NationStates Jolt Archive

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

A little from column A ... a little from cloumn B ...

I tend to look at it as the right-wing "Daily Show".

I tend to look at it as the right-wing "Daily Show".
That seems like toruble. The Daily SHow is satire... it is a comedy show (and the most worthwhile thing on TV). It never claims to be unbiased news, which is exactly what FoxNews claims to be.

That seems like toruble. The Daily SHow is satire... it is a comedy show (and the most worthwhile thing on TV). It never claims to be unbiased news, which is exactly what FoxNews claims to be.

That's why it's so hilarious. If you have to claim you're unbiased, then you clearly aren't.

It actually does surprise me that anyone takes Fox News seriously, just as it would surprise me that anyone took the Daily Show seriously. Hence the comparison.

I find the absurdity amusing and the fact that some believe it terrifying.

I see what you mean.

But it is my impression that hundreds if not thousands of americans DO take Fox News seriously.

Is this true?

If so, who are these people? what is wrong with them?

But it is my impression that hundreds if not thousands of americans DO take Fox News seriously.

Well, yeah, but when you're in a country of 300+ million people, you tend not to worry about a few thousand idiots.

If so, who are these people? what is wrong with them?

It's what happens when you drink bacon grease milkshakes all day long. They're the same people who went to see "The Passion of the Christ" and forgot that it was just a movie - with a stupid plot, I might add. They're the same people who sent money to that TV Evangelist who said that a 900 ft. tall Jesus told him to collect a million dollars or he would die.

In short ... America's finest.

Perhaps a few thousand is an understatement.

Doesn't Fox claim to be America's most watched new network? Is there any truth to that?

Doesn't Fox claim to be America's most watched new network? Is there any truth to that?

Well ... I take any self-promotion with a grain of salt.

It is possible, but then again the numbers may include the millions who tune in just to have a chuckle. For truly fair and balanced news and entertainment from the US, listen to NPR (National Public Radio) via the internet.

http://www.npr.org/

The reason so many people watch Fox News is because it's less intelligent than other news stations. That isn't to say that Americans are stupid, it's just that some people don't like to think when they watch the news - they might not think of it like this, but they want their opinion decided for them and fed to them in bright shiny chunks by a photogenic presenter. It's the same reason so many people in the UK read the tabloid newspapers rather than the broadsheets - they don't want to read huge blocks of text, they want to know the flashy parts of the story - they don't want to know the politics of the Iraq situation, they just want to see a few pictures of an explosion and a bit of gung-ho in the morning with their toast and cornflakes.

Critical analysis is something that seems to fall by the wayside when watching TV, and I think that's part of it, too, but I think it's mostly down to people wanting to know the world events without thinking about them - so they get an opinion fed to them amidst bright lights and shiny surfaces. The opinion has to be tilted far to the right so people are left in no doubt that them darn A-Rabs are in the wrong - anything else might instigate a thought process, and that might just put them off their dinner.

(That's not to say all Americans aren't stupid though - you must have your own collection of morons - after all, enough people here consider the Daily Star real news, and we're a titchy)

That seems like toruble. The Daily SHow is satire... it is a comedy show (and the most worthwhile thing on TV). It never claims to be unbiased news, which is exactly what FoxNews claims to be.

And even Jon Stewart is somewhat of a moderate.

I remember when Michael Moore was the guest and he was saying "ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL". Meanwhile you can tell Jon was thinking "your an idiot"

I'm in the UK, and I watch Fox News when i need a laugh, or when friends are round, cus it's great to laugh at. It reminds me how lucky we are to have the BBC in the UK, even ITV News isn't as much of a panic-monger news station as Fox!

I too actually find the channel amusing. It's so incredibly biased and one-sided, it comes accross as satire.
However, at the same time, it's disturbing, as one must remember this is a serious mainstream news channel in the USA.

I too actually find the channel amusing. It's so incredibly biased and one-sided, it comes accross as satire.
However, at the same time, it's disturbing, as one must remember this is a serious mainstream news channel in the USA.

Where is your biased evidence? Is CNN biased?

Biased cuz they give equal time in interviews?
biased cuz they only report facts?
sorry, y'all are wrong
fox is the best channel out there for news, and any comparisons to the daily show, that's just tripe
i'm moving to the UK soon, and i'm getting satelite, cuz its 20x better than the BBC, a channel w/ government ties.
and yes, fox IS the most watched new network
poor CNN can't keep up
CNN = Clinton News Network

Biased cuz they give equal time in interviews?
biased cuz they only report facts?
sorry, y'all are wrong
fox is the best channel out there for news, and any comparisons to the daily show, that's just tripe
i'm moving to the UK soon, and i'm getting satelite, cuz its 20x better than the BBC, a channel w/ government ties.
and yes, fox IS the most watched new network
poor CNN can't keep up
CNN = Clinton News Network
How is it better then BBC. try not to flame him people ;)

How is it better then BBC. try not to flame him people ;)

Because whereas the BBC is granted a charter by successive governments from all parties to collect its own money from the UK population through the license fee (which Objectivism will have to pay if s/he wants to own a TV in the UK), Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man who makes substantial political donations, nearly all of them to Republicans. Since the BBC has no committed interest in seeing any political party in power, and Rupert Murdoch does, then obviously the BBC is biased and Murdoch's Fox News isn't.

No, wait, that's not quite right.

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. He has a long-standing record of editorial interference in his numerous news outlets to push various political and business agendas. The BBC is exempt from direct governmental interference and attracts as much criticism from the Right as from the Left. So obviously the BBC is biased and Murdoch's Fox News isn't.

No, that's not right either.

The BBC is internationally reknowned as a source of (generally speaking) reliable and unbiased news reporting. Fox News is internationally reknowned as an unashamed cheerleader for the American Right. Murdoch dropped the BBC from his satellite broadcasting into China because the Chinese government didn't want their people to have access to unbiased reporting, and Rupert didn't care because he's only interested in his own bank balance. So obviously the BBC is biased and Murdoch's Fox News isn't.

Er...

Where is your biased evidence? Is CNN biased?

Just watch it! You will soon see.
I would say that CNN is marginally biased towards the right-wing, like most American television news. But, Fox News is so one-sided towards the extreme right, it's credibility is nil to most non-Americans (and I hope, and would imagine, to many Americans also) that it's actually amusing to watch.

I think the funniest its how simply mentioning "Fox News" seems to send liberals and assorted others into violent spasms as they whip out excuse to try and bash it. Its almost as bad as some of the things they'll reach to to bash Bush. Funniest thing in this thread in particular, though, was the "Fox News is biased, listen to NPR" bit.

Just watch it! You will soon see.
I would say that CNN is marginally biased towards the right-wing, like most American television news. But, Fox News is so one-sided towards the extreme right, it's credibility is nil to most non-Americans (and I hope, and would imagine, to many Americans also) that it's actually amusing to watch.

I DO watch Fox News. Name me ONE biased REPORT! You can't! People have tried and have failed. There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between REPORTING and COMMENTARY. Reporting isn't biased but the Commentary can be.

CNN Though does have Biased Reporting. I've seen it. How the broadcasted the Iraq War made us look like the bad guys. They also blew up Abu Grahb into what mounted to be something ordered by the Administration where it was not. Fox News broadcasted the war (Fairly from both sides), and Abu Grahb but did not impicate the administration like CNN did.

Biased reporting? Think again!

As for CNN! It is biased towards the LEFT not the RIGHT!

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

The problem is that they have other stuff too, like Foxsportsnet and FoxKids that are their own creations. CNN does just news, ABC is big enough that they have a 'Just News' department, CBS plays sitcoms, but they too are big enough to have a just news department. NBC is huge. You catch my drift. Foxnews seems to always be a step behind. Oh yeah, Comedy Central has the Daily Show, (I take it everyone loves that)

The problem is that they have other stuff too, like Foxsportsnet and FoxKids that are their own creations. CNN does just news, ABC is big enough that they have a 'Just News' department, CBS plays sitcoms, but they too are big enough to have a just news department. NBC is huge. You catch my drift. Foxnews seems to always be a step behind. Oh yeah, Comedy Central has the Daily Show, (I take it everyone loves that)

Watch Dennis Miller on CNBC sometimes! I like to watch that show (9:00 ET CNBC)

Here's something else, if Fox News is a step behind everyone else, then why is Fox News #1 with half the markets of CNN and the rest?

Fox is just a little bit leaning to the conservative side but all the other ones are SUPER LIBERAL.

Though Fox News does have the largest cable news viewership, keep in mind that number is comparatively small.

And I take heart in the fact that All Things Considered, on NPR, has a substantially larger daily listenership than any cable news channel's viewership.

Certainly there are forces within the U.S. that are attempting to push the country into a new Gilded Age, but this, too, shall pass. (The sooner the better, though.)

I DO watch Fox News. Name me ONE biased REPORT! You can't! People have tried and have failed. There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between REPORTING and COMMENTARY. Reporting isn't biased but the Commentary can be.

CNN Though does have Biased Reporting. I've seen it. How the broadcasted the Iraq War made us look like the bad guys. They also blew up Abu Grahb into what mounted to be something ordered by the Administration where it was not. Fox News broadcasted the war (Fairly from both sides), and Abu Grahb but did not impicate the administration like CNN did.

Biased reporting? Think again!

As for CNN! It is biased towards the LEFT not the RIGHT!

I believe the television regulator in the UK recently upheld a complaint against Fox News for a biased report claiming that the BBC was an anti-American organisation etc. Of course, you are right, it's hard to proove, as I can't put a video-tape on here! But, if any fair minded person simply tunes their television set to the channel, they will see.

Yes, I agree CNN does have biased reporting (eg very pro-American during the war in Iraq) but by the standards of European and world media, this is to the right - certainly not to the left.

At the end of the day, I agree in part regarding your bit about commentary. The fact is, that when one watches the Fox News channel it appears to consist far more of right-wing commentary than anything else. How, therefore, it can claim to be a news channel, yet alone a news channel that is balanced and fair is beyond me. The degree of editorialising of stories (ie promoting right-wing opinions) is generally banned for tv news in Europe - ie, news programmes are expected to report from a fair, neutral perspective. Strong editorial opinions are left generally for the printed media.

Just watch it! You will soon see.
I would say that CNN is marginally biased towards the right-wing, like most American television news. But, Fox News is so one-sided towards the extreme right, it's credibility is nil to most non-Americans (and I hope, and would imagine, to many Americans also) that it's actually amusing to watch.

Fox is just a little bit leaning to the conservative side but all the other ones are SUPER LIBERAL.
These quotes show that we can't decide because we're biased. An extreme conservative like Enodscopia will say that everyone except Fox has a pro-liberal bias. And similarly, a liberal like Borgoa will say that Fox is sup[er conservative, and even say that CNN is a bit conservative.

We can't make certain pronouncements on who is biased and who is not.

These quotes show that we can't decide because we're biased. An extreme conservative like Enodscopia will say that everyone except Fox has a pro-liberal bias. And similarly, a liberal like Borgoa will say that Fox is sup[er conservative, and even say that CNN is a bit conservative.

We can't make certain pronouncements on who is biased and who is not.

Whilst I can see what you are saying, but I don't get the impression from most of European television news channels or news programmes on national and commercial channels that they are either biased towards the right or left. IE, if I watch the news on BBC World or the main news on SVT or TV4 (Swedish TV channels), I don't come away from the experience thinking "goodness, that was biased". Likewise, the news on Finnish tv (YLE's Swedish-language news), Norwegian (NRK) and German (DW-tv) tv doesn't come across as biased either to me. They generally all seem to be as fair and balanced as is possible.

Biased cuz they give equal time in interviews?
biased cuz they only report facts?
sorry, y'all are wrong
fox is the best channel out there for news, and any comparisons to the daily show, that's just tripe
i'm moving to the UK soon, and i'm getting satelite, cuz its 20x better than the BBC, a channel w/ government ties.
and yes, fox IS the most watched new network
poor CNN can't keep up
CNN = Clinton News Network


I'm going to list the reasons I feel your opinion is totally invalid

cuz
cuz
y'all
i'm
i'm
20x
w/

Whilst I can see what you are saying, but I don't get the impression from most of European television news channels or news programmes on national and commercial channels that they are either biased towards the right or left. IE, if I watch the news on BBC World or the main news on SVT or TV4 (Swedish TV channels), I don't come away from the experience thinking "goodness, that was biased". Likewise, the news on Finnish tv (YLE's Swedish-language news), Norwegian (NRK) and German (DW-tv) tv doesn't come across as biased either to me. They generally all seem to be as fair and balanced as is possible.
Thats how a bunch of people come off thinking about CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or many American news channels. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who take it as a given that the BBC was biased against the Iraq War. )(I don't want to start a discussion about it, just using it as an example).

Thats how a bunch of people come off thinking about CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or many American news channels. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who take it as a given that the BBC was biased against the Iraq War. )(I don't want to start a discussion about it, just using it as an example).

Sorry to risk starting a discussion :)
But, an English university actually did a study of all of the BBC's Iraq war coverage, and (this suprised me as well, I thought there coverage was pretty fair and balanced) came out with the conclusion it was actually marginally more favourable to the the USA and UK. IE, their were more interviews/quotes/soundbites backing up American and British viewpoints than others.
Overall, as a viewer of BBC World, I thought the BBC was pretty fair (oh dear, does this mean I AM biased towards the American govt view on Iraq? ;) )

Fox "News" is biased in what they cover and how they cover it. When 9/11 happened, Fox News was a news channel without a single reporter - they reported other people's news and shouted about it. Geraldo was their first reporter, and a stellar choice that was.

http://www.fair.org/reports/fox.html

If you think that FAIR is biased and you want to read Fox's slant from the vulpine's mouth, check out the Fox news memos http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fox-news-memos-the-whole-batch-017613.php

The real proof that Fox is biased is that people who watch it believe wrong things. Not just wrong-headed things, like Bush is a nice guy or that Kerry is a flip-flopper, but actually provably wrong things, like Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

http://mediamatters.org/static/special/poll-200405.pdf

Edit - wrong poll link, oops. http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/media.html - from http://www.pipa.org/

Sorry to risk starting a discussion :)
But, an English university actually did a study of all of the BBC's Iraq war coverage, and (this suprised me as well, I thought there coverage was pretty fair and balanced) came out with the conclusion it was actually marginally more favourable to the the USA and UK. IE, their were more interviews/quotes/soundbites backing up American and British viewpoints than others.
Overall, as a viewer of BBC World, I thought the BBC was pretty fair (oh dear, does this mean I AM biased towards the American govt view on Iraq? ;) )
There are plenty of studies to back it up either way, just like one could point to Fox News having more democratic panelists on its shows regularly than say CNN and going "Clearly FOX is more liberal than CNN". There's no one standard, which is a product of the fact that its all relative to your viewpoint.

There are plenty of studies to back it up either way

Money. Mouth. Put.

Fetch me a study that says that Fox is more liberal than CNN. (Even with CNN trying to be more Fox-like.) (edit - bonus points if you find one that mentions that Fox's democratic news guests are usually Lieberman and Miller.)

Money. Mouth. Put.

Fetch me a study that says that Fox is more liberal than CNN. (Even with CNN trying to be more Fox-like.)
No I was talking about the BBC being anti-war or pro-war. You can find plenty of support either way.

I can safley say that, WHo care? If you don't like it don't watch it. that simple. Now stop complaining.

No I was talking about the BBC being anti-war or pro-war. You can find plenty of support either way.

Ah, my confusion, sorry. That is true, and that might indicate that it was actually pretty unbiased...

Hilarious joke or disgusting outrage?

Both.

Hilarious joke or disgusting outrage?

Both.
hilarioucly disgusting outrage joke!

I believe the television regulator in the UK recently upheld a complaint against Fox News for a biased report claiming that the BBC was an anti-American organisation etc. Of course, you are right, it's hard to proove, as I can't put a video-tape on here! But, if any fair minded person simply tunes their television set to the channel, they will see.

That is Britain! We don't answer to British TV Regulators. We answer to the FCC, Federal Communications Commission! I am a fair minded person. I do watch FNC. I don't believe everything they say but they do report it fairly and from both sides of the coin. I'm sorry if that conflicts with certain Ideologies on here. Also to let you know, the British Royal Navy, PULLED BBC from the air on thier flagship FOR BIASED reporting on the Iraq War.

Yes, I agree CNN does have biased reporting (eg very pro-American during the war in Iraq) but by the standards of European and world media, this is to the right - certainly not to the left.

Here in America, it is to the left and I don't think they were that Pro-American. Probably by European standards it was but here, it really wasn't. And yes I did watch some CNN Coverage of the war and flipped it back to Fox News.

At the end of the day, I agree in part regarding your bit about commentary. The fact is, that when one watches the Fox News channel it appears to consist far more of right-wing commentary than anything else. How, therefore, it can claim to be a news channel, yet alone a news channel that is balanced and fair is beyond me. The degree of editorialising of stories (ie promoting right-wing opinions) is generally banned for tv news in Europe - ie, news programmes are expected to report from a fair, neutral perspective. Strong editorial opinions are left generally for the printed media.

I will not counter your second sentence because that is true. However, they have gotten on the Bush Administration over policy time after time but they don't blame the entire party where as other networks paint the party, not the person, as responsible. It is Fair and Balanced because the Cover BOTH SIDES equally. They give everyone equal time and report the story from both sides. That is why they are fair and balanced.

However, Europe can't have opinions from their commentators. I know that is a fact in Britain which is why the complaint was filed by BBC to the British Regulatory Commission. However, this is an Opinion done at the end of a show that reports the news fairly.

Sorry to risk starting a discussion :)
But, an English university actually did a study of all of the BBC's Iraq war coverage, and (this suprised me as well, I thought there coverage was pretty fair and balanced) came out with the conclusion it was actually marginally more favourable to the the USA and UK. IE, their were more interviews/quotes/soundbites backing up American and British viewpoints than others.
Overall, as a viewer of BBC World, I thought the BBC was pretty fair (oh dear, does this mean I AM biased towards the American govt view on Iraq? ;) )

Then answer this question Borgoa! Why did the flagship of the Royal Navy, pull the plug on BBC? Obviously he thought it was biased against the war.

I can safley say that, WHo care? If you don't like it don't watch it. that simple. Now stop complaining.

The problem is that educated voters are the most vital part of a democracy, and Fox News is not in the business of turning out educated voters, but conditioned ones. They are biased in the viewpoints they show, the slant of their stories, the commentary the newscasters offer ("French, French, French, French, John Kerry is like a French, French" and even the other "news-like" shows Fox offers. Bill O'Reilly, while he does not back the party line on every issue, is an ultraradical who would be just as happy if there was no government. And that piece of crap "equal time" Hannity and Cohlms show does nothing but perpetuate the myth that all liberals are sissy twits, and makes Cohlm look like the biggest idiot ever.

Hell, Fox News probably takes credit for the staggering ~40% of people who still believe that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden collaborated (down from about 70%) despite the fact that the President has personally refuted that possibility!

And add in the fact that the company which owns Fox News also works closely with the Chinese government to make sure that those crazy Chinese don't get too much democratically-slanted coverage which might make them uppity and hard to deal with...

EDIT: The entire "infotainment" industry is a sore on America which should be excised before people what the hell unobjective reporting is.

And, while "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition" have extremely high viewerships, I believe that both are completely eclipsed by Rush Limbaugh's show. Hopefully however I am wrong.

Unfortunately, Fox is pretty popular in the US, especially here in TX. Fox and other even more right-wing news sources have a great gig though. They can report the most far-fetched story they want, like their story that Clinton was a murderer, for example, and if the mainstream media picks up the story, they have a victory against liberals. If the mainstream media doesn't pick it up, like in the Clinton-murderer story, they can claim the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

Then answer this question Borgoa! Why did the flagship of the Royal Navy, pull the plug on BBC? Obviously he thought it was biased against the war.

Actually, if you check on google for the story (and navigate past the right-wing sites spewing this factoid as proof the Beeb was biased), you'll see that it was based on "complaints by the crew". Particularly, whether or not poor maintenance was responsible for the loss of a helicopter.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html?menu=news.wariniraq

They replaced it with Sky News - another Newscorp branch. I don't think this indicates anything other than the BBC was not as pro-war as the Ark Royal crew.

Do you suppose it's possiible that this was a propaganda move, like the original Jessica Lynch story or the pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue?

Another possibility, of course, is that troops in theater want to have their opinions confirmed, and don't really want unbiased news coverage, which might lead them to question whether or not all this death and sacrifice is worth it.

There are plenty of studies to back it up either way, just like one could point to Fox News having more democratic panelists on its shows regularly than say CNN and going "Clearly FOX is more liberal than CNN". There's no one standard, which is a product of the fact that its all relative to your viewpoint.
Uh...with a staff of all but like two guys being hardcore rightists, of course you're going to get democratic panelists. FOX invites democrats on their show and then they don't let them talk. Ever heard Sean Hannity "interview" a democrat? That's not journalism.

However, Europe can't have opinions from their commentators. I know that is a fact in Britain which is why the complaint was filed by BBC to the British Regulatory Commission. However, this is an Opinion done at the end of a show that reports the news fairly.

The problem is that this sort of commentary placed at the end of a news bulletin appears biased, even if it supposed to be an editorial piece.
Unfortunately, many viewers will fail to realise that is an editorial piece, and not news (when, after all, it is on a news channel).
Skepticism makes this point ten times better than I am able to (my English is rubbish on a Sunday!) above.


And yes, of course the the FCC regulates transmission in the USA, but the UK regulatory body 'Ofcom' was ruling on complaints made by British viewers viewing the channel in the UK. Ofcom does have the power to stop a channel broadcasting in the UK or to uphold complaints etc on those channels. Just as, say the Canadian regulators can prevent Fox News from being made avialable in their country.

Then answer this question Borgoa! Why did the flagship of the Royal Navy, pull the plug on BBC? Obviously he thought it was biased against the war.

I really don't know, I didn't know about this. I can only speculate really; perhaps the BBC was reporting the events fairly, and thus was reporting the critisism of the war and arguments against it. Maybe some of the crew were beginning to agree with this and the authorities (needing their sailors to be pro-war, so that they happily fight in it!) didn't wish them to see a neutral perspective, and wanted them to only hear pro-war opinions. But, who knows!

I will not counter your second sentence because that is true. However, they have gotten on the Bush Administration over policy time after time but they don't blame the entire party where as other networks paint the party, not the person, as responsible. It is Fair and Balanced because the Cover BOTH SIDES equally. They give everyone equal time and report the story from both sides. That is why they are fair and balanced.

However, Europe can't have opinions from their commentators. I know that is a fact in Britain which is why the complaint was filed by BBC to the British Regulatory Commission. However, this is an Opinion done at the end of a show that reports the news fairly.

Fox News "covers both sides equally" in the same manner as they gave both sides equal recognition in the Hannity and Colmes Show. That is to say, they say 10 minutes of why conservatives are great and right, and then 10 minutes about how liberals are stupid and weak and wrong. Equal time! Equal coverage! How fair!

Fox News makes NO attempt whatsoever to distinguish the "commentator's opinions" (which evidently are mostly determined by studio execs, and toe the damn line if you want to keep your job) and actual news, and never has. You get news and opinion baked into one nice big cake, instead of having the "information" cake with "opinion" icing.

And if anyone points this bit out, Fox froths at the mouth about the "liberal media" despite the fact that the TV in particular and all American media in general have had a trend, over the past decades, towards conservative slants as more and more news outlets are consolidated into the hands of a few megacompanies.

If the liberal media is so mighty and powerful, why did Al Gore get such Godawful media coverage in every possible form? Why did the media focus more on a misunderstood quote about Gore and the Internet (Gore taking credit for voting to fund ARPANET) and harp about it forever while ignoring little things like trying to make people understand that the government admitted there is no link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Why has the media let Bush's Administration run the most closeted, publicity-unfriendly presidential tenure without nailing them about stuff like the "press conferances" where an "nondisclosed Administration official" mostly doesn't answer questions for 15 minutes?

NPR, the LA Times and perhaps even a majority of national papers have a liberal slant, yes (the Atlanta-Journal Constitution sure as hell does). But TV media has drifted rightward, led by the relentless onslaught of Fox.

All news is biased. Period. The idea that new can be objective is ridiculous...the very stories you choose to cover, and the ones you discard show an inherent bias towards a particular viewpoint. You should be aware of the bias, and then take it into account when you are exposing yourself to any form of news. Even when you are showing different sides of a story, you are just showing different biases.

All news is biased. Period. The idea that new can be objective is ridiculous...the very stories you choose to cover, and the ones you discard show an inherent bias towards a particular viewpoint. You should be aware of the bias, and then take it into account when you are exposing yourself to any form of news. Even when you are showing different sides of a story, you are just showing different biases.
true but that doesnt mean that news shold(edit oops: shouldnt) try to be objective

true but that doesnt mean that news shold try to be objective

agreed!

true but that doesnt mean that news shold try to be objective


It would be impossible. To be truly objective, you would have to report EVERYTHING. The cat in the tree, the robbery at the corner store, campaign issues, unrest in the Congo....if you leave something out, or deem it less important, you must make that decision based on a personal bias: report only on campaign issues and you have a national bias; report only on the cat and you have a bias toward animals...etc. We MUST organise our news according to biases, prioritizing it, or we'd be overrun with the sheer amount of information that needs reporting. Editors and producers decide what is reported according to the bias of their paper, left, right, center, animal, national, international etc. Critical thinking skills are neede to recognise the bias, and realise that the news you are receiving has been carefully chosen to reflect that bias. It's not a bad thing, but what IS bad is that many people have been taught that the news is the truth, and nothing but the "objective" truth.

I think you mean shouldn't:)

see edit!^^
yes your right but that doesnt mean they shouldnt try:) to be unbiased in all the stories they do report.

Nver seen it

Please prove some real examples of Fox News' bias.

Neither side has yet to provide at least three links showing bias along with a reason detailing the bias. All I hear is, "Watch it and you'll see!" which is avoiding the question.

Read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. That will tell you the story of CBS News.

Hey, has anyone here seen the movie "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoc's War on Journalism" ?

It's really funny, and has a lot of creppy facts. Of course, most of the clips in the movie are from FOX itself.

My favorite bits was when they show about 20 different clips of various fox people repeating, again and again "Kerry Looks French" And also three different instances where a reporter says "Well, its only (some number) of days until Bush is re-ellected"

Now granted, the movie has its own bias, but still - it brings up some intresting points.

My exposure to Fox started when I was peacefully watching the Bush/Gore election coverage and suddenly heard Bush's progress in the South was mostly due to the: "gun-toting white redneck majority."

Then watched as there were chuckles and things whispered back and forth.

I was hardly enthused by this, living in Alabama at the time and knowing the people here a hell of a lot better than the New York based journalists. So I voted with my remote and switched over to Fox news.

I don't think Fox News is a hideous joke or a disgusting outrage. It is simply another option. I'm not saying the channel isn't Pro-USA biased. It is based in the US, they have an interest in making sure the country succeeds, just as I do. I'm a very patriotic guy, if I didn't have certain health conditions I'd be in the military right along with my best buddies. I believe this country can be a force for good, but it doesn't mean I don't want to berate Bush for policy blunders, or that I don't laugh when he slips up while talking and says something completely opposite to his intended position.

Fox reports the normal bland news just as often as their competition, however they have a heck of a lot more commentary with rather interesting if not downright controversial hosts. My personal favorite out of the pick, is Bill O'Reilly. I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but at least he means what he says and seems to actually give a rat's ass about the troubles of fellow human beings...including us normal folks. I had the chance to talk with him for a few minutes at a book signing and he's a pretty nice guy in person, he didn't exude that plastic smile feeling I normally get from dealing with some high tier corporate drones or hollywood stars. I admit that he does have an abrasive personality, but in one way or another we all do.

Fox also tends to try to even things out, there's normally always a more conservative and a more liberal viewpoint on at any given time. Sometimes one side simply has a monopoly of opinion that day and the other side might not have a whole lot to say or maybe even agrees (seen it, take comments on generic trials), sometimes one side trieds to wiggle away from the questions and has to be interrupted in order to try and set them on track(once again, I've seen all sides do it),

Some people can't stand the way Fox News does things, and that's fine. The news is pretty much what you make of it. I watch Fox because it's more than just the bland news that pops up every 30 minutes, it is kinda fun.

In The Netherlands we have the European version of CNN, but I don't watch it very much, because it's really stupid. Europeans don't buy one liners.
The love a interview in depth, where a journalist scares the hell out of a politician. It is always great fun to see uncensored newsreels from America, that the Americans aren't allowed to see.. :)
The last time was when president Bush was giggling and drawing monkey like faces when he was waiting for an adress to the American people on television. He didn't know the camera was already running.
It was a great laugh when I saw it.
The day after, they already cut the hilarious bits out on Dutch television.
So sad!

Fox's problem;
Every opinion/political discussion show is hosted by a Republican (Colmes doesn't count he as he is a co-host that plays an insignificant role in ONE show).

Have you ever seen how the hosts conduct their interviews and actually thought about it? The host demeans anyone who disagrees (in the case of Bill O'Reilly he actually ahs his seat elevated above his interviewee, Sean Hannity will cut off someone's mic, when he can't retort). All news channels have a bias toward the sensational, but fox has a bias toward the Republican party and big business.

I'm very fond of Fox News because of the fact that it is biased. You see, I feel that when Ruport Murdoch created Fox News, he was onto something. What it does is that it boils conservative ideas down to a digestable pulp for most people. The left could always rely on populism to do this, and it has happened in the past. The right, however, has ideas that doesn't mix with populism. Therefore, what they need is something that can communicate it to the masses, and make it understandable.
I'm also not worried that it is part of the mainstream media. Populism is a force that convinces people that the government/capitalists/Jews/blacks are out to get them. This closes their minds to any opposing point. Fox News is the exact same thing, only that since it is on cable, other viewpoints do happen to exist on CNN. In fact, the only problem with Fox that I can think of is that no "ism" has yet to be assigned to it.

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

hmm...you've never seen it, but you've seen a few clips picked by a biased internet site, and you think you've made a logical conclusion?

Hope you're not "Canada's finest".


Foxnews started at the bottom and worked its way to the top by being just as it says.....fair and balanced.
The problem is that, for once, a national news organization actually shows BOTH sides...not just the left.
Clips, tidbits, snipits, and movies/programs picking out these same things will not give you the true story.

Well, I must say that I watch Fox News for one reason. While they play the same basic news stories that other prominent news stations report on, they don't have the same "conservatism is evil" approach that dominates the media. I'm not much for watching stories about the "tragedies" that befall gay and lesbian couples in their battle for legalizing gay marriages. I just don't care. I do care when national policies are debated in congress. I care when my privacy gets invaded. I care when the police and the justice system falsify documents and evidence to get people imprisoned. But gay and lesbian issues don't apply to me.

I am aware that all news stations are biased in some direction and to differing degrees. Most do so unintentionally.

My conclusion over Fox would be as follows:-
Fox is unashamed in its bias to right wing politics and is most likely guilty of spinning intentionally toward that viewpoint despite its exclamations of 'fair and balanced'.
One can see this in the choice of its prime-time programming with right wing 'journalists' (I will leave that for you to decide) O'Reilly and Hannity given prominence. Colmes I would not classify as a liberal despite his adamance, his views are too dilute and insipid, he would be more of a moderate.

hmm...you've never seen it, but you've seen a few clips picked by a biased internet site, and you think you've made a logical conclusion?
fox news has clips on its website, and if you learned to read you would realise he also said he also saw some of it on a friends satellite feed




Foxnews started at the bottom and worked its way to the top by being just as it says.....fair and balanced.
only the hardcore right claim it to be fair and balanced, you dont even have to look at its talk shows declaring themselves to be news to realise it isnt fair and balanced. look at any, ANY, story they do and compare it to the same story on something else. i did this with a story about the economy, comapred between cnn. cnn gave matter of fact numbers, and it even mentioned bush's side several times. where as on the other hand, fox gave generalities and brought on a guest speaker that sat on his ass and praised the president the entire story

stop being a right wing dope and look at the facts4

Journalistically, Fox is a joke. They do less actual reporting than any other news organization. They do mostly regurgitation and commentary, which is fine as long as you're honest about it up front. But they do very little actual journalism, and what little they do is often shoddy. Hell, their chief political correspondent, Carl Cameron, was just busted last week doctoring video footage to make it look like Kerry said something he didn't. They're a joke.

Whilst I can see what you are saying, but I don't get the impression from most of European television news channels or news programmes on national and commercial channels that they are either biased towards the right or left. IE, if I watch the news on BBC World or the main news on SVT or TV4 (Swedish TV channels), I don't come away from the experience thinking "goodness, that was biased". Likewise, the news on Finnish tv (YLE's Swedish-language news), Norwegian (NRK) and German (DW-tv) tv doesn't come across as biased either to me. They generally all seem to be as fair and balanced as is possible.I agree, but maybe that's just that they're close to our ideologies. But my instinctive reaction is that these stations like BBC are not biased, I agree. My experience with American news channels is limited, but from what I've seen and heard, FOX is very biased in favour of the Republican party. That bias would be in line with the conservative views of the Rupert Murdoch-owned press over here.

Neither side has yet to provide at least three links showing bias along with a reason detailing the bias. All I hear is, "Watch it and you'll see!" which is avoiding the question.

Well, let's see what some of Fox's own native sons have said...

"I can't believe anyone can pawn themselves off as a credible news organization when this is really nothing but a propaganda machine for the right wing," said Jon Du Pre, who was a Fox News anchor on the West Coast from 1999 to 2002.

"Fox became a propaganda outlet, in my judgment, for the [Bush] administration's drive to war," Larry Johnson, a former State Department and CIA employee who was a Fox News commentator and security consultant from 2002 to 2003

"At Fox it was all about viewpoint. I'm not talking about the nighttime personalities. I'm talking about the news report. Fox executives will say their network only appears conservative because it is fair, when everyone else is liberal and biased. That's bull. Fox doesn't 'seem' conservative and Republican. It is conservative and Republican." Charlie Reina, senior producer at Fox News for 6 years, as part of a 30-year career in the news business http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3500&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/problems/FoxNews.htm
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/30/fox_thememo.html
[url]http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/unfair___unbalanced.html[/url

Happy?

Yes, many people do believe fox news. The absurd thing is not really that people believe what they hear on any certain show, it's that this country that I live in has been conditioned to television so much that most people will believe what they see on TV without question. It's on the news so it must be news. America is controlled by the media, especially TV. If even half the population knew any better we would have a different president right now, and we would not be in Iraq.

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

Well, let's see what some of Fox's own native sons have said...

"I can't believe anyone can pawn themselves off as a credible news organization when this is really nothing but a propaganda machine for the right wing," said Jon Du Pre, who was a Fox News anchor on the West Coast from 1999 to 2002.

"Fox became a propaganda outlet, in my judgment, for the [Bush] administration's drive to war," Larry Johnson, a former State Department and CIA employee who was a Fox News commentator and security consultant from 2002 to 2003

"At Fox it was all about viewpoint. I'm not talking about the nighttime personalities. I'm talking about the news report. Fox executives will say their network only appears conservative because it is fair, when everyone else is liberal and biased. That's bull. Fox doesn't 'seem' conservative and Republican. It is conservative and Republican." Charlie Reina, senior producer at Fox News for 6 years, as part of a 30-year career in the news business http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3500&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/problems/FoxNews.htm
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/30/fox_thememo.html
[url]http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/unfair___unbalanced.html[/url

Happy?



ever hear of a little station called CNN? personally i watch FOX a ton and im offended that you would say things like that about my fav news station, i love watching Bill O'Reilly (he kicks liberal butt!!) and Hannity And Colmes (nice and balanced). if you dont like fox then thats fine with me but dont go lambasting TV stations just because it doesnt deliver what you want!!

P.S im wondering if you will let me email your "comments" about FOX to Sean Hannity for use on his radio show.

Fox News: hilarious joke? or disgusting outrage?

Hmm... how about hilarious outrage?

I DO watch Fox News. Name me ONE biased REPORT! You can't! People have tried and have failed. There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between REPORTING and COMMENTARY. Reporting isn't biased but the Commentary can be.

CNN Though does have Biased Reporting. I've seen it. How the broadcasted the Iraq War made us look like the bad guys. They also blew up Abu Grahb into what mounted to be something ordered by the Administration where it was not. Fox News broadcasted the war (Fairly from both sides), and Abu Grahb but did not impicate the administration like CNN did.

Biased reporting? Think again!

As for CNN! It is biased towards the LEFT not the RIGHT!

Hello guy. Do you know what biased reporting is? Selectively choosing which news item to run in order to present a specific view of the world is biased reporting.
Obviously Fox news wont be implicating the administration in anything, they are supporters of this administration and therefore would not run anything damaging to it. We have other news stations for that.

And that is the situation we now have in the US today. We have very few sources of "non-biased" reporting. The fact is, a majority of Americans already know this and tend to listen to the station that reflects their views. Personally, I watch them all. I get a more balanced version of events that way.
Media is supposed to be the "watchdog" for the American People. It is still doing that. It's just that CNN is watching the Right, while FOX is watching the left. Between the two of them, Im hoping that corrupt and stupid politicians get away with as little as possible.
Would I prefer honestly non-biased news outlets? Sure. But with humans being involved in the equation, you will never truly get that version of events. So, the next best thing is several news agencies all keeping an eye on the government as a whole. Just understand where your source stands on the political spectrum and take it all with a grain of salt.

P.S im wondering if you will let me email your "comments" about FOX to Sean Hannity for use on his radio show.
I'd love it if you sent my comments to Hannity. As long as you update me on how or if he uses them.

hmm...you've never seen it, but you've seen a few clips picked by a biased internet site, and you think you've made a logical conclusion?

Hey Tamkoman, dont be a dumbass. He stated that he saw Fox news on the internet. You do know that Foxnews has a website dont you? It's right here in case you missed it.
Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/)

I know Chess Squares already posted the same thing, but I thought I'd help you out with a link in case you skimmed over his post the same way you did Slack Baby's.

Hello guy. Do you know what biased reporting is? Selectively choosing which news item to run in order to present a specific view of the world is biased reporting.
Obviously Fox news wont be implicating the administration in anything, they are supporters of this administration and therefore would not run anything damaging to it. We have other news stations for that.

One: I'm not a guy. Two: Yea I do know what biased REPORTING IS! There is a MAJOR difference between REPORTING and COMMENTARY! Something people on here fail to seperate. The reporting on Fox News IS fair and balanced whereas the commentary may not be fair and balanced. Fox News has implicated the Bush Administration and has knocked him too as well as Kerry. I've seen it hun. And if your going as a supporter of the Administration, the CNN is a supporter of John Kerry as is the NYT, the SFT, the LAT, NPR, Air America, ABC, CBS, NBC, I could go on but its not worth it!

And that is the situation we now have in the US today. We have very few sources of "non-biased" reporting. The fact is, a majority of Americans already know this and tend to listen to the station that reflects their views. Personally, I watch them all. I get a more balanced version of events that way.

I listen to them all too Bloodless. I just prefer Fox News over the others but I do watch the other stations. As for the rest of your statement, I agree 100%

Media is supposed to be the "watchdog" for the American People. It is still doing that. It's just that CNN is watching the Right, while FOX is watching the left. Between the two of them, Im hoping that corrupt and stupid politicians get away with as little as possible.
Would I prefer honestly non-biased news outlets? Sure. But with humans being involved in the equation, you will never truly get that version of events. So, the next best thing is several news agencies all keeping an eye on the government as a whole. Just understand where your source stands on the political spectrum and take it all with a grain of salt.

On this statement, I agree with you totally.

Hello guy. Do you know what biased reporting is? Selectively choosing which news item to run in order to present a specific view of the world is biased reporting.
Obviously Fox news wont be implicating the administration in anything, they are supporters of this administration and therefore would not run anything damaging to it. We have other news stations for that.

And that is the situation we now have in the US today. We have very few sources of "non-biased" reporting. The fact is, a majority of Americans already know this and tend to listen to the station that reflects their views. Personally, I watch them all. I get a more balanced version of events that way.
Media is supposed to be the "watchdog" for the American People. It is still doing that. It's just that CNN is watching the Right, while FOX is watching the left. Between the two of them, Im hoping that corrupt and stupid politicians get away with as little as possible.
Would I prefer honestly non-biased news outlets? Sure. But with humans being involved in the equation, you will never truly get that version of events. So, the next best thing is several news agencies all keeping an eye on the government as a whole. Just understand where your source stands on the political spectrum and take it all with a grain of salt.

This is all very true. I say again, however, that my main beef with FOX is that they CLAIM to be unbiased with their slogans "we report, you decide" and "fair & balanced". If the media is the "watchdog"... then who's watching the media?

Hey Tamkoman, dont be a dumbass. He stated that he saw Fox news on the internet. You do know that Foxnews has a website dont you? It's right here in case you missed it.
Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/)

I know Chess Squares already posted the same thing, but I thought I'd help you out with a link in case you skimmed over his post the same way you did Slack Baby's.

Bloodless, there is the Fox NEWS Channel as well as foxnews.com! The latter is the website of the former. I hope you already know this.

This is all very true. I say again, however, that my main beef with FOX is that they CLAIM to be unbiased with their slogans "we report, you decide" and "fair & balanced". If the media is the "watchdog"... then who's watching the media?

That would be the FTC and the FCC!

That would be the FTC and the FCC!

please excuse my brain fart

please excuse my brain fart

LOL!!! Its excused :D

Well first of all, most of what is reported on any news program is of questionable value. News reporters make money by selling "news!" Most of the time they focus on the sensational, things that will get people to watch. They decide what is important to us and what is not. But when it comes to actual fact finding and indepth unbiased coverage of any issue, that is impossible because first of all it wouldn't sell and second of all it would be too much work. Even those people who do investigative reporting have an agenda that blocks any attempt to be unbiased.

When we watch the news it is simply a matter of which propaganda we are willing to believe. I have talked to people who have said, "Do you listen to the news that the government puts out?" (in a tone of shock and disbelief). Well.. I am willing to hear their side of the story and other sides of the story (even through the truth will be in neither).

All of that aside, I have one more statement that I wish to share. I am shocked and dismayed at the hypocrisy that most "liberals" (the term is usually a misnomer at best, out right bald faced lie at worst) show in their comments on this board and many others. I hear many preach tolerance and equality. In reality, "people are allowed to think what they want and we will tolerate their choices as long as they don't disagree with us. If they do, there are awful people who are to be mocked as idiots and cancers on society." Any person who talks of tolerance and then derides them who disagree with thier views should do a little reflections on their beliefs.

In short, shame on you.

I shall enjoy reading the outraged comments of those who would call me an idiot because I don't agree with them. Where is your tolerance for the diversity of ideas?

I'd love it if you sent my comments to Hannity. As long as you update me on how or if he uses them.

thanks!!

The reason so many people watch Fox News is because it's less intelligent than other news stations. That isn't to say that Americans are stupid, it's just that some people don't like to think when they watch the news - they might not think of it like this, but they want their opinion decided for them and fed to them in bright shiny chunks by a photogenic presenter. It's the same reason so many people in the UK read the tabloid newspapers rather than the broadsheets - they don't want to read huge blocks of text, they want to know the flashy parts of the story - they don't want to know the politics of the Iraq situation, they just want to see a few pictures of an explosion and a bit of gung-ho in the morning with their toast and cornflakes.

Critical analysis is something that seems to fall by the wayside when watching TV, and I think that's part of it, too, but I think it's mostly down to people wanting to know the world events without thinking about them - so they get an opinion fed to them amidst bright lights and shiny surfaces. The opinion has to be tilted far to the right so people are left in no doubt that them darn A-Rabs are in the wrong - anything else might instigate a thought process, and that might just put them off their dinner.

(That's not to say all Americans aren't stupid though - you must have your own collection of morons - after all, enough people here consider the Daily Star real news, and we're a titchy)


Actually, yes, Americans are stupid. Extremely stupid. The average American has about the reasoning capacity of a brick. This explains why so many idiots believe it. It really is sad that people actually believe that it is "Fair and Balanced" as it claims. Believing that is like believing that email you receeived with a subject "Free Viagra. PS: not a virus"

I personally feel that fox news is one of the most dangerous media outlets in the US. They are extremely biased, and have a HUGE sheep following who believe anything they say based on authority.

I have signed a petition to the FTC to make them stop using "fair and balanced" as a moniker, as it is an outright lie.

Personally I often find myself looking to BBc reporting and Reuters to get accurate reports, which is shameful. In this country you think you should be able to trust the news. It aint so, and hasn't been for some time.

Once upon a time the news department in a network was outside the influence table. They were all about the news. Now it is "inside," and about ratings and revenue. This puts a lot of pressure on news agencies to be reublican biased, as more and more corporations are leaning republican (the hand that feeds them). News press still seems top be less pressured in this manner, but has been leaning the other way, possibly as a reaction to tv and radio radicallism of the news.

With the constant attention this debate is getting, I'm curious as to how long it'll take for someone to do a remake of "Network." They've done remakes of damn near everything else, and a remake of "Network" would at least be pertinent.

Skwerrel: Dont confuse tolerance with silence. You can tolerate someones else's view, and still try to convince them of the errors of their ways ;)

Formal Dances: I didnt mean to offend with the guy comment. It's just a term, like man (yes Ive talked to women and said, hey man! and they thought nothing of it.) I think assuming that someone named Formal Dances is a Woman would be just as bad though. We need a gender neutral term damnit!

On biased reporting. I provide 2 links, and honestly, I havent tried to rectify the contradiction between the 2 sites, but here are 2 links:


CNN on 527 group issue (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html)

You can see here that the focus is on a member of Bush's campaign, illegally coordinating with a 527 group. CNN reports that he quit. As an example of biased commentary, CNN ends with a defence of Kerry's record.

Now FOX:

Fox news on Kerry's war record (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129689,00.html)

Ok, so here is the first bias. You notice that even though the current event is a member of Bush's campaign being involved in a 527 groups Ad, the headline reads "Kerry's war record"
Next is the part I havent researched. CNN says the guy quit, FOX says the guy was "let go". Though it seems splitting hairs, it isnt. One leads you to believe the Col did the right thing, the other that the Republican party sent him packing.
Next part is more subtle, yet just as biased. Since it is subtle, people will of course disagree, yet you must agree that the best lies always contain a grain of truth.
The final paragraph here, is about Sen Joe Lieberman (a Democrat) complaining that Kerry's war record of 35 years ago is dominating the debate. Since the Bush team denies criticizing his record, that of course makes Kerry look like the guy making an issue over it according to this article.

The bottom line is, Demo's accused Repub's of coordinating with a 527 group. Repub's denied it. A few days later, a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans' steering committee was found to be working directly with them, and even appeared in an ad for them. CNN of course made a big deal of it, reading FOX's account of events, it seems that Kerry is making a big deal over his war record and detracting from the real issues.

Thats what I mean by biased reporting. You can report the events, but by choosing what you include or omit, you totally change the tone of a story.

Good work Bloodless--not that I imagine it'll convince anyone who doesn't want to believe Fox is biased, but good work nonetheless.

Skwerrel: Dont confuse tolerance with silence. You can tolerate someones else's view, and still try to convince them of the errors of their ways ;)



Yes, but just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong or idiots. :)

Fox News is a good station. People complain "Ooo, it's mostly commentary and not much pure news". Well, there are a million different stations out there which are all pure news and no commentary. If you look at Fox News' popularity you will see that people WANT the commentary.

As for the "Fair And Balanced": The station is mostly leaning to the right. But that's a good counter to all the news services which lean to the LEFT. And the reason why Fox News claims to be balanced is because they always have two or more Subject Matter Experts talking; each with a different opinion. You don't get that on CNN. You don't get that on Sky News. And these days, Fox News doesn't really favour one SME over the other, so it's more balanced than most lefties think.

Personally, I think it's refreshing to see a channel about news which is always entertaining. Their presenters somehow manage to put relevance into every story, which is a big feat considering that I live in Australia! And Fox have sometimes broken stories which have been barely mentioned by the left side of the media. (e.g. the American deserters who went to Canada and were treated like heroes).

Some of their presenters have interesting points of view; and all of their presenters are smart. Even the ones whose viewpoints I don't agree with!

I just hope Fox News will run a story/commentary about why NationStates is such a leftist website.

Lefties scream bias and mock Fox simply because they're not used to anything other than total dominance of the airwaves. You want biased news? Try BBC's Mideast coverage... or Reuters' coverage of well, anything :)

All of that aside, I have one more statement that I wish to share. I am shocked and dismayed at the hypocrisy that most "liberals" (the term is usually a misnomer at best, out right bald faced lie at worst) show in their comments on this board and many others. I hear many preach tolerance and equality. In reality, "people are allowed to think what they want and we will tolerate their choices as long as they don't disagree with us. If they do, there are awful people who are to be mocked as idiots and cancers on society." Any person who talks of tolerance and then derides them who disagree with thier views should do a little reflections on their beliefs.

In short, shame on you.

I shall enjoy reading the outraged comments of those who would call me an idiot because I don't agree with them. Where is your tolerance for the diversity of ideas?

Well said, and I agree. This happens all the time; where "liberals" say that anyone who they say is "intolerant" is also a "moron". If anyone out there is in doubt of those, go and look for the poll about living in a homogenous country. The choices are basically "I like diversity" or "I am a moron". Go and look it up!

When we watch the news it is simply a matter of which propaganda we are willing to believe. I have talked to people who have said, "Do you listen to the news that the government puts out?" (in a tone of shock and disbelief). Well.. I am willing to hear their side of the story and other sides of the story (even through the truth will be in neither).

All of that aside, I have one more statement that I wish to share. I am shocked and dismayed at the hypocrisy that most "liberals" (the term is usually a misnomer at best, out right bald faced lie at worst) show in their comments on this board and many others. I hear many preach tolerance and equality. In reality, "people are allowed to think what they want and we will tolerate their choices as long as they don't disagree with us. If they do, there are awful people who are to be mocked as idiots and cancers on society." Any person who talks of tolerance and then derides them who disagree with thier views should do a little reflections on their beliefs.

In short, shame on you.

I hate to disapoint you, but I do not plan on calling you an idiot. I don't resort to those tactics (often) like certain news stations we have been discussing.

I don't think I ever said that republican individuals or groups should not be allowed to voice thier appointments. And I am certain that I never called them idiots.

I agree with what you say about tolerance.

If one preaches tolerance it obviously cannot not just be for their own beliefs. However, tolerance for beliefs is different than tolerating action. I do not tolerate blatant opinionated broadcast mascarading as news from anyone, be they liberal, or conservative; republican or democrat, etc...

Fox News is simply the most outrageous example of it that I can find. They purposely manipulate the opinions of voting Americans... and highjacking democracy is something that I won't tolerate.

I bet someon'es gonna use Michael Moore in a response to this.

One: I'm not a guy. Two: Yea I do know what biased REPORTING IS! There is a MAJOR difference between REPORTING and COMMENTARY! Something people on here fail to seperate. The reporting on Fox News IS fair and balanced whereas the commentary may not be fair and balanced. Fox News has implicated the Bush Administration and has knocked him too as well as Kerry. I've seen it hun. And if your going as a supporter of the Administration, the CNN is a supporter of John Kerry as is the NYT, the SFT, the LAT, NPR, Air America, ABC, CBS, NBC, I could go on but its not worth it! Rather then just "going on" why don't you do what Skepticism has done and provide direct links to CNN journalists admitting bias. And a proper statistical study of how much Fox criticise Bush compared to Kerry would help your case. (More then SHOUTING CERTAIN WORDS does ;))

Besides, you think your political viewpoints hard done by. When did you last see someone genuinely left wing, say Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn on a mainstream news channel?

When did you last see someone genuinely left wing, say Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn on a mainstream news channel?
LOL
I'd love to see Chomsky as a guest on the O'Reily factor.

I bet it would take 6 seconds for O'reilly to tell CHomsky to shut up followed by him turning off CHomsky's mic and having him removed from the building.

Speaking as a Brit I find the Weather Music hillerious. Its dramatic for no reason.....its the flaming weather for god sake. And I hate that O'Reilly, all he does is insult people, he doesn't actually give an information what-so-ever.

I bet it would take 6 seconds for O'reilly to tell CHomsky to shut up followed by him turning off CHomsky's mic and having him removed from the building.I always find it amusing how O'Reilly stacks all the cards in his favour and still comes across as a moron. :D

I am shocked and dismayed at the hypocrisy that most "liberals" (the term is usually a misnomer at best, out right bald faced lie at worst) show in their comments on this board and many others. I hear many preach tolerance and equality. In reality, "people are allowed to think what they want and we will tolerate their choices as long as they don't disagree with us. If they do, there are awful people who are to be mocked as idiots and cancers on society."
Examples of liberal intolerance, please? Disagreeing with someone is not the same as being intolerant of them.

I agree that liberal is a misonomer, since the true meaning of liberal is what is now called Libertarian in America.

LOL
I'd love to see Chomsky as a guest on the O'Reily factor.

I bet it would take 6 seconds for O'reilly to tell CHomsky to shut up followed by him turning off CHomsky's mic and having him removed from the building.
Yeah, O'Reilly would get so owned.

Rather then just "going on" why don't you do what Skepticism has done and provide direct links to CNN journalists admitting bias. And a proper statistical study of how much Fox criticise Bush compared to Kerry would help your case. (More then SHOUTING CERTAIN WORDS does ;))

Right! Like CNN would ever release that. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! When the Northern Alliance attacked an ammo dump, the person who was interviewing someone regarding the attack, seen live i might add, the guy was saying it was the NA whereas the newsanchor, and this is CNN I'm talking about, tried to paint it as an American assault. PLEASE!! After that episode, I switched to Fox News and been watching it ever since.

Well said, and I agree. This happens all the time; where "liberals" say that anyone who they say is "intolerant" is also a "moron". If anyone out there is in doubt of those, go and look for the poll about living in a homogenous country. The choices are basically "I like diversity" or "I am a moron". Go and look it up!

Doubt?, I have no doubt! Skwerrel hit the nail on the head! Amoung many "liberals" if you do not hold their ideals you are automatically considered a moron, racist nazi, intolerent and a whole host of other insults.

It's a terrible irony...

And while were on the subject, all news is biased. It comes down a matter of degree, but they are all bias in the end.

I think it is both at the same time.


It keeps the sheeple amused though.

Lefties scream bias and mock Fox simply because they're not used to anything other than total dominance of the airwaves. You want biased news? Try BBC's Mideast coverage... or Reuters' coverage of well, anything :)
BBC's mideast coverage that was not biased how was that biased!?!
Reuters could be true never heard of them.

Right! Like CNN would ever release that. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! When the Northern Alliance attacked an ammo dump, the person who was interviewing someone regarding the attack, seen live i might add, the guy was saying it was the NA whereas the newsanchor, and this is CNN I'm talking about, tried to paint it as an American assault. PLEASE!! After that episode, I switched to Fox News and been watching it ever since.They weren't offical statements by Fox, anymore then the leaked Memos sourced earlier in the thread were. I'm asking you (or anyone else from the right) to provide real evidence that CNN or the BBC is biased. What you're giving us is purely anecdotal which to be frank is practically worthless.

They weren't offical statements by Fox, anymore then the leaked Memos sourced earlier in the thread were. I'm asking you (or anyone else from the right) to provide real evidence that CNN or the BBC is biased. What you're giving us is purely anecdotal which to be frank is practically worthless.

I'm asking you to and anyone on the left to provide real evidence that Fox News is biased!

Doubt?, I have no doubt! Skwerrel hit the nail on the head! Amoung many "liberals" if you do not hold their ideals you are automatically considered a moron, racist nazi, intolerent and a whole host of other insults.
Nope. O'Reilly is a moron because he's incabable of holding a decent debate without cheating. PJ O'Rourke is not a moron because he holds his own and sources his opinions. And considering that the original poster you're praising was criticising a poll for suggesting diversity was good, while a "nazi" is too strong, "intolerant" seems to be a pretty fair defination and "racist" seems highly probable.

http://spe.atdmt.com/b/USPERBUSHBUS/bc04_SUV2.gif
look at the ad on the FOX website thats got to tell you something!!

Nope. O'Reilly is a moron because he's incabable of holding a decent debate without cheating. PJ O'Rourke is not a moron because he holds his own and sources his opinions. And considering that the original poster you're praising was criticising a poll for suggesting diversity was good, while a "nazi" is too strong, "intolerant" seems to be a pretty fair defination and "racist" seems highly probable.

BULL!!!! He's held decent debates all the time. Just because the person is dumb enough to spout party line when he is asked for an opinion doesn't make him a moron. You just don't like him because 1) he's on Fox News. 2)He is the most watch primetime cable news show. 3)His ideology is not yours.

http://spe.atdmt.com/b/USPERBUSHBUS/bc04_SUV2.gif
look at the ad on the FOX website thats got to tell you something!!

I don't see that ad anywhere on the Fox news website!

I don't see that ad anywhere on the Fox news website!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126955,00.html
If they're unbiased shouldnt they be avoiding showing only Rep ads on their web

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126955,00.html
If they're unbiased shouldnt they be avoiding showing only Rep ads on their web

Here's a question for ya! How is it biased? Just because they bought the advertisement to be there DOES NOT make them biased. I'm sure that if Kerry wanted an ad posted there, one will be posted there. So again, how is this biased?

Here's a question for ya! How is it biased? Just because they bought the advertisement to be there DOES NOT make them biased. I'm sure that if Kerry wanted an ad posted there, one will be posted there. So again, how is this biased?
Because if they where really tring to be unbiased wouldnt they not put any politacal ads on their website?

Because if they where really tring to be unbiased wouldnt they not put any politacal ads on their website?

Money is money Seosavists! If the Bush-Cheney Campaign paid to have the advertisement, then it can be there. Just because its there Seosavists, DOES NOT indicate bias.

I don't see that ad anywhere on the Fox news website!
thats the ONLY ad that works on the fox news website, they switch around and only it works

Here's a question for ya! How is it biased? Just because they bought the advertisement to be there DOES NOT make them biased. I'm sure that if Kerry wanted an ad posted there, one will be posted there. So again, how is this biased?
cnn nor msn has political ads

cnn nor msn has political ads

and that proves Fox News bias how?

Money is money Seosavists! If the Bush-Cheney Campaign paid to have the advertisement, then it can be there. Just because its there Seosavists, DOES NOT indicate bias.
oh well at least we dont have them here in Ireland WOOHOO! no crappy tv ads just politacal party boardcasts which are very easy to avoid by changeing the channel. So that crap isnt allowed here.

its obvious they are HARD right bias if you stay on their site for more than 3 minutes


1) they run bush cheney political ads, no other site has political ads, NONE, and they dont have any other ads that work

2)every single talk show they have is hard hardcore right wing, colmes is not a liberal, nor is he even a moderate, he is a right leaning moderate who think he is liberal because he works at fox news


3) take any story that is the same on fox news and cnn, i did this, and it showed hopw obviously blatant bias it was


cnn's report was SLIGHTLY left wing, very very slight. it gave exact numbers for things, it showed alot of kerry stuff but also repeatdly gave bush's side. fox on the other hand gave generalities for numbers and then invited on a economist who sat around praising bush and his economic policies and saying how well everything is doing based on a scale no one cares about

BULL!!!! He's held decent debates all the time. Just because the person is dumb enough to spout party line when he is asked for an opinion doesn't make him a moron. You just don't like him because 1) he's on Fox News. 2)He is the most watch primetime cable news show. 3)His ideology is not yours.No. He deliberately rigs the debates by using dishonest openings and conclusions when his opponent is not in the studio and by talking over people when they're proving him wrong. Why do you think he's never had Chomsky on? Because Chomsky would rip him apart.

On your other points

1) He's on Fox News yes, and he's hardly "fair and balanced."

2) Viewing figures is no proof of quality.

3) Read my post again. I praised the quality of PJ O'Rourke's work. His ideology's hardly mine either. I find it very funny that you attack Moore for precisely the same things you condone in O'Reilly.

Now we move on to:

I'm asking you to and anyone on the left to provide real evidence that Fox News is biased!

These have already been posted on this thread by other posters but I'll post them again just for you:

Leaked memos showing Foxes bias: http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fo...atch-017613.php

Comments from Fox 'journalists':

"I can't believe anyone can pawn themselves off as a credible news organization when this is really nothing but a propaganda machine for the right wing," said Jon Du Pre, who was a Fox News anchor on the West Coast from 1999 to 2002.

"Fox became a propaganda outlet, in my judgment, for the [Bush] administration's drive to war," Larry Johnson, a former State Department and CIA employee who was a Fox News commentator and security consultant from 2002 to 2003

"At Fox it was all about viewpoint. I'm not talking about the nighttime personalities. I'm talking about the news report. Fox executives will say their network only appears conservative because it is fair, when everyone else is liberal and biased. That's bull. Fox doesn't 'seem' conservative and Republican. It is conservative and Republican." Charlie Reina, senior producer at Fox News for 6 years, as part of a 30-year career in the news business http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...nder%20Reported

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloo...ems/FoxNews.htm
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/w...ox_thememo.html

And to round off let's look at how well informed Fox viewers actually are, and whether their opinions are worth anything:

http://www.americanassembler.com/is...edia/media.html

Challenge met. Your turn. And that means doing what I've done and providing real sources, not just repeating your opinion.

and that proves Fox News bias how?
my previous post does

oh well at least we dont have them here in Ireland WOOHOO! no crappy tv ads just politacal party boardcasts which are very easy to avoid by changeing the channel. So that crap isnt allowed here.

Well this is on a website and we can tune out political commercials thanks to the mute button and the channel changer as well! LOL!!!!

its obvious they are HARD right bias if you stay on their site for more than 3 minutes

Different things! You can't group them both under the same the category

1) they run bush cheney political ads, no other site has political ads, NONE, and they dont have any other ads that work

On the website, that is the only one i've seen. On TV, I've seen both Kerry and Bush ads. so again! Bias?

2)every single talk show they have is hard hardcore right wing, colmes is not a liberal, nor is he even a moderate, he is a right leaning moderate who think he is liberal because he works at fox news

Every single talk show they have is fair. They bring both sides of the issue, even O'Reilly and the Hannity and Colmbs show. so again! Bias?


3) take any story that is the same on fox news and cnn, i did this, and it showed hopw obviously blatant bias it was

I have taken stories that appear on both CNN and Fox News. Fox News broadcasts both sides fairly and now CNN is starting to do the same because they are getting hammered in the ratings and gotta change otherwise, they are kaput. so again! Bias?


cnn's report was SLIGHTLY left wing, very very slight.

If you believe this then your blinded. CNN is not slightly left, but moderately left. They have broadcasted some good stories but not a whole lot. Fox News gives you both the good and the bad. I haven't seen it from CNN yet.

it gave exact numbers for things, it showed alot of kerry stuff but also repeatdly gave bush's side. fox on the other hand gave generalities for numbers and then invited on a economist who sat around praising bush and his economic policies and saying how well everything is doing based on a scale no one cares about

Wrong again. Kerry has been getting alot of press time on Fox News. Now that we are approaching the Republican Convention, I will watch it just like I watched the Democratic one (3-1 Fox wins viewership here too), Bush will be in the news more. As for the Economy, that is a different thread but from what I'm seeing of the economy, entrepenourship is up as is small business. According to the household survey, the created nearly 700,000 new jobs. Have any economists on ANY station mentioned that? I know Fox News did because I watch their Saturday Business Shows.

Well this is on a website and we can tune out political commercials thanks to the mute button and the channel changer as well! LOL!!!!
RTE(Irish channel) doesnt have ads on their site you dont see Vote Berty. neither does BBC you dont see Big Vote BLAIR ads

RTE(Irish channel) doesnt have ads on their site you dont see Vote Berry. neither does BBC you dont see Big Vote BLAIR ads

:eyeroll:

Welcome to the USA where you can advertise anywhere. Comes with living in a free society and freedom of speech too.

FD, are you going to even attempt to address any of the sources I cited?

Welcome to the USA where you can advertise anywhere. Comes with living in a free society and freedom of speech too.

free society and freedom of speech, we have that to. You can say what ever you want but you cant advertise political BS like the crap you have in your country.
And I find that post a bit insulting your saying America is freer than Ireland which is BS.

FD, are you going to even attempt to address any of the sources I cited?

Why should I? I'm going to let someone else refute it because I don't believe I can refute it in the language that you would like.

Why should I? I'm going to let someone else refute it because I don't believe I can refute it in the language that you would like.
you mean like the truth?

Why should I? I'm going to let someone else refute it because I don't believe I can refute it in the language that you would like.
crappy excuse that is!

Leaked memos showing Foxes bias: http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fo...atch-017613.php

Is a blog! I get hammered when I quote a blog so I'll discount it. Besides I'm reading it now and I DO NOT see the article you are refering too. Perhaps you can point me to the proper page!

http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...nder%20Reported

Nice job and pasting a broken link!

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloo...ems/FoxNews.htm
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/w...ox_thememo.html

Make that 2 broken links and a document not found under the Journalism at NYU website. How am I suppose to read it if I can't view it? 0-3

And to round off let's look at how well informed Fox viewers actually are, and whether their opinions are worth anything:

http://www.americanassembler.com/is...edia/media.html

And now your 0-4! Another broken link so again, how am I suppose to refute if I cannot read?

Challenge met. Your turn. And that means doing what I've done and providing real sources, not just repeating your opinion.

Challenge not met. You've failed to provide sources that I can read.

crappy excuse that is!

Actually it isn't! All but one link, I couldn't read because it was either 1) broken or 2)document not found!

Is there anyway that I can see Fox News if i live in England and don't have sky/cable? It sounds like it could be a laugh :)

Well FD,
Obviously you can advertise anywhere, but only as long as you got the cash. It is also slightly worrying that news channel are economically involved with political advertisments, dont you think?

Actually it isn't! All but one link, I couldn't read because it was either 1) broken or 2)document not found!
The first one was this one isnt:)

Well FD,
Obviously you can advertise anywhere, but only as long as you got the cash. It is also slightly worrying that news channel are economically involved with political advertisments, dont you think?

This I will agree with. Congress should pass a law stating that politicians can't advertise on Cable News Channels (CNN, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC) or their websites. However, I have a feeling that will get blocked by BOTH parties.

This I will agree with. Congress should pass a law stating that politicians can't advertise on Cable News Channels (CNN, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC) or their websites. However, I have a feeling that will get blocked by BOTH parties.
Thats what Ireland has except all channels but they give them a party boardcast so all parties get equal time to say why you should vote for them

Thats what Ireland has except all channels but they give them a party boardcast so all parties get equal time to say why you should vote for them

Well something like that would have to go through Congress and I can name organizations that'll oppose it so it'll never pass. Though I do think its a good idea.

Ask yourself this, Formal Dances--why would the Republican party run attack ads on Foxnews.com, especially ads asking for campaign donations (therefore aimed at party loyalists, not swing voters), unless they knew that FoxNews appealed to people likely to support them? Political campaigns aren't in the habit of just tossing money away on ads--the Bush campaign knows that their supporters tend to watch FoxNews on tv and go to foxnews.com online because it's a conservative leaning news organization.

By the way, I don't know if Kerry's advertising on foxnews.com or not--I suspect not--but both Bush and Kerry are advertising on msnbc.com, so the issue of news organizations accepting ad dollars is really not an important one.

In Sweden there is a similar equal time system. Do you think there would be less all side blockings if there were a few more parties in US?

Ask yourself this, Formal Dances--why would the Republican party run attack ads on Foxnews.com, especially ads asking for campaign donations (therefore aimed at party loyalists, not swing voters), unless they knew that FoxNews appealed to people likely to support them? Political campaigns aren't in the habit of just tossing money away on ads--the Bush campaign knows that their supporters tend to watch FoxNews on tv and go to foxnews.com online because it's a conservative leaning news organization.

Ok I won't argue this. However on FNC, they both run attack ads there. I've only seen the Bush one so far on FNC! I agree that Kerry probably doesn't have on there but I think he's missing out personally.

By the way, I don't know if Kerry's advertising on foxnews.com or not--I suspect not--but both Bush and Kerry are advertising on msnbc.com, so the issue of news organizations accepting ad dollars is really not an important one.

I doubt he is too but I think he should personally. As for the issue of news organizations accepting ad dollars, I wasn't trying to make that an issue. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Ok I won't argue this. However on FNC, they both run attack ads there. I've only seen the Bush one so far on FNC! I agree that Kerry probably doesn't have on there but I think he's missing out personally.
So what are you not arguing--that FNC appeals to conservative viewers or that FNC has a conservative lean to their coverage or both? And let's be honest here--you can't really charge that "both run attack ads there" and then say that you've only seen the Bush one, unless you have proof from another source that says Kerry is running attack ads on FNC.

So what are you not arguing--that FNC appeals to conservative viewers or that FNC has a conservative lean to their coverage or both? And let's be honest here--you can't really charge that "both run attack ads there" and then say that you've only seen the Bush one, unless you have proof from another source that says Kerry is running attack ads on FNC.

They do on the Television! I've seen both commercials for both candidates there so yea I can make that charge! LOL!!!

I won't deny that FNC is conservative because it is but when they report the news, it is Fair and Balanced. I will not protected the commentaries though because those are basically opinions and normally given after they report the news.

Actually it isn't! All but one link, I couldn't read because it was either 1) broken or 2)document not found!Oops, not sure what happened there. My bad. Let's try again. Text of memos can be found at http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8145&fcategory_desc=Fox%20News,%2024hr%20Republican%20Network
And an interview with an ex Fox newsman is here:

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/problems/FoxNews.htm


Those should work. I look forward to your response.

When veteran television journalist Chris Wallace announced this week that he was leaving ABC for Fox News, reporters asked him whether he was concerned about trading in his objectivity for Fox's rightward slant. "I had the same conception a lot of people did about Fox News, that they have a right-wing agenda," Wallace told The Washington Post. But after watching Fox closely, Wallace said, he had decided that the network suffered from an "unfair rap," and that its reporting is, in fact, "serious, thoughtful and even-handed."

You just destroyed your second link!

However, most of these people are very low level so all they get is generalizations. I personally think its fair and balanced and that I don't agree with everything they say just like I don't agree totally with what any media outlets says.

Now for the First link! Here is one memo!

As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing (3/25/04).

He is right. You have to mix GOOD with the BAD!! They did focus on the deaths of the soldiers AS WELL AS the creation of the defense ministry. How is this proving that this person is controlling the news. He mixed good news (creation of the Iraqi defense ministry) and the Bad (the deaths of US Soldiers)

Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).

And again he makes a point! So far from reading these memos that are on the first link, DO NOT indicate that he is controling what FNC puts out.

THW, a bit of technical advice. Jolt shortens pasted links automatically, You can't always copy them from a Jolt post and expect them to work. Copy them from the source.
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/problems/FoxNews.htm
becomes
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloo...ems/FoxNews.htm

THW, a bit of technical advice. Jolt shortens pasted links automatically, You can't always copy them from a Jolt post and expect them to work. Copy them from the source.
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/problems/FoxNews.htm
becomes
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jbloo...ems/FoxNews.htmThanks. *Hits computer with club*;)

Yes. Kerry runs ads on FNC.
I have seen them.

You just destroyed your second link!

However, most of these people are very low level so all they get is generalizations. I personally think its fair and balanced and that I don't agree with everything they say just like I don't agree totally with what any media outlets says.Not if you read past the first paragraph:

"It was all too much for Charlie Reina to take. Reina, 55, spent six years at Fox as a producer, copy editor and writer, working both on hard news stories and on feature programs like "News Watch" and "After Hours." He quit in April, he says, in a fit of frustration over salary, job assignments and respect. Since that time, he has watched the debate over whether Fox is really "fair and balanced." He held his fire, bit his tongue. But then he heard Chris Wallace -- an outsider to Fox, for now -- proclaim the network fair. Reina couldn't remain silent any longer, and so he fired off a long post to Jim Romenesko's message board at the Poynter Institute. In his view, he was setting the Fox record straight.

"The fact is," Reina wrote, "daily life at FNC is all about management politics." Reina said that Fox's daily news coverage -- and its daily news bias -- is driven by an "editorial note" sent to the newsroom every morning by John Moody, a Fox senior vice president. The editorial note -- a memo posted on Fox's computer system -- tells the staff which correspondents are working on which stories. But frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news -- invariably, he says, in a way that's consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration.

Before starting work at Fox in 1997, Reina had a long career in broadcast journalism. He worked on the broadcast wire at the Associated Press, wrote copy for CBS radio news and worked on ABC's "Good Morning America." Along the way, he says, no one ever told him how to slant a story -- until he started working at Fox. At the "fair and balanced" network, Reina says, he and his colleagues were frequently told -- sometimes directly, usually more subtly -- to toe the Republican Party line.

Reina is out of journalism for the moment -- he's running his own woodworking business in suburban New York -- and he realizes that going public about his experience at Fox won't improve his career prospects. He says he doesn't care.

Fox did not respond to calls or a faxed letter from Salon seeking comment on Reina's tenure at the network or his comments about news values there. But Reina has plainly hit a nerve. Late Thursday, Romenesko posted a response to Reina's note that appeared to be from Sharri Berg, a vice president for news operations at Fox. The response called Reina a "disgruntled employee" with "an ax to grind." And Berg included comments she attributed to an unnamed Fox staffer who described Reina as one "any number of clueless feature producers" who made inane calls to the news desk, "the kind of calls where after you hung up you say to the phone, 'go f?k yourself.'" Berg quoted the newsroom employee as saying, "[I]t's not editorial policy that pisses off newsroom grunts -- it's people like Charlie."



Now for the First link! Here is one memo!



He is right. You have to mix GOOD with the BAD!! They did focus on the deaths of the soldiers AS WELL AS the creation of the defense ministry. How is this proving that this person is controlling the news. He mixed good news (creation of the Iraqi defense ministry) and the Bad (the deaths of US Soldiers)



And again he makes a point! So far from reading these memos that are on the first link, DO NOT indicate that he is controling what FNC puts out.Read the bit I highlighted- I'm not saying that Moody controls the slant of Fox, I'm saying he influences it. More from the memos:

Moody on the 9/11 commission:

"The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that."

Moody on the American Civil Liberties Union:

"For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine)"

On George Bush:

"[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day "

On John Kerry:

"Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform "

All emphasis mine. Kindly explain how those comments are "fair and balanced".

And I'm telling you, he isn't! I've read all the memos Holy Word, all 33 of them and I'm getting his impressions from them but not a one and I do mean this, indicates that he has influenced the news reporting. I can see where people are getting it but that just isn't so!

And I'm telling you, he isn't! I've read all the memos Holy Word, all 33 of them and I'm getting his impressions from them but not a one and I do mean this, indicates that he has influenced the news reporting. I can see where people are getting it but that just isn't so!From the inteview with Charlie Reina:

""The fact is," Reina wrote, "daily life at FNC is all about management politics." Reina said that Fox's daily news coverage -- and its daily news bias -- is driven by an "editorial note" sent to the newsroom every morning by John Moody, a Fox senior vice president. The editorial note -- a memo posted on Fox's computer system -- tells the staff which correspondents are working on which stories. But frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news -- invariably, he says, in a way that's consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration. "

Do you not think an ex producer of Fox News is going to have a better understanding of what goes on in the newsroom then you or I?

From the inteview with Charlie Reina:

""The fact is," Reina wrote, "daily life at FNC is all about management politics." Reina said that Fox's daily news coverage -- and its daily news bias -- is driven by an "editorial note" sent to the newsroom every morning by John Moody, a Fox senior vice president. The editorial note -- a memo posted on Fox's computer system -- tells the staff which correspondents are working on which stories. But frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news -- invariably, he says, in a way that's consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration. "

Do you not think an ex producer of Fox News is going to have a better understanding of what goes on in the newsroom then you or I?

Quote an interview by a Former employee all you want but it does NOT indicate the he influenced the news.

Quote an interview by a Former employee all you want but it does NOT indicate the he influenced the news.Why do you think he sent the memos out if they weren't to influence people?

They do on the Television! I've seen both commercials for both candidates there so yea I can make that charge! LOL!!!

I won't deny that FNC is conservative because it is but when they report the news, it is Fair and Balanced. I will not protected the commentaries though because those are basically opinions and normally given after they report the news.
You said yourself that the commentaries after the reports are biased. So, if they come after the reports, thats the last thing people will hear, and will remember that, and have that opinion to go around with in your mind, fresher than the actual facts.

Besides, wasn't someone suing FNC for false advertising? It's a pretty big indicator taht you're biased when someone can go far enough to sue you. I don't see other news channels being sued.

You said yourself that the commentaries after the reports are biased. So, if they come after the reports, thats the last thing people will hear, and will remember that, and have that opinion to go around with in your mind, fresher than the actual facts.

Besides, wasn't someone suing FNC for false advertising? It's a pretty big indicator taht you're biased when someone can go far enough to sue you. I don't see other news channels being sued.

I don't know about suing, but I do know that Moveon.org filed a complaint with the FTC though it hasn't appeared on the FTC website as of yet. However, we all know that Moveon.org is supporting John Kerry and is not fair at all so its rather mute.

As for Reporting, the Reporting itself is not biased but Commantary is not constrained. Commentary is the opinion of the person. I could say that Moveon.org is Anti-American, Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican party and it would be my opinion though it'll be shared by others. Do I believe that they are anti-american? Not really. Do I believe they are anti-Bush? Yes I do. Do I believe that they are Anti-Repunlican Party? As of right now, yes.

When I look at news, I go by how it is reported then listen to the commentary. By doing both, you get an idea on what is going on. That is where other sources come into play.

Why do you think he sent the memos out if they weren't to influence people?

He's not telling his people what to report, he's telling them to keep things in perspective. Its exactly what I would do. Look at the coverage of scandals out of Iraq. Fox News did report it but decided not to show pictures or if they did show them, it was done tastefully. Did they blast the military? No they did not because they had no reason to blame the military. They decided to wait till the investigation was concluded. Other networks though, did not do that! They immediately blamed Bush and Rumsfield as well as the military and blasted the pictures. Should Fox News have done this? No because they wanted actual information whereas other networks did not care.

He's not telling his people what to report, he's telling them to keep things in perspective. How is saying "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine" telling his people to keep things in perspective?

How is saying "let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine" telling his people to keep things in perspective?

Is that all you really have? Get off of it! Look at what the ACLU has done to Freedom OF Religion. They are doing everything they can to eliminate it through the courts. He asked, notice the word ask, his people to say a prayer to whatever GOD you serve. Everyone knows that the ACLU frowns on this. That is why he said that. AGain, his opinion but its not to influence anyone.

Is that all you really have? Get off of it! Look at what the ACLU has done to Freedom OF Religion. They are doing everything they can to eliminate it through the courts. He asked, notice the word ask, his people to say a prayer to whatever GOD you serve. Everyone knows that the ACLU frowns on this. That is why he said that. AGain, his opinion but its not to influence anyone.He said that not to influence anyone. I thought you said they were "his people"?

Another one then:

"The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that."

You're a hypocrite FD. If there were similar emails floating around from CNN about Bush you'd be using it as absolute proof of CNNs pro Kerry bias. (Which you still haven't provided any evidence of).

Fox is just a little bit leaning to the conservative side but all the other ones are SUPER LIBERAL.

exactly correct. i'll admit that the Fox station tends to be more conservative but that's the station and that's b/c it's owned by murdoch. but when it comes to repoting it's just that reporting. they don't have commentary from their anchors like cnn(i refuse to capitailize such a liberal station it doesn't deserve it) which is extremely bad commentary at that. and to give an example, i was watching a bit they were doing on the feeling of the iraqii people post-war, and they interviewed a man who said he though america was doing what was right and what will help the country the most and then the reporters comment was "Obviously the Iraqi people have seen much fear and they hope America won't continue that trend." i mean where the hell do you get that from a guy who said he's freakin happy we're there??!! And all of the FoxNews haters...maybe you can back up some of you ungrounded claims? what you can't??? hmm :cool:

Everyone knows that the ACLU frowns on this.
Pretty much anytime someone uses "Everyone Knows ..." in an argument, it means that the proponent can't actually back up the statement.

FD, your arguments are shrill and devoid of content. Repeating your opinion over and over again does not make it so. THW has posted credible links and stories, and you have merely repeated your opinion
* I can see where people are getting it but that just isn't so!
* Why should I? I'm going to let someone else refute it because I don't believe I can refute it in the language that you would like.
* If you believe this then your blinded.
Opinions all, FD. Do better or back off.

exactly correct. i'll admit that the Fox station tends to be more conservative but that's the station and that's b/c it's owned by murdoch. but when it comes to repoting it's just that reporting. they don't have commentary from their anchors like cnn(i refuse to capitailize such a liberal station it doesn't deserve it) which is extremely bad commentary at that. and to give an example, i was watching a bit they were doing on the feeling of the iraqii people post-war, and they interviewed a man who said he though america was doing what was right and what will help the country the most and then the reporters comment was "Obviously the Iraqi people have seen much fear and they hope America won't continue that trend." i mean where the hell do you get that from a guy who said he's freakin happy we're there??!! And all of the FoxNews haters...maybe you can back up some of you ungrounded claims? what you can't??? hmm :cool:Back them up like provide some links you mean? Oh. We've already done that. Where's your links?

It's what happens when you drink bacon grease milkshakes all day long. They're the same people who went to see "The Passion of the Christ" and forgot that it was just a movie - with a stupid plot, I might add. They're the same people who sent money to that TV Evangelist who said that a 900 ft. tall Jesus told him to collect a million dollars or he would die.
In short ... America's finest.

You seem to imply that Christians have absolutely no reasoning skills, have incredibly low IQ's, and are generally idiots. Good Job. With those stereotypes, you have just managed to make yourself look like an ingnorant, arrogant, typical American. Congratulations.

You seem to imply that Christians have absolutely no reasoning skills, have incredibly low IQ's, and are generally idiots. Good Job. With those stereotypes, you have just managed to make yourself look like an ingnorant, arrogant, typical American. Congratulations.No he/she hasn't. He/she's implied that those people who send money to TV evangelists are idiots.

No he/she hasn't. He/she's implied that those people who send money to TV evangelists are idiots.

he/she also implied that anyone who "forgot tHe passion of christ was just a movie" were idiots, which can mean Christians...of course it can also mean all the jerks who said it was anti-semetic etc. So, i guess we are both right..:)

I think most of the faux "outrage" against Fox is because they are the #1 rated cable news network. The elitist liberal snobs can't stand the fact that people don't want to listen to their biased media (New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC).

What do you propose? Have the government shut them down? Yes, that would be the good leftist's solution.

First of all, I'm exceptionally pleased that this thread has bred a lot of good debate.

Secondly, I'd like to give a solid example of Fox's biased reporting.

Today while looking at some old O'reilly interviews, I found one in which he states " that the Canadian media and the Canadian education system is now skewing their reportage about America so that all of these children, millions of Canadian children, feel that we are an evil force in the world. They're not providing perspective to the children up there and I believe I'm absolutely correct, sir." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128151,00.html

THe only evidence he uses to back this up is that 64% of French Canadian teenagers believe that America is an evil force in the world.


Clearly this is not enough evidence to make this claim.

Have fun

I think most of the faux "outrage" against Fox is because they are the #1 rated cable news network. The elitist liberal snobs can't stand the fact that people don't want to listen to their biased media (New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC).

What do you propose? Have the government shut them down? Yes, that would be the good leftist's solution.So, are you going be the rightist that provides us with proof of liberal bias in the media where all others have failed? I won't hold my breath. (And who's called for Fox to be shut down? I spy a straw man on the horizon).

he/she also implied that anyone who "forgot tHe passion of christ was just a movie" were idiots, which can mean Christians...of course it can also mean all the jerks who said it was anti-semetic etc. So, i guess we are both right..Hmm, well the Passion of Christ certainly ignores the last 50 years of biblical scholarship so I'd say it is just a movie. ;)

So, are you going be the rightist that provides us with proof of liberal bias in the media where all others have failed?

The ratings are all the proof Fox News needs. People finally have an alternative to the bias they perceive, and are choosing it in a landslide.

The ratings are all the proof Fox News needs. People finally have an alternative to the bias they perceive, and are choosing it in a landslide.Why not apply that across the board to all forms of media? Jeffery Archer is a better author then Oscar Wilde. N-Sync are more talented musicians then the Strokes. While Munch's "The Scream" is a good painting, he wasn't as talented as the person who came up with the idea of "Four Dogs wearing Smoking Jackets playing Pool".

I think most of the faux "outrage" against Fox is because they are the #1 rated cable news network. The elitist liberal snobs can't stand the fact that people don't want to listen to their biased media (New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC).
1 biased station or 6 biased stations.
This no im pretty sure its because its biased not because its number one provide proff that the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC are biased, bet you cant. Anyway how does accuseing all them being biased show that FOX isnt biased. You have said nothing that makes my believe that FOX isnt biased!


What do you propose? Have the government shut them down? Yes, that would be the good leftist's solution.
LOL YOU are funny person. A good leftist's(?) solution would be for a station paid for by the people that is objective as it can be.
Like say the BBC which some people here have accused of being biased and I ask them again HOW? It has absolutely no connection to either party!!

The ratings are all the proof Fox News needs. People finally have an alternative to the bias they perceive, and are choosing it in a landslide.
People will believe what they want to believe!

Why not apply that across the board to all forms of media? Jeffery Archer is a better author then Oscar Wilde. N-Sync are more talented musicians then the Strokes. While Munch's "The Scream" is a good painting, he wasn't as talented as the person who came up with the idea of "Four Dogs wearing Smoking Jackets playing Pool".

Yes, why not do that? Is any person's choice of media any better than someone else's?

Yes, why not do that? Is any person's choice of media any better than someone else's?

No! All stays broadcast the news in their own way. People just prefer Fox News over the others. That is not to say that the other networks are doing a bad job of reporting, it just means that the people like the way Fox News broadcasts it.

The ratings are all the proof Fox News needs. People finally have an alternative to the bias they perceive, and are choosing it in a landslide.

Sure, when you report entertainment over news, its more interesting to those people who can't stomach watching what is really happening. If there were a cable channel called Shiny Object News, it would beat Fox News in a heartbeat. When you have to use flashy graphics and hate filled entertainers instead of actual news, people will watch. Its discouraging...

I still love the fact that Fox News is actually making its viewers less knowledgable. A study came out a few months earlier showing that over 80% of Fox News viewers believed that Iraq was directly responsible for the 9/11 attack. Just keep staring at the shiny objects....all is ok.

Sure, when you report entertainment over news, its more interesting to those people who can't stomach watching what is really happening. If there were a cable channel called Shiny Object News, it would beat Fox News in a heartbeat. When you have to use flashy graphics and hate filled entertainers instead of actual news, people will watch. Its discouraging...

I still love the fact that Fox News is actually making its viewers less knowledgable. A study came out a few months earlier showing that over 80% of Fox News viewers believed that Iraq was directly responsible for the 9/11 attack. Just keep staring at the shiny objects....all is ok.

I would like to see that study! I watch fox news and they never tried to implicate Iraq as directly responsible for 9/11. Even I know they were not directly responsible for 9/11 and I always watch Fox News.

After watching Fox occasionally for a couple of weeks I totally understand how people can hate America.Can there be ever have been a bigger bunch of more arrogant,condescending,loud obnoxious idiots on any channel? :headbang:

That loudmouth reporter having a go at a French journalist because France were against the war on Iraq and trying to compare Saddam to Hitler was pathetic.Like appeasement was the French way when France and Britain had gone to war in 1939 to stop Hitler while America did F**K ALL until the Japs bombed Pearl harbour. :sniper: :mp5:

The study is true. But the implication is not that fox news is telling their viewers that Iraq is responsible, its that there not making the truth clear enough for some viewers to interpret the news correctly.

But it does make one wonder how stupid the general Fox News audience is. Its not all viewers, I know that, but i do think that many die hard conservatives watch just because it displays completely right wing views and they don't actually listen to anything thing at all. They just hate anything liberal and love everything conservative without paying attention to whether or not they agree with the issues at all. But I have to ask as a general question to hard line conservatives, if repulicanism entails a smaller government as originally intended, to which I agree, what happened to separation of church and state? Complete separation is not letting one set of religious ideals dominate all judgement for an entire party, right?

No! All stays broadcast the news in their own way. People just prefer Fox News over the others. That is not to say that the other networks are doing a bad job of reporting, it just means that the people like the way Fox News broadcasts it.


Thats right... sometimes people like to be told waht to think rather than be given a choice what to think. It's just easier that way.

The study is true. But the implication is not that fox news is telling their viewers that Iraq is responsible, its that there not making the truth clear enough for some viewers to interpret the news correctly.

I want to see that study! I'm not taking the word of anyone tell I know who did the study, where they did the study and how they did the study. I've watched Fox News and I have not heard them AT ALL implicate Iraq as directly responsible for 9/11

Liberals like CNN because it is left-bias.
Conservatives like Foxnews because it is right-bias.

Simple as that. CNN and Foxnews are just polar opposites of each other in terms of political ideology. Journalism and integrity for both are the same and so on and so fourth. CNN, during the Clinton Administration was gung-ho Clinton and Foxnews was anti-Clinton. Now during the Bush Administration, CNN is anti-Bush and Foxnews is gung-ho Bush.

I am sure those out there who think CNN is god and Foxnews is the devil and vice versa will wade in with some stupid remarks. I personally like Foxnews, not because I am a conservative Republican, but because I want to turn on the news every once in a while and hear good things about America.

It is amusing though to see in the polls that Foxnews shows have higher ratings than those at CNN. O'Reilly usually leads the charge with a 2.1 followed by Hannity and Colms and then usually Larry King Live.

And for the record, I don't like Bush.

Watching FOX and CNN from the UK, they both seem to be biased towards the Right. Although, I regard FOX as a cartoon channel. It is to be laughed at for it's irony. Nothing more.

CNN, I'd say has a slight bias towards the right but at least they do their job to some degree.

O'Reilly
Hannity and Colmbs
On the Record
The Fox Report

Followed by everyone else from the last standings I saw!

Liberals like CNN because it is left-bias.
Conservatives like Foxnews because it is right-bias.

Simple as that. CNN and Foxnews are just polar opposites of each other in terms of political ideology. Journalism and integrity for both are the same and so on and so fourth. CNN, during the Clinton Administration was gung-ho Clinton and Foxnews was anti-Clinton. Now during the Bush Administration, CNN is anti-Bush and Foxnews is gung-ho Bush.

I am sure those out there who think CNN is god and Foxnews is the devil and vice versa will wade in with some stupid remarks. I personally like Foxnews, not because I am a conservative Republican, but because I want to turn on the news every once in a while and hear good things about America.

It is amusing though to see in the polls that Foxnews shows have higher ratings than those at CNN. O'Reilly usually leads the charge with a 2.1 followed by Hannity and Colms and then usually Larry King Live.

And for the record, I don't like Bush.
they arnt polar opposite, cnn has a very slightl eft wing bias in its stories, where the right wing bias in fox stories is more than obvious, and they have higher ratings because they are right wing, right wingers have very steady, unchanging beliefs, and are very inclined to pursue them, the left is more laid back and is more like "meh'

they arnt polar opposite, cnn has a very slightl eft wing bias in its stories, where the right wing bias in fox stories is more than obvious, and they have higher ratings because they are right wing, right wingers have very steady, unchanging beliefs, and are very inclined to pursue them, the left is more laid back and is more like "meh'

CNN is not very slightly left! Its moderately left! I can see it every time I watch it. Fox news is moderately Right but they do their jobs and broadcast the news as does CNN! People just Prefer Fox News over CNN!

CNN is not very slightly left! Its moderately left! I can see it every time I watch it. Fox news is moderately Right but they do their jobs and broadcast the news as does CNN! People just Prefer Fox News over CNN!
We had to provide evidence that FOX is biased so do the same for CNN

heres an other artical http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html

CNN is not very slightly left! Its moderately left! I can see it every time I watch it. Fox news is moderately Right but they do their jobs and broadcast the news as does CNN! People just Prefer Fox News over CNN!
no, fox news is hard right, not moderate right, they are all the way into the right wing circle

no, fox news is hard right, not moderate right, they are all the way into the right wing circle

Sorry Chess Squares but that is inaccurate. Fox News is not Hard right, its moderate right! CNN is moderate Left! They are polar opposites of eachother. Just because you don't like fox news does not change this fact.

Sorry Chess Squares but that is inaccurate. Fox News is not Hard right, its moderate right! CNN is moderate Left! They are polar opposites of eachother. Just because you don't like fox news does not change this fact.
Well, form a Canadian perspective, Fox is dead-right while CNN can be called center.

Sorry Chess Squares but that is inaccurate. Fox News is not Hard right, its moderate right! CNN is moderate Left! They are polar opposites of eachother. Just because you don't like fox news does not change this fact.
just because you life fox news doesnt mean you can sugar coat is major right wing bias

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm?1c)

Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Hazards of Watching Fox News (http://www.alternet.org/story/16892)

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm?1c)

Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm)

Problem with the first link is that you have to register so can I have a website with this study?

Number 2, I find bias in the report that it does NOT include CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC, all of which reported the EXACT SAME THING! Fox News has never stated that Iraq was directly repsonsible for the 9/11 attack. I watched it and not once, did they mention that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Do you have proof that FNC said, and I DO MEAN SAID, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

Looking back, I see nowhere did they ever stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

just because you life fox news doesnt mean you can sugar coat is major right wing bias

I don't sugar coat anything except when it will involve a personal insult! I'm above calling names.

If you think i'm sugar coating, then you have no right to sugar coat the biasness of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, SFT, MSNBC, and NPR!

uh nope, I am not registered and it loads for me, it just takes a while to load.

here is what it says if you can't get there:

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war
By FRANK DAVIES

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:


U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.


People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

They noted that the Bush administration had misstated or exaggerated some of the intelligence findings, with Bush himself saying in May: "We found the weapons of mass destruction … and we'll find more as time goes by."

The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Why some news audiences had more accurate impressions than others was less clear.

Kull cited instances in which TV and newspapers gave prominent coverage to reports that banned weapons might have been found in Iraq, but only modest coverage when those reports turned out to be wrong.

Susan Moeller, a University of Maryland professor, said that much reporting had consisted of "stenographic coverage of government statements," with less attention to whether the government's statements were accurate.

The study found that belief in inaccurate information often persisted, and that misconceptions were much more likely among backers of the war. Last month, as in June, for example, nearly a quarter of those polled thought banned weapons had been found in Iraq. Nearly half thought in September that there was clear evidence that Saddam had worked closely with al-Qaida.

Among those with one of the three misconceptions, 53 percent supported the war. Among those with two, 78 percent supported it. Among those with three, 86 percent backed it. By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war.

I don't sugar coat anything except when it will involve a personal insult! I'm above calling names.

If you think i'm sugar coating, then you have no right to sugar coat the biasness of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, SFT, MSNBC, and NPR!
i didnt sugar coat it, cnn is not as hard left as fox is hard right, i read 2 articles, 1 by each station, on the same subject. cnn was staying along the lines and addressed some kerry stuff and addressed bush answers a couple times, where as fox gave up right down the line halfway throguh and brought on a guest speaker praising bush about is economic policy bordering on fellatio

Both CNN and Fox are hilariously poor. The rest of the televised media in America seem to just be unamusingly terrible.

I have not heard of the Knight Ridder Newspapers! Therefor, I will not comment on the report.

BTW, what is Program on International Policy Attitudes? I never heard of this group so I will do research before I comment on what they are saying. However, I have a gut feeling that the poll is biased.

This is what I'm going to say then I'm retiring from this thread.

No matter what affiliation you are, your going to find bias in everything from News coverage to movies. There really is no point in arguing bias because it will always turn into a he/she said, he/she said arguement. The facts don't change. You can have fair and accurate reporting followed by commentary. That is what Fox News does. They report it then comment on it during various shows. The commentary is right leaning, I will not deny that. CNN does the samething. They report on it then comment on it. Most of their commentary is Left leaning. You can't escape that fact either. No matter what, bias is everywhere wether we like it or not.

i didnt sugar coat it, cnn is not as hard left as fox is hard right, i read 2 articles, 1 by each station, on the same subject. cnn was staying along the lines and addressed some kerry stuff and addressed bush answers a couple times, where as fox gave up right down the line halfway throguh and brought on a guest speaker praising bush about is economic policy bordering on fellatio

I never stated that CNN was hard Left! Thanks for putting words in my mouth! I said CNN is Moderately Left just as Fox News is Moderately Right! Bias is everywhere wether we like it or not!

My last post here!

I have not heard of the Knight Ridder Newspapers! Therefor, I will not comment on the report.

BTW, what is Program on International Policy Attitudes? I never heard of this group so I will do research before I comment on what they are saying. However, I have a gut feeling that the poll is biased.

This is what I'm going to say then I'm retiring from this thread.

No matter what affiliation you are, your going to find bias in everything from News coverage to movies. There really is no point in arguing bias because it will always turn into a he/she said, he/she said arguement. The facts don't change. You can have fair and accurate reporting followed by commentary. That is what Fox News does. They report it then comment on it during various shows. The commentary is right leaning, I will not deny that. CNN does the samething. They report on it then comment on it. Most of their commentary is Left leaning. You can't escape that fact either. No matter what, bias is everywhere wether we like it or not.
What you state as fact is just your opinion, I'm afraid.

I guess the several studies showing that mainly FOX news viewers as being extreemely uninformed about the facts is unimpressibve to you as long as FOX news reinforces your beliefs

LOL you wanna see bias at its worst/best http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37244
If anyone believes this crap please kill yourself now

Well, lets see.....

CBS news. Dan Rather is an admitted Democrat and his interviews show his bias.

ABC news. Peter Jennings. Canadian and a Democrat/Liberal and his bias shows in his reporting.

NBC news. Tom Brokaw. Has not stated his position but his bias appears to be toward the right.

CNN. Child of Ted Turner. Liberal Democratic demogogue.

Fox news. Child of Rupurt Murdoch. Conservative Republican demogogue.

Choose your news, each of them will give you a spin like Mr. Toads Wild Ride.

I have not heard of the Knight Ridder Newspapers! Therefor, I will not comment on the report.

They own 31 newspapers; Google can help you find them. They're a major corporation. http://www.knightridder.com/papers/index.html

BTW, what is Program on International Policy Attitudes? I never heard of this group so I will do research before I comment on what they are saying. However, I have a gut feeling that the poll is biased.

Why is it that your gut feeling that the poll is biased - without knowing anything about the poll, or the group performing the poll - more valid than the opinions of people who have watched Fox News? That's very curious. It almost seems like you're coming up with excuses to filter out critical information - no wonder you like Fox!

This is, by the way, at least the second time this poll has been referenced in this thread. I know that because I referenced it before.

This is what I'm going to say then I'm retiring from this thread.

...and this is what you say just before posting another response.

Comparing what a news show says to the truth - or what people who watch that news show believe, compared to the truth - seems to be an effective way to measure bias. I can't say I'm surprised that as soon as you're confronted with that evidence, you're running away.

Repeatedly asserting something does not make it a fact. Provide evidence, or pipe down.

BBC news is about the best you will get in the US

BBC news is about the best you will get in the US

But even the BBC is slanted to the left. As evidenced by the recent turmoil there that lead to their chief being replaced.

Comparing what a news show says to the truth - or what people who watch that news show believe, compared to the truth - seems to be an effective way to measure bias. I can't say I'm surprised that as soon as you're confronted with that evidence, you're running away.

Repeatedly asserting something does not make it a fact. Provide evidence, or pipe down.

Really? Compare it to the truth? Well, in that case I guess you must have flown yourself over to Iraq and personally interviewed everyone involved in whichever article you choose to test Fox News' bias. Is that true? Or did you watch CNN and say "Hey! Fox is biased!" Hmm? How exactly did you find the truth. No matter where you got it from, you got it from SOMEONE ELSE. In that case, since you have not personally verified the facts, you can not tell me that one news service is biased while all the others are very fair.

Perhaps you should pipe down, rather than make an arrogant fool of yourself.

But even the BBC is slanted to the left. As evidenced by the recent turmoil there that lead to their chief being replaced.

The Hutton report - which was widely considered a whitewash - triggered that. Not because of bias, but because there was evidence of sloppiness and poor procedures regarding one of their reporters.

It's interesting that the BBC holds itself to higher standards than either the Bush or Blair administration, isn't it?

The Hutton report - which was widely considered a whitewash - triggered that. Not because of bias, but because there was evidence of sloppiness and poor procedures regarding one of their reporters.

It's interesting that the BBC holds itself to higher standards than either the Bush or Blair administration, isn't it?

Yet they STILL allowed that biased piece to go on the air. The BBC, being owned by the British Government lives up to the standards that the government places on it.

I'm in the UK, and I watch Fox News when i need a laugh, or when friends are round, cus it's great to laugh at. It reminds me how lucky we are to have the BBC in the UK, even ITV News isn't as much of a panic-monger news station as Fox!

Well I disagre with your point about ITV news- with their lead story often being "has David Beckham got a new tattoo" I thank God that there arent any wars going on in Middle Eastern Countries, or elections coming up soon in the UK, or any major sporting events happening, or any murder cases across the country, or many humanitarian crises in a country like, ooh I dont know, the Sudan.

Hang on a minute- there are?! Guess we will have to wait until after the break to find out about those...

Anyone who wants the BBC licence fee abolished, consider this: "we will be back for the 100m final after these advertisements"- what an anticlimax...

How exactly did you find the truth. No matter where you got it from, you got it from SOMEONE ELSE. In that case, since you have not personally verified the facts, you can not tell me that one news service is biased while all the others are very fair.

Jebus; that's reading comprehension for you. There was a poll - conducted several months ago - by PIPA, that has been referenced a few times in this thread. It's even been quoted. What it has not been is refuted, by you, by Formal Dances, or by Fox.

If you read the damn poll, it shows that people whose primary news source is Fox are significantly more likely to believe things that even President Bush has admitted are not true - like Iraq being involved in 9/11.

I'm not going to get drawn into any kind of sophmoric discussion of subjective versus objective reality - particularly not with anyone I haven't met in person. Since I haven't personally verified that you exist, I can hope that you're just a cloud of particularly stupid electrons.

Perhaps you should pipe down, rather than make an arrogant fool of yourself.

Learn to read.

The BBC, being owned by the British Government lives up to the standards that the government places on it.

This is factually incorrect; the BBC is owned by the british public, not by the government. It is an important distinction, because it directly relates to who the BBC is responsible to.

So, since the head of the BBC resigned for letting Gilligan's "biased" report on the air, what is the proper action for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz to take for allowing Chalabi's information to influence their decision to go to war?

But even the BBC is slanted to the left. As evidenced by the recent turmoil there that lead to their chief being replaced.

During the build-up and the actual recent war in Iraq, BBC News actually showed more interviews/soundbites etc from pro-war speakers (eg UK or US government / military etc) that to those against or sceptical of the war. This was according to analysis of British news output by a British university. So, I hardly think it can be considered as being biased to the left.

Personally, I watch BBC World (channel) here in Sweden quite a lot, and found it to be fair and respectful to all opinions during the build-up and war. I didn't find it biased to either side. But, that is of course not a university study, just my opinion.

Then answer this question Borgoa! Why did the flagship of the Royal Navy, pull the plug on BBC? Obviously he thought it was biased against the war.

ill answer for him. there are a few things you dont do to soldiers. one of them is make them question why they are killing. questioning why they are doing something is VERY bad for morale.

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

TV began as a social engineering experiment. The experiment continues although this generation has forgotten that this is what it is. Fox is perfect for its shallow depth, thin evidence supported opinionated uneducated audience. It's only funny because you are smarter than their demographic, and the laughter is a form of dealing with the utter pain of realizing the unbelievable tabloid digested form of truth.

It is hard to handle the fact that anyone would lack enough basis in understanding human nature and reality to fall for this betrayal of journalism and truth. But it is not nearly as deleterious as the fact that 79% the audience is the proud owner of at least one book on their shelf. Most haven't read that one book yet, which is called the Holy Book of Cartoon Realities – as real as Santa God. So what is worse, follower of the modern fictions as if it is truth or, followers of the old fictions as truth?

The “inner world” intuitive knows that truth hurts AND that it will set you free after it beats the pulp out of the internal lies we tell ourselves – fed by the lazy remote controlled post education learning method off TV.

People who don’t want real freedom add to and promote the same old lies – wolves in sheep’s clothing. People who don’t want to offend others will also remain silent in the face of painful uncomfortable life saving truth.

Fox needs to entertain and support the system of denial otherwise its advertisers will kill it as a company. No one living in the delusion of a “prison of the mind” that creates a false sense of freedom, peace and security wants to be informed of any indication that they might not be free at all.

You’ve heard the expression, “you can’t handle the truth.” Well Fox knows that is the majority reality. They make the decision to tow the party line of fear and blame of domestic engineered criminal activities on invisible foreigners with no motive, no means and no opportunity. Fabricated fear keeps people busy so that the real fear of accepting the truth (looking in the mirror) can be avoided. Fox is a mirror image of its audience.

ill answer for him. there are a few things you dont do to soldiers. one of them is make them question why they are killing. questioning why they are doing something is VERY bad for morale.
because soldiers have to be brainwashed zombies who can kill at the drop of the hat and not question whether its a good or bad guy, long as they shoot them its ok

ill answer for him. there are a few things you dont do to soldiers. one of them is make them question why they are killing. questioning why they are doing something is VERY bad for morale.

Yes, I pretty much answered the same a few pages back.

This is factually incorrect; the BBC is owned by the british public, not by the government. It is an important distinction, because it directly relates to who the BBC is responsible to.

So, since the head of the BBC resigned for letting Gilligan's "biased" report on the air, what is the proper action for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz to take for allowing Chalabi's information to influence their decision to go to war?

The BBC is not a "private" enterprise so it operates in different ways from the other news outlets.

Hasn't Chalabi been charged with a few crimes recently? I suspect Mr. Chalabi will find an unpleasant demise in the near future. His false information, as well as many other sources caused all this mess. So the cleaners will be called in and people will just disappear.

Hasn't Chalabi been charged with a few crimes recently? I suspect Mr. Chalabi will find an unpleasant demise in the near future. His false information, as well as many other sources caused all this mess. So the cleaners will be called in and people will just disappear.

You're still not answering my question: if Chalabi's false information caused this mess, what should happen to those people (like Judith Miller, and like the administration) who broadcast and relied on his information?

Should they resign, like Greg Dyke of the BBC?

The BBC is not a "private" enterprise so it operates in different ways from the other news outlets.



It's by no means without similar counterparts; SVT, YLE, NRK, ARD and many more, they are all similarly from a less biased starting point, as they have no private corporation as their owner.

You're still not answering my question: if Chalabi's false information caused this mess, what should happen to those people (like Judith Miller, and like the administration) who broadcast and relied on his information?

Should they resign, like Greg Dyke of the BBC?

I don't think so, because they acted in good faith with the info they were given. However, Mr. Dyke of the BBC it turns out knew the info he allowed to air was false.

It's by no means without similar counterparts; SVT, YLE, NRK, ARD and many more, they are all similarly from a less biased starting point, as they have no private corporation as their owner.

I have no knowledge of those outlets so I will have to take your word for it. I guess all publicly owned broadcasters are, and should be, more aware of the potential for bias.

I do think that ALL news organizations are biased in one way or another, they are staffed by humans, and ALL humans are biased.

FOX News, is like all good jokes. Funny at first, but gets old quick.

I have no knowledge of those outlets so I will have to take your word for it. I guess all publicly owned broadcasters are, and should be, more aware of the potential for bias.

I do think that ALL news organizations are biased in one way or another, they are staffed by humans, and ALL humans are biased.

Yes, absolutely, it is impossible for any one individual human to be unbiased. I agree, this can be the case just because of the different ways a person can interpret the same thing.

The organisations Ilisted are all northern European national public service broadcasters (eg: SVT = Sveriges Television (Sweden), YLE = Yleisradio (Finland), NRK = Norsk rikskringkasting (Norge)). These organisations are publically owned, and thus have no influence from an owner (such as Rupert Murdoch in Fox's case). Generally, they also have very strict regulations/standards that mean they must provide as fair and balanced coverage of events.

Of course, some southern and eastern European broadcasters aren't as good at this (I think especially of RAI in Italy or the Russian tv companies).

The BBC is definately a very good example of a fair and balanced broadcaster, despite of the events concerning Andrew Gilligan. At the end of the day, I suspect if every report of every commercial news organisation had to live up to the BBC's standards and scrutiny (such as that given to Gilligan's), pretty much every TV-News company director would have had to resign!

I do think that ALL news organizations are biased in one way or another, they are staffed by humans, and ALL humans are biased.

I don't think anyone's arguing the counter position to this. I think the 'other' position is:

1. Some organizations are more biased than others
2. This bias can be measured (at least in certain areas)
3. Measurements indicate that, although other news channels are biased, Fox News is significantly more biased

I don't think anyone's arguing the counter position to this. I think the 'other' position is:

1. Some organizations are more biased than others
2. This bias can be measured (at least in certain areas)
3. Measurements indicate that, although other news channels are biased, Fox News is significantly more biased

Is it because they are biased to the right that is the problem? I find CNN and CBS to be biased to the left, but I still watch all three. Dan Rather is so far to the left it is not even funny. Remember when he tried to play hardball with Bush 1 a number of years ago and was shouting at the president? Or did you see his recent interview with Bill Clinton and his incredibly leading questions? I get a good laugh out of Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth" Rather. ;)

I don't think anyone's arguing the counter position to this. I think the 'other' position is:

1. Some organizations are more biased than others
2. This bias can be measured (at least in certain areas)
3. Measurements indicate that, although other news channels are biased, Fox News is significantly more biased

I would agree with you here.

Everything is ultimately biased, but Fox's bias is so extreme, it stands out above others.
For instance, some people have argued that CNN is biased to the right and to the left (personally, I find CNN very slightly right-wing), but the fact that people argue both ways for CNN shows that it does not have a strong extreme bias to either end of the spectrum.

Fox, however, has a clear bias to the right, in my opinion the extreme-right. Although, I can understand that to an American, it might only appear to be moderately right-wing due to politics in general being farily right-wing in USA compared to elsewhere.

For truly fair and balanced news and entertainment from the US, listen to NPR (National Public Radio) via the internet.

Sure it is. And your grandma wears Chicom army boots!

RTÉ is unbiased (This is unrelated but interesting http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime.html) and nearly all non-American Channels will be less biased about american politics then all american channels

I have not heard of the Knight Ridder Newspapers! Therefor, I will not comment on the report.

BTW, what is Program on International Policy Attitudes? I never heard of this group so I will do research before I comment on what they are saying. However, I have a gut feeling that the poll is biased.

You've not heard of Knight Ridder??? Good grief...they own newspapers around the entire country.

Monkeys already said it but I'll reiterate...how is it that you have a feeling the poll is biased if you know nothing about the group.

By the way, why is it that whenever someone presents proof to you Formal you never change your opinion and continue to spout whatever you want without anything backing up what you say? Why haven't you shown evidence about CNN's supposed left leaning tendencies?

Why should we take your word for it when you refuse to take evidence from everyone else?

A little from column A ... a little from cloumn B ...

I tend to look at it as the right-wing "Daily Show".
Daily show admits it though

Back them up like provide some links you mean? Oh. We've already done that. Where's your links? :headbang:

not with links you idiot. your links would be to bad liberal cites produced by ranting idiots like yourself no doubt. im talking baout support for your weak claims not just weak statements that hold no ground.

:headbang:

not with links you idiot. your links would be to bad liberal cites produced by ranting idiots like yourself no doubt. im talking baout support for your weak claims not just weak statements that hold no ground.
LOOK AT THE GOD DAMN LINKS!!!! BEFORE YOU JUDGE THEM :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Where I live in the East Coast of Canada I do not get Fox News. Until recently I had never seen it.

I now have seen many clips and shows on fox news on the internet and a friends sattelite feed.

I was amazed at the absolute absurdity of the station.

ANy notion of journalistic integrity has been thrown completely out with the window. Not only the manner in which stories are presented, but story selection itself is clearly biased and unproffessional. Furthermore, the then have the gall to present themselves as "fair & balanced" and use the slogan "we report, you decide".

My question is.. are people out there as entertained by this farce of a news channell as I originaly was when I saw it?

...or are people outraged that so many voting AMericans use this as their primary if not only source for news?

Watch what you like, Canadan. :)

And thank you for not voting in our elections.

Have a cheerie day.

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

And even Jon Stewart is somewhat of a moderate.

I remember when Michael Moore was the guest and he was saying "ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL". Meanwhile you can tell Jon was thinking "your an idiot"
Not enough people realize that michael moore actually has a sense of humor. Most of what people found offense with in F. 9/11 was actually ment to be a joke.
Liberals=sense of humor
Conservatives=wanna take everything literally

I can't state enough that I guess the several studies showing that mainly FOX news viewers as being extreemely uninformed about the facts is unimpressibve to you as long as FOX news reinforces your beliefs

Biased cuz they give equal time in interviews?
biased cuz they only report facts?
sorry, y'all are wrong
fox is the best channel out there for news, and any comparisons to the daily show, that's just tripe
i'm moving to the UK soon, and i'm getting satelite, cuz its 20x better than the BBC, a channel w/ government ties.
and yes, fox IS the most watched new network
poor CNN can't keep up
CNN = Clinton News Network
Okay, if they are so unbiased, actually pay attention to the O'Reily factor some time. He lets the conservative speak as long as he wants, but calls every statement by the liberal into question. However, go ahead with the UK+satelite plan. (one less mindless drone in america, yay!) Wait, you are giving up US citizenship right?

omg, I don't know if anyone is still reading these. I got through 9 pages of
"Yes it is!" "No it's not!" and I can't take it any more, so let me throw in my two cents and be done with it.

First of all, this thread was started by a Canadian, so he has his own bias. No, first, I'm American, so there's my own bias. Everyone in the world has his/her own bias.

This whole right-left terms comes from the Reichstag- a little historical note. Anyways, Europeans as a whole are all far to the left according to the traditional understanding of that term. Canadians are halfway between Americans and Europeans. Americans are a little left of center. You can say there's right and left wing Americans, but the minorities in these groups are the only ones who are extremes. The majority of the right-wings Americans would be moderates, and the majority of left-wings would be a little left of moderate.

I thought it was important to get that out of the way, because everyone is talking about right-left wing biases, and America and Europe function on two different frequencies, kind of like our measurements. Europe is very much more socialist than America, and our cultures are very much influenced according to these differences.

Another point is the validity of a bias. I am very biased against ... incest, canabalism, and anchovies. I don't feel I am restringent or unorthodox or anything other than normal in these matters. So, if some biases are legitimate, then who is someone to say their bias is right and another's is wrong, especially in the context of national culture and politics?

I am not a relativist, where everything goes, BUT, if you're going to say someone or something is wrong, I would appreciate a well-reasoned argument, with sufficient supporting evidence.

A couple other points about news bias and all:

I think it is good that a newspaper be patriotic. Patriotism is what builds our unity, our nation is what unites us, especially in America, where we don't all have the same history and links that other countries have. We are still a melting pot, and we have to be careful to protect ourselves from divisive forces.

One ramification is when your country goes to war. If you look at all the wars America participated in last century, Vietnam always stands out on sour note. What makes Vietnam different from WW I, WW II, the Korean, and Persian Gulf: the tone at home. WW I and WW II really galvanized the American image at home. Before those wars, we were Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Anglo-Americans. Coming home, we were Americans. Vietnam has a similar effect with African-Americans, coming right after the civil rights movement.

But what distinguishes Vietnam from the other wars was the popular anti-war movement. All the soldiers coming home from hell on earth and receving the welcome they did, it was disgraceful. A democracy is a democracy, but if the country decides to go to war, then if you don't agree you should just be quiet and follow what the majority decided on. War isn't the same as other issues, like interest rates and library mileages. Once you enter a war, ithe door you go out is not the same that you came in through. So if war is begun, then follow the Commander-in-Chief, and hope for the best.

ok, all the europeans/canadains/euro loving americans liberals heres how it works. Fox IS pro american so for example they'll cover the war in iraq favorbly to america rather then the terrorirsts over there. this might bug you but oh well. on the home front this probably comes of as being pro bush, however rest assured im sure (although i don't remember because i wasnt into poltiics in early middle skool) but im sure they were more favorbale to Bill clinton then sloben milisiic (im sure i butchured the name..) and they were right to. its very simple, their used to be a saying "politics stops at the ponds edge" meaning if u disagree with sumones forigen policy you can disagree but not so that americas enemies may use it agaisnt us. for example in WWII there were many disagreemnets on how/whn/where to fight. but if you were reading any news paper at the time you would never know this. the politicans adn generals kept internal squabbling just that, internal. like wise the news reports weren't filled with 20/20 hindsight about not getting the men properly trained for the amphibous assualt, and how the pentagon covered up a attemped landing on a british beach and lost 200 men just to screw ups involing the amphbiosu assalt viechiles. instead they declared we were liberating france. was this biased? abseoultly. however would you prefer it have been filled with negative stuff that caused home front support for the war to ebb away? So while fox is "pro american" in the sense that it supports america/its allies versus bad guys (and the french) they are not biased in the sense that they wud oppose sumthing just becae a dem prez was doin (unlike ceritan news papers)

This whole right-left terms comes from the Reichstag- a little historical note.

Actually, it comes from pre-revolutionary France.
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011217.html

The rest of your post is, I'm afraid, about as accurate. I think it's more accurate to say the US is far to the right compared to the rest of the industrialized world (and particularly Europe). The US right wing is far-right, and the US democrats are right-leaning centrists. The current crew of neocons are just nutty revolutionaries.

If you read the PIPA study, you'll find that the study of 'bias' only looked at facts that they believe there was 100% confirmation on - including whether there was evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, or whether proof of WMDs had been found at that time. I think that the liberal posters on this thread would appreciate it if conservatives would at least follow the links to the FAIR paper, the PIPA study, and the Fox News memos, before posting. And particularly appreciate them reading them before asking for supporting evidence.

I notice your list of wars leaves out the Phillipine rebellion, and anything that happened in Latin or South America. I would argue there are a number of differences between the "good wars" that you cited and other conflicts that trigger public dissent.

You also confuse patriotism with blind, unthinking support. Allow me to quote two Republicans who disagree with you:
[February 15, 1848]: Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are--first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

http://thomasmc.com/dissent.htm

ok, all the europeans/canadains/euro loving americans liberals heres how it works. Fox IS pro american....
Pro Bush is not pro American!

Okay, if they are so unbiased, actually pay attention to the O'Reily factor some time. He lets the conservative speak as long as he wants, but calls every statement by the liberal into question. However, go ahead with the UK+satelite plan. (one less mindless drone in america, yay!) Wait, you are giving up US citizenship right?


I have notice that O'Reily does not give a lot of respect to the people he disagrees with. But as we have seen on this board, neither do many other people. (although a few posters have shown uncommon civility (just a few).

In responce to my last post I was ask to give an example of the type of intolerance I was talking about. I believe that most of the posts actually are an example of it, but I picked one that I recently read. "(One less mindless drone in america, yay!) Wait, you are giving up US citizenship right?" That is democracy in its finest hour isn't it? Do we need the "if your don't agree with me get out" additude? Of course, on the other side of the coin is the "if you don't like it, get out!" additude. Both of which are equal "evils" often shouted by opposite sides.

I am also surprised when I read about a major study linking news with "correctness" in an issue. Since it is impossible for our limited 4 demetional thinking to perceive what we need to know about the occurance of any one event to establish what is true, how can we measure the correctness of any political action? What universally agreed quantitative factors can we use to judge?

Something that I do agree with that I have been reading in this thread is that people do need to think for themselves a little more often. Perhaps what America and maybe the world lacks is the ability to say "I might be wrong, let me think about what I believe." Is our own pride destroying us?

Are news outlets that use emotional issues, sensationalism, fear and disinformation to sell there product (which in reality is air time for commercials) to be trusted in general?

Yet they STILL allowed that biased piece to go on the air.

It was only one detail - about whether a report that Saddam was able to launch a biological weapon attack within 45 minutes was already known to be incorrect when inserted into a dossier intended to justify the war with Iraq. What's ironic here is the plenty of cock ups which were reported and later verified, but oh well.

This (http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter08.htm#a56)is the sum total of what the BBC did wrong:

"The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and that it was not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true, were unfounded."

This was taken as a failure of BBC management. Nevermind that:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter07.htm#a48

"It may be that Dr Kelly said to Mr Gilligan that Mr Campbell was responsible for transforming the dossier, and it may be that when Mr Gilligan suggested to Dr Kelly that the dossier was transformed to make it "sexier", Dr Kelly agreed with this suggestion."

And cock ups by the government in the very same dossier which indicate a similar problem in editting and manangement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891577,00.html

"Downing Street yesterday apologised for its failure to acknowledge that much of its latest dossier on Iraq was lifted from academic sources, as the affair threatened to further undermine confidence in the government's case for disarming Saddam Hussein."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999682,00.html

"Forged documents on which the British and US governments allegedly based their case that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger were so crudely drafted that it is unlikely they would have stood up to more than a few hours' - or minutes' - scrutiny by any specialist, it emerged yesterday."

Sorry to drop two Guardian links on you, just googled for them. I'll get more varied and better sources next time ;D

"Whitewash" is a polite way to point out that Lord Hutton deliberately used Dr Kelly's death as a context in which he could intensely criticise the BBC and its management, particularly Greg Dyke, (who is usually accused of pro-Labour bias funnily enough,) of wrong doing without having to investigate any possible government wrong doing.

Oh well, quis custodiet ipsos custodies.

In any case, blaming it on left wing bias is a bit difficult when the Lib dems aren't left wing in the American sense (they're somewhat libertarian and their economic policies need sorting out before they can be really classified, which means they end up hovering about centre, though they're being poked out by Labour,) and significant amounts of Labour and Conservative membership were against the war anyway. At one point it looked as if ol' Tone would be ousted by his own MPs; British politics isn't as ...well, stupidly Bipartisan as American politics. Although for the past couple of decades you seem to have skipped all the trouble of a two party system and gone for everyone important having basically identical policies.

The BBC, being owned by the British Government lives up to the standards that the government places on it.

A single journalist gets a single detail wrong on a particularly controversial story and they're sacking or forcing most of your upper level management to quit?

Hm. Next on Fox: how liberal arguments are the only ones that can be ironic.

What is the point of continuing this debate, all news channels are biased.

CNN is biased to the right.

BBC is biased to the left.

And Fox is the same as CNN, just more blatant so stupid people understand.

The closest thing to unbiased news is CNBC, and that is just boring as hell!

No one gets it. Not one of you.

The "it" is this:

Bias or no bias, truth or distortion, "right-wing" or "left-leaning centrist"....you're all watching it...and talking about it...and debating it...and bashing it...and praising it...and arguing about it...

but most of all...

You're publicizing it...

Do you get it now?

No one gets it. Not one of you.

The "it" is this:

Bias or no bias, truth or distortion, "right-wing" or "left-leaning centrist"....you're all watching it...and talking about it...and debating it...and bashing it...and praising it...and arguing about it...

but most of all...

You're publicizing it...

Do you get it now?

Yes. Not all publicity is good publicity, and a harmed reputation can cripple a company.

Do you get it?

A democracy is a democracy, but if the country decides to go to war, then if you don't agree you should just be quiet and follow what the majority decided on. War isn't the same as other issues, like interest rates and library mileages. Once you enter a war, ithe door you go out is not the same that you came in through. So if war is begun, then follow the Commander-in-Chief, and hope for the best.
Okay, I know this has nothing to do with the thread... but i started the thread and its gottne stale now anyways so i'll adress it if i damn well please.

The ideas quoted by Michiganistania are dangerous to anyone who truly values democracy.

I believe that American democracy is already a perversion (I'm not ogin into this unless someone asks)... but to say that people should blindly follow every decision the president makes is absurd.

Voicing your opinion is what democracy is all about.

The ideas

:headbang:

not with links you idiot. your links would be to bad liberal cites produced by ranting idiots like yourself no doubt. im talking baout support for your weak claims not just weak statements that hold no ground.And how do the Fox Memos not do precisely that? My 'fair and balanced' opinion is that you are a fucking retard.

Well, lets see.....

CBS news. Dan Rather is an admitted Democrat and his interviews show his bias.

ABC news. Peter Jennings. Canadian and a Democrat/Liberal and his bias shows in his reporting.

NBC news. Tom Brokaw. Has not stated his position but his bias appears to be toward the right.

CNN. Child of Ted Turner. Liberal Democratic demogogue.

Fox news. Child of Rupurt Murdoch. Conservative Republican demogogue.

Choose your news, each of them will give you a spin like Mr. Toads Wild Ride.*Grins* I'm glad you're here Biff. It was starting to feel like shooting fish in a barrel. Do you have any evidence that any of the news stations you mention slant news to the same extent that the Fox memos demonstrate?

Yes. Not all publicity is good publicity, and a harmed reputation can cripple a company.

Do you get it?

Kahrstein - I never commented on the benefit, or detriment, of publicity. Just that it exists. However, whether good or bad, the Fox News Channel is not hurting from the publicity it receives. People may hate it, or love it, but they watch.

The ratings are all the proof Fox News needs. People finally have an alternative to the bias they perceive, and are choosing it in a landslide.

im gonna relate this to "fad diets" remember those things early in the 90s that did so well and people lost lots of weight. then they put it all back and then some. just because its popular doesnt mean its the correct way or the right way. BTW who said NY times was jealous? they just have a reputation of being on of americas most credible means of news, although they are that evil word nowadays, "liberal". There is a quote that fits this argument perfectly.

"If your not a liberal when your young you have no heart. If your not a conservitive when your an adult you have no brain."
-Winston Churchill

...sorry, y'all are wrong
fox is the best channel out there for news,
...CNN = Clinton News Network
And you Screen Name is Objectivisism? :confused: :confused: :headbang: :confused:

"If your not a liberal when your young you have no heart. If your not a conservitive when your an adult you have no brain."
-Winston Churchill
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
I doubt Sir Winston would have left the apostrophes out of "you're" in any case.


More relevant to this topic. Just substitute O'Reilly for Man:

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." - Sir Winston Churchill

they arnt polar opposite, cnn has a very slightl eft wing bias in its stories, where the right wing bias in fox stories is more than obvious, and they have higher ratings because they are right wing, right wingers have very steady, unchanging beliefs, and are very inclined to pursue them, the left is more laid back and is more like "meh'

Your "meh" or apathy correlates to thus: "Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand" - Bodie Thoene