General In Opposite Land (Great Britain-Pip Pip), Fake News Removed From Airways
- Thread starter KWingJitsu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- news
M
member 3289
Guest
It's because they can't get 5,000 people to watch the fucking shit show.
Further proof that British people, on average, are smarter than Americans.
M
member 3289
Guest
This is correct.
This is also correct.
Fortunately, the retarded ones have seen the error of their ways and rightfully learned the error of their ways and wish to undo their foolishness.
Maybe our American chomosomally deficient counterparts will follow suite as soon as the Sultan of Orange's approval ratings dip to single digits...
they are going to turn sky news into the UKs own fox style news.in the UK they dont give a fuck about foxs american content.they want it based on their own part of the world
M
member 3289
Guest
Possible, but the right isn't doing so well over there right now...
And
@Splinty, fix your fracking forum!!! When I nut in a stalker's mouth and leave, I don't need to see the bitch's face no 'mo ... imo.
IgNOre means IgNOre!!
For a few minutes after my first post, I was able to see this horror:
Update: Okay, it's completely gone now *whew*. Must have been a bad dream. Cheerio and pip-pip.
@Splinty, fix your fracking forum!!! When I nut in a stalker's mouth and leave, I don't need to see the bitch's face no 'mo ... imo.IgNOre means IgNOre!!
For a few minutes after my first post, I was able to see this horror:
Update: Okay, it's completely gone now *whew*. Must have been a bad dream. Cheerio and pip-pip.
And
IgNOre means IgNOre!!
For a few minutes after my first post, I was able to see this horror:
Update: Okay, it's completely gone now *whew*. Must have been a bad dream. Cheerio and pip-pip.
#fakenews!
And
IgNOre means IgNOre!!
For a few minutes after my first post, I was able to see this horror:
Update: Okay, it's completely gone now *whew*. Must have been a bad dream. Cheerio and pip-pip.
Well, it looks that way now...:
But initially (check the time stamps of first image & post), it was like the first image.
Maybe a glitch (in the Upside Down) where if they're the first post, the server doesn't ignore them fully until the following post? I dunno. Your code. But it's gone now, so might have been temporary.
Back to topic of the thread - FOX 'hunting' is BANNED IN THE UK! lol.
That's interesting, because the first time I ever watched FOX news ever, was the night of Obama's second election win - so 2012.
Someone said "Dude... FOX news is freaking our right now."
I tuned in and saw some very somber faces near tears as they announced Obama had won again - because I guess the Fox owner? or guest or some bigwig Repub consultant guy had predicted Romney would win and they literally couldn't handle it.
That was my first taste of obvious news bias.
A lucky break. Good news for them.
They certainly sound smarter and probably make better vacuum cleaners as well.
I'm not sure if this was the same study but heres just an example...
Fox News: Fair And Balanced?
Now as
@MMA Expert Skip Bayless has rightly pointed out before being balanced could be a fallacy of injecting half truth and half nonsense.But that link looks at McCain and Obama for instance and finds the coverage was pretty tough on both.
Meanwhile, Fox’s Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn’t fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both–and most balanced overall.
These studies also always seem to only look at news reporting and not just commentary. So I would imagine it's the commentary from guests that really bring in the expected biases (fox right, MSNBC left)
Yeah, well that was 2009. Right as Obama got elected the first time.I'm not sure if this was the same study but heres just an example...
Fox News: Fair And Balanced?
Now as
But that link looks at McCain and Obama for instance and finds the coverage was pretty tough on both.
Meanwhile, Fox’s Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn’t fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both–and most balanced overall.
These studies also always seem to only look at news reporting and not just commentary. So I would imagine it's the commentary from guests that really bring in the expected biases (fox right, MSNBC left)
After his election, they went full 'tard to the right and pretty much became the anti-Obama network.