(Notice: The Followup-to on this message is for comp.os.linux.misc but one may
always ignore that in a followup if desired)

Love them or hate them Fox News is a major USA news outlet. It appears they
have decided to seriously disrespect the Linux community. Read this to see what
I mean:

http://blog.eracc.com/2008/04/25/doe...e-linux-users/

Gene (e-mail: gene \a\t eracc \d\o\t com)

ERACC wrote:

> (Notice: The Followup-to on this message is for comp.os.linux.misc but one
> may always ignore that in a followup if desired)

(Follow-up replaced and targetted groups redirected to include
both /A.O.L.M./ and /C.O.L.M./ as per the OP's terms.

In addition, [OT] added to subjectline due to this message having an
advocacy character and might be ill-received by "on-topic" pedanticists in
either group.)

> Love them or hate them Fox News is a major USA news outlet. It appears
> they have decided to seriously disrespect the Linux community. Read this
> to see what I mean:
>
> [..]

I have tested the link to the Fox News video page as mentioned on your
website, using an old Mozilla browser.

To be quite honest, I don't think Fox has deliberately shut out GNU/Linux
users. I rather think it's one of those situations where they simply used
MS-FrontPage or a similar tool to design that website, and as such
GNU/Linux is of course left out in the cold by the generated code, since no
Microsoft product will (or can?) ever adhere to internationally agreed-upon
standards.

(Yes, the ISO has now approved of MS-OOXML as a standard - thanks to a lot
of armtwisting and a few bonuses under the table here and there - but
strangely enough, even Microsoft Office does not conform to Microsoft's
OOXML standard, so the bottomline is that even with regard to their own
standards, Microsoft can't offer compatibility.)

To get back on topic (with this off-topic post :p), my ISP officially does
not support GNU/Linux either, but I was already using GNU/Linux when I
signed up with them and I've never had a problem. Well, with the sole
exception of certain things on their website, but that appeared to come
from poor Javascript implementations and bad HTML code on their part.

Officially, their stance is "We only support Windows and OS X", and this is
basically just because they don't know enough about GNU/Linux to offer
support. Such support is a helpdesk matter, and the helpdesk is quite a
different department from their tech staff. After all, with the exception
of a few Windows webservers, most of their serverpark runs either GNU/Linux
or Solaris.

With regard to Fox News, it's also quite possible that they simply had
Microsoft or a Microsoft-only webdesign company build their website for
them, in which case the website would indeed be deliberately made to work
with Windows (and/or OS X) only, but then this would be the responsibility
of the webdesigner.

After all, GNU/Linux is not a commercial entity of the size of Microsoft or
Apple Computer, and the corporate execs only know things that have big
ringing names to them, even if those names have a bad reputation.

Lastly, Fox News is a news outlet - as you said yourself - and just as with
our local news outlets here, you can't expect journalists who live and die
for the global economy, global warming, political conflicts and other
sensational things to actually know about GNU/Linux. :p Same thing as with
the corporate executives, if it's not spectacular enough to draw the
attention, they don't know about it.

If Bill Gates farts, they'll be right on his doorstep with twenty cameras
and fifty microphones. If Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman were to
unveil a GNU/Linux-running quantum computer, only the geeks would know.

Journalists are not geeks. They may pretend to be in order to boost their
credibility (and thus the network's ratings) but they're just people making
a living by reporting about the things that would seem important to the
unwashed grey masses. And those unwashed grey masses are just too dumb to
even know or care about GNU/Linux or Free & Open Source Software.

Hell, they - i.e. the journalists - don't even know that the "free" in FOSS
stands for freedom, and not for "free of charge" - eventhough "libre"
software _*is*_ usually free of charge as well.

The bottom line, and the morale of the whole story, it's just plain old
Hanlon's Razor...: "Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be
explained by plain stupidity."

May the Source be with you, Brother. ;-)

Aragorn wrote:
> snip
> Journalists are not geeks. They may pretend to be in order to boost their
> credibility (and thus the network's ratings) but they're just people making
> a living by reporting about the things that would seem important to the
> unwashed grey masses. And those unwashed grey masses are just too dumb to
> even know or care about GNU/Linux or Free & Open Source Software.
>
> Hell, they - i.e. the journalists - don't even know that the "free" in FOSS
> stands for freedom, and not for "free of charge" - eventhough "libre"
> software _*is*_ usually free of charge as well.
>
> The bottom line, and the morale of the whole story, it's just plain old
> Hanlon's Razor...: "Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be
> explained by plain stupidity."
>
> May the Source be with you, Brother. ;-)
================================================== =
With the emergence of modern mini-laptops like the Asus eeePC ,even
journalists are likely to begin using these marvels where Linux is King.

Frank

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:30:47 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....

Dave

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:44:30 +0000, Dave wrote:

> A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
> switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
> want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....

I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
"network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.

Dan C wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:44:30 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
>> A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
>> switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
>> want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....
>
> I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
> "network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.
>I agree at least they have opposing view points. CNN and PMSNBC have gone
green (laugh) because its in vogue and GE (nbc)makes them freakin light
bulbs.

Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:44:30 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
>> A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
>> switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
>> want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....
>
> I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
> "network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.
>Or is it perhaps that you are so far right of Ghengis Khan, that it just
seems that way? ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Or is it perhaps that you are so far right of Ghengis Khan, that it just
> seems that way? ;-)

Bear in mind that liberal son Ghengis Khan may
enjoy great status in China and elsewhere thanks
to his study of and application of Chinese culture,
but it was daddy Kublai Khan that founded the empire.

Kublai was no lefty, and not surprisingly when he
finished his work there were no lefties around to
interfere with whatever his son might choose to do.

Cheers!

jim b.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:02:44 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:

> Bear in mind that liberal son Ghengis Khan may enjoy great status in
> China and elsewhere thanks to his study of and application of Chinese
> culture, but it was daddy Kublai Khan that founded the empire.

Generation-ordering-1.2.66: major segfault! Exiting.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 2008-04-27, Dan C <youmustbejoking> wrote:

> I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
> "network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.

I'm not aware of any left/liberal biased television networks in the
United States. Some are just somewhat less right-skewed than others
(e.g. PBS).

Dan C wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:44:30 +0000, Dave wrote:
>
>> A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
>> switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
>> want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....
>
> I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
> "network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.

I didn't even know that the Clinton's had their own news network - forgive
my ignorance if you said that in sarcasm - and I'm actually not familiar
with Fox News, other than that it's wellknown and big.

Still, with regard to your comment about most news networks having a
leftwing bias, I would like to point out that all news networks are
corporate entities, and as such, they rely on funding, be it from the
government, from individuals, from companies (in the form of advertising),
etc.

So therefore, most news networks are singing songs for whomever floats their
boat, and it is also my personal experience that journalists in particular
or news networks in general tend to identify with the political opinions
which are exactly the opposite of those underlying a given political
situation.

I am going to give you a (bad) example here, but let's say a news reporter
has to interview Hillary Clinton. Then this news reporter will adopt a
more Republican stance towards her, in order to confront her with a number
of things and drag information out of her. Now, suppose that same news
reporter has to interview John McCain next, and then that reporter will
invoke a more Democrat stance in order to confront his target with certain
things.

A news network often assumes a "devil's advocate" stance, without caring
much for who plays the role of God in that equation. Part of it is an
attempt to get their target to elaborate more on certain things, but the
information obtained through such a technique is rather intended to shock
or upset people, since that causes more commotion among the viewers.

The latter _could_ - with a lot of goodwill - be construed as a means of
getting the people to open up debates, which would lead to the truly
democratic principle - mind you: in the sense of "democracy", not in the
sense of "the Democratic Party" - of the people getting involved with
socio-political issues and those issues thus getting resolved, by the voice
of the people, through the politicians and into laws and bills.

On the other hand, I believe the true motive to be that shocking or
upsetting news tends to keep more people watching the screen, either with
disbelief or hoping that the shocking/upsetting news will somehow see a
turnover towards the better. And as such, with more viewers, there's more
income for the network.

It's pure psychology, being abused for the sake of business, as with all
marketing/advertising. It's just business, nothing more, nothing less.

Your mileage may vary, but the above is my experience over here in Europe -
and we all know how the news is being manipulated in China and now also in
Russia again - so I think it'll probably apply to the whole world... :-/

Jim Beard wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Or is it perhaps that you are so far right of Ghengis Khan, that it just
>> seems that way? ;-)
>
> Bear in mind that liberal son Ghengis Khan may
> enjoy great status in China and elsewhere thanks
> to his study of and application of Chinese culture,
> but it was daddy Kublai Khan that founded the empire.
>
> Kublai was no lefty, and not surprisingly when he
> finished his work there were no lefties around to
> interfere with whatever his son might choose to do.

Hmm... I kinda liked *Chaka* Khan... :pp

marksouth wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:02:44 +0000, Jim Beard wrote:
>
>> Bear in mind that liberal son Ghengis Khan may enjoy great status in
>> China and elsewhere thanks to his study of and application of Chinese
>> culture, but it was daddy Kublai Khan that founded the empire.
>
> Generation-ordering-1.2.66: major segfault! Exiting.

Oops! You are correct. I am wrong. Ghengis was the old
man and Kublai his fourth son by his favorite wife, according
to my old copy of the EB.

Now I wonder if a remembered sketch of Gengis Khan studing
Chinese texts was indeed a sketch of Gengis or a misremembered
sketch of Kublai. Now if I could just remember where I saw
the sketch...

Cheers!

jim b.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:20:06 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

>>> A big whooie about nothing but some lazy web design,try user-agent
>>> switcher in Firefox and the Fox site works fine.Only question is why you
>>> want to watch Fox and risk brain damage....

>> I find it more balanced than the Clinton News Network (or any of the other
>> "network" news channels), which all have a distinct left/liberal bias.

> I didn't even know that the Clinton's had their own news network - forgive
> my ignorance if you said that in sarcasm - and I'm actually not familiar
> with Fox News, other than that it's wellknown and big.

They don't really have their own network. It was me substituting
"Clinton" for "Cable", as in "Cable News Network", or CNN. Probably the
biggest and most widely watched cable news broadcast watched over here in
the USA. Most "experts" agree that it is clearly biased to the
left/Liberal side, and Fox News is not so much. Therefore the Libs can
claim that Fox is the "right-wing" news network. In actuality, Fox is
most closely aligned to the center and only appears to be slanted to the
right because *ALL* the other news channels are so obviously left biased.

<snip>

I don't agree with your assessment of *why* the news networks are left
biased... In my opinion, it's because they wish to impose that brand of
politics on the masses, to further the cause of /big-government-is-good/
that they think will help ensure their survival. The same thing happens
on all college campuses, where the Lib-leaning professors all try to
indoctrinate young minds into the socialist/leftist way of thinking while
they are still impressionable. With all these influences, you'd think the
leftists/Libs/Democrats would dominate US politics and policies, but
strangely enough, just the opposite is true. That in itself speaks
volumes about how people's attitudes change as they get a little older and
wiser. It can be quite interesting at times, especially in election
years, and especially *this* election year.

Dan C wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:20:06 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>
> They don't really have their own network. It was me substituting
> "Clinton" for "Cable", as in "Cable News Network", or CNN. Probably the
> biggest and most widely watched cable news broadcast watched over here in
> the USA. Most "experts" agree that it is clearly biased to the
> left/Liberal side, and Fox News is not so much. Therefore the Libs can
> claim that Fox is the "right-wing" news network. In actuality, Fox is
> most closely aligned to the center and only appears to be slanted to the
> right because *ALL* the other news channels are so obviously left biased.


I hear Fox News gets 3 times the viewers as CNN



I do agree with your statements below.
[..]