Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?

[Celia Cyanide]

Poll is coming...Let's decide this once and for all.

[totidem_verbis]

No way. They are the last resource I will check to get news info.

[brokenfingers]

I've never watched Fox News since I don't really watch televison, but I know that their online news is always very dramatic and graphic, almost bordering on yellow journalism.

Everyday as I scroll through the news listings, organized by corp. - I'll see news items, news items, news items, news items -- then all of a sudden, Fox's news items will all be about kids being kidnapped, people killing, shooting, whatever is the most sensational, disgusting news item going on at the time, etc.

It's so prevalent that it stands out when side by side with other news orgs headlines of the hour.

[Jean Marie]

I've never watched Fox News since I don't really watch televison, but I know that their online news is always very dramatic and graphic, almost bordering on yellow journalism.

Everyday as I scroll through the news listings, organized by corp. - I'll see news items, news items, news items, news items -- then all of a sudden, Fox's news items will all be about kids being kidnapped, people killing, shooting, whatever is the most sensational, disgusting news item going on at the time, etc.

It's so prevalent that it stands out when side by side with other news orgs headlines of the hour.
Sadly, between that and Iraq, that more or less is the news, BF. Now and then, there's the feel good stuff, too. Unfortunately, it's not reported enough because I'm guessing it's not interesting, even though I'd love to hear about it.

[brokenfingers]

Her's an example from my homepage right now:

Top News - Associated Press Oct 9, 1:08 pm ET

• 2 Iraqi Women Killed by Convoy Guards

• 7 Bodies Found After Wash. Plane Crash

• Physics Nobel Goes to German, Frenchman

• Court Rejects Alleged CIA Kidnap Victim

• Turkey Prepares for Operation in Iraq

• Coors, Miller to Combine Operations


Top News - NY Times Oct 9, 12:39 pm ET

• Supreme Court Won’t Hear Torture Appeal

• Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers

• Ever a Class Act, Yankees’ Torre Faces Final Curtain

• Iraq Says Security Firm Kills 2 Women

• A Quest for Energy in the Globe’s Remote Places

• Miller and Molson Coors to Merge in U.S.


National News - FOX News Oct 9, 12:49 pm ET

• Students Try to Set Twister Record With 180 Game Mats

• Report: YouTube Video Shows Violent Middle-School Girl Fight

• Delaware Teen Accused of Raping Girl, 2

• Police: Wisconsin Shooter Never Had Psychological Evaluation

• Philadelphia Police Kill Teen Wielding Clothes Iron

• High Court Reinstates Death Sentence in Neo-Nazi Case


Top News - MSNBC Oct 9, 1:10 pm ET

• Leak severs link to al-Qaida’s secrets

• No survivors in Wash. plane crash

• Court nixes CIA torture lawsuit

• Turkey may send troops into Iraq

• Iraq officials want Blackwater out

• N.J. lawmaker wants missing mayor out


National News - Associated Press Oct 9, 1:51 pm ET

• No Survivors Likely in Wash. Plane Crash
• Police: 2 Dead, 2 Wounded at Tire Shop
• Man Pleads Guilty to 2nd Kidnapping
• Argument Led to Wis. Deputy's Rampage
• NJ Councilman Wants Missing Mayor Booted
• 4th Arrest in Football Player's Death


Notice a difference in the caliber of news articles between the news organizations? Though I have to say that at this particular moment in time it isn't as bad as other days.

[tourdeforce]

Positive Fox News stories:



National News - FOX News Oct 9, 12:52 pm ET

• President Bush makes millions of US children eligible for private healthcare insurance

• Average homes prices declining giving poor a better shot at ownership

• Presidential candidate Fred Thompson still not dead yet

• Hillary Clinton widens lead among Democratic hopefuls

[TheGaffer]

Positive Fox News stories:



National News - FOX News Oct 9, 12:52 pm ET

• President Bush makes millions of US children eligible for private healthcare insurance

• Average homes prices declining giving poor a better shot at ownership

• Presidential candidate Fred Thompson still not dead yet

• Hillary Clinton widens lead among Democratic hopefuls


The first of those 4 seems to reflect some kind of bias -- but I'm going on headlines alone here. I mean, his most recent act was to veto the Dem/GOP bipartisan S-CHIP bill, so to spin it as a Bush-positive thing seems weird. But then again, I don't know the article angle (and I can't find it on the Web site.)

The third and fourth are pretty much boilerplate political headlines.


It's the 2nd one that has me going.

Lower housing prices would, theoretically, give the poor a better shot at ownership, but mortgage rates have increased, particularly for those who have little to no credit history, poor credit, lots of debt and the like, and the creative financing that many used won't be accessible any more -- and if it is, it's mostly being utilized by the types who have onerous mortgages that need to be restructured, and the banks are trying to work with that so they don't have to foreclose on millions of people (thus giving them oodles of housing inventory they're not going to want to hold onto).

So it's a very strange spin -- and again, I'm judging from the headline only.

[rugcat]

Positive Fox News stories:National News - FOX News Oct 9, 12:52 pm ET

• President Bush makes millions of US children eligible for private healthcare insurance

• Average homes prices declining giving poor a better shot at ownership

Great spin on these two. And speaking of great economic news, imagine the possibilities inherent in another Depression.

• Presidential candidate Fred Thompson still not dead yetUnlike Generalissimo Francisco Franco.

• Hillary Clinton widens lead among Democratic hopefulsThey still think they can beat her.

[William Haskins]

fox news is certainly biased. it's a product of the 24 hour news cycle and the capacity for cable to cater to niche markets. real or imagined, the notion of liberal bias at the big 3 (and subsequently cnn once the era of cable dawned), caused a large number of americans to feel that the news was slanted to the left.

murdoch observed this and made a brilliant marketing move; namely, to launch a network that would appeal to these 'dispossessed' viewers. and it worked like gangbusters, as their ratings show.

that said, two of fox's most conservative (and most hated by the left) commentators, bill o'reilly and sean hannity, actually present more balanced programs than does keith olbermann.

they may talk down to, shout down, or otherwise bully, their guests, but they do include dissenting viewpoints.

i challenge anyone to watch 'countdown' for a week (i'll watch, too) and note a single appearance by any guest who engages olbermann in debate. it simply doesn't happen.

bias is alive and well in every newspaper, radio station and television network in america. it's called the marketplace of ideas and free speech.

those who would advocate regulating the ideas or underlying philosophies that drive media outlets are not only wrong, they're lazy.

[blacbird]

I've never watched Fox News since I don't really watch televison, but I know that their online news is always very dramatic and graphic, almost bordering on yellow journalism.

Outside the political opinion debate (which is little but a rehash of many other threads that have appeared here), this is a good observation. In his attitude about "news", Rupert Murdoch is a lineal descendant of William Randolph Hearst. He's all about ratings and financial success, and his various forays into "news" media are about entertainment at the lowest common denominator. Pay close attention now that he controls the Wall Street Journal. Any day now we'll have those one of those famous artsy drawings they substitute for photos showing Paris Hilton topless.

caw

[benbradley]

My opinion is that EVERYTHING is biased, and Fox News has such a different spin on things than do most other news outlets that it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is all done by humans.

When I want to see news I just click on CNN (my homepage link to http://cnn.com), which is regrettable because it's too easy to rely on one source rather than getting lots of other opinions like I "know" I should. I have several news links on my homepage, but I'm missing foxnews (I have newsmax, which appears roughly equivalent) and the Christian Science Monitor, for two.

With today's Internet access, it's easy to read just about ANY worldwide news source, such as http://bbc.co.uk - one can even read many foreign-language sources if you know the language or can put up with machine translations such as Babelfish.

Just imagine a few decades ago, the bizarre thoiught of being able to select a TV news program based on one's political views...
The first of those 4 seems to reflect some kind of bias -- but I'm going on headlines alone here. I mean, his most recent act was to veto the Dem/GOP bipartisan S-CHIP bill, so to spin it as a Bush-positive thing seems weird. But then again, I don't know the article angle (and I can't find it on the Web site.)
I'm wondering if the story is that he approved funding of the old SCHIP program for the next month or two (ETA: or was it just the Congress that did this??? I don't even want to try to go find out, there's too much BS and non-coverage on all the details, just on THIS one issue!), which may be technically true, but results in this misleading headline.

The third and fourth are pretty much boilerplate political headlines.


It's the 2nd one that has me going.

Lower housing prices would, theoretically, give the poor a better shot at ownership, but mortgage rates have increased, particularly for those who have little to no credit history, poor credit, lots of debt and the like, and the creative financing that many used won't be accessible any more -- and if it is, it's mostly being utilized by the types who have onerous mortgages that need to be restructured, and the banks are trying to work with that so they don't have to foreclose on millions of people (thus giving them oodles of housing inventory they're not going to want to hold onto).

So it's a very strange spin -- and again, I'm judging from the headline only.
While IMHO the headline may well be the result of policical bias, I hesitate to jump to the conclusion that it's ALWAYS so. Sometimes it's about ignorance (yes, it's possible the writer thought the first logical thing, lower housing prices gives the poor a better chance at home ownership, without the first thought of other economic factors that would contribute. My guess is the poor had a much better chance a few years ago when all the 'marginal' finance money was so available - the price doesn't matter if you can't get the loan).

I just CRINGE when I see some headlines, usually technical blunders involving science/engineering/space reporting, and then sometimes I remember to do a screensave... Here's one that made me cringe, perhaps better suited to the Science forum:
http://frontiernet.net/~benbradley/cnnorbit.jpg (http://frontiernet.net/%7Ebenbradley/cnnorbit.jpg)

[benbradley]

...
that said, two of fox's most conservative (and most hated by the left) commentators, bill o'reilly and sean hannity, actually present more balanced programs than does keith olbermann.

they may talk down to, shout down, or otherwise bully, their guests, but they do include dissenting viewpoints.
Hannity is an interesting case, he's definitely conservative but appears rather respectful of opposing view on his TV show "Hannity and Combs" but he pulls out all the stops on his radio show, REALLY shouting down and bullying opposing callers (and his few non-conservative guests). This observation is based on my few viewings of "Hannity and Combs" a few years ago, perhaps it's changed since then.
...
bias is alive and well in every newspaper, radio station
Speaking of radio stations, I recall when EVERY radio station, even the Top 40 music stations, was required to have some news. I can't remember when this stoppped, perhaps late '60's?
and television network in america. it's called the marketplace of ideas and free speech.

those who would advocate regulating the ideas or underlying philosophies that drive media outlets are not only wrong, they're lazy.
Here, here! Or is that Hear, hear...

[Joe270]

Speaking of radio stations, I recall when EVERY radio station, even the Top 40 music stations, was required to have some news. I can't remember when this stoppped, perhaps late '60's?

Wow, the FCC did something right?

I never, ever listen to news on the radio. I listen to music, Rock and Roll. I never listen to any talk radio.

Around Vegas, I gotta deal with enough assholes on the road without listening to one inside my car.

[William Haskins]

the rock stations in austin run news updates at the top and bottom of each hour.

along with about 12 minutes of fucking commercials.

the worst is when you have to sit through "drive time with tony" and his 4th grade-level analysis of the day's events.

[rugcat]

fthat said, two of fox's most conservative (and most hated by the left) commentators, bill o'reilly and sean hannity, actually present more balanced programs than does keith olbermann.

they may talk down to, shout down, or otherwise bully, their guests, but they do include dissenting viewpoints.

i challenge anyone to watch 'countdown' for a week (i'll watch, too) and note a single appearance by any guest who engages olbermann in debate. it simply doesn't happen.A very good point, but there is a huge difference. I happen to like Olbermann and despise the other two.

[William Haskins]

is it the quivering chin when he plays that tired-ass "have you no shame, sir?" line?

[rugcat]

I've always been a sucker for good chin action.

[InfinityGoddess]

that said, two of fox's most conservative (and most hated by the left) commentators, bill o'reilly and sean hannity, actually present more balanced programs than does keith olbermann.

:roll:
That's a good one, William. Because, as everyone knows, having a pseudo-liberal like Colmes = "fair and balanced". Or even stacking one liberal verses two conservatives. Yeah...soooo balanced.


i challenge anyone to watch 'countdown' for a week (i'll watch, too) and note a single appearance by any guest who engages olbermann in debate. it simply doesn't happen.

His show is a news program, not a debate program. You want debates, you can go watch Tweety's Hardball show or even Dan Abrams. Yeah, he takes jabs at conservatives on his show, but that's only for critical and extra entertainment value. I happen to love the "Worst Persons" segment; it's always good for a laugh.

[robeiae]

Notice a difference in the caliber of news articles between the news organizations? Though I have to say that at this particular moment in time it isn't as bad as other days.
I read you like a book, BF. Face it, you're just pissed that the beer story isn't in the top tier of the cable news sites.

[William Haskins]

His show is a news program, not a debate program.

it's not a news program. it's an hour of tabloid-style editorializing. most kindly, it could be called "commentary".

it is in no way a straight news program.

[robeiae]

it is in no way a straight news program.

**comment deleted**

[TheGaffer]

fox news is certainly biased. it's a product of the 24 hour news cycle and the capacity for cable to cater to niche markets. real or imagined, the notion of liberal bias at the big 3 (and subsequently cnn once the era of cable dawned), caused a large number of americans to feel that the news was slanted to the left.

murdoch observed this and made a brilliant marketing move; namely, to launch a network that would appeal to these 'dispossessed' viewers. and it worked like gangbusters, as their ratings show.

that said, two of fox's most conservative (and most hated by the left) commentators, bill o'reilly and sean hannity, actually present more balanced programs than does keith olbermann.

they may talk down to, shout down, or otherwise bully, their guests, but they do include dissenting viewpoints.

i challenge anyone to watch 'countdown' for a week (i'll watch, too) and note a single appearance by any guest who engages olbermann in debate. it simply doesn't happen.

bias is alive and well in every newspaper, radio station and television network in america. it's called the marketplace of ideas and free speech.

those who would advocate regulating the ideas or underlying philosophies that drive media outlets are not only wrong, they're lazy.


Hannity is in there by default, man. The reason his program is even slightly "balanced" is because he co-hosts with Alan Colmes, although Al Franken is probably correct when he types his name in a smaller font size. On the radio, he's pretty much shouting down all those who disagree.

Bill O'Reilly -- who lives in a strange world of his own, regardless of any of his politicial views (the world where no matter what the argument was, he came out on top, he rules, he's the best blah blah blah) -- indeed does have dissenting viewpoints on. In fact, his best moment was when he interviewed Michael Moore, and the two of them went at it pretty well. (Bill O does still play the wounded spaniel act too much when others interview him on other shows, most notably Terry Gross on NPR.)

If there is one thing wrong with Olbermann's show, it is that he does not present ongoing debate -- he reports on topics, gives his opinion and there it is. Haskins is right to characterize it as commentary, which is what it is. His position, to me, is important: there are very few in the news media (or TV, anyway) that advocate positions he does as strongly as he does. For the last few years the punditocracy seems to have been dominated by guys telling me I'm a bad American or a terrorist. It's part of the reason I appreciate Keith.

But yes - Olbermann does not give the other side a lot of air time, even if he were to spend it grilling them. (During politicial debates that he hosts with Chris Matthews, he's pretty measured, actually).

As for real/imagined liberal bias, I understand where you're coming from. But permit me to say - and you can tell me what you think - that as much as other networks have seemed to cater to more conservative viewpoints over the last few years, the hard-right contingent would accuse them of bias NO MATTER WHAT they did. And to cave to that, to me, is what really smacks of moral and journalistic cowardice.

[InfinityGoddess]

it's not a news program. it's an hour of tabloid-style editorializing. most kindly, it could be called "commentary".

it is in no way a straight news program.

It only gets "tabloidish" towards the end. Which is good because I can skip that part. The first three or four stories tend to be the serious news stuff with occasional breaks with the Oddball segment.

[William Haskins]

he editorializes from the opening sequence, IG. it's not news.

i'm not going to argue the nuance with you. gaffer stated it well.

[InfinityGoddess]

he editorializes from the opening sequence, IG. it's not news.

i'm not going to argue the nuance with you. gaffer stated it well.

To some it is, to some it isn't. Either way, I feel I get more information than if I were to watch anyone else in the corporate media.

[robeiae]

To some it is, to some it isn't. Either way, I feel I get more information than if I were to watch anyone else in the corporate media.
So in your mind, "news" is a subjective label that you apply to things that make you feel a certain way?

I suggest you take a careful look at how you decide what is news, as I think it reflects a process that also evidences itself when you decide what is fact and what is not.

[William Haskins]

To some it is, to some it isn't. Either way, I feel I get more information than if I were to watch anyone else in the corporate media.

let's be very clear. if you get to own the definition of a word (which runs counter to the function of language, but whatever), then i will accept that olbermann's program is "news".

however, you have now lost any leverage to declare fox news biased. that means any of your stupid nicknames for them, any contentions that they misrepresent themselves are rendered moot.

you can have it your way, even if it's the batshit crazy way. but you can't have it both ways.

p.s. yeah... msnbc > nbc > GE...

no corporate involvement there.

[ColoradoGuy]

I watch Olbermann, of course. It's really kind of like a pep rally. But it's really all opinion, what people are saying. I mean, each show opens with "which of these top stories will you be talking about tomorrow?" I don't think it's intended to look like anything other than what it is. His niche is that, several times, he has forcefully (and unfortunately too self-righteously) said what a lot of us lefties wanted Congress to be saying. So he filled the vacuum.

The interesting thing is that MSNBC extended Olbermann's contract and both MSNBC and NBC are giving him more splash--debate moderator, on football halftime (he started out and in many ways remains a sportscaster). I assume this is because advertisers have identified a growing market for what Olbermann provides. This strikes me as a good thing. As Gaffer says, it is interesting that Olbermann was more straight-up and dignified when moderating the debate for a national audience.

[InfinityGoddess]

So in your mind, "news" is a subjective label that you apply to things that make you feel a certain way?

I suggest you take a careful look at how you decide what is news, as I think it reflects a process that also evidences itself when you decide what is fact and what is not.

"News" should not include gratuitous "fluff" stories about which celeb is doing whom, which famous woman is pregnant, or other personal stuff in the private lives of the famous. I want to be informed about my government and my world. Not Brittany Spears, because I.Do.Not.Care.About.Her.Or.Other.Celebrity.Private .Lives.

I want news that tells me what I want to hear, and not what Big Media thinks they want me to hear. Brittany Spears = Not News. Congress fixing FISA and Blackwater's dirty deals = News.

[William Haskins]

so if news is not a paradigm of "commentary vs. reporting" but rather "serious vs. non-serious", then you cannot call olbermann news and not call his analogues on the right the same.

[robeiae]

1) I want to be informed about my government and my world.

2) I want news that tells me what I want to hear, and not what Big Media thinks they want me to hear.Think.

[ColoradoGuy]

"
I want news that tells me what I want to hear, and not what Big Media thinks they want me to hear.
Um . . . but what if what's really going on is not what you want to hear?

[InfinityGoddess]

so if news is not a paradigm of "commentary vs. reporting" but rather "serious vs. non-serious", then you cannot call olbermann news and not call his analogues on the right the same.

Olbermann reports on the goings on in the government and the occupation in Iraq, as well as the election stuff. He does do the "fluff", but he saves it to the end, see, so's I can skip if I want.

That, and I like being entertained with Oddball and Worst Persons. Helps me unwind after a long day.

Um . . . but what if what's really going on is not what you want to hear?

It's never what I want to hear, per se, more like stuff I feel I have to hear.

[William Haskins]

you should probably save yourself the pain and go ahead and flip through the excuse rolodex.

you're embarrassing yourself even more than usual today.

[InfinityGoddess]

you should probably save yourself the pain and go ahead and flip through the excuse rolodex.

you're embarrassing yourself even more than usual today.

You only think I'm embarrassing myself. No, I don't like hearing about the wussy Democrats caving on something, or the Shrub's latest skirt of the law, but it's necessary for me to know and be informed. It's what I want to hear, but don't want to hear, but have to hear anyways.

It gets confusing, but I'm sure you get the picture.

[William Haskins]

I'm sure you get the picture.

indeed i do.

[ColoradoGuy]

Of course it's only recently--say in the past seventy-five years or so--that journalism has made any pretension at all of being impartial. Maybe we should just quit pretending and go back to those days. The "news" papers during the Jefferson/Adams election of 1800 nearly burst into flames on their own. And Hearst may have started his very own war.

[brokenfingers]

I read you like a book, BF. Face it, you're just pissed that the beer story isn't in the top tier of the cable news sites.Obviously, their journalistic instincts are fatally flawed.

[maestrowork]

If only Fox News is run by the same people who make Family Guy and Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire.

[benbradley]

Wow, the FCC did something right?

I never, ever listen to news on the radio. I listen to music, Rock and Roll. I never listen to any talk radio.

Around Vegas, I gotta deal with enough assholes on the road without listening to one inside my car.

This was long ago, and I only ASSUME that news was an FCC requirement. I do know that radio and TV broadcast licenses do require stations to operate "in the public interest" because broadcast radio and TV are allegedly "the public airwaves" that stations get assigned a particular frequency to transmit on, and the news requirement may have either been an explicit FCC requirement, or broadcasting the news was more generally seen as being in the public interest and thus complying with requirements. I do remember some guy on the pop music station reading the news, and it seems like the bane of his existence, the worst part of his job.

[Tiger]

You only think I'm embarrassing myself.

argh.

No, I don't like hearing about the wussy Democrats caving on something, or the Shrub's latest skirt of the law, but it's necessary for me to know and be informed.

Show me a story, calling itself news, that calls any political party "wussy."

It's what I want to hear, but don't want to hear, but have to hear anyways.

This sentence needs to be taken out and shot. If the world does indeed revolve around you, then, sure, what you want is "news" and what anybody else wants is not.

It gets confusing, but I'm sure you get the picture.

If he does, he's even more twisted than I thought.

[InfinityGoddess]

Show me a story, calling itself news, that calls any political party "wussy."

*I* called the Dems "wussy". Not from any news source.


This sentence needs to be taken out and shot. If the world does indeed revolve around you, then, sure, what you want is "news" and what anybody else wants is not.

I never said the world should revolve around me. I said I don't want the infotainment crap that news organizations like to pass off as "news". That stuff belongs on Entertainment Tonight or Extra. Not on the evening news.

[Joe270]

Another train wreck.

I gotta buy some AWP&CE scrap metal stock.

[Jean Marie]

I gotta buy some AWP&CE scrap metal stock.
Mac's gonna be selling some, shortly, out of each thread to raise more money for AW.

Look for it in the auction thread run by OFG.

[Bartholomew]

Fox is neither fair nor balanced.

That doesn't make the other news networks out there any better. I think it's good that the right and left wing have mediums from which they can present their angle on the news. I think, however, that it is shameful when they---any network---presents their angle, editorializes, and then claims a neutral viewpoint.

[Azraelsbane]

Pff, all this talk of Fox and Olbermann. Who cares? So it's skewed one way or another. Yes, I understand the way the world works. Everything is biased.

Anderson Cooper is the way to go. No matter what shit he's flinging around, at least I get to look into those pretty eyes. :LilLove:

[Jean Marie]

Pff, all this talk of Fox and Olbermann. Who cares? So it's skewed one way or another. Yes, I understand the way the world works. Everything is biased.

Anderson Cooper is the way to go. No matter what shit he's flinging around, at least I get to look into those pretty eyes. :LilLove:
See, that's biased, too :D

[Azraelsbane]

See, that's biased, too :D

I accept that. :D

[Jean Marie]

I accept that. :D
Acceptance is the 1st step...you're well on your way.

Carry on, then :)

[oswann]

I don't want to get in the way of IG driving herself into Haskins' wall but in France all the media is biased. Without exception. And everyone knows it. Le Figaro is right, Le Croix is Christian right (more or less), Le Monde is centre left, Liberation is left, Humanité is communist...etc. etc. Everyone gets the same stories with political tilts on them if you like it or not. It's all serious (in reponse to some waffle about where the line of serious or not is) but all with an agenda.

Os.

[seun]

Watching Fox News here in the UK is always worth a laugh. Why is it that at whatever time of day or whatever day I turn it on, the news story is always about the States? Do they not realise news happens elsewhere?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Watching Fox News here in the UK is always worth a laugh. Why is it that at whatever time of day or whatever day I turn it on, the news story is always about the States? Do they not realise news happens elsewhere?
No, you're not their demographic.

[tourdeforce]

Watching Fox News here in the UK is always worth a laugh. Why is it that at whatever time of day or whatever day I turn it on, the news story is always about the States? Do they not realise news happens elsewhere?


Give Fox a call when Paul McCartney dies or Prince Charles gets caught blowing his butler again and they will be all over it.

Other than that or the next potato famine, you will have to settle for "Terror in the Heartland" reports and sweeps week exposes on porn.

[seun]

Give Fox a call when Paul McCartney dies or Prince Charles gets caught blowing his butler again and they will be all over it.

Thanks for the mental picture of Charles noshing his butler. :cry: