Media tries to linch game industry with its own intestines.

[short]

Oh and that mother, "If it's supposed to be made for kids you shouldn't be able to get access to this stuff."
It is these people that need to be 'enlightened'.

It's all about beliefs. If parent A is to "lazy" to do any research on the psp before giving it to their kids then I say it is the parents fault. I put quotes around lazy because I understand not wishing to read everything about all their kid's toy's. However, it is still the fault of the child/parent, because the parents could have read the instructions or done a google search on "psp" and figured out it could be blocked. If parent A was so inclined to do so, it is not a concealed-from-parents-only known fact that the psp has wifi, therefore they only have the right to be mad at themselves or their kids for using it for such purposes, not the media industry. Blaming the industry is fallacious, they would have to blame anything that has access to wifi if they were true to their argument.

[zNelson24]

Text boxes aren't working right, replying to previous posts...

Yes, they were being informative. They are also paid to get viewers in, so the shock value was thrown in there to get everybody's attention. I got a PSP for Xmas last month, and I don't want people to be diverted from it's awesomeness, nor do I want people to believe I could be a possible pervert for using one. Like I said, this story has more holes in it than a swiss cheese.

here is what they summed up...

- set up parental controls
- lock psp with password
- talk to your children.

They summed all that up in the last ten seconds of the story, after the 3 minutes of porn findings and the possibility of child molesters talking to kids.

[Bakkon]

lolz you people missed that point entirely...

Exactly. The reporter just really wanted to say Playstation Pornable on television.

[Big Grizzle]

Sooo.....Fox news reports another "fair and balanced"(<--sarcasm) news piece.

Maybe I am just a cynic, but why does this surprise any of you? It is not like they haven't done a lot worse before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... troversies

[avansc]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

and mind you not by a bit.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/rati ... cable-news

FNC – 1,459,000 viewers
CNN – 561,000 viewers
MSNBC –364,000 viewers
CNBC – 204,000 viewers
HLN –327,000 viewers

its more than all the rest put together. so please.. just because you dont agree with a conservative point of view.. dont say they are not fair or balanced. or have done "worse".
its pathetic really.

[short]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

It's not that their bad, its just that they aren't "fair and balanced". It's alot of people's opinion, including mine. However when I visit my parents house fox news is almost always on. I don't think its a bad news station, I just have to preface everything I take from FNC with what I know about them.

[avansc]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

It's not that their bad, its just that they aren't "fair and balanced". It's alot of people's opinion, including mine. However when I visit my parents house fox news is almost always on. I don't think its a bad news station, I just have to preface everything I take from FNC with what I know about them.

as apposed to other stations that are fair and balanced?

[Innerscope]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

and mind you not by a bit.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/rati ... cable-news

FNC – 1,459,000 viewers
CNN – 561,000 viewers
MSNBC –364,000 viewers
CNBC – 204,000 viewers
HLN –327,000 viewers

its more than all the rest put together. so please.. just because you dont agree with a conservative point of view.. dont say they are not fair or balanced. or have done "worse".
its pathetic really.

The most viewers implies the most righteous? That's illogical. The reason FOX has the most viewers is definitely not due to its fairness. I would be more inclined to argue its because FOX is the most entertaining news station to watch.

As for the news article, it's ridiculous. They could have gotten the message across in a 15 second blurb. This would have also prevented them from advertising the playstation porn-able.

[avansc]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

and mind you not by a bit.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/rati ... cable-news

FNC – 1,459,000 viewers
CNN – 561,000 viewers
MSNBC –364,000 viewers
CNBC – 204,000 viewers
HLN –327,000 viewers

its more than all the rest put together. so please.. just because you dont agree with a conservative point of view.. dont say they are not fair or balanced. or have done "worse".
its pathetic really.

The most viewers implies the most righteous? That's illogical. The reason FOX has the most viewers is definitely not due to its fairness. I would be more inclined to argue its because FOX is the most entertaining news station to watch.

As for the news article, it's ridiculous. They could have gotten the message across in a 15 second blurb. This would have also prevented them from advertising the playstation porn-able.

*facepalm*

i wrote a big reply and then just deleted it because its no use. do some research on the organization fair.org and who exactly claims fox news is so unbalanced and unfair. then actually look into the stories. dont just repeat hearsay.

and im not sure why the news story was ridiculous. you cannot substantiate that with any thing other than your prejudices. you can not give a single valid reason why that story should not have aired.

[Innerscope]

*facepalm*

i wrote a big reply and then just deleted it because its no use. do some research on the organization fair.org and who exactly claims fox news is so unbalanced and unfair. then actually look into the stories. dont just repeat hearsay.

and im not sure why the news story was ridiculous. you cannot substantiate that with any thing other than your prejudices. you can not give a single valid reason why that story should not have aired.

Well, I did say "They could have gotten the message across in a 15 second blurb. This would have also prevented them from advertising the playstation porn-able." I think there's more important news, and I don't think Fox is really helping anyone by telling them that a hand-held console capable of going online is also capable of accessing porn sites. If anything FNC just played right into what the porn industry wanted: coverage of the playstation porn-able ad campaign. The story also went off on a tangent about online predators, and showed games that weren't even on a PSP. It was irrelevant.

As for Fox being "fair and balanced", you said that it was because Fox has more viewers than everyone else. I'm saying it has more viewers because it's more entertaining then other news stations. I never said Fox wasn't fair. I may have implied that, but you implied that the other stations were less "fair and balanced" because they had less viewers. I said that's illogical. Anyway, back to my implication, I would argue that Fox isn't "fair and balanced" because Fox is always on the political right side of news. I don't think that particular agenda applies to this story though.

[avansc]

"As for FOX being "fair and balanced", you said that it was because FOX has more viewers than everyone else." - Innerscope

i implore you to go read my post again. because i did NOT say they were FAIR AND BALANCED automatically because they have so many viewers. i said if they were such a bad news channel as some might have you believe.

yes fox is more conservative in their politics, but in no way does that not make them fair and balanced, nor does it put them on the right side aswell.
being a democrat does not automatically mean you are not conservative, that is what is illogical. and being a conservative does not mean you dont like gays, blacks or any of that bull shit. those are just people with prejudices them selves.

As for the "tangent" comment
Now let me propose a scenario:

Lets assume you have to do a news story on a new product that causes cancer, lets say a uber cel phone.. would it be so out of scope. or on a tangent. if you also talked about or listed other similar products that produced the same kinda radiation or what not.

I still have yet to hear a single valid point, based on reason and not prejudice, why that news story was bad.

here is the deal. people on this forum play those games, own those system.., or live that gaming/tech lifestyle. so they automatically feel attacked when they see this
news story about how a PSP can be dangerous to underage kids. now i can sympathize with that, shit i do that too. buts what is important to look at it logically.

its like when they show a story about how teens that get fast cars are x amount of time more likely to die. they arent saying that fast cars are bad, or even that teens are bad drivers(which probably is the case + the responsibility factor). just that statistics show teens are more at risk in fast cars, and parents should be aware of it before they buy them that mustang or what not.

[Innerscope]

"As for FOX being "fair and balanced", you said that it was because FOX has more viewers than everyone else." - Innerscope

i implore you to go read my post again. because i did NOT say they were FAIR AND BALANCED automatically because they have so many viewers. i said if they were such a bad news channel as some might have you believe.

"its more than all the rest put together. so please.. just because you dont agree with a conservative point of view.. dont say they are not fair or balanced. or have done "worse".
its pathetic really."
"Don't say they aren't fair because they have more viewers" is what it looks like you implied. You may have not, but it certainly reads that way.

yes fox is more conservative in their politics, but in no way does that not make them fair and balanced, nor does it put them on the right side aswell.
being a democrat does not automatically mean you are not conservative, that is what is illogical. and being a conservative does not mean you dont like gays, blacks or any of that bull shit. those are just people with prejudices them selves.

Fox is a politically charged news corporation on the side of republicans. This is what makes their news unbalanced. Fox's president was a political consultant for Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. If you believe (and this would be a belief) that FNC (as a whole) are not on the "right" then you have not done much research.
You act like I would disagree with the statement "being a democrat does not automatically mean you are not conservative". Being liberal on an issue means that you are not conservative on that issue. You might be on the fence about an issue, and that makes you neither, on that issue. You can definitely be a liberal republican or conservative democrat. I'm not sure why you brought that up.

Lets assume you have to do a news story on a new product that causes cancer, lets say a uber cel phone.. would it be so out of scope. or on a tangent. if you also talked about or listed other similar products that produced the same kinda radiation or what not.

I still have yet to hear a single valid point, based on reason and not prejudice, why that news story was bad.

A product that is proven (a direct link) to cause cancer, would be news. Then listing similar products would not be out of scope.
I never said the news article had "bad" intentions. I thought it was poorly done, and was clearly made for entertainment purposes.

here is the deal. people on this forum play those games, own those system.., or live that gaming/tech lifestyle. so they automatically feel attacked when they see this
news story about how a PSP can be dangerous to underage kids. now i can sympathize with that, shit i do that too. buts what is important to look at it logically.

I am being completely objective when I say that news story was ridiculous. It went from "Don't buy this gift for your child because it is capable of accessing porn" to "watch out for online predators" then to "be careful when you buy your child a PSP". That middle part could have been taken out. In fact, that whole story could have been just the last part. They could have not shown the clips of women in lingerie, but what's the entertainment value of just straight news? I'm not saying Fox is the only news station that does this. I'm not saying this was part of Fox's republican agenda. I am saying this is why I prefer to read a newspaper or online news source.

[avansc]

killian documents...

all and i mean ALL media organizations have agendas.

does not make all the stories they report garbage/wrong/biased/unfair/unbalanced.

"I am being completely objective when I say that news story was ridiculous. It went from "Don't buy this gift for your child because it is capable of accessing porn".."
clearly you are objective, because they never said that.. and no on is not objective.

anyways...

[Big Grizzle]

Not that im going to argue "the fair and balanced" comment, thats just opinion really.
but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

and mind you not by a bit.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/rati ... cable-news

FNC – 1,459,000 viewers
CNN – 561,000 viewers
MSNBC –364,000 viewers
CNBC – 204,000 viewers
HLN –327,000 viewers

its more than all the rest put together. so please.. just because you dont agree with a conservative point of view.. dont say they are not fair or balanced. or have done "worse".
its pathetic really. - avansc

You claim I disagreed with a conservative viewpoint from within the report. Would that not imply that the report was blatantly not being fair and balanced to begin with. To be truly fair and balanced they would need to present multiple arguments/viewpoints on the topic without any bias to any particular one. Now it can hardly be classified as fair and balanced if it is merely presenting a conservative view point. Can it?

Also, you have no idea what my political beliefs are, thus making your statement incorrect and your insult weightless. Consider the following definition of the word unbiased.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unbiased

Now I will admit hoping journalists live up to that definition of unbiased is a wee bit optimistic, but I would hardly call it pathetic.

[avansc]

I sincerely apologize.
maybe i was rash to assume a post like,

"Sooo.....Fox news reports another "fair and balanced"(<--sarcasm) news piece.

Maybe I am just a cynic, but why does this surprise any of you? It is not like they haven't done a lot worse before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... troversies"

was from someone that tends to lean left and is possibly a democrat in nature.

fairness is doing something in accordance with rules.. who makes these rules.. is it "fair" that they make rules and impose them.
then about balanced. well that would be in even proportion, but to what.. having one conserv view and one dem view does not mean balanced. balanced to whom.
these are not things you can define. thus, FNC might be unfair and unbalanced to you, but to say that they are as if it was fact it just not right.