NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed alot of people on here screaming and bitching about Foxnews being horribly biased. While it's true there is obviously a republican-favoring slant to their news stories, there's nothing in there that's actually untrue, nor do they omit important details or anything like that.

I've had basically no life for the past week or so, and as a result I've been looking up various news sources, covering the same story, to see how differently they put it.

To give an example... about Ashcroft's resignation.

The obviously more right-wing news sources portrayed him as a hero whose departure will be missed, the more left-wing news sources referred to him as part of the "Christian right", among other things. However, the facts of the stories are all the same. Nothing omitted in any of them, nothing added.

If anyone's curious what sources I used,

FoxNews (American)
CNN (American)
CBC (Canadian)
BBC (British)
The Australian (Australian... obviously)
Some Italian newspaper, I honestly can't remember the name. My understanding of italian is limited though (2nd year italian student), so I might have missed some stuff in the italian articles.

So while you might not like the way one of these sources spins their stories, saying that it's untrue is ridiculous. For the most part, they all say the same thing, just in a different way.

That's the point. They don't outright lie, they portray things differently. No one claimed that Fox News made stuff up or even omitted huge parts of stories.

That's the point. They don't outright lie, they portray things differently. No one claimed that Fox News made stuff up or even omitted huge parts of stories.
Well actually I claim that they lie and not only portray things differently. Not always but sometimes. And when they find out that they have reported false news, they don't correct them.
When this war in Iraq started FoxNews and CNN made several reports about incidents which later turned out false. (alright, it isn't exactly lying but it's giving false information as news.) They wanted so badly to be the first ones to tell the news that they didn't have time to check if the stories were right or not. BBC had a bit more patience and corrected several errors FoxNews and CNN had made.

Unfortunately I can't compare these news stations anymore as I've moved and of those channels I now can only watch the BBC World. Anyway I don't think the documentary Outfoxed was completely made up. Or?

Fox news seems horribly biased, but I love to watch it for the opposong views to mine it puts forward....

www.reuters.com

Fox news seems horribly biased, but I love to watch it for the opposong views to mine it puts forward....

That means you are kinda special. Most people use the internet to REINFORCE their beliefs, never to challenge them (which contributes to a myopia on most subjects).

I like you.

Have my childreen :D

Fox news seems horribly biased, but I love to watch it for the opposong views to mine it puts forward....
That's the only reason I miss watching it.

Reuters is good (=I trust them)
and
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/
is alright. (having Russia as a neighbour makes it more interesting)

I've noticed alot of people on here screaming and bitching about Foxnews being horribly biased. While it's true there is obviously a republican-favoring slant to their news stories, there's nothing in there that's actually untrue, nor do they omit important details or anything like that.

I've had basically no life for the past week or so, and as a result I've been looking up various news sources, covering the same story, to see how differently they put it.

To give an example... about Ashcroft's resignation.

The obviously more right-wing news sources portrayed him as a hero whose departure will be missed, the more left-wing news sources referred to him as part of the "Christian right", among other things. However, the facts of the stories are all the same. Nothing omitted in any of them, nothing added.

If anyone's curious what sources I used,

FoxNews (American)
CNN (American)
CBC (Canadian)
BBC (British)
The Australian (Australian... obviously)
Some Italian newspaper, I honestly can't remember the name. My understanding of italian is limited though (2nd year italian student), so I might have missed some stuff in the italian articles.

So while you might not like the way one of these sources spins their stories, saying that it's untrue is ridiculous. For the most part, they all say the same thing, just in a different way.*Claps* thank you. while I can only catch the "American" News services... I'm glad that there is someone out there who does/did compare the news sources impartially other than me and my friends. Too bad that by implying that FoxNews is "just the same only different" when compared to other news sources... you're now labled a Ravaging Liberal by 90% of the posters here. I feel for the barbs heading your way.

Fox News is a hoot. I always watch it when I want a good laugh. What I don't do is take anything they say to be anywhere not at right angles to the truth ... The day they say Rupert Murdoch has died, that day I might believe them ...

I post some news that I read on the Drudge Report, but most will laugh and
claim it an unreliable source. The Drudge Report simply links to other sources
that have reported the news. The problem with our posters is they believe in
the lies by Fahrenheit 9/11 and the banter which came after.

I post some news that I read on the Drudge Report, but most will laugh and
claim it an unreliable source. The Drudge Report simply links to other sources
that have reported the news. The problem with our posters is they believe in
the lies by Fahrenheit 9/11 and the banter which came after.
That's a pretty skewed version of what happens on Drudge. Lots of times, Drudge will have a "breaking news" headline with a teaser and little else--something outrageous, generally--and then he'll never follow it up and it'll disappear. In the meantime, people like Limbaugh will pounce on the "story" and point to the lack of mainstream coverage as "liberal bias" when the truth is usually that there's nothing to the story at all (like the Kerry intern story). Because Limbaugh has such a large audience--and because Fox News is often willing to play ball--pretty soon the mainstream media is at least looking into whatever story Drudge is claiming exists. More often than not, it's debunked, but the mere fact that it made its way into the news cycle is a victory for whoever planted the story in the first place.

Well that is the big thing with news that they seldom lies. But they choose that to report and that angel they should have on it. For example I don't think Fox or even the other big news channels in America (in fairness also in a lot of other countries) often report the big American aid (mainly military) to Israel and that palestiniens land is occupied by Israel then they talk about the conflict between Israelies and Palestiens, if they even mention that conflict (or I'm just a biased Swed). Even if this fact is a pretty big part in the dislike and even hatred against the USA especially in the muslim world. The thing with fharenheit 9/11 is that it report events from another angel then most american not get to hear from the News. I personally think as a european that you american need "alternative news". Not to say that a lot of other countries also need more broaden news raport but atleast many countries have a big public service that is not under either economical (owners and ads) or politicial control. Even if it also of course can get corrupted like in Italy.

Actually I personally don't trust the public news at all, they are funded by the government (not to mention funded by stolen money (tax)) so they will not dare to attack the government (for example, something like "The government is taxing too much" will never come out of their mouths and they will certainly not try to give publicity for a anti-tax group.

The free media (that relies on advertisers) is in my eyes more independent, first of all because those advertisers are (for the most part) just advertisers, and there are a lot of advertisers, so unless they manage to get a complete boycott influencing the media isn't possible. The boss influencing, well what's so wrong with that, usually the boss has build it up or is at least the leader and has the full right to do that.

Actually I personally don't trust the public news at all, they are funded by the government (not to mention funded by stolen money (tax)) so they will not dare to attack the government (for example, something like "The government is taxing too much" will never come out of their mouths and they will certainly not try to give publicity for a anti-tax group.

The free media (that relies on advertisers) is in my eyes more independent, first of all because those advertisers are (for the most part) just advertisers, and there are a lot of advertisers, so unless they manage to get a complete boycott influencing the media isn't possible. The boss influencing, well what's so wrong with that, usually the boss has build it up or is at least the leader and has the full right to do that.
The BBC is one I would point out that attacks the government, and has recently become much more anti-Govt than it used to be. I think it started mainly after the death of David Kelly an Gilligans report on Iraq. Since then the Govt and Beeb havn't seen eye-to-eye.

Actually I personally don't trust the public news at all, they are funded by the government (not to mention funded by stolen money (tax)) so they will not dare to attack the government (for example, something like "The government is taxing too much" will never come out of their mouths and they will certainly not try to give publicity for a anti-tax group.

The free media (that relies on advertisers) is in my eyes more independent, first of all because those advertisers are (for the most part) just advertisers, and there are a lot of advertisers, so unless they manage to get a complete boycott influencing the media isn't possible. The boss influencing, well what's so wrong with that, usually the boss has build it up or is at least the leader and has the full right to do that.
Oh they do attack the government. They love to do it. The government knows well enough that if they would ever act against public funded channel, they would be thrown out and replaced very quickly.

The "free" media on the other hand, can't attack corporations because then the corporations would give their money to other channels.

Whats the most unbiased news in your opinion?

Or what news should we read that definitely would give us both sides of the story?

It seems everybodies pointing the gun at every other news.

Well actually I claim that they lie and not only portray things differently. Not always but sometimes. And when they find out that they have reported false news, they don't correct them.
When this war in Iraq started FoxNews and CNN made several reports about incidents which later turned out false. (alright, it isn't exactly lying but it's giving false information as news.) They wanted so badly to be the first ones to tell the news that they didn't have time to check if the stories were right or not. BBC had a bit more patience and corrected several errors FoxNews and CNN had made.
Where should I start? How about: RATHERGATE, HALPERIN MEMO, Al QaQaa EXPLOSIVES STORY THAT TURNED INTO A DUD.

Actually I personally don't trust the public news at all, they are funded by the government (not to mention funded by stolen money (tax)) so they will not dare to attack the government (for example, something like "The government is taxing too much" will never come out of their mouths and they will certainly not try to give publicity for a anti-tax group.
Not necessarily, it depends on the funding model. There are funding models that take this into account and intentionally build in autonomy between funder (government) and funded (Public broadcast).

Here in Australia the ABC is directly government funded and is routinely the most anti-government news provider.

As to the whole bias debate. Its pretty simple. Some organisations are left wing (New York Times or the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia for example), some are right wing (Fox News or The Australian for example). Some are more centrist.

That is how it is, and that is a healthy situation because frankly it is impossible to simply report the news without bias or influence. Why pretend to be uninfluenced?

A big cheer to all those who challenge their views. I do too. It is the best way to go.

Let's be honest here.

Your favorite news source, no matter what it is, is biased. Pure objectivity in journalism is a myth; a goal for people to strive for. No human being is capable of being utterly objective when running a news source. It doesn't mean lies and distortions; it comes down to small things, such as which minor news stories to run, how to word things, what sort of people you quote. It's less the story itself that makes a news outlet biased, as the way in which that story is framed. In this way, the bias sneaks in largely unnoticed, and has more of a subconscious effect than anything.

Now, on to what to do about it. The only way to get relatively unbiased news is to keep up with at least two news sources; one which is biased toward your own views, and one which is biased against them. If you want unbiased journalism, you must also give both sources equal credence, regardless of whether or not you agree with their bias.

Let's be honest here.

Your favorite news source, no matter what it is, is biased. Pure objectivity in journalism is a myth; a goal for people to strive for. No human being is capable of being utterly objective when running a news source. It doesn't mean lies and distortions; it comes down to small things, such as which minor news stories to run, how to word things, what sort of people you quote. It's less the story itself that makes a news outlet biased, as the way in which that story is framed. In this way, the bias sneaks in largely unnoticed, and has more of a subconscious effect than anything.

Now, on to what to do about it. The only way to get relatively unbiased news is to keep up with at least two news sources; one which is biased toward your own views, and one which is biased against them. If you want unbiased journalism, you must also give both sources equal credence, regardless of whether or not you agree with their bias.

Here here.

Although I'm not sure you have to give equal credence, afterall there is a reason why you have a political perspective and have certain preferred media sources.