of propogandalists (=people who push an agenda under the disguise of "journalism"), and openly biased coverage (I once listened to a NPR reporter covering Hillary Clinton's campaign talking about how much admiration she had for the candidate).
That's on top of selective reporting: selling falsehood while everything being reported is true.
Most guilty? Not even close!And Faux news channel is the one most guilty of this.
Would that common Enemy by any chance be the same one that has a total world population of less than 0.2% and has won at least 20% of all the Nobel prizes awarded to date?
This has to be the sickest exchange I have seen in a long time.I do not know about the percentage but you really like to know who.
Think Hitler. Let's leave it at that.
Since "things that pop up in a search" is being touted as an accurate survey, I tried the experiment by searching for "most dishonest news source" This came up #1These were just the first few things that popped up in a search. Journalists as a rule are deeply liberal and use their professional positions to further their ideologies. Fox was once a source of less liberal bias, but of late has become just another echo.
I'm sure you have the proof that the whole news organization lies. Of course you won't even call the organization by it's business name, just a cute name someone made up to try and steer the conversation elsewhere.Then there's faux news, who's correspondents lie with impunity
I provided a link that shows an analysis that faux is the most dishonest, only factual 18% of the time.I'm sure you have the proof that the whole news organization lies.
Oh, Boo-hoo. I wasn't the one who steered the conversation.Of course you won't even call the organization by it's business name, just a cute name someone made up to try and steer the conversation elsewhere
Good for you! But faux is a dishonest organization from top to bottom.I cited two individuals, and didn't blame the whole organization for the individuals running amuck.
The article you linked to is just another biased author having a biased opinion, not one cite.Since "things that pop up in a search" is being touted as an accurate survey, I tried the experiment by searching for "most dishonest news source" This came up #1
Your taking us down the political path to thread closure.PolitiFact routinely embeds links in its stories to supporting materials, but how does it reach out to an author of a column it is fact-checking? Turns out it’s not by phone or email, it’s Twitter.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/24/how-does-politifact-fact-check-by-tweeting-people/#ixzz3wQWA9yyA
What's to cite? They conducted the surveys, they have the data. They've won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting. The truth hurts sometimes.The article you linked to is just another biased author having a biased opinion, not one cite.
Still looking for the proof they claim, not finding it.I also found this on the internet.
It takes two to tango, my friend.Your taking us down the political path to thread closure.
Who did they conduct these "surveys" with? You?They conducted the surveys
No, they didn't consult me.Who did they conduct these "surveys" with? You?
You mean the biased political link you gave?So your biased political link is better than the link I gave. Nice.
Here are fourty nine: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/I agree it takes two to tango. It's time for you to provide some examples of the news people at Fox shading the truth.
Is he a Fox correspondent?Is Juan Williams, a real newsman, or just another political correspondent from NPR? And yet if he produced a false report, does it count against both Fox and NPR?
by Robert Keim
by Lisa Boneta
by Luke James