Ahh, Faux News. Always good for a laugh. "If the news is bad, change it!"

The text is actually correct. That was the one charge where he was found not guilty.

Oh, right. Although I bet they kept that up there for an inordinately long time.

If it's Fox, it's a Lie. They wouldn't know reality if it hit them upside the head.

hmmm ... just a thought ...

You are right, Lis. I'm changing my post. Thanks.

As I posted on BJ, the problem is that we don't know from this screenshot alone if they were cycling through all 5 charges or only were talking about this one.

I'm not a fan of Fox, but not because of this.

This is almost like a contest:

"[Some] Titanic passangers arrive safely in New York."

"Elderly Man Survives Being Shot in the Face [by Vice President Dick Cheney]"

War in Iraq is not another Vietnam (yet).

Some vets are not receiving substandard care.

Anne Coulter didn't call Hilary a lesbian.

Oh she did?

Anne Coulter didn't call Al Gore a total fag.

Oh she did?

Anne Coulter didn't call Muslims ragheads.

Uh huh.

Anne Coulter is a comedienne and not the iconic leader of the neocons.

@5: I was watching this broadcast at the time, and Fox had it right. They were cycling through the charges.

I don't see why you all are riled up about Fox. I ALWAYS see a Dem debating a Republican, such as:

Alan Combs
Jane Hall
Eleanor Clift
Myra Liason
Juan Williams
Bob Beckel
and I could go on and on - not to mention the dem politcians.

@9: your post should read

ALWAYS see a "Dem" debating a Republican...you left out those quotation marks.

@10: Yeah, like try telling Eleanor Clift she's a psuedo Republican. Puhleeeeze.

That's not the point, Chip. FOX purposefully puts up milktoasty "Dems" against hard-line, far-right Republicans in an effort to skew the middle ground of any particular debate farther to the right than it would normally be.

Now, imagine for a moment the polar opposite scenario: Noam Chomsky debating Dennis Sanders, for example, and you start to get an idea of how the tactic works.

Milktoasty dems like Bill Mahr on Bill O'Reilly last night? It was good television. Sorry you missed it.

Yes, FOX has a slant to the right. So what? Why is that so bad if we see good banter back and forth. It's a lot more interesting to see the sparks than see the "milktoast" debates on the other cable news networks.

God, oh god. A FOX fan on Slog....WOW...news all by itself.

Total shit propaganda from day one.

Lies and more lies often repeated, yes mien Fuehrer.

Actually chipmunk, the FOX "slant" is to lie. It's a fact that FOX News viewers are consistantly mis-informed about agreed upon facts like Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, etc. In this day and age the battle between liberal and conservative really has become the battle between truth and lies. Fox is the flagship of lies.

Actually chipmunk, the FOX "slant" is to lie. It's a fact that FOX News viewers are consistantly mis-informed about agreed upon facts like Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, etc. In this day and age the battle between liberal and conservative really has become the battle between truth and lies. Fox is the flagship of lies.

i swear to GOD i only hit the Post button once. for reals!

I find that folks that readily say it's all lies and propoganda, and so loosely, simply don't take the time get a variety of news sources much less study the issues. Actually, there not that much of a swell of opinion that Saddam was a factor in 9/11. Even Sean Hannity doesn't even think that.

It really doesn't matter what the debate is or who's saying it, is that we expose ourselves to adversarial viewpoints. That makes it interesting. I find echo chambers quite boring.

Fox News is the mental equivalent of only drinking Coke. (To be honest, MSNBC and CNN are little different.) Screaming party lines at one another isn't "debate" or informative. It's just theater. The echo magnified until you're mentally fat and malnurished. All of the cable news networks are stripped of any sort of value or informed viewpoint.

It's vastly more worthwhile to sit through an episode Frontline, or pick up a paper -- far more interesting than a week spent watching Fox News. At least there one has the chance of learning some of the facts and gaining some basis to make a judgement...

You can debate opinions but not facts. If they actually reported the facts and allowed you to decide, that would be one thing. However, cherry picking the facts in order to support a pre-decided position is quite another thing, isn't it?

A portion of the O'Reilly/Mahr interview is on C&L, and O'Reilly is bold faced lying in his claim that it's not 600,000 dead Iraqis. Of course, it's impossible to prove or disprove that more Iraqis would have died if Saddam had stayed in power. And, of course, it's completely beside the point since that wasn't the justification for invading Iraq.

Golob: I agree with you. The key is variety, such as an evening reading "The Nation" and "The National Review."

Indeed, the last good debate program was probably William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" on PBS.

But, just like a cheap wine, Brit Hume debating Juan Williams on FOS is pretty good.