NationStates Jolt Archive

Listen, I've been hearing everyone here keep saying "Fox skews the facts!" while I've yet to see much proof to this cause. It features footage of both candidates, so you can't say it is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's not like "Then, bush saved the day by running into a burning orphanage and rescuing everyone in it, even Whiskers the cat. Kerry refused to comment, on the grounds that he was too busy eating Babies and killing Jews." They are actually a pretty good news station, and the only people who covered the Sarin discovery incident. So my challenge is: prove to me that Fox News is as bad as it is painted to be.

I watch Fox News a lot, and I don't understand why it is evil either. They aren't severely Republican or Democrat, and it doesn't seem to me like they are trying to misinform the public. If anything, the media is fairly liberal.

Many times, evidence has been produced to show that many major news agencies have liberal bent to their reporting. Some people just wont believe it.

Given the left leaning bias of those news agencies, Fox news, being closer to the center than said left leaning ones, is therefor concidered more conservative. Once you attach the label conservative to anything, it becomes evil, in some peoples minds. It's for the raping of our environment, it's for capitol punishment for parking tickets and above, it's for that baby eating Shrub and his evil croney Chaney.

That's why it's evil to them, because it doesnt represent what they believe in, and that isnt allowed.

oh look ANOTHER ignorant thread, looks to be purposeful so far, maybe a coincidental

the best way to see how FOX is a mouth piece for the right wing just compare 2 stories, one from fox and one from the so called liberal media giant CNN, then you tell me who is more fair and who is the most bias.

i will tell you i have already done this. CNN is slightly left leaning but fox is attempting to give bush a verbal hand job

Many times, evidence has been produced to show that many major news agencies have liberal bent to their reporting. Some people just wont believe it.

Given the left leaning bias of those news agencies, Fox news, being closer to the center than said left leaning ones, is therefor concidered more conservative. Once you attach the label conservative to anything, it becomes evil, in some peoples minds. It's for the raping of our environment, it's for capitol punishment for parking tickets and above, it's for that baby eating Shrub and his evil croney Chaney.

That's why it's evil to them, because it doesnt represent what they believe in, and that isnt allowed.
you know what i like about your reply? its so thick with blind hypocrasy i could cut it with a knife and serve it as hypocrisy pie

It declares its opinions are fact. Just one more news network blurring the line between entertainment and information.

Well, I heard this great quote on FOX News - they are either evil or idiots

" . . . the most trusted terrorsit, I mean, erm, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq . . . "

No-one ever said FOX was evil. They're just biased. Really really biased.

FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly is so certain that Senator John Kerry (D-MA) never entered Cambodia during Kerry's U.S. Navy service in Vietnam that O'Reilly told NPR senior correspondent and FOX News contributor Juan Williams, "I know he wasn't there. So take it to the bank. You know me. I don't mislead anybody. He wasn't there." Yet O'Reilly produced no evidence to support his claim. And as Media Matters for America has noted, Kerry's chief accuser, John E. O'Neill -- co-founder of the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry -- has been discredited by revelations that O'Neill, during a brief 1971 meeting, told then-President Richard Nixon that he himself had, in fact, been in Cambodia. O'Neill wrote in Unfit for Command that he knew "Kerry was never in Cambodia" because neither he nor any other swift boaters were allowed to cross the Cambodian border.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270005

About the only thing the Swifties have been right about is that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia. Even Kerry has backed away from say he "was" in Cambodia to he "thought" he was in Cambodia.

For one thing (to point to bias, not evilness), Fox News has a standing policy that no one can say anything remotely bad about Bush. They can, however, say whatever they want about Kerry.

Here's objective reporting for you - a quote from Fox News during the DNC:
"The speakers have been shying away from criticizing President Bush, although it is obvious that they want to." Yeah, because Fox News reporters can read people's minds for their "fair and balanced" objective reporting.

About the only thing the Swifties have been right about is that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia. Even Kerry has backed away from say he "was" in Cambodia to he "thought" he was in Cambodia.
that doesnt mean he wasnt in cambodia or that he was lying--there were many spec-ops during this war that were top secret and maybe this was one of them. In any event these swiftboat vets that attack kerry should all lose their medals for slandering another vet this way. Theyre a disgrace to their uniforms

Just for the record, Bill O'Reilly is as annoying as [Insert witty analogy here] and shouldn't be trusted for anything. Saying he represents the Right is like saying Michael Moore is an equal spokesman for the left. Both sides want to get away from their respective hypocrites.

Many times, evidence has been produced to show that many major news agencies have liberal bent to their reporting. Some people just wont believe it.
Really? Is this so? Well, if its happened so many times, how about you cite some sources?

Given the left leaning bias of those news agencies, Fox news, being closer to the center than said left leaning ones, is therefor concidered more conservative.
OR:

Given the centrist bias of those news agencies, Fox news, being absurdly far right than said centrist ones, is therefore defended as being only more slightly conservative, by claiming that all the centrists are really more liberal than they are.

I don't know which is true, but it can be spun either way

Just for the record, Bill O'Reilly is as annoying as [Insert witty analogy here] and shouldn't be trusted for anything. Saying he represents the Right is like saying Michael Moore is an equal spokesman for the left. Both sides want to get away from their respective hypocrites.
Thats fine, but CNN doesn't have Micheal Moore on a regular slot. If your "fair and balanced" newstation has someone who represents someone who you consider to be as far right as Moore is far left, then doesn't that swing the balance of the station a little?

Many times, evidence has been produced to show that many major news agencies have liberal bent to their reporting. Some people just wont believe it.
What you actually mean is that many people on here have shown documented sources (the Fox Memos for example) to show that Fox is balanced. In exchange the Fox supporters have provided us with evidence like "I watched CNN last night and it was pro-Kerry". Do you see the difference?

Listen, I've been hearing everyone here keep saying "Fox skews the facts!" while I've yet to see much proof to this cause. It features footage of both candidates, so you can't say it is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's not like "Then, bush saved the day by running into a burning orphanage and rescuing everyone in it, even Whiskers the cat. Kerry refused to comment, on the grounds that he was too busy eating Babies and killing Jews." They are actually a pretty good news station, and the only people who covered the Sarin discovery incident. So my challenge is: prove to me that Fox News is as bad as it is painted to be.

Alriight, here goes, and I'll try not to sound hysterical. Rupert Murdoch, who owns 20th Century Fox, is a massive contributor to Republican causes. But here are some specifics: Reporters at Fox affiliates who refuse to lie in their reports on the dangers of corporate pollution, for example, are fired routinely. There's a case pending in Florida on that very matter (See Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s latest book for more details).

However, here is a more telling and simple to illustrate example: When this whole "Swift Boat Veterans" crap started to hit the stage, Fox news ran, in a forty-eight hour span, over sixty spots airing their views with no time devoted to Kerry campaign responses. During the SAME forty-eight hours, MSNBC ran about twenty, while CNN ran around a dozen.

Now, when George Elliott, one of the SWB vets later recanted his statement, saying that he was pressured into giving it. During the first forty-eight hours of this story breaking, CNN ran it five times, MSNBC twice, and Fox News NOT ONCE.

Take also, for example, the pundits who have shows on Fox News. Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume (among others) are all conservative pundits. There isn't a single moderate (let alone liberal) pundit on the station.

The Project for Accuracy in Journalism ran a survey of Americans to see who believed that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People who got their news from sources such as NPR were the least likely to believe this, and the most likely to be well informed. Someone who got their news exclusively or majorally from Fox News was over five times more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Read some transcripts from the O'Reilly Factor or from Fox News's coverage of the DNC. There is never anything good said about Democrats or their talking points.

There is unequivocable evidence of conservative, Republican bias in Fox News' reporting.

Fox News is not "evil," but it is definitely biased, as are most to all of the major news networks.

watch a properly neutral channel like the BBC for a while and realise that your media is controlled by your government much more tightly than you think.

The BBC is a public channel, but it keeps independance through its unique funding technique. (licenses bought by us the public) If it were privately funded a party could drop a few pence in the pot and watch opinions change. Im not suggesting that is what happens with private channels. Im asserting it.

the only slanted political content is on party political broadcasts, during the election time.

What about Ted Turner's known contributions to leftist causes? When Joe Wilson came out CNN (along with the rest of the liberal media) gave him blanket coverage, FNC didn't go overboard, they actually interviewed him a couple times.

Compare the Swiftees, which the mainstream media ignored and debased until Kerry himself fed the story into the shitstorm it is now. FNC didn't cover it nearly as extensively as say, the CNN with Joe Wilson, or the NYT with the Augusta controversy.

watch a properly neutral channel like the BBC for a while and realise that your media is controlled by your government much more tightly than you think.

The BBC is a public channel, but it keeps independance through its unique funding technique. (licenses bought by us the public) If it were privately funded a party could drop a few pence in the pot and watch opinions change. Im not suggesting that is what happens with private channels. Im asserting it.

the only slanted political content is on party political broadcasts, during the election time.

When it comes to the Mideast or American events, the BBC is one of the most biased outlets in the world.

This thread has come up about four times in the last week or so...maybe I'll just archive a file with the following proof so I don't have to keep gathering it:). No, Fox News is not evil (though if they ever want to get into Canada, they'd better agree to following our Canadian content laws..). Fox however IS biased. Proof? No problem. By the way, ALL news stations are biased to some extent or another.

"With the ascendance of Fox News Channel, we now have a national conservative TV network in addition to the established centrist outlets. But like the mainstream networks, Fox refuses to admit its political point of view. The result is a skewed center-to-right media spectrum made worse by the refusal to acknowledge any tilt at all." (read more...http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)

"``What we found is not that Fox is a conservative network, but that it's a network that follows the party line of the Bush administration,'' said ``Outfoxed'' filmmaker Robert Greenwald" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0713-04.htm

"FAIR’s latest study of Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume finds the network’s flagship news show still listing right—heavily favoring conservative and Republican guests in its one-on-one interviews. And, according to the study, Special Report rarely features women or non-white guests in these prominent newsmaker inter-view spots." (read more...http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html)

To learn more about bias in U.S media (bias exists in every country's media, but we're talking about an American channel) visit: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

This thread has come up about four times in the last week or so...maybe I'll just archive a file with the following proof so I don't have to keep gathering it:). No, Fox News is not evil (though if they ever want to get into Canada, they'd better agree to following our Canadian content laws..). Fox however IS biased. Proof? No problem. By the way, ALL news stations are biased to some extent or another.

"With the ascendance of Fox News Channel, we now have a national conservative TV network in addition to the established centrist outlets. But like the mainstream networks, Fox refuses to admit its political point of view. The result is a skewed center-to-right media spectrum made worse by the refusal to acknowledge any tilt at all." (read more...http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html)

"``What we found is not that Fox is a conservative network, but that it's a network that follows the party line of the Bush administration,'' said ``Outfoxed'' filmmaker Robert Greenwald" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0713-04.htm

"FAIR’s latest study of Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume finds the network’s flagship news show still listing right—heavily favoring conservative and Republican guests in its one-on-one interviews. And, according to the study, Special Report rarely features women or non-white guests in these prominent newsmaker inter-view spots." (read more...http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html)

To learn more about bias in U.S media (bias exists in every country's media, but we're talking about an American channel) visit: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

Indeed, those sources are fair and balanced, devoid of any agenda whatsoever. :)

How 'bout hooking us up with an actual example of a biased news story. Not just a "it's biased, just look at it!"

Give me a link to a story from Fox, point out the bias, and explain why yourself.

Same thing for the people who accuse CNN of left-bias.

NOTE: ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT ANY NEWS CHANNEL IS NOT BIASED PLEASE READ THE BELOW. THANK YOU.

There is no such thing as not being biased, so be quiet. Every democrat/republican accuses the others of having news channels that are biased. They're both right, so why can't they just get over it and shut up. If you have ANY opinion what-so-ever, you're have a general bias in your opinions favor, not because you include questionable facts, but because you omit unquestionable ones. It's natural. Try watching both sides of an issue if you want an accurate picture of it.

watch a properly neutral channel like the BBC for a while and realise that your media is controlled by your government much more tightly than you think.

While I don't disagree with you in terms of bias in the U.S, I do disagree that the BBC is neutral. NO channel is neutral. Here are some biases the BBC has had:

"Several hundreds of protesters... were [outside the BBC headquarters] to protest at the BBC's lack of reporting of demonstrations and meetings of all those who are in opposition to the bombing of Yugoslavia."http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blacktown_02/19990504bbcdemos.htm

More recently in regards to Iraq:

"On its 45 minute flagship news bulletin at 10pm last night (March 20)[2003], the BBC ignored the powerful protests that took place across Britain.

The bulletin showed the protests at parliament only as a background for a report from Westminster. And it only mentioned protests abroad, saying that they were "mainly in Muslim countries". "http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/03/58376.html

"There is ample evidence to show that the BBC is very unwilling to accept any complaints about its programmes. This applies to complaints from individuals about specific programmes or even complaints about a whole series of programmes resulting from years of very detailed research. This is evident from the work carried out by Minotaur Media Tracking Ltd., an independent research organisation, which was reported in David Keighley's paper to the BBC Bias Conference. Alistair Campbell, the PM's Director of Communications, is also quoted as telling MP's

"When you are dealing with the BBC, I am afraid they just will not admit that they can get things wrong. If that is BBC journalism then God help us".

(Sunday Telegraph, "Comment", 29th June 2003)."http://www.bbcbias.org/index.html

NOTE: ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT ANY NEWS CHANNEL IS NOT BIASED PLEASE READ THE BELOW. THANK YOU.

There is no such thing as not being biased, so be quiet. Every democrat/republican accuses the others of having news channels that are biased. They're both right, so why can't they just get over it and shut up. If you have ANY opinion what-so-ever, you're have a general bias in your opinions favor, not because you include questionable facts, but because you omit unquestionable ones. It's natural. Try watching both sides of an issue if you want an accurate picture of it.
this is a foxnews strategy called muddying the waters--whenever foxs lies are exposed they muddy the waters and try to make it look like everyone does it even tho no one does it anywhere near the extreme and calculated degree that foxnews does

Indeed, those sources are fair and balanced, devoid of any agenda whatsoever. :)

:) My whole point is that NO source is completely fair and balanced. They are all biased in some way. The sources that STATE their bias however (we are a leftist organisation, we are a conservative station, we are a pro-broccoli, but anti-carrot paper etc) is more credible than a media outlet that steadfastly argues they are agenda-free.

I challenge those of you who continue to argue that Fox News is not biased: Prove it. :p

NOTE: ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT ANY NEWS CHANNEL IS NOT BIASED PLEASE READ THE BELOW. THANK YOU.

There is no such thing as not being biased, so be quiet. Every democrat/republican accuses the others of having news channels that are biased. They're both right, so why can't they just get over it and shut up. If you have ANY opinion what-so-ever, you're have a general bias in your opinions favor, not because you include questionable facts, but because you omit unquestionable ones. It's natural. Try watching both sides of an issue if you want an accurate picture of it.

I love you:) In a non-creepy, platonic stranger kind of way. Really. I'm biased in your favour.

FNC isn't "evil." It just misrepresents the truth in ways that its target audience doesn't realize, but those that watch who scrutinize do notice all those details.

:) My whole point is that NO source is completely fair and balanced. They are all biased in some way. The sources that STATE their bias however (we are a leftist organisation, we are a conservative station, we are a pro-broccoli, but anti-carrot paper etc) is more credible than a media outlet that steadfastly argues they are agenda-free.

I challenge those of you who continue to argue that Fox News is not biased: Prove it. :p

HAHA. Fox is biased all right, but not nearly as bad as some people say. On the relative scale of bias, FNC is about as bad as MSNBC.

Really? Is this so? Well, if its happened so many times, how about you cite some sources?



I did, several in fact in a previous thread. The response was either silence, or "that source is biased and cant be trusted" even tho the sourse contained direct quotes showing liberal biased stories from NPR.

Face it. Both sides claim bias on the others side, and claim their side is centrist. Some people on both sides are blind (willfully or not) to the truth. Some are just plain scary (MKULTRA comes to mind, you knew I wouldnt forget you).

The only unbiased *anything* is Wikipedia.

FOX is extraordinarily biased in favor of the Bush administration (and, perhaps Republican politics in general). If they weren't biased, then why would they have the slogan "Fair and Balanced?" It's too good to be true ;) .

I think Maddox says it all about Bill O'Reilly. (http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly)

HAHA. Fox is biased all right, but not nearly as bad as some people say. On the relative scale of bias, FNC is about as bad as MSNBC.

We are not discussing relative levels of bias...we are discussing the existence of bias. You have admitted its existence. Yay! :D

Indeed, those sources are fair and balanced, devoid of any agenda whatsoever. :)
While this source itself is biased (http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fox-news-memos-the-whole-batch-017613.php) what it's using is memos from Fox's News Director John Moody. Fox have tried to defend these, so they're genuine. (All extracts posted without alteration to the body of the text. All emphasis mine).

"Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group. . . More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved."

"We have good perp walk video of Eric Rudolph which we should use. We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. Two style notes: Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." and
TODAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING."

"The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is the eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer 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."

"The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers."

"TUESDAY UPDATE: Let's not overdo the appearances by Kerry's swiftboat mate John O'Neil. While his appearances so far have been OK, he represents one side of the 30 year recollections of what Kerry did, or didn't do, in uniform. Other people have different recollections."

The rest of the text of the memos (and other ones) are all reproduced at the link.

Fox supporters...quit falling silent when evidence of Fox's bias (evidence YOU demanded) is presented to you. Defend your claims that there is no bias! Don't try to get out of it by saying..."well it's not TOO biased...". Your whole argument is that bias does not exist. Respond to the proof given that it DOES.

Hmmm...the dead silence is very telling. Check and mate.

Hmmm...the dead silence is very telling. Check and mate.

I never said Fox isn't biased. What are you smoking?

I never said Fox isn't biased. What are you smoking?I don't think that was specifically aimed at you. Read the post by the original poster on this thread.

prove to me that Fox News is as bad as it is painted to be.

Yes, he said prove that FNC is unbiased. Nice revisionism there buddy.

I don't see anything wrong with Fox, considering that we have a free press. Their coverage tends to be fair, but their opinion is slanted heavily towards the right.

I think it's just due to Fox's incredible economic success that ticks lefties off.

I don't see anything wrong with Fox, considering that we have a free press. Their coverage tends to be fair, but their opinion is slanted heavily towards the right.

I think it's just due to Fox's incredible economic success that ticks lefties off.

Amen. That and the left isn't used to anything other than total domination of the media.

Yes, he said prove that FNC is unbiased. Nice revisionism there buddy.He also said

Listen, I've been hearing everyone here keep saying "Fox skews the facts!" while I've yet to see much proof to this cause.

That and the left isn't used to anything other than total domination of the media.I've provided sources for my opinions. Your turn.









Bet you don't. I fully expect an ineffectual attempt at a smokescreen. That's what happened last time we had a thread like this

You really ought to read real books instead of dubious posts made by the biggest slut in Washington... oh wait, second biggest slut.

Anyways, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261901/qid=1093832702/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2096516-9861730?v=glance&s=books

NOTE: ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT ANY NEWS CHANNEL IS NOT BIASED PLEASE READ THE BELOW. THANK YOU.

There is no such thing as not being biased, so be quiet. Every democrat/republican accuses the others of having news channels that are biased. They're both right, so why can't they just get over it and shut up. If you have ANY opinion what-so-ever, you're have a general bias in your opinions favor, not because you include questionable facts, but because you omit unquestionable ones. It's natural. Try watching both sides of an issue if you want an accurate picture of it.

I agree very much with this. ALL of the news networks have a very necessary place in a free society--the only way to get a truly fair and balanced picture is to pay attention to BOTH right-biased and left-biased sources. The truth is going to lie between them, and shutting either side out will not give you a clear idea of what's going on.

While this source itself is biased (http://www.wonkette.com/archives/fox-news-memos-the-whole-batch-017613.php) what it's using is memos from Fox's News Director John Moody. Fox have tried to defend these, so they're genuine. (All extracts posted without alteration to the body of the text. All emphasis mine).

"Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group. . . More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved."
Well, didn't they? I'd say Moody is right on here. And even if "excessive force" was used, there is no way the media could actually know that so soon after the battle.

"We have good perp walk video of Eric Rudolph which we should use. We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. Two style notes: Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." and
TODAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING." Rudolph's main motive in all these bombings was to eliminate abortion clinics. He saw them as immoral. Calling them abortion clinics tells the motive of the man. And if it was an initial hearing rather than an arraignment, Moody is being accurate.

"The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is the eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer 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."
The facts didn't and don't support turning it into a Watergate. The president was found to be misinformed and wrong, but he was not lying like Nixon.

"The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers."
Can't and won't defend this.

"TUESDAY UPDATE: Let's not overdo the appearances by Kerry's swiftboat mate John O'Neil. While his appearances so far have been OK, he represents one side of the 30 year recollections of what Kerry did, or didn't do, in uniform. Other people have different recollections."
That's true. We've heard O'Neil''s recollection, but there are other people who are telling a different story. It was the media's duty to report the stories, and then investigate which (if any) are true. As far as I know, the only thing that the Swifties have said that was true is the Cambodia controversy. It's only one instance, but that one instance should have been reported.

You really ought to read real books instead of dubious posts made by the biggest slut in Washington... oh wait, second biggest slut.
Casual misogany. How charming. Do opinionated women scare you? It doesn't alter the validity of the memos.
Anyways, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261901/qid=1093832702/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2096516-9861730?v=glance&s=booksUnderstandably, I'm not going to order a book for the purposes of an argument on the internet. Why don't you post some extracts? (I was particuarly intrigued by the claim in the introduction that the CBS executives were closet Leninsts. Also, you claimed the entire media was dominated by the left, so that's what I expect you to substantiate.)

Well, didn't they? I'd say Moody is right on here. And even if "excessive force" was used, there is no way the media could actually know that so soon after the battle. If people are claiming excessive force isn't it the responsibility of the media to report it?

Rudolph's main motive in all these bombings was to eliminate abortion clinics. He saw them as immoral. Calling them abortion clinics tells the motive of the man. And if it was an initial hearing rather than an arraignment, Moody is being accurate.Fox News are the coiners of the term "homicide bombers". If you're going to slant the news by the motive of the terrorists, surely you should refer to attacks by Al-Queda as "attacks against the infidel west"? And surely health clinics is precisely what they were?

The facts didn't and don't support turning it into a Watergate. The president was found to be misinformed and wrong, but he was not lying like Nixon.Firstly, isn't that a decision that should have been made after the decsion, not before? Secondly, how is this:

"Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that."

a call for objective reporting.


Can't and won't defend this.I appreciate your honesty. :)


That's true. We've heard O'Neil''s recollection, but there are other people who are telling a different story. It was the media's duty to report the stories, and then investigate which (if any) are true. As far as I know, the only thing that the Swifties have said that was true is the Cambodia controversy. It's only one instance, but that one instance should have been reported.But it doesen't call for investigation. Surely it should have been a call for both sides to be represented.

Some more memo extracts for you to chew over:

"Thursday update: the pictures from Abu Graeb prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf?

It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb situation in perspective. The story is beginning to live on itw own momentum."

"The runup to the Bush-Cheney testimony on 9/11 is bound to generate speculation. Remember, we won't see or hear what's going on, the session won't be formally recorded, and POTUS/VPOTUS will not be sworn in. It will be historic testimony but bad TV."

"WEDNESDAY UPDATE: For perspective, the pictures coming out of Fallujah are a journalistic landmark. Beyond Gulf War I, beyond the first night of the attack on Baghdad, we are seeing very up close and, literally, from a GI-eye's eview, a military operation in real time. Try to explain this to viewers, who may take this incredible visual moment for granted.

"Also, let's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation."

"More serious and more important is the US military's end of waiting game for Fallujah. If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance."

If people are claiming excessive force isn't it the responsibility of the media to report it?
Only if excessive force is actually used. There's no way any media source could know immediately after a battle. War is far too chaotic. To make claims of that kind without full proof is a slap in the face to the military.


Firstly, isn't that a decision that should have been made after the decsion, not before?
They shouldn't have made it a Watergate until the facts supported it (which it didn't). For the media (or anyone) to suggest something damning when the facts don't support it is slander.

But it doesen't call for investigation. Surely it should have been a call for both sides to be represented.
Sure it does. Senator Kerry has made his Vietnam service the center of his campaign. Claims that he lied about his service should be investigated just like Bush's National Guard service was investigated. And though most of the Swiftie stories are total crap, at least one has been found true: the Cambodia story.


"Thursday update: the pictures from Abu Graeb prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf?

It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb situation in perspective. The story is beginning to live on itw own momentum."
You don't like the "in perspective" remark? Look at it in perspective. YOu have 7 US military personnel out of 150,000 abusing prisoners. Almost immediately, there's an investigation and punishment. At the same time you have Americans being beheaded on television. Moody sounds very angry in this memo. I was too.

"The runup to the Bush-Cheney testimony on 9/11 is bound to generate speculation. Remember, we won't see or hear what's going on, the session won't be formally recorded, and POTUS/VPOTUS will not be sworn in. It will be historic testimony but bad TV."
Bad TV shouldn't be the criteria for what's reported on. Won't defend this memo.

"Also, let's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation."
I want directness at the expense of nice sounding. Won't defend this memo either.

"More serious and more important is the US military's end of waiting game for Fallujah. If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance."
This is entirely true. The interim government gave these people plenty of chances to surrender, and they didn't take up that offer. And in a war you can't get squeemish about casualities. We've lost a thousand good men and women in this war. That's horrible, but compared to every other war this country's ever had, it's miniscule.

YOu do realize that every news channel has memos like this, right? All have daily briefs on what they're going to cover. I'd be kinda curious to see other networks' memos.

It is very biased. For example, the protests in NY. Fox used the lowest estimate available, saying there were 100 000. Other less biased agencies - for example the BBC - actually bothered to mention that 125 000 was the lowest estimate, but other estimates were of up to 500 000. Which gives the impression of probably around the 300 000-400 000 mark.
You can't say because it reported the protests it shows Fox isn't biased. Fox is being very selective in it's reporting by using only the lowest figure, it gives the impression that there aren't many against Bush.
BTW, a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that the only ad they had on the front page of their web site was for Bush re-election. So that hardly puts my mind at rest that they're an apolitical media source.
Just flicking through Fox's story logs, it's obvious they only print what they want. For a classic example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127570,00.html
You would get the impression the entire US population is against the Democrats. Not one person they published had anything positive to say about them.

BTW, a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that the only ad they had on the front page of their web site was for Bush re-election. So that hardly puts my mind at rest that they're an apolitical media source.

Conversely, there was a long time where I saw CNN do the same thing with Kerry ads. It's definitely going on on both sides.

Yeah, here's the truth on whether the media is slanted liberal or not. A survey was taken of 5,000 reporters and 200 editors of major newspapers/stations, and it was...indeed found that the individuals tended to be liberal.

HOWEVER!!! When the news from these sources were examined by non partisian think tanks, the evidence came to show that there was no obvious liberal bias (Bush is bad, kerry is good) and there was also no cryptic liberal bias (saying extremist instead of conservative, you know, using buzz words that give a more positive or negative impression of the person).

When asked about why their stories were free from bias, the reporters said "We hold our proffessionality too high too let ourselves write with a bias. The news is the news, and all that is is getting necessary information to the American People."

So, without further adue, I get to say " haha, you stupid fuckers who will believe whatever you're told. Get some fucking objective advice dickweeds, not what Rush or your Grandpappy told you."

Alriight, here goes, and I'll try not to sound hysterical. Rupert Murdoch, who owns 20th Century Fox, is a massive contributor to Republican causes. But here are some specifics: Reporters at Fox affiliates who refuse to lie in their reports on the dangers of corporate pollution, for example, are fired routinely. There's a case pending in Florida on that very matter (See Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s latest book for more details).

However, here is a more telling and simple to illustrate example: When this whole "Swift Boat Veterans" crap started to hit the stage, Fox news ran, in a forty-eight hour span, over sixty spots airing their views with no time devoted to Kerry campaign responses. During the SAME forty-eight hours, MSNBC ran about twenty, while CNN ran around a dozen.

Now, when George Elliott, one of the SWB vets later recanted his statement, saying that he was pressured into giving it. During the first forty-eight hours of this story breaking, CNN ran it five times, MSNBC twice, and Fox News NOT ONCE.

Take also, for example, the pundits who have shows on Fox News. Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume (among others) are all conservative pundits. There isn't a single moderate (let alone liberal) pundit on the station.

The Project for Accuracy in Journalism ran a survey of Americans to see who believed that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People who got their news from sources such as NPR were the least likely to believe this, and the most likely to be well informed. Someone who got their news exclusively or majorally from Fox News was over five times more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Read some transcripts from the O'Reilly Factor or from Fox News's coverage of the DNC. There is never anything good said about Democrats or their talking points.

There is unequivocable evidence of conservative, Republican bias in Fox News' reporting.



And Ted Turner, CNN's founder is a democrat who married frickin Jane Fonda. Greta Van Sustern and Alan Colmes are liberals on fox news, the guy with the G-Block is in the middle, and Bill Orielly, while conservative, tries so hard to stay in the middle that it is annoying.

Fox News is slightly to the right, but so what? the NYT, abc, nbc, cnn, cbs, msnbc, Philly Inquiror, LA Times and many others are drastically or somewhat to the left, while only fox news, the editoral page of the wall street journal, and a small amount of smaller newspapers are to the right.

Anyway, Foxnews is #1 in viewership, so it must be doing something right. And it is less right than everything else is left. prime time has 2 conservates, (3 if you count Bill, but read what I mentioned earlier), 2 liberals, and 1 moderate. Pretty balanced, if you ask me.


EDIT: I would like to see the article from the survey above, before I believe it. C'mon, of course they arnt going to say that they are baised, and if you read the NYT for a week, compared to the ap, you will see a big difference, even though the Ap is a bit biased also.

Why are they number 1 for viewership??? Because they are friendly and funny. Funny, but obviously not fair and balanced.

Visit this site to see what I mean. It is non-partisian, takes no stance on politics, just on reporting. It is the national media watchdog that's only desire is fair reporting and no censorship.

www.fair.org

www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

The findings listed here are non-biased, as they were administered to so called "liberal media corporations". The survey actually finds the media to be quite centered in their beliefs, with a small shift towards Libertarian (conservative economics, liberal social beliefs.)

Fox news is terribly biased. It is so bad that if they forgot to stop the cameras you might get to see Bill O'Reilly crankin' it to a picture of Bush. Crude language aside if you would only watch the station you can plainly see that the station is a mouthpiece for the right. The problem is that neo cons have been screaming "liberal media" for so long that people have just come to accept it because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The problem with our media is that our concept of balanced unbiased news is that news outlets should spend half the time talking about what one side thinks and half talking about what the other half thinks. Fox News even fails at this improper standard. The media should report what happens and keep commentary on commentary shows like "crossfire". If we simply saw the events without any spin the country would see what Bush is doing to this great nation.

On a side note scientists at The Ohio State University (the greatest college in the nation: maybe thats a little biased) conducted experiments on percieved media bias and found that what people percieved as biased was based mostly on their political ideologies. The study also found that dialogue with like minded individuals increased the reported media bias one way or the other. Furthermore those subjects that classified themselves as republicans consisitently reported bias more often than other groups. My theory is that conservatives had to sit and watch for eight years a highly effective democratic president so they vented their frustration by complaining to each other about it. Thats not the origin of the myth of the liberal media bias but it was the beginning of the huge resurgence of this flawed belief.

bump

I remember last year reading an interview with Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX). He said that Bush is obviously going to win, because the in his opinion the American public were all for the war and for Bush.
I remember thinking at the time 'If the man who controls such a huge chunk of the media thinks this, then what are his media outlets going to be saying?'
Seeing how FOX as gone over the last few months I think answers this question.
Do you really think Murdoch would be happy with FOX filing damaging reports about his buddy Bush?

I'd recommend you read 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky.
Not only does he show that the media has in fact a right-leaning bias, he puts forward plausible reasons why.
It basically boils down to two main causes:
1. Is pretty much what I mentioned above. The ppl who control the media, being old, rich white guys who are inherrently conservative. So they'll have a tendancy to promote ppl who share their similar viewpoints. And this will go right down the chain to the bottom. So it'll have a conservative culture. And anyone who has liberal leanings will either be passed over for promotion or quickly learn to suppress them in order to get ahead.
Remember, just because the reporters might have liberal leanings doesn't mean the report they file will. It has to be passed by an Editor remember? Has any study been done as to the polictical leanings of the senior editors in the media?
2. The media is very lazy and becoming increasingly obsessed pushing out stories as soon as possible b4 any facts are checked. So they have become increasingly reliant on the press releases they get (eg from the Pentagon), which will also have a conservative bias. The Pentagon publishes millions of pages of press releases a year. So faced with using what the Pentagon has given or spending time to find out all the facts and possibly lose the story to another network, what do you think they're going to do?
This also plays into their hands, as by the time an independent reporter has found all the facts, it's considered old news and ignored.

BTW being #1 in viewership doesn't mean FOX is doing something right. It just means they panderig to the lowest common denominator. I mean using this logic, McDs must be wholesome and nutrious because it's so popular.

So glad Canada's networks aren't biased. ;)

I'd recommend you read 'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky.
Not only does he show that the media has in fact a right-leaning bias, he puts forward plausible reasons why.
It basically boils down to two main causes:
1. Is pretty much what I mentioned above. The ppl who control the media, being old, rich white guys who are inherrently conservative. So they'll have a tendancy to promote ppl who share their similar viewpoints. And this will go right down the chain to the bottom. So it'll have a conservative culture. And anyone who has liberal leanings will either be passed over for promotion or quickly learn to suppress them in order to get ahead.
Remember, just because the reporters might have liberal leanings doesn't mean the report they file will. It has to be passed by an Editor remember? Has any study been done as to the polictical leanings of the senior editors in the media?
2. The media is very lazy and becoming increasingly obsessed pushing out stories as soon as possible b4 any facts are checked. So they have become increasingly reliant on the press releases they get (eg from the Pentagon), which will also have a conservative bias. The Pentagon publishes millions of pages of press releases a year. So faced with using what the Pentagon has given or spending time to find out all the facts and possibly lose the story to another network, what do you think they're going to do?
This also plays into their hands, as by the time an independent reporter has found all the facts, it's considered old news and ignored.

BTW being #1 in viewership doesn't mean FOX is doing something right. It just means they panderig to the lowest common denominator. I mean using this logic, McDs must be wholesome and nutrious because it's so popular.



Noam Chomsky is pretty rabidly anti-american, I wish i had some quotes from him right here, but he basically believes that America deserved 9/11, the terroists are right, the are freedom fighters, more stuff like that. He isnt the most non-partisan source, shall I say. I would even say that he is more left then even Micheal Savage is right.

All media sources are biased, face it. Fox just has a bias in the other direction from the vast majority of other media sources, resulting in people choosing Fox over the others by a landslide. Fox kills its competition in the ratings, which is what the news game is all about. That's really why lefties hate Fox, isn't it?

All media sources are biased, face it. Fox just has a bias in the other direction from the vast majority of other media sources, resulting in people choosing Fox over the others by a landslide. Fox kills its competition in the ratings, which is what the news game is all about. That's really why lefties hate Fox, isn't it?


Thats pretty much it. A funny thing I saw recently, is now MSNBC is either 2nd or advancing quickly to 2nd over CNN with viewer ratings.


Anyway, the reason I think that Fox News is so succesfull, is beacuse people are tired of hearing the same lefty slant on news from everywhere they go, which is why conservative or conservative leaning news stations-Rush, Fox News, aree so popular.

Thats pretty much it. A funny thing I saw recently, is now MSNBC is either 2nd or advancing quickly to 2nd over CNN with viewer ratings.


Anyway, the reason I think that Fox News is so succesfull, is beacuse people are tired of hearing the same lefty slant on news from everywhere they go, which is why conservative or conservative leaning news stations-Rush, Fox News, aree so popular.
its not a leftist slant, its moderate, maybe slightly left, the only REAL slant is what stuff like fox news does to the news, ignoring real numbers and fact infavor of GOP favored blithering with general numbers and pink-and-choose factoids

its not that people dont like slanted news, they just dont like real news

I don't think Fox News is evil. I do however think it's hillarious viewing. I remember the first 10 minutes I saw of it, and I genuinely thought it was a joke or satire of a news channel.
It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!

its not that people dont like slanted news, they just dont like real news

I don't think Fox News is evil. I do however think it's hillarious viewing. I remember the first 10 minutes I saw of it, and I genuinely thought it was a joke or satire of a news channel.
It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!

Translation: People who watch Fox News are ignorant and stupid. Don't they realize we lefties are intellectually superior?

Translation: People who watch Fox News are ignorant and stupid. Don't they realize we lefties are intellectually superior?

Where did I say that, please enlighten me. I also never said I was left-wing.

Where did I say that, please enlighten me. I also never said I was left-wing.

"It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!"

If you didn't mean to call Fox News viewers ignorant and stupid with this remark, then what exactly does it mean?

"It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!"

If you didn't mean to call Fox News viewers ignorant and stupid with this remark, then what exactly does it mean?

I make no assumptions as to what its viewers are. As I said, I view it for a good laugh now and then.
However, if the channel itself is meant to be a serious news channel, then that's a different matter.
Please don't dismiss all criticism of Fox News as being from lefties etc. Personally, regardless of where my opinions fall on the political spectrum, I do not expect any serious news channel to be so biased towards any direction. Just as I wouldn't have taken Soviet Central News seriously (way too biased towards the hard left), I can't take Fox News (way too biased to the hard right) as a credible source of news and information.
Clearly, all media organisations are somewhat biased, it's unavoidable. But the vast majority are nowhere near as skewed in to one pole as Fox News is.
I'm not saying I believe the channel should be closed, if people wish to view it (such as myself and others) then they should be free to do so. However, I don't really think it should call itself a news channel, and should certainly not use expressions such as 'Fair and Balanced'.

Fox is "evil" because it does not play by the left's rules.

Those rules are spelled out in "journalism schools".

Anyone pissing off the left, especially by using media, considered by the left as their personal property, is labeled "EVIL".

By contrast, anyone pissing off the right, especially by using money, considered by the right to be THE measure of "success" (NOT the measure of good) and usable only to promote "freedom and prosperity", is labeled "EVIL".

Comments..?

I will agree that maybe all news has bias but Fox has more than the rest. While some may lean a tiny bit to let, Fox leans a lot to right. Its not really even a lean its move to the right.

Closest thing to "fair and balanced" is Daily Show and that is a fake news show lol. At least they call themselves fake news show.

However to explain this "EVIL" theory:
We follow the premise that TRUTH is LIGHT and is GOOD
Goodness has the opposite thus called EVIL
Evil is than represented by LIES.
LIES=EVIL
FOX news lies alot, thus they are more evil than the rest.
Thus we see that Fox is evil by comparison.

I make no assumptions as to what its viewers are. As I said, I view it for a good laugh now and then.
However, if the channel itself is meant to be a serious news channel, then that's a different matter.
Please don't dismiss all criticism of Fox News as being from lefties etc. Personally, regardless of where my opinions fall on the political spectrum, I do not expect any serious news channel to be so biased towards any direction. Just as I wouldn't have taken Soviet Central News seriously (way too biased towards the hard left), I can't take Fox News (way too biased to the hard right) as a credible source of news and information.
Clearly, all media organisations are somewhat biased, it's unavoidable. But the vast majority are nowhere near as skewed in to one pole as Fox News is.
I'm not saying I believe the channel should be closed, if people wish to view it (such as myself and others) then they should be free to do so. However, I don't really think it should call itself a news channel, and should certainly not use expressions such as 'Fair and Balanced'.

Nice evasion. This still doesn't explain what you meant by: "It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!"

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean: If someone believes Fox News, then they are equivalent to someone who still believes the earth is flat. Is that what you meant? What do you think of someone who believes that Fox News is reasoned and "rounded?"

I will agree that maybe all news has bias but Fox has more than the rest. While some may lean a tiny bit to let, Fox leans a lot to right. Its not really even a lean its move to the right.

Closest thing to "fair and balanced" is Daily Show and that is a fake news show lol. At least they call themselves fake news show.

However to explain this "EVIL" theory:
We follow the premise that TRUTH is LIGHT and is GOOD
Goodness has the opposite thus called EVIL
Evil is than represented by LIES.
LIES=EVIL
FOX news lies alot, thus they are more evil than the rest.
Thus we see that Fox is evil by comparison.

Not sure what the "truth is light" thing is about.

I'd like to see the "STOMP" news network..! Super Far-Right news.

"See it, Call it, Kill it..!" would be it's motto.

And the "N" news network..! Super Far-Left news.

"Huh? What? Where? YEAH!" would be it's motto.

Let the market decide, people.

Nice evasion. This still doesn't explain what you meant by: "It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!"

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean: If someone believes Fox News, then they are equivalent to someone who still believes the earth is flat. Is that what you meant? What do you think of someone who believes that Fox News is reasoned and "rounded?"

I didn't say that I believed they are equivalent to someone who believes the earth is flat. I'm just stating that the thought that somebody somewhere might believe that the channel is giving rounded news coverage worries me slightly. My comment regarding the Flat Earth Society was meant in the spirit of Fox News, a joke.

Not sure what the "truth is light" thing is about.

I'd like to see the "STOMP" news network..! Super Far-Right news.

"See it, Call it, Kill it..!" would be it's motto.

And the "N" news network..! Super Far-Left news.

"Huh? What? Where? YEAH!" would be it's motto.

Let the market decide, people.
Huh, What, Where, Yeah is a Christian song, but its not yeah its amen. my Stepdad who is a consrevative listens to it.
No the Liberal motto: We make you think, we 've already won!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borgoa
I make no assumptions as to what its viewers are. As I said, I view it for a good laugh now and then.
However, if the channel itself is meant to be a serious news channel, then that's a different matter.
Please don't dismiss all criticism of Fox News as being from lefties etc. Personally, regardless of where my opinions fall on the political spectrum, I do not expect any serious news channel to be so biased towards any direction. Just as I wouldn't have taken Soviet Central News seriously (way too biased towards the hard left), I can't take Fox News (way too biased to the hard right) as a credible source of news and information.
Clearly, all media organisations are somewhat biased, it's unavoidable. But the vast majority are nowhere near as skewed in to one pole as Fox News is.
I'm not saying I believe the channel should be closed, if people wish to view it (such as myself and others) then they should be free to do so. However, I don't really think it should call itself a news channel, and should certainly not use expressions such as 'Fair and Balanced'.



Nice evasion. This still doesn't explain what you meant by: "It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!"

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean: If someone believes Fox News, then they are equivalent to someone who still believes the earth is flat. Is that what you meant? What do you think of someone who believes that Fox News is reasoned and "rounded?"

Of course that's what was meant.

By saying "I don't really think it should call itself a news channel.." Borgoa shows himself/herself as wanting to "destroy by redefinition" (revisionist ploy) the very existence of FOX.

This is blatant censorship, which the left so highly claims is "the next-to-the-worst evil" imaginable.

(( The worst being "inequality", which will always justify any action taken by them, regardless of their other "principles". ))

I didn't say that I believed they are equivalent to someone who believes the earth is flat. I'm just stating that the thought that somebody somewhere might believe that the channel is giving rounded news coverage worries me slightly. My comment regarding the Flat Earth Society was meant in the spirit of Fox News, a joke.

Yeah, right. More equivocation.

Why does it worry you? What is it that you are afraid will happen, if someone believes Fox is "reasoned and rounded?"

Or are you just incredulous that some <gasp!> actually believe that? If so, what are your thoughts about those people?

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Of course that's what was meant.

By saying "I don't really think it should call itself a news channel.." Borgoa shows himself/herself as wanting to "destroy by redefinition" (revisionist ploy) the very existence of FOX.

This is blatant censorship, which the left so highly claims is "the next-to-the-worst evil" imaginable.


I'm afraid you've lost me there. I don't believe the news channels should be politically biased to either pole, left or right. This is an apolitcal issue. Even if as a rightwinger, you personally agree with Fox's opinions, surely you can see that they are just opinions and not actual balanced news reporting. If the news that I watched (generally via SVT, TV4, BBC World and CNN International) suddenly skewed its reports in favour of the left or the right, I would no longer believe them to be credible news channels. If they suddenly became organs of the left, I might agree with what they are saying, but I would realise that that doesn't make it balanced news coverage.
All I suggest is that a news channel and televised news needs to be genuinely balanced and fair. I don't see how any reasoned person, whatever their political views, can seriously believe Fox provides that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Not sure what the "truth is light" thing is about.

I'd like to see the "STOMP" news network..! Super Far-Right news.

"See it, Call it, Kill it..!" would be it's motto.

And the "N" news network..! Super Far-Left news.

"Huh? What? Where? YEAH!" would be it's motto.

Let the market decide, people.


Huh, What, Where, Yeah is a Christian song, but its not yeah its amen. my Stepdad who is a consrevative listens to it.
No the Liberal motto: We make you think, we 've already won!"

REALLY..! ? :)

That's pretty damn funny..! I'm not a particularly "orthodox" christian, anymore than I'm an "orthodox" jew or muslim, so my choice of words was entirely based on the "ambivalent, muddied, and naive" attitude I see of people on the left.

"The Liberal motto: We make you think, we've already won!"

No,.. That would be too obvious (and TRUE) for them to actually say out loud.

Far Right-Wing = "Man-Buffalo with a Howitzer" type of subtlety.
Far Left-Wing = "Slime-Mold" type of subtleyt.

Yeah, right. More equivocation.

Why does it worry you? What is it that you are afraid will happen, if someone believes Fox is "reasoned and rounded?"

Or are you just incredulous that some <gasp!> actually believe that? If so, what are your thoughts about those people?

It worries me because in this instance it would be misinformation. My thoughts about these people are that it is probably largely not their fault. Most reasoned people will see through Fox News, and realise it is biased, and view it with that in mind. But for the few that don't, where it probably isn't their fault, it's the fault of misrepresentation by Fox News channel.

I don't have cable anymore, so I don't watch Fox News regularly (not that I ever did) and the Sunday news show is just so silly when it comes to bias that I generally turn it off after about ten minutes.

That said, I was struck by this description of the advertising in New York by Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_atrios_archive.html#109396579327064332) a liberal who is blogging the Republican National Convention. I'm sitting at the Starbucks here, and across the street are 3 banners right in a row. Two are identical Fox News banners "America's Newsroom -- Trusted. Independent. Powerful." Maybe they're no longer fair and balanced. On the banners are pictures and times for "HUME-SMITH-O'REILLLY-HANNITY&colmes-VAN SUSTEREN."

Are they in the process of getting closer to truth in advertising by getting rid of the "fair and balanced" tagline? I mean, if they're going for "Trusted. Independent. Powerful." now then they're at least 1 for 3 (Powerful) instead of the 0 for 2 they were batting with the last one.

On a side note, the best one is apparently from (no surprise) the Daily Show. Here's a pic of it.
http://www.princeton.edu/~jmelli/images/dailyshowfox.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Of course that's what was meant.

By saying "I don't really think it should call itself a news channel.." Borgoa shows himself/herself as wanting to "destroy by redefinition" (revisionist ploy) the very existence of FOX.

This is blatant censorship, which the left so highly claims is "the next-to-the-worst evil" imaginable.

I'm afraid you've lost me there. I don't believe the news channels should be politically biased to either pole, left or right. This is an apolitcal issue. Even if as a rightwinger, you personally agree with Fox's opinions, surely you can see that they are just opinions and not actual balanced news reporting. If the news that I watched (generally via SVT, TV4, BBC World and CNN International) suddenly skewed its reports in favour of the left or the right, I would no longer believe them to be credible news channels. If they suddenly became organs of the left, I might agree with what they are saying, but I would realise that that doesn't make it balanced news coverage.
All I suggest is that a news channel and televised news needs to be genuinely balanced and fair. I don't see how any reasoned person, whatever their political views, can seriously believe Fox provides that.

You refuse to see it because it conflicts with your beliefs, just as CNN makes others insane because it conflicts with THEIR beliefs.

What people say should always be utterly rational, unemotional, and take everything into account.

But that's not how humans are.

Your "high ideals", tempered by your beliefs, would actually strip FOX news of it's identity.

That is censorship.

It's good that you can claim that you only appreciate "unbiased news", as it clearly identifies you as a naive idealist.

It worries me because in this instance it would be misinformation.

Nobody's "worried" about misinformation in and of itself. You must be worried about some action that will occur as a *result* of misinformation. What such action "worries" you?

My thoughts about these people are that it is probably largely not their fault.

In other words, they are gullible, or ignorant, right?

Most reasoned people will see through Fox News, and realise it is biased, and view it with that in mind. But for the few that don't, where it probably isn't their fault, it's the fault of misrepresentation by Fox News channel.

So those who don't "see through it" are unreasoned, or unreasoning?

BTW, I do consider BBC and CNN as biased toward the left. Do you disagree with that? Perhaps you are not "seeing through" their bias?

You refuse to see it because it conflicts with your beliefs, just as CNN makes others insane because it conflicts with THEIR beliefs.

What people say should always be utterly rational, unemotional, and take everything into account.

But that's not how humans are.

Your "high ideals", tempered by your beliefs, would actually strip FOX news of it's identity.

That is censorship.

It's good that you can claim that you only appreciate "unbiased news", as it clearly identifies you as a naive idealist.

Actually, I stated above that getting news to be unbiased is pretty much impossible. Therefore, I am certainly not a naive idealist. I acknowledge that the news I watch regularly on such channels as SVT, TV4, CNNi, BBC World is not perfect, not 100% neutral, but it is by no way as biased to either end of the spectrum as Fox is.

Of *course* FOX is biased. Just look at the "Keep Kerry out! Click here to donate for Bush!" ad on the "You decide: 2004" category. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130667,00.html )

Now, my question is, so what if it is? They operate under the Jerry Springer principle...you want to turn it off but you really just can't stop watching. I don't know, maybe people like to have their blood boiled.

Don't listen to me, I'm high on Nyquil. ;)

Nobody's "worried" about misinformation in and of itself. You must be worried about some action that will occur as a *result* of misinformation. What such action "worries" you?



In other words, they are gullible, or ignorant, right?



So those who don't "see through it" are unreasoned, or unreasoning?

BTW, I do consider BBC and CNN as biased toward the left. Do you disagree with that? Perhaps you are not "seeing through" their bias?

No, you keep suggesting things from my words that I have never send. It is inevitable that some people will believe what they see on Fox wholeheartedly, just as some people believed everything Soviet tv broadcast to them in the ex-USSR. I did not say they were ignorant or gullible, I am suggesting they are let down by the Fox News channel and the media regulators.

I do not disagree that the BBC and CNN are not entirely neutral, as I have now repeatedly said, nothing is entirely neutral. I can understand that to an American audience, with my understanding of the American political landscape, that to many Americans perhaps the BBC does seem slightly left-wing. But again, you must understand that to many Europeans CNN appears mildly right-wing. But only mildly, not in the overtly biased way of Fox.

Really now... the way all of us are going about it maybe we should just split the country in half and force the right to live on one part and the left live on the other.

Why is everything always us vs. them? People left of center have some good ideals, people right of center have some good ideals.

There are some good points about FOX News, there are some bad points. There are good points about CNN, there are bad points. Nobody in this world is perfect.

Maybe we should consider rule by consensus rather than rule by majority. It would force us all to think instead of blindly holding on to our ideals. We have the right and we have the left and the answers lay somewhere in the middle. Should we give control of our public lands to corporations? No. Should we aquiess to the eco-terrorists? No.

Should we become a theocracy? No. Should we ban all forms of religion from our elected officials lives? No.

I have realized reading through a lot of the forums that both sides of any issue act almost the same. Both sides are disgusted with each others tactics, though both use them equally. For example: The right is accused of trying to silence all opposition. Well, the left, in the name of "intellectualism," does the same thing by talking down and insulting. Both sides are wrong sometimes.

I once was watching CNN, after they interviewed Howard Dean, and after that, a republican response. CNN gave both people the same amount of time, and had the same amount of questions (it was actually shown by CNN, not me measuring). Later, CNN received email complaining that it was either so obiously biased towards the left or obiously biased towards the right.

Also, a long time ago, i remember when China took down the U.S. Spy Plane, and the media was reporting againist china, how its such an evil country. I would have thought if the U.S. was spied on by a spy plane, it would take some steps too. But then again i'm chinese, and this POV is biased.

Everything is biased, even whether we're deciding what is biased and what's not. There's no real way to measure how biased something is; its based on your point of view.

Of *course* FOX is biased. Just look at the "Keep Kerry out! Click here to donate for Bush!" ad on the "You decide: 2004" category. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130667,00.html )

Now, my question is, so what if it is? They operate under the Jerry Springer principle...you want to turn it off but you really just can't stop watching. I don't know, maybe people like to have their blood boiled.

Don't listen to me, I'm high on Nyquil. ;)

I've seen the exact same type of ads against Bush, and for Kerry, on other news websites. The campaigns are simply spending their money where they deem it most effective (i.e., the "viewers" are more likely to agree with their position). Could that be considered "bias?"

I've seen the exact same type of ads against Bush, and for Kerry, on other news websites. The campaigns are simply spending their money where they deem it most effective (i.e., the "viewers" are more likely to agree with their position). Could that be considered "bias?"

In my opinion, in both cases, yes it should. I don't really think a political system which allows so many television advertisements etc (ie, if you can afford to buy more television/press/web time for your adverts, you're at an advantage) can really seen to be wholly democratic.
But, of course, this is a matter for a new thread I should imagine!! Sorry to start talking about this in here people!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You refuse to see it because it conflicts with your beliefs, just as CNN makes others insane because it conflicts with THEIR beliefs.

What people say should always be utterly rational, unemotional, and take everything into account.

But that's not how humans are.

Your "high ideals", tempered by your beliefs, would actually strip FOX news of it's identity.

That is censorship.

It's good that you can claim that you only appreciate "unbiased news", as it clearly identifies you as a naive idealist.



Actually, I stated above that getting news to be unbiased is pretty much impossible. Therefore, I am certainly not a naive idealist. I acknowledge that the news I watch regularly on such channels as SVT, TV4, CNNi, BBC World is not perfect, not 100% neutral, but it is by no way as biased to either end of the spectrum as Fox is.

So it's a matter of degree.

That I can buy. :)

But the refrain from "the left" that FOX should be shut-down, re-labeled, or otherwise "punished" for being itself, I find reprehensible.

I also find it odd that something defined (variously) as evil, subversive and "a danger to democracy" would NOT be attacked with vehemence and real conviction to have it removed from "our midst"...!

Are those saying one thing, yet doing another (calling FOX a danger to democracy but not trying to eliminate it) being cowards or subverters of democracy themselves for not fighting hard enough...?

News should be just that- news. Impartial reporting of the facts, with no skew, no tilt, without even playing up to the wishes of the sponsors. The truth hurts sometimes, but being lied to is significantly more harmful in the end.

If you can't trust the stories you hear from your news sources, you aren't in a position to have a valid opinion on current events. The day after the Oklahoma City bombings, one of our big newspaper chains (one known for skewing & tilting, the Sun Media Group) published on their front page the now-famous photo of a fireman holding a burnt, dead baby captioned in colossal black type: "In The Name of Allah".

Two days later, buried deep in their backpages, they retracted their fatuous headline, but refused to apologize to Muslim groups, who were, justifiably, miffed at them. But the damage had already been done.

Their mission is to report the facts- and through innuendo, prejudice, and outright, bald-faced lying, they failed in their mandate. They did not provide their readers with factual information. Instead, they chose to advance a creeping anti-muslim sentiment long-known to be held by third party, a then-potential (and now actual) new owner, CanWest Global Communications, owned and operated by the Asper clan out of Winnipeg.

How was truth served by delighting the wicked desires of an old, now dead, man, with a lump of blackened hatred in his heart?

News should be just that- news. Impartial reporting of the facts, with no skew, no tilt, without even playing up to the wishes of the sponsors. The truth hurts sometimes, but being lied to is significantly more harmful in the end.

If you can't trust the stories you hear from your news sources, you aren't in a position to have a valid opinion on current events. The day after the Oklahoma City bombings, one of our big newspaper chains (one known for skewing & tilting, the Sun Media Group) published on their front page the now-famous photo of a fireman holding a burnt, dead baby captioned in colossal black type: "In The Name of Allah".

Two days later, buried deep in their backpages, they retracted their fatuous headline, but refused to apologize to Muslim groups, who were, justifiably, miffed at them. But the damage had already been done.

Their mission is to report the facts- and through innuendo, prejudice, and outright, bald-faced lying, they failed in their mandate. They did not provide their readers with factual information. Instead, they chose to advance a creeping anti-muslim sentiment long-known to be held by third party, a then-potential (and now actual) new owner, CanWest Global Communications, owned and operated by the Asper clan out of Winnipeg.

How was truth served by delighting the wicked desires of an old, now dead, man, with a lump of blackened hatred in his heart?

If you don't like what you see, start your own media outlet, and be perfect.

If that is too difficult, find a media outlet you think is better and support it.

If there are no media outlets that you find better, get together with friends and ignore all of the outlets, and just pass around news from each other.

And DEFINATELY,... bravely persecute the "evil wicked ones" until they are "no longer a danger to democracy", as all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent.

To do anything less is to be a coward.

I don't think Fox News is evil. I do however think it's hillarious viewing. I remember the first 10 minutes I saw of it, and I genuinely thought it was a joke or satire of a news channel.
It does scare me slightly that there could be people out there who believe that it's giving a reasoned rounded coverage of the news. But then, the Flat Earth Society still has members!

If I got into power at Fox, I would keep the same angle as it currently has, for this reason...Fox may not be fair and balanced on its own (and even though I personally watch Fox for the most part, I'll readily acknowledge this), but what it IS doing is counterbalancing the left--and in a free society, I think the ONLY way you can maintain political freedom is by giving both sides equal opportunity to express themselves.

But what I would CHANGE if I got in control of Fox would be the production style--because even as someone who gets a lot out of Fox, I think that REALLY needs some redoing. There would be drastic changes in graphics, music, and reporting style itself all aimed at desensationalizing it. Then, you'd have a much more streamlined, professional channel (still with its same ideological roots) ready to go up against CNN and MSNBC, and perhaps be taken a bit more seriously.

If you don't like what you see, start your own media outlet, and be perfect.

If that is too difficult, find a media outlet you think is better and support it.

If there are no media outlets that you find better, get together with friends and ignore all of the outlets, and just pass around news from each other.

And DEFINATELY,... bravely persecute the "evil wicked ones" until they are "no longer a danger to democracy", as all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent.

To do anything less is to be a coward.


And is it the height of bravery to sit back on your haunches and say BS like 'start my own media outlet'? I do support better media outlets. I do pass around news from person to person. It's called, 'having a conversation'.

I didn't say anything about being a 'danger to democracy', have you checked your meds? And why SHOULDN'T evil, wicked men (with lumps of concentrated evil filling the hole vacated by the absence of their hearts) be persecuted? You sticking up for Hitler or something?

Eh? Mr. Brave Guy?

If I got into power at Fox, I would keep the same angle as it currently has, for this reason...Fox may not be fair and balanced on its own (and even though I personally watch Fox for the most part, I'll readily acknowledge this), but what it IS doing is counterbalancing the left--and in a free society, I think the ONLY way you can maintain political freedom is by giving both sides equal opportunity to express themselves.

But what I would CHANGE if I got in control of Fox would be the production style--because even as someone who gets a lot out of Fox, I think that REALLY needs some redoing. There would be drastic changes in graphics, music, and reporting style itself all aimed at desensationalizing it. Then, you'd have a much more streamlined, professional channel (still with its same ideological roots) ready to go up against CNN and MSNBC, and perhaps be taken a bit more seriously.

I think Fox's production style is working fine for them - the sensationalist, USA flag-waving style is what's winning a lot of their disturbingly huge audience.

My beef is not necessarily with Fox's political leaning (although I disagree with a hell of a lot of their views), and they can "counterbalance" the rest of the news all they want. What really pisses me off is their assertion that it is fair and balanced. On what possible basis can they make this ridiculous claim? Surely the fact that everyone assumes that Fox favours the right indicates that the channel is probably not fair or balanced?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If you don't like what you see, start your own media outlet, and be perfect.

If that is too difficult, find a media outlet you think is better and support it.

If there are no media outlets that you find better, get together with friends and ignore all of the outlets, and just pass around news from each other.

And DEFINATELY,... bravely persecute the "evil wicked ones" until they are "no longer a danger to democracy", as all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent.

To do anything less is to be a coward.



And is it the height of bravery to sit back on your haunches and say BS like 'start my own media outlet'? I do support better media outlets. I do pass around news from person to person. It's called, 'having a conversation'.

I didn't say anything about being a 'danger to democracy', have you checked your meds? And why SHOULDN'T evil, wicked men (with lumps of concentrated evil filling the hole vacated by the absence of their hearts) be persecuted? You sticking up for Hitler or something?

Eh? Mr. Brave Guy?

Good for you..! Keep having those conversations. That's a VERY good thing.

If you COULD start your own media outlet, would you..?

I agree with you on the persecution of the evil guys. I supported the persecution of the evil Saddam guy. I support the persecution of the evil Al-Qaida guys.

You seem a rather nice fellow, so I would oppose the persecution of the Dobbs guy.

What DO you think of working to "shut down" FOX..?

Does it qualify as "an evil democracy threatening thing"..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raishann
If I got into power at Fox, I would keep the same angle as it currently has, for this reason...Fox may not be fair and balanced on its own (and even though I personally watch Fox for the most part, I'll readily acknowledge this), but what it IS doing is counterbalancing the left--and in a free society, I think the ONLY way you can maintain political freedom is by giving both sides equal opportunity to express themselves.

But what I would CHANGE if I got in control of Fox would be the production style--because even as someone who gets a lot out of Fox, I think that REALLY needs some redoing. There would be drastic changes in graphics, music, and reporting style itself all aimed at desensationalizing it. Then, you'd have a much more streamlined, professional channel (still with its same ideological roots) ready to go up against CNN and MSNBC, and perhaps be taken a bit more seriously.



I think Fox's production style is working fine for them - the sensationalist, USA flag-waving style is what's winning a lot of their disturbingly huge audience.

My beef is not necessarily with Fox's political leaning (although I disagree with a hell of a lot of their views), and they can "counterbalance" the rest of the news all they want. What really pisses me off is their assertion that it is fair and balanced. On what possible basis can they make this ridiculous claim? Surely the fact that everyone assumes that Fox favours the right indicates that the channel is probably not fair or balanced?

They make the claim due to their presenting something from each side.

What pisses you off is that FOX has a large audience, not their motto.

You see a threat to your mindset with more people hearing effectively delivered content that is not YOUR content.

It is the threat of "a mass of dumb-ass rightwing knuckleheads" hearing news that they might organize around that scares you shozbot-less..!

If you were honest, you'd admit that.

I think Fox's production style is working fine for them - the sensationalist, USA flag-waving style is what's winning a lot of their disturbingly huge audience.

It would require further study, but I suspect that production style is one angle...and another is the concurrence of their ideology with that of a group of people who until now have not felt like their side of the story was adequately represented in the large news media. This is the way I have felt prior to Fox and why I watch so much of it (even while I'm taking notes on "How Not to PRODUCE for a News Show"!).

If I may interject... what pisses me off is that a study on what people factually knew about the war in Iraq back the fall after it started demonstrated a very interesting statistical correlation between the amount of attention Fox News viewers said they paid attention to the news and how many questions they got wrong. And that almost nobody paid attention to that part of the study. That correlation - tucked politely in with their data in an innocuous corner - screams "misinformation outlet," unless one assumes that Fox News viewers are inherently stupider than CNN viewers. I don't, especially not since noticing the title of "Iraqi Dessert" to describe the arid region of Mesopotamia during a war program.

Fox News also had - far and away - the worst accuracy rate for its viewers in that study, which is what most people who paid attention to the study looked at.
When I look at individuals claimed to be "fair and unbiased," like O'Reilly, I see anything but.

If I may interject... what pisses me off is that a study on what people factually knew about the war in Iraq back the fall after it started demonstrated a very interesting statistical correlation between the amount of attention Fox News viewers said they paid attention to the news and how many questions they got wrong. And that almost nobody paid attention to that part of the study. That correlation - tucked politely in with their data in an innocuous corner - screams "misinformation outlet," unless one assumes that Fox News viewers are inherently stupider than CNN viewers. I don't, especially not since noticing the title of "Iraqi Dessert" to describe the arid region of Mesopotamia during a war program.

Fox News also had - far and away - the worst accuracy rate for its viewers in that study, which is what most people who paid attention to the study looked at.
When I look at individuals claimed to be "fair and unbiased," like O'Reilly, I see anything but.

Do you happen to have the questions asked in this study, and could post them with the answers hidden?

I get most of my news from Fox, with some other from message boards and quick snippets from other places, but I consider my knowledge of the world to be fairly decent. So, I'd be interested in trying my hand at it.

Do you happen to have the questions asked in this study, and could post them with the answers hidden?

I get most of my news from Fox, with some other from message boards and quick snippets from other places, but I consider my knowledge of the world to be fairly decent. So, I'd be interested in trying my hand at it.

Well, some of the material is dated by now :) It was done about a year ago. Looking back over Google, I believe it's PIPA's "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" that I'm thinking about - you can see the survey questionnaire through www.pipa.org if my memory serves me rightly.

I officialy disavow my former thread. I don't think it's been quite hijacked yet, I just got lazy with caring what happened to it.

Well, some of the material is dated by now :) It was done about a year ago. Looking back over Google, I believe it's PIPA's "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War" that I'm thinking about - you can see the survey questionnaire through www.pipa.org if my memory serves me rightly.

Interesting, thanks for showing it to me.

Most of these I would've had "correct" answers for, but I would've ended up in an argument with the pollster over the WMD question, because there was no option for "A few found, but not the motherlode". I cite the incidents where a few sarin shells and mustard gas shells were found...mentioned only on Fox, of course, but it seems no option for this was given. I'm not sure whether they were found after all the polls took place, though (which could explain the lack of this middle-ground choice).

Interesting, thanks for showing it to me.

Most of these I would've had "correct" answers for, but I would've ended up in an argument with the pollster over the WMD question, because there was no option for "A few found, but not the motherlode". I cite the incidents where a few sarin shells and mustard gas shells were found...mentioned only on Fox, of course, but it seems no option for this was given. I'm not sure whether they were found after all the polls took place, though (which could explain the lack of this middle-ground choice).Well, the poll was conducted before the sarin shells were found, but let's be honest here--a few discarded sarin shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war hardly constitutes WMD, especially in comparison to the catalog of WMD that the US claimed Hussein had stockpiled.

Well, the poll was conducted before the sarin shells were found, but let's be honest here--a few discarded sarin shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war hardly constitutes WMD, especially in comparison to the catalog of WMD that the US claimed Hussein had stockpiled.

Thanks for clearing up the timing of the poll.

Like I said, "not the motherlode". As for me, personally, I have a suspicion the WMDs were shipped out of the country prior to the war. I don't rule out a complete intelligence fubar (what do you expect when you cut the intelligence agencies' funding so far they can't put operatives on the ground?)--yet I find it interesting that so many other countries' intelligence services, including England and France, I believe, were making the same goof. I don't think Saddam was a stupid guy...and I have some personal theories about why he'd do something like that.

But then, I realize this thread isn't the place for them. Back to Fox chat. ;)

Well, the intelligence agencies weren't cash-poor or strapped if that's what you're suggesting, but reagardless, back to the Fox chat.

The important thing the PIPA study showed was that as regards the run up to the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, Fox News viewers were substantially more likely to believe at least one factual error than viewers of any other source of news. The other end of the spectrum? NPR and PBS--viewers or listeners were least likely to make a factual error on the details of the run up to the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. That's pretty damning as far as Fox's credibility as a news gathering organization is concerned. And they certainly haven't improved the job they're doing in the last year or so--why should they? They're winning the ratings race, after all, and these days, that's the most important thing, right? Truth and accuracy be damned--whatever allows you to charge the most for your commercials.

Not sure what the "truth is light" thing is about.

I'd like to see the "STOMP" news network..! Super Far-Right news.

"See it, Call it, Kill it..!" would be it's motto.

And the "N" news network..! Super Far-Left news.

"Huh? What? Where? YEAH!" would be it's motto.

Let the market decide, people.
Yeah, let the market decide, just like it did with Pet Rocks. Sheesh.

The important thing the PIPA study showed was that as regards the run up to the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, Fox News viewers were substantially more likely to believe at least one factual error than viewers of any other source of news. The other end of the spectrum? NPR and PBS--viewers or listeners were least likely to make a factual error on the details of the run up to the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. That's pretty damning as far as Fox's credibility as a news gathering organization is concerned. And they certainly haven't improved the job they're doing in the last year or so--why should they? They're winning the ratings race, after all, and these days, that's the most important thing, right? Truth and accuracy be damned--whatever allows you to charge the most for your commercials.

Still, I was able to answer correctly, with Fox as my primary news source. What that suggests to me is that you cannot hold the network completely responsible because if you're actually paying attention, you'll get it right. Some of the extreme ideologues on both sides will think what they want to think regardless of what any news organization tells them. As for me, I discuss, I question, which I think are the responsible things for anyone watching ANY news source to do, and in the process it gives me a more accurate picture of what's going on. I think what may be more important than attacking a single network is to change the entire way that people (in general) watch the news...they should not lock in on a single source (even with my using Fox as a primary source, I do get stuff from other places) and should contemplate and discuss it. I suspect debates like we have here are unusual in the general population, when you take a look around you in your "real" life...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Not sure what the "truth is light" thing is about.

I'd like to see the "STOMP" news network..! Super Far-Right news.

"See it, Call it, Kill it..!" would be it's motto.

And the "N" news network..! Super Far-Left news.

"Huh? What? Where? YEAH!" would be it's motto.

Let the market decide, people.


Yeah, let the market decide, just like it did with Pet Rocks. Sheesh.

Hear hear..! Exactly..! :)

If FOX is the "pet rock" of news outlets, it too will pass...

If it's not, then it won't.

I think Fox's production style is working fine for them - the sensationalist, USA flag-waving style is what's winning a lot of their disturbingly huge audience.[emphasis added]

Here we go again. It is disturbing for Fox to have the large audience it has won in the marketplace. Why is that "disturbing", and to whom? Would it be "disturbing" if CNN or BBC had the same size or larger audience?

We see again the intellectual arrogance and condescension of Fox's detractors toward not only the network, but its audience.

Fox News
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld

"Outside the Fox News Channel studios in midtown Manhattan, police in riot gear used barricades to contain around 1,000 demonstrators staging a 'shut-up-athon' to denounce what they called the network's right-wing slant. One woman held up a sign that read: 'Republicans are really stupid. They watch Fox News and believe it.'"

We see again the intellectual arrogance and condescension of Fox's detractors toward not only the network, but its audience.

Fox News
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
By Peter Brownfeld

"Outside the Fox News Channel studios in midtown Manhattan, police in riot gear used barricades to contain around 1,000 demonstrators staging a 'shut-up-athon' to denounce what they called the network's right-wing slant. One woman held up a sign that read: 'Republicans are really stupid. They watch Fox News and believe it.'"
Condescending? I just see a news story.

Condescending? I just see a news story.

You need to get your eyes checked. There was also a quoted post, the attitude of which coincided with the attitude of the "protestor's" signs. Two parallel attitudes of intellectual arrogance and condescension: Fox News's audience is "disturbing" and "stupid."

Take your blinders off and admit the arrogance, or give in to your hatred and say that you think this attitude is warranted. Either way you will be more intellectually honest.

You need to get your eyes checked. There was also a quoted post, the attitude of which coincided with the attitude of the "protestor's" signs. Two parallel attitudes of intellectual arrogance and condescension: Fox News's audience is "disturbing" and "stupid."

Take your blinders off and admit the arrogance, or give in to your hatred and say that you think this attitude is warranted. Either way you will be more intellectually honest.
Call me blind if you want, but I am being honest. I do not see slanting. I see fact.
There were demonstrators.
There were police in riot gear.
There was a woman in the group holding a sign like that.
All are facts.

* I know it says Talondar, but it's actually Mooninininites. Whoops

Call me blind if you want, but I am being honest. I do not see slanting. I see fact.
There were demonstrators.
There were police in riot gear.
There was a woman in the group holding a sign like that.
All are facts.

LOL! Do you realize you just gave credit to a Fox News story for being all fact and no slant??? :eek:

Do you think Fox News's audience is disturbing and/or stupid? Simple question; yes or no will suffice.

Still, I was able to answer correctly, with Fox as my primary news source. What that suggests to me is that you cannot hold the network completely responsible because if you're actually paying attention, you'll get it right. Some of the extreme ideologues on both sides will think what they want to think regardless of what any news organization tells them. As for me, I discuss, I question, which I think are the responsible things for anyone watching ANY news source to do, and in the process it gives me a more accurate picture of what's going on. I think what may be more important than attacking a single network is to change the entire way that people (in general) watch the news...they should not lock in on a single source (even with my using Fox as a primary source, I do get stuff from other places) and should contemplate and discuss it. I suspect debates like we have here are unusual in the general population, when you take a look around you in your "real" life...Certainly there is some responsibility incumbent on the public to be hesitant about placing blind trust in any news source, but there's a larger responsibility on news organizations to be accurate in their reporting. If there wasn't such a wide spread between Fox at the worst and NPR/PBS at the best--and on one of the questions we're talking about nearly a 50% difference--then I'd be more apt to put the larger portion of the blame on the audience, but we're talking about a massive difference here.

News organizations have a duty to the people they serve to be accurate as far as it is possible for them to be accurate. The problem is that news organizations are now corporate, and so have competing duties--they also have to satisfy shareholders, and shareholders don't give a shit about accuracy--they care about profits, and ratings drive profits. And this is how we get into the biggest way Fox has affected the media.

Fox does very little information gathering. Why? It's expensive and there's no guarantee of a payout. You see very little actual investigative news on FNC--what you do see are, in the case of politics, administration press releases presented unchallenged as fact. Why? It's cheaper, and it looks like news, which is all that matters to a public that's so busy trying to make ends meet that they don't have time to pay close attention. They also do very little news reporting. Most of their programming is opinion shows, which don't have to rise to quite the level of accuracy as actual news reporting does.

The other thing Fox does is that it appeals to a demographic--conservative and generally Republican. This translates into higher ratings--the highest in cable (which overall isn't much, but I give them credit)--because they're appealing to a specific group and they're the only one of its kind. When this happens in entertainment tv, programmers copycat and try to steal some of the successful programs' viewers. It's been tried in cable news as well--MSNBC was painfully Fox Lite for a while and discovered that you can't beat the pros at what they do, and have gradually started to find their own identity (and are nosing ahead of CNN in primetime, as a matter of fact).

What this means in the long run is that stories that might never have made the grade on another network--such as unchallenged administration talking points--are suddenly on the air and have to be acknowledged by the other news organizations, and so FNC's influence is greater than just their viewership. They're able to drive the news to some extent, because they're too big to just ignore. Some snotrag like Newsmax can be ignored, because the big papers know it's nothing but a political Weekly World News, but CNN and the big three can't ignore Fox News. That's what makes FNC so powerful--and dangerous--because if they're not actually doing any investigations and they're driving the news, then most people aren't getting the whole story from anyone.

Certainly there is some responsibility incumbent on the public to be hesitant about placing blind trust in any news source, but there's a larger responsibility on news organizations to be accurate in their reporting. If there wasn't such a wide spread between Fox at the worst and NPR/PBS at the best--and on one of the questions we're talking about nearly a 50% difference--then I'd be more apt to put the larger portion of the blame on the audience, but we're talking about a massive difference here.

News organizations have a duty to the people they serve to be accurate as far as it is possible for them to be accurate. The problem is that news organizations are now corporate, and so have competing duties--they also have to satisfy shareholders, and shareholders don't give a shit about accuracy--they care about profits, and ratings drive profits. And this is how we get into the biggest way Fox has affected the media.

Fox does very little information gathering. Why? It's expensive and there's no guarantee of a payout. You see very little actual investigative news on FNC--what you do see are, in the case of politics, administration press releases presented unchallenged as fact. Why? It's cheaper, and it looks like news, which is all that matters to a public that's so busy trying to make ends meet that they don't have time to pay close attention. They also do very little news reporting. Most of their programming is opinion shows, which don't have to rise to quite the level of accuracy as actual news reporting does.

The other thing Fox does is that it appeals to a demographic--conservative and generally Republican. This translates into higher ratings--the highest in cable (which overall isn't much, but I give them credit)--because they're appealing to a specific group and they're the only one of its kind. When this happens in entertainment tv, programmers copycat and try to steal some of the successful programs' viewers. It's been tried in cable news as well--MSNBC was painfully Fox Lite for a while and discovered that you can't beat the pros at what they do, and have gradually started to find their own identity (and are nosing ahead of CNN in primetime, as a matter of fact).

What this means in the long run is that stories that might never have made the grade on another network--such as unchallenged administration talking points--are suddenly on the air and have to be acknowledged by the other news organizations, and so FNC's influence is greater than just their viewership. They're able to drive the news to some extent, because they're too big to just ignore. Some snotrag like Newsmax can be ignored, because the big papers know it's nothing but a political Weekly World News, but CNN and the big three can't ignore Fox News. That's what makes FNC so powerful--and dangerous--because if they're not actually doing any investigations and they're driving the news, then most people aren't getting the whole story from anyone.

If they are a danger (to what?) then that danger should be eliminated.

How do you propose to do that, or are you one who identifies dangers and then does nothing to get rid of them...?

Not trying to eliminate true dangers, when identified, is the definition of a coward.

Listen, I've been hearing everyone here keep saying "Fox skews the facts!" while I've yet to see much proof to this cause. It features footage of both candidates, so you can't say it is part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's not like "Then, bush saved the day by running into a burning orphanage and rescuing everyone in it, even Whiskers the cat. Kerry refused to comment, on the grounds that he was too busy eating Babies and killing Jews." They are actually a pretty good news station, and the only people who covered the Sarin discovery incident. So my challenge is: prove to me that Fox News is as bad as it is painted to be.

If this were a court of law the evidence would be strong enough to have Fox put to death for a capital crime. I'm just going to state two or three specific instances.

Before we ever invaded Iraq, one of their newscasters emitted a heavy sigh when referring to anti-war protesters. Clear message: "give us a break".

Another time last spring they were referring to a new policy of the Bush administration. They said "this policy WILL do such and such." Not "is supposed to do": WILL DO. Thats the sort of thing you expect the administration to say, not a purportedly "fair and balanced" news network.

Probably the best case in point is Bill OReilly who gets to just make up crap as he goes. And the crap he makes up is always designed to support the wacko right wing fanatic agenda. One time when commenting on riots in Benton Harbor, Michigan he pointed out that Black Americans have seen their incomes double in the last thirty-five or forty years. Conveniently leaving out that White Americans incomes have some quadrupled or quintupled in the meantime. His excuse: his "fact" people give him this information, he can't check it all. And yet, when somebody from the New York Times is on, he'll get all up in their face "how can you work for them when they had a journalist who plagarized". He can't see he's guilty of the same thing, but subconsciously he probably knows it and that's why he hates it. Sorry for the amateur psychology but he definitely needs medication. And a broader knowledge of American politics before he can possibly comment on it. For instance he had no idea how often West Virginia had previously voted Democratic for President: any body paying attention, either during 1960, or in school classes about the election that year, knows that West Virginia was pivotal in getting John Kennedy elected in a tight election.

Just a couple of weeks ago on Tim Russerts show he went off on somebody about where they got their facts. Not the substance of the facts, which actually was a quote attributed to him. But rather the source for the facts. He went off on some totally illogical tirade about how the source was too left wing, but he never disputed the quote attributed to him. To me this is typical of Fox News modus operandi.

Call me blind if you want, but I am being honest. I do not see slanting. I see fact.
There were demonstrators.
There were police in riot gear.
There was a woman in the group holding a sign like that.
All are facts.

* I know it says Talondar, but it's actually Mooninininites. Whoops
here is an example following the EXACT same rules you used for your conclusion whch i take to be they started a riot


men have penises
there was a woman in the room with a man
the woman was wearing revealing clothis
men are aroused by revealing clothes


using your method of conclusion drawing the guy raped the woman.

look up logical fallacies, you are more than sure to find yours

If they are a danger (to what?) then that danger should be eliminated.

How do you propose to do that, or are you one who identifies dangers and then does nothing to get rid of them...?

Not trying to eliminate true dangers, when identified, is the definition of a coward.The danger doesn't have to be eliminated per se, but it does need to be identified. I have no issue with any bias that Fox News wishes to use to slant their coverage, as long as they're open and honest about it. It works in Britain--why not here? The danger isn't in the business model so much as it is in the way they try to pass themselves off as a news gathering organization. If they come clean, and consumers realize what they're getting, then it's all good with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If they are a danger (to what?) then that danger should be eliminated.

How do you propose to do that, or are you one who identifies dangers and then does nothing to get rid of them...?

Not trying to eliminate true dangers, when identified, is the definition of a coward.

The danger doesn't have to be eliminated per se, but it does need to be identified. I have no issue with any bias that Fox News wishes to use to slant their coverage, as long as they're open and honest about it. It works in Britain--why not here? The danger isn't in the business model so much as it is in the way they try to pass themselves off as a news gathering organization. If they come clean, and consumers realize what they're getting, then it's all good with me.

What is it a danger to..?

Let's invent BAT News. The "Mouthpiece of Michael Moore".

It says it's "Equitable and Untilted".

It presents nothing but hallucinations from the mind of Michael Moore.

It has a huge audience, because it's SO damn fun to watch.

Is it dangerous..?

Who/what is this "danger" to..?

Are there always gullible people who don't quite "catch" the subtleties of things..?

Are there always people who see "a point of view" as "a threat"...?

BAT collects it's "news" and distributes what it makes of it.

FOX collects it's "news" and distributes what it makes of it.

If BAT is a "danger", then make it not-a-danger, however you can.

If FOX is a "danger", then make it not-a-danger, however you can.

Keep up the righteous struggle..! :)