Impartial newsreaders
 

Perhaps not always. Video at bottom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-at-Obama.html

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

It's still more balanced than fox news.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

Do you watch Fox regularly?

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I watched Fox news this weekend. After about 5 minutes, all the words started blending into one and I truthfully found it hard to focus. It seemed like incoherent babble. I did keep hearing the word "winningest" which I believe is an actual word but sounds all wrong to me.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I have never watched it so I don't know how partisan or accurate its reporting is. What I cannot understand is why people continue to watch it if its content is so bad.

I get that it may be worth popping in every now and then to have a laugh:p

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

On that basis, Bill O'Reilly is pretty good but Glenn Beck's show is really something to see, it is to America as the Daily Mail is to the UK.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

Why?

I was in a hotel bar in Michigan a few years ago. Fox News was on. The conversation with the barman went as follows.

"Do people actually believe this crap?"

"Yes, I'm afraid very many of them do."

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

No. I almost never watch it, but I've seen enough to know that their contributors are madder than a cage of rabid monkeys who like to masturbate and fling the mess at passers by. Which, I suppose, is how they make a living.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I don't know what you are questioning here.

I understanding that I may watch something that others believe is crap. That seems to be the gist of the second part of your post.

What I don't understand is why people continue to watch things they believe is crap. That makes no sense to me.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I'll take you word for that;)

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

Is that what they were doing? There was a lot of shouting and gesticulating at the screen but I'm afraid my eyes glazed over.

I'm also unclear as to whether there was any other news apart from the Penn State thing.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I think Fox News is brilliant. It has the ability to talk to Americans in language and style they understand and deserve.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

Drifting the thread slightly as is my forte.....

The CBC, leastways in this part of the world, refer to the Canadian Govt as the "Harper Govt". To me, this smacks a little of pejorative & I suppose is to be expected from the liberal leaning CBC. Can those posters with longer memories than I recall whether the Liberal Govt of Paul Martin was referred to regularly as "The Martin Govt"?

Genuinely interested!

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

I think it depends on the situation. When it is a political issue it is the Liberal/Conservative or Harper/Martin government. A kind of shortcut to indicate the issue is one of party politics. The Canadian Government is used when it is a national interest - the Government is representing us all.

I understand that our Steve prefers the national government be referred to as the Harper Government rather than the Canadian Government. He knows a thing or two about branding.

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

It was harper himself that decided they would actually be known as "the harper government." It's all brand management you know.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1929175/

Re: Impartial newsreaders
 

But it was Harper who started to insist on refering to the Canadian Government as the Harper Government, or more frequently "the New Harper Government".

This is partly because he's a control freak and partly because even (or especially) he knows that the rest of his Cabinet are incompetent buffoons.