MovieChat Forums > Ancient Aliens (2009) Discussion > ENTERTAINMENT??!! On the "HISTORY" CHANN...

ENTERTAINMENT??!! On the "HISTORY" CHANNEL???!!!

posted 9 years ago by califor123
7 replies | jump to latest

That's so freaking ridiculous that I now disbelieve all the, perhaps, CRAP, on this channel. It's as stupid as believing FOX puts on real and straight forward news!!! When any smart person knows that FOX IS "FAIRLY UNBALANCED."

[–] jdh2425-445-184688 9 years ago

Any smart person knows it's better to be 'fairly unbalanced' than to be TOTALLY unbalanced like all the rest of the channels like NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Comedy Central, CNN, PBS have been for many, many years!
Can't there be one, single, right leaning channel amidst ALL the rest of the left leaning channels without simple minded liberals taking cheap shots at it at every chance they get, even when it has nothing to do with the subject?
At least Fox news gives the other side a chance to join the discussion.
How many right leaning people do the other networks have on their discussion panels? Or as regular guests?
But I do agree with you about the so-called 'History' channel. They've aired so many bogus shows, they have no credibility on ANY of their shows as far as I'm concerned now.
There's no use watching any of it.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by jdh2425-445-184688 » ...At least Fox news gives the other side a chance to join the discussion....

Really?

EVERY time I've ever tuned in to Fox News, when they've had a guest on from "the other side", whenever that guest has started to disagree with the viewpoint that the Fox anchors are promoting, the Fox anchors have cut off the guest by talking over them and arguing with them to the point that their guest can't get a word in edgewise.

That is their prerogative of course, but there's a big difference between saying you're giving the other side a chance to join the discussion...and actually letting the other side join the discussion, so by trying to sugar coat it you really aren't doing yourself any favors.

I'd like to give both you and the OP the benefit of the doubt, but I seriously can't decide who was taking the cheapest shot with their post in this thread.

[–] jdh2425-445-184688 9 years ago

Cheapest shot?
Of course the OP, you maybe a close second.
The simple act of having the other side ON is more balanced than most of the others I mentioned! So they're already ahead of the game!
And yes, they DO get to say their piece. Juan Williams is a left leaning Democrat and a regular employee of Fox. So is Geraldo Rivera. Bob Beckel was too , until his addiction problems became too troublesome. There are a few others.
And the news and talk programs always try to give guest appearances to the other side. Sometimes they DO get talked over (because usually they are making idiotic or unrelated points), but often times they dont, and are given plenty of time to make their argument.
But my point is, nearly every single show on the other so-called 'unbiased' news stations will NEVER allow regular guests to give the other side (right-leaning), let alone allow a right-leaning personality to co-anchor a show!
Yes, Fox is right leaning, and sometimes they over do it a little. But that's because they're the ONLY right-leaning network in a sea of left-leaning networks!

[–] marka99-1 9 years ago

Fox has every right to lean hard right, that's not the problem. The problem is something else that I won't get into because it appears your adulation for the channel has produced biases that would make conversing about it impossible. I rarely watch Fox anymore because of their lying but I do not watch MSNBC at all due to their heavy leaning. I try to avoid heavy leaning news shows because they are pandering to those who can't handle anything positive said about the other side or have no ability to be objective. Those channels are just plucking the low hanging fruit.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by jdh2425-445-184688 » Cheapest shot?
Of course the OP, you maybe a close second.
The simple act of having the other side ON is more balanced than most of the others I mentioned! So they're already ahead of the game!
And yes, they DO get to say their piece. Juan Williams is a left leaning Democrat and a regular employee of Fox. So is Geraldo Rivera. Bob Beckel was too , until his addiction problems became too troublesome. There are a few others.
And the news and talk programs always try to give guest appearances to the other side. Sometimes they DO get talked over (because usually they are making idiotic or unrelated points), but often times they dont, and are given plenty of time to make their argument.
But my point is, nearly every single show on the other so-called 'unbiased' news stations will NEVER allow regular guests to give the other side (right-leaning), let alone allow a right-leaning personality to co-anchor a show!
Yes, Fox is right leaning, and sometimes they over do it a little. But that's because they're the ONLY right-leaning network in a sea of left-leaning networks!

As marka suggested, your response is a clear indication of your bias.

You mentioned Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, and Bob Beckel, but even as associate HOSTS on various Fox News programs, they were usually treated in the same dismissive way as the guests I mentioned earlier, being cut off and spoken over ANY time they started to disagree with the obvious Fox News agenda. So why have them on at all? The obvious answer....To give the other hosts someone to roll their eyes at for their brainwashed viewers as they looked into the camera.

Rather than making a point of trying to justify a right-leaning show just because of left-leaning shows, wouldn't a persons' time be better spent suggesting that a news show should be about reporting the news, and not trying to promote an agenda?

That's what AA does after all, simply reports about certain archaeological sites, religions, myths, and folklores around the world and their mysterious origins...and asks what if?...

...as opposed to most news agencies around the world that roll their eyes at possible sightings or other associated stories related to this type of subject matter...and help to promote an agenda of derision and dismissal...same as this thread.

[–] marka99-1 9 years ago

Remember Hannity and Colmes? They could've substituted a punching bag for Colmes and got the same result.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by marka99-1 » Remember Hannity and Colmes? They could've substituted a punching bag for Colmes and got the same result.

Yes I do.

And like Williams, Rivera, and Beckel, the "discussions" between Hannity and Colmes seem to be the only kind of fair and balanced conversations Fox viewers can handle.