FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:35:52 GMT, "Karen" <[email protected]> posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>They said that Nextel was making money and although
>Verizon had $30 billion in debt

That number is meaningless without knowing how much cash and income
they have to cover it. If they have $40 billion available they're a
good investment. If, like Sprint, they have almost nothing to cover
their debt, they're in trouble.

---

› See More: FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >
> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> they are supposed to think.
> >
> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
> >
> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >
> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
up.
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

You didn't answer the question.
--
Jason G
Marlins Win. The Gods of Baseball Smite Me Again.
Remove 'WINNER' to reply.

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >
> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> they are supposed to think.
> >
> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
> >
> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >
> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
up.
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

You didn't answer the question.
--
Jason G
Marlins Win. The Gods of Baseball Smite Me Again.
Remove 'WINNER' to reply.

Giambi wrote:

> "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Donkey Agony wrote:
>>
>> > Harry Krause wrote:
>> >
>> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>> >
>> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
>> >> they are supposed to think.
>> >
>> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
>> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
>> >
>> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
>> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
>> >
>> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
>> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
>> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
>> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
>> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
> up.
>> --
>> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.
>
> You didn't answer the question.


Oh, I have lots of news sources. I read the paper editions of the WSJ,
NYTIMES, WASH POST every weekeday, plus a number of vertical news pubs,
and I get the post and the times on the weekends, along with a plethora
of news magazines. I watch some TV news programs.

--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Giambi wrote:

> "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Donkey Agony wrote:
>>
>> > Harry Krause wrote:
>> >
>> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>> >
>> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
>> >> they are supposed to think.
>> >
>> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
>> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
>> >
>> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
>> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
>> >
>> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
>> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
>> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
>> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
>> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
> up.
>> --
>> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.
>
> You didn't answer the question.


Oh, I have lots of news sources. I read the paper editions of the WSJ,
NYTIMES, WASH POST every weekeday, plus a number of vertical news pubs,
and I get the post and the times on the weekends, along with a plethora
of news magazines. I watch some TV news programs.

--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Wasn't the reported that admitted to making up news stories from the NY
Times?

TC


"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Giambi wrote:
>
> > "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Donkey Agony wrote:
> >>
> >> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other
links
> >> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >> >
> >> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> >> they are supposed to think.
> >> >
> >> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with
CNN's
> >> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that
regard.)
> >> >
> >> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> >> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >> >
> >> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> >> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> >> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to
news:
> >> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch
it
> >> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
> > up.
> >> --
> >> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question.
>
>
> Oh, I have lots of news sources. I read the paper editions of the WSJ,
> NYTIMES, WASH POST every weekeday, plus a number of vertical news pubs,
> and I get the post and the times on the weekends, along with a plethora
> of news magazines. I watch some TV news programs.
>
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Wasn't the reported that admitted to making up news stories from the NY
Times?

TC


"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Giambi wrote:
>
> > "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Donkey Agony wrote:
> >>
> >> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other
links
> >> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >> >
> >> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> >> they are supposed to think.
> >> >
> >> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with
CNN's
> >> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that
regard.)
> >> >
> >> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> >> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >> >
> >> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> >> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> >> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to
news:
> >> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch
it
> >> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
> > up.
> >> --
> >> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question.
>
>
> Oh, I have lots of news sources. I read the paper editions of the WSJ,
> NYTIMES, WASH POST every weekeday, plus a number of vertical news pubs,
> and I get the post and the times on the weekends, along with a plethora
> of news magazines. I watch some TV news programs.
>
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >
> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> they are supposed to think.
> >
> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
> >
> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >
> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
up.
>

Oh no, is wittle baby lefty a wittle cranky because he knows there will be
another 4 years of the current administration? Boo hoo. Now go back to
your Doonsberry.

I love it... Fox is unbalanced right wing bla bla... But CNN is totally
unbalanced and fair--Right, it didn't get the term Clinton News Network for
nothing! (As well as PMSNBC)

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> >>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> >>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> >>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
> >
> >> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> >> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> >> they are supposed to think.
> >
> > Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> > stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
> >
> > So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> > which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
> >
> Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
> approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
> presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
> rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
> love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered
up.
>

Oh no, is wittle baby lefty a wittle cranky because he knows there will be
another 4 years of the current administration? Boo hoo. Now go back to
your Doonsberry.

I love it... Fox is unbalanced right wing bla bla... But CNN is totally
unbalanced and fair--Right, it didn't get the term Clinton News Network for
nothing! (As well as PMSNBC)

> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other boys,
the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
bias", I see it as RIGHT!

> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows because
CNN sucks!

> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other boys,
the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
bias", I see it as RIGHT!

> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows because
CNN sucks!

Been There wrote on [Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT]:
>> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
> So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other boys,
> the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
> bias", I see it as RIGHT!

Well then, you'd be wrong.


>> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
> Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows because
> CNN sucks!

Yes, CNN does suck. US news media isn't about NEWS, it's about SELLING
ADS. So, Fox panders to the right wing fascists, and CNN panders to
whoever will watch them.

Been There wrote on [Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT]:
>> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
> So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other boys,
> the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
> bias", I see it as RIGHT!

Well then, you'd be wrong.


>> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
> Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows because
> CNN sucks!

Yes, CNN does suck. US news media isn't about NEWS, it's about SELLING
ADS. So, Fox panders to the right wing fascists, and CNN panders to
whoever will watch them.

Jeremy wrote:

> And that Sprint makes it so difficult to actually speak to a human being.

Uhm ... *2 and say "representative". Tough one to figure out though.

Tom Veldhouse

Jeremy wrote:

> And that Sprint makes it so difficult to actually speak to a human being.

Uhm ... *2 and say "representative". Tough one to figure out though.

Tom Veldhouse