NationStates Jolt Archive

Where do people get the idea that Fox news is biased? I've seen Republicans, Democrats, Rich people, Poor people, all walks of life on there or interviewed. They've interviewed Nader, Bush, and several of Über-Democrat people on there. Sure, most of the people that work there are republican, but they just voice there opinion on things like people do ON THIS FORUM!

Where do people get the idea that Fox news is biased? I've seen Republicans, Democrats, Rich people, Poor people, all walks of life on there or interviewed. They've interviewed Nader, Bush, and several of Über-Democrat people on there. Sure, most of the people that work there are republican, but they just voice there opinion on things like people do ON THIS FORUM!

Just like every other news source in existance, it is biased by the opinions and ideas of the people that present its news. It isn't more biased than any other source, it just has different biases. Biases are all about perspective. If you have a similar perspective it seems unbiased. If you have a differing perspective it seems very biased. It is definitely biased toward the U.S. compared to sources outside of the U.S. in much the same way that ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, CNBC and a host of others are.

So, If the two other news channels are a little biased, like Fox, why does Fox get a bunch of stuff about this?

btw, Notice I didn't say "bunch of b/s? That's because I want to keep flaming at a minimum. ;)

Just like every other news source in existance, it is biased by the opinions and ideas of the people that present its news. It isn't more biased than any other source, it just has different biases. Biases are all about perspective. If you have a similar perspective it seems unbiased. If you have a differing perspective it seems very biased. It is definitely biased toward the U.S. compared to sources outside of the U.S. in much the same way that ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, CNBC and a host of others are.
Exactamente..

Watch (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

So, If the two other news channels are a little biased, like Fox, why does Fox get a bunch of stuff about this?
like he said...All the CNNs, ABCs, NBCs, are biased...specially about the War.

But FOX is even more...and they have the nerve to sign "FAIR AND BALANCED". :D

I think you have a typo. There's supposed to be a "much" in the thread title, right?

how are you naive enough to not notice it? news is a platform of propoganda, visual news is the most abused form. every news station you watch shows you what it wants and how it wants it to be shown. you have obviously never seen the oreilly factor, that evil fuck sucks the bush administrations cock 24/7 (along with satans). its cool if you watch it, as long as you dont let it form your opinions, like half of the idiots in america. the executive of Fox even said, "We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."

Watch (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

Another great source to read (or listen to since I downloaded the audio book) would be Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'.

how are you naive enough to not notice it? news is a platform of propoganda, visual news is the most abused form. every news station you watch shows you what it wants and how it wants it to be shown. you have obviously never seen the oreilly factor, that evil fuck sucks the bush administrations cock 24/7 (along with satans). its cool if you watch it, as long as you dont let it form your opinions, like half of the idiots in america.

No flamebait here at all.

Walter Cronkite now admits that he was biased completely in his coverage and opinions.

Many people listened to him. And believed what he said.

All news sources, especially those that editorialize (as Walter famously did during the Vietnam War), are biased.

Yes, I can see the bias in Fox News. I can also see nearly the opposite bias at CBS News.

Just look at their ratings, though, and you'll see which network has more people believing its opinions.

No flamebait here at all.

I particularly like the part about O'Reilly. Although to be "fair and balanced," the sentence probably should have included a clause about how much he enjoys having gerbils nibble falafel out of his colon.

Another great source to read (or listen to since I downloaded the audio book) would be Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'.
Funniest part is how Fox sued him for the "Fair and Balanced look at the right"

Like Fox owns the rights to the phrase fair and balanced, and no one ever gets to use it again except for them.

sorry, but it is the only way to express my dis-like for oreilly and fox news network.

Just like every other news source in existance, it is biased by the opinions and ideas of the people that present its news. It isn't more biased than any other source, it just has different biases. Biases are all about perspective. If you have a similar perspective it seems unbiased. If you have a differing perspective it seems very biased. It is definitely biased toward the U.S. compared to sources outside of the U.S. in much the same way that ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, CNBC and a host of others are.
I think you need to decide what defines bias. In a newscast, I expect facts that are uncolored by opinion. Fox certainly presents news in that manner. When a news outlet starts using adjectives like "right-wing" or "hard-line" to describe something, then I would say they are editorializing. When Reuters puts scare quotes around the word terrorist, i.e. "terrorist", I consider that to be editorializing, as well.

On the other hand, when a person is interviewed on a feature type show like Sean Hannity, or Al Franken host, then I don't worry about bias. Those shows are just entertainment.

Just look at their ratings, though, and you'll see which network has more people believing its opinions.

You mean the ratings that show CBS is the nation's most watched network?

Fox is just the latest and boldest of the super-biased media. Note that they call EVERYONE ELSE the corrupt 'liberal media' if they dare disagree.

The main issue is that Fox is republican, and thus has the most common republican oratory style, learned from preachers: Yell at them until they shut up, even if you're yelling complete bull, and the audience will side with you.

They're also especially in to trying to make you say something untrue, only to cut you off when you correct yourself: There was a show once where some women were saying they wanted the women in the military to be SEPERATED from the men in the military due to the rampant abuse and rape that our oh so pristine soldiers are so keen on.

The Fox folks tried to get them to say they wanted women OUT of the military. Several times. Then cut the women off when they weren't getting what they wanted.

--

I will say this. O'Reilly did do a very brave thing once. He challenged some religious notion (Alas, I can't recall what it was... ) put up by some... protestants I think. It was funny as hell seeing him say "Oh come on!" to people who were actually full of it for once.

I'd say the main reason why Fox gets attacked so much is because radical liberals are rather like really loud miniature poodle attack dogs. They have no power, so all they can do is bark at the top of their lungs. Whereas, when they Republicans decide they don't like something, they actually have the power to Fuck someone's world up.

Now, Fox is no more biased than any other news agency. In my opinion, CNN is that absolute worst, which would explain why Dan Rather had to quit. Rather than being honest and checking out its sources, they blindly attacked the US with whatever trash they could find. Then they said, "Oops, it was Dan's fault (pointing finger). However, none of the Dems were up in arms at CNN's ridiculous betrayal of the American public. But you know, of course it must be Fox that is actually the most biased, despite the fact that CNN kept a man on their staff who, in an interview with Bush Sr., when he was VP, actually cut him off in the middle of a sentence several times, and kept interrupting him. But, you know, he was just being fair and unbiased I suppose. Right? Yea... Shows absolutely no respect the the second highest ranked man in our nation, and CNN comes out smelling like roses. Bull. Shit.

Funniest part is how Fox sued him for the "Fair and Balanced look at the right"

Like Fox owns the rights to the phrase fair and balanced, and no one ever gets to use it again except for them.
What was the guy who coached the Lakers for so many years? I can't remember, but he trademarked, copyrighted, or whatever the word "threepeat" to describe the back to back to back championships by the Lakers. So, yes, Fox could own the exclusive rights to a phrase. It's called rule of law, you know.

I'd say the main reason why Fox gets attacked so much is because radical liberals are rather like really loud miniature poodle attack dogs. They have no power, so all they can do is bark at the top of their lungs. Whereas, when they Republicans decide they don't like something, they actually have the power to Fuck someone's world up.

Now, Fox is no more biased than any other news agency. In my opinion, CNN is that absolute worst, which would explain why Dan Rather had to quit. Rather than being honest and checking out its sources, they blindly attacked the US with whatever trash they could find. Then they said, "Oops, it was Dan's fault (pointing finger). However, none of the Dems were up in arms at CNN's ridiculous betrayal of the American public. But you know, of course it must be Fox that is actually the most biased, despite the fact that CNN kept a man on their staff who, in an interview with Bush Sr., when he was VP, actually cut him off in the middle of a sentence several times, and kept interrupting him. But, you know, he was just being fair and unbiased I suppose. Right? Yea... Shows absolutely no respect the the second highest ranked man in our nation, and CNN comes out smelling like roses. Bull. Shit.

Yo, homie. Rather wasn't on CNN.

Nice tirade tho'.

What was the guy who coached the Lakers for so many years? I can't remember, but he trademarked, copyrighted, or whatever the word "threepeat" to describe the back to back to back championships by the Lakers. So, yes, Fox could own the exclusive rights to a phrase. It's called rule of law, you know.
Thats not what the court said.

lets see, the media is owned by 6 major corporations (http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml) ... and as i posted, the executive of fox even said they'll do the news how they want.

I'd say the main reason why Fox gets attacked so much is because radical liberals are rather like really loud miniature poodle attack dogs. They have no power, so all they can do is bark at the top of their lungs. Whereas, when they Republicans decide they don't like something, they actually have the power to Fuck someone's world up.

Yes, insulting another group makes your group look so much bettter :P

Now, Fox is no more biased than any other news agency. In my opinion, CNN is that absolute worst, which would explain why Dan Rather had to quit. Rather than being honest and checking out its sources, they blindly attacked the US with whatever trash they could find. Then they said, "Oops, it was Dan's fault (pointing finger).

Because of Dan did was wrong. He let personal feeling get in way of reporting. What has that got to do with CNN?

However, none of the Dems were up in arms at CNN's ridiculous betrayal of the American public. But you know, of course it must be Fox that is actually the most biased, despite the fact that CNN kept a man on their staff who, in an interview with Bush Sr., when he was VP, actually cut him off in the middle of a sentence several times, and kept interrupting him. But, you know, he was just being fair and unbiased I suppose. Right? Yea... Shows absolutely no respect the the second highest ranked man in our nation, and CNN comes out smelling like roses. Bull. Shit.

Fox is the most biased.

Second highest? Vice Presidents aren't that highly rated in past.

And Dan is gone so your post are so much in the past.

Thats not what the court said.
Did you read the word could? Do you know the word hypothetical? I don't care who won the case between Fox and Franken. The point was that phrases can be copyrighted.

i can see why republicans get upset when there favorite propaganda deliveree is put down.... how else would they form an opinion? (i generalize when isay republican, i speak of the evil corrupted ones)

First of all, looks at the recent Social Secruity thing with Brit Hume. He reaaranged FDR quotes to make it seem like he would be for Bush's Social Secruity plan, but anyone who knows anything about FDR knows thats a sack of crap, and so did Brit Hume.

The other problem is unlike other news stations they really dont do a good job of balencing their programs. Where is the counterpart to O'Reilly? If they were fair and balenced they should have a liberal factor. The close as they get is Colmes.

Another point is sure, you have seen democrats and liberals and etc. etc. on there, but I could start a liberal news agency and have 30 liberal democrats interviewed a day and have 3 conservatives and say I have conservatives on my show, but its obviously weighed the other direction. The numbers arent that extreme but if you look at reports put out by non-bias watchdog groups you will find that republicans do appear more often than democrats. It also has to do with who is being interviewed. Zell Miller is a "democrat" but does not really hold many of today's democrats values.

Another great source to read (or listen to since I downloaded the audio book) would be Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'.

I was actually bought that for my 21st birthday last year, and I even read it. I'm not American so I dont know about half of his references, but I certainly enjoyed the read anyway :)

I really don't see FOX any more or less biased either way, like w/CNN and any other new source in existance

Also it really depends on who is looking at it. Fox to conservatives may be moderate, but too liberals its obviously conservative. But to liberals CBS is moderate and conservatives view it as liberal. So, its really a question of what is the standard of being liberal or conservative? And I dont think anyone can answer that. However Fox News in the eyes of journalism does some pretty shaddy work. By journalism standards, like the FDR deal above.

Funniest part is how Fox sued him for the "Fair and Balanced look at the right"

Like Fox owns the rights to the phrase fair and balanced, and no one ever gets to use it again except for them.

And of course it was bull but thanks to Fox's stupidity it bought Franken GREAT press and his book was even more successful because of the lawsuit.

Juicy, juicy irony.

Did you read the word could? Do you know the word hypothetical? I don't care who won the case between Fox and Franken. The point was that phrases can be copyrighted.
My point is that doesn't matter or have much relevance. The phrase Fair and Balanced is in common use all over the place. That would be like me copyrighting "Are you ready to rock" and then suing every band that said it from then on. They didn't invent anything, just used a pre existing one.

Also it really depends on who is looking at it. Fox to conservatives may be moderate, but too liberals its obviously conservative. But to liberals CBS is moderate and conservatives view it as liberal. So, its really a question of what is the standard of being liberal or conservative? And I dont think anyone can answer that. However Fox News in the eyes of journalism does some pretty shaddy work. By journalism standards, like the FDR deal above.
Eh, I'm libertarian so I wonder how that effects my opinions on media...

id have to say all news sources are shady, fox being one of the most shady.

Where do people get the idea that Fox news is biased? I've seen Republicans, Democrats, Rich people, Poor people, all walks of life on there or interviewed. They've interviewed Nader, Bush, and several of Über-Democrat people on there. Sure, most of the people that work there are republican, but they just voice there opinion on things like people do ON THIS FORUM!

FOX is only slightly more conservative than the rest of the media is liberal, but when it is 4 vs. 1 the odds are a little stacked.

They had an interview with C Rice.

She was asked how she accounted for the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and came up with some half answer about continuing investigations, and the administration not being able to take such a risk etc.

The cutting follow up from the interviewer was "Thank you for that. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue you there."

Woah! Some incisive interviewing going on there. Thank God there are people like Fox arround to hold the government to account.

They had an interview with C Rice.

She was asked how she accounted for the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and came up with some half answer about continuing investigations, and the administration not being able to take such a risk etc.

The cutting follow up from the interviewer was "Thank you for that. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue you there."

Woah! Some incisive interviewing going on there. Thank God there are people like Fox arround to hold the government to account.
Yeah what happened to the Sam Donaldsons of the news, who just attacked everyone. They went after every major figure like a pitbull, not just threatening to cut the mic of someone disagreeing with them but riddling them with incisive reporting. People would want to see that.

how are you naive enough to not notice it? news is a platform of propoganda, visual news is the most abused form. every news station you watch shows you what it wants and how it wants it to be shown. you have obviously never seen the oreilly factor, that evil fuck sucks the bush administrations cock 24/7 (along with satans). its cool if you watch it, as long as you dont let it form your opinions, like half of the idiots in america. the executive of Fox even said, "We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."
O' reilly was fine for a while, but by about 2001 he had turned into a giant blubbering vagina. Sad really. And then of course, he defends one Dan Rather from the blogsphere even though Rather is guilty of all the faults that he complains about in his no-spin zone book. Quite funny really.

what about that jeremy glick interview oreilly did... i think satan came out of bill for a second on that one.

Yeah what happened to the Sam Donaldsons of the news, who just attacked everyone. They went after every major figure like a pitbull, not just threatening to cut the mic of someone disagreeing with them but riddling them with incisive reporting. People would want to see that.

So I take it you've never heard of Carlson Pucker?

Walter Cronkite now admits that he was biased completely in his coverage and opinions.

Many people listened to him. And believed what he said.

All news sources, especially those that editorialize (as Walter famously did during the Vietnam War), are biased.

Yes, I can see the bias in Fox News. I can also see nearly the opposite bias at CBS News.

Just look at their ratings, though, and you'll see which network has more people believing its opinions.

Just because many people believe it to be true does not mean it is.

People used to think the world was flat.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

First of all, it's the comentators who are biased, not the reporters. Hannity is supposed to support Republicans. He has Colmes on the show as well to balance it out. No matter who or what O'Reilly supports, he has someone on to disagree with him. However if you pay attention he isn't always supporting Republicans. The liberals are the main ones producing crazy accusations now that he defends the president against. The Republicans don't make crazy accusations because they don't have to. Their party is in power so they don't have to worry or complain much. O'Reilly doesn't always support Republicans. He thinks the war is not exactly going as well as it could even though he says the president's only choice was to go to war with the poor intelligence he received at the time

From watching that Outfoxed trailer, all I can see is clever little cuts of reports that make them sound bad even if the whole sentence wasn't bad. I also see a lot of commentators. They don't count though because they're not reporters. Also, if they're going to show clips of commentators, you notice they don't really mention Alan Colmes in the trailer. The only thing Fox is biased toward is America, which makes sense because that is the country from which it is based.

So I take it you've never heard of Carlson Pucker?
No, and neither has Google.

No, and neither has Google.

I think he means Tucker Carlson

Eh, I'm libertarian so I wonder how that effects my opinions on media...
You must let the market decide which is telling the truth...Or just read the Wall Street Journal.

I think he means Tucker Carlson
lol that little sycophant, yeah Sam Donaldson he ain't.

I think you need to decide what defines bias. In a newscast, I expect facts that are uncolored by opinion. Fox certainly presents news in that manner. When a news outlet starts using adjectives like "right-wing" or "hard-line" to describe something, then I would say they are editorializing. When Reuters puts scare quotes around the word terrorist, i.e. "terrorist", I consider that to be editorializing, as well.

On the other hand, when a person is interviewed on a feature type show like Sean Hannity, or Al Franken host, then I don't worry about bias. Those shows are just entertainment.

Well this brings up how it is perceived by the population at large. Most people are trusting and don't think they would be lied to by the media (or at least they WERE. Now they are beginning to take sides in this battle and are trusting the media less and less.)

Sad thing about Fox is, although they have a bias in reporting the news like many other outlets, Fox is the only one who manipulates the opinions of the public. They have purposely let out false stories in the past just to manipulate opinion or just to grab more viewers. They let out 'corrections' later on but the damage was done.

I know that Fox News editors must rely upon others when preparing their stories, and I offer with no judgment that their story titled “Michael Moore’s Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge” contains several errors, including its entire headline.

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/correction_to_moores_bodyguard_story/

"Any information that came directly from the preliminary hearing that would be aired or published would be a breach of the publication ban," said Galliford. "The information that was contained in the Fox news story was mostly false information or untruths.

"So there wasn't actually a breach of the publication ban."

http://www.missingpeople.net/rcmp_wont_charge_fox_news.htm

80 of journalists are NOT liberal. ~38% are

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140006

And that just the tip of the iceberg. Just google <"fox news" false stories>
Also the mediamatters site (above) had some interesting titles.

FOX is only slightly more conservative than the rest of the media is liberal, but when it is 4 vs. 1 the odds are a little stacked.

Not when everyone follows Fox's lead. Remember the 2000 election. Fox called Bush and everyone followed suit.

A liberal media would not do that.

First of all, it's the comentators who are biased, not the reporters. Hannity is supposed to support Republicans. He has Colmes on the show as well to balance it out. No matter who or what O'Reilly supports, he has someone on to disagree with him. However if you pay attention he isn't always supporting Republicans. The liberals are the main ones producing crazy accusations now that he defends the president against. The Republicans don't make crazy accusations because they don't have to. Their party is in power so they don't have to worry or complain much. O'Reilly doesn't always support Republicans. He thinks the war is not exactly going as well as it could even though he says the president's only choice was to go to war with the poor intelligence he received at the time

From watching that Outfoxed trailer, all I can see is clever little cuts of reports that make them sound bad even if the whole sentence wasn't bad. I also see a lot of commentators. They don't count though because they're not reporters. Also, if they're going to show clips of commentators, you notice they don't really mention Alan Colmes in the trailer. The only thing Fox is biased toward is America, which makes sense because that is the country from which it is based. fox is evil, like all other news, ust accept it.

Not when everyone follows Fox's lead. Remember the 2000 election. Fox called Bush and everyone followed suit.

A liberal media would not do that.
No, what a liberal media would do would be to refuse to call an election, no matter what the results, unless their candidate was winning. Look at 2004 and the refusal of AP and CBS to call the election for several days after Kerry conceeded.

how are you naive enough to not notice it? news is a platform of propoganda, visual news is the most abused form. every news station you watch shows you what it wants and how it wants it to be shown. you have obviously never seen the oreilly factor, that evil fuck sucks the bush administrations cock 24/7 (along with satans). its cool if you watch it, as long as you dont let it form your opinions, like half of the idiots in america. the executive of Fox even said, "We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."

My favorite was when they brought on Triumph the Insuld Comic Dog and then edited out all his punchlines and left in the setups.

Italics not aired.
"Here on Fox News, the best news source on cable... for me to poop on"

"Bill, you are a great journalist with lots of integrity... oh wait, we're in the no spin zone right? YOU SUCK!!!"

Triumph: I can't believe you call yourselves balanced.
Bill: We are, 'fair and balanced' yes.
Triumph: Ya right, you're as well balanced as Ted Kennedy at 2:00 AM

I was actually surprised they took out that one.

My favorite was when they brought on Triumph the Insuld Comic Dog and then edited out all his punchlines and left in the setups.

Italics not aired.
"Here on Fox News, the best news source on cable... for me to poop on"

"Bill, you are a great journalist with lots of integrity... oh wait, we're in the no spin zone right? YOU SUCK!!!"

Triumph: I can't believe you call yourselves balanced.
Bill: We are, 'fair and balanced' yes.
Triumph: Ya right, you're as well balanced as Ted Kennedy at 2:00 AM

I was actually surprised they took out that one.
How about a single example of biased news? O'Reilly isn't news. Neither is Hannity.

Foxnews is obviously conservative biased just as CNN and MSNBC are obviously liberal biased. All news companies have a bias. I happen to enjoy Foxnews more than anything else but it doesn't mean they're less credible then the others. Hell everyone get's their news from AP and Reuters anyway (for the most part).

Foxnews is obviously conservative biased just as CNN and MSNBC are obviously liberal biased. All news companies have a bias. I happen to enjoy Foxnews more than anything else but it doesn't mean they're less credible then the others. Hell everyone get's their news from AP and Reuters anyway (for the most part).
Why am I not surprised?
Only the US conservative think that CNN is liberal.

You want to talk good network television, you should watch the CBC. We've got a totally unbiased anchorman, since he's half dead and we just got Canadian antiques road show!

Why am I not surprised?
Only the US conservative think that CNN is liberal.

And only the US liberal think that Foxnews is conservative.

See your circular logic? Just accept that they're ALL biased.

You want to talk good network television, you should watch the CBC. We've got a totally unbiased anchorman, since he's half dead and we just got Canadian antiques road show!

And don't forget about all new episodes of Corination Street!!!!

And don't forget about all new episodes of Corination Street!!!!

God I miss Hockey.

And only the US liberal think that Foxnews is conservative.

See your circular logic? Just accept that they're ALL biased.
I never said they weren't.
But CNN is as much liberal as an army sargent denouncing the government because the taxes go to homeless shelters.

Here's a hint. None of the US mainstream media has a liberal bent. At best, CNN and CBS can be considered center-right.

And everybody thinks that FOX news is conservative.

lol that little sycophant, yeah Sam Donaldson he ain't.

No, but that douchebag's our current conception of "in your face." Donaldson was persistent and didn't cotton to a runaround, but he's a cut better than bowtie.

I never said they weren't.
But CNN is as much liberal as an army sargent denouncing the government because the taxes go to homeless shelters.

Here's a hint. None of the US mainstream media has a liberal bent. At best, CNN and CBS can be considered center-right.

And everybody thinks that FOX news is conservative.

CNN = Clinton News Network, Communist News Network. Those are the petnames for it. They're not center-right. TO see the bias of a network look more at its shows than the standard news reports because those are from AP & Reuters.

CNN = Clinton News Network, Communist News Network. Those are the petnames for it. They're not center-right. TO see the bias of a network look more at its shows than the standard news reports because those are from AP & Reuters.
again with the conservative spin. Just because some political hack says that CNN= Communist doesn't make it so. If I say FAUX news, does that mean that fox is making stuff up?

I see that you don't know what liberal really is. For a better example, I'd suggest you look at the BBC.

again with the conservative spin. Just because some political hack says that CNN= Communist doesn't make it so. If I say FAUX news, does that mean that fox is making stuff up?

I see that you don't know what liberal really is. For a better example, I'd suggest you look at the BBC.

MM BBC. I like them actually, good stuff, too dry for the most part though. Yes it's conservative spin when its against CNN but good lord if its liberal spin if its against Foxnews.

MM BBC. I like them actually, good stuff, too dry for the most part though. Yes it's conservative spin when its against CNN but good lord if its liberal spin if its against Foxnews.
Now compare BBC to CNN and you'll see that CNN is actually more conservative that the Beeb (which the English folks find to be a bit left of center).

This is pretty damn lame. "Fox is biased." "No it's not." Repeat, repeat, repeat. How about one of you 'yes it is' types coming up with an example of how the news is biased?

European politics has always been more left than American politics, that's a given. Of course the BBC will be more liberal but in America, concerning an American scale, CNN is liberal.

European politics has always been more left than American politics, that's a given. Of course the BBC will be more liberal but in America, concerning an American scale, CNN is liberal.
Not even true. When was the last time CNN came out for any social programs or for tougher control on the economy?

Not even true. When was the last time CNN came out for any social programs or for tougher control on the economy?

Social Security Enigma...

You mean the ratings that show CBS is the nation's most watched network?
CBS News ranks last for network news.

suppose. Right? Yea... Shows absolutely no respect the the second highest ranked man in our nation, and CNN comes out smelling like roses.

Since when did we become a nation where people are officially ranked? Unless I have failed to understand the constitution properly, no one is required to show respect for the 2nd in command. By the very nature of democracy, those that are given power by the people are the servant of the people, not the opposite.

I think you need to decide what defines bias. In a newscast, I expect facts that are uncolored by opinion. Fox certainly presents news in that manner. When a news outlet starts using adjectives like "right-wing" or "hard-line" to describe something, then I would say they are editorializing. When Reuters puts scare quotes around the word terrorist, i.e. "terrorist", I consider that to be editorializing, as well.

On the other hand, when a person is interviewed on a feature type show like Sean Hannity, or Al Franken host, then I don't worry about bias. Those shows are just entertainment.


In terms of U.S. news I'm much more apt to watch Fox than any other network. I can also see that they all have biases. No one presents "just the facts". Even when presenting facts, the manner in which they are presented contains bias and it is impossible to avoid, because it can easily happen subconsciously or in simple ignorance of other perspectives. This is true of anyone and everyone that presents news. I'd say Fox is as Fair and Balanced as any U. S. network from a U.S. perspective, but from a Chinese or Muslim or French perspective it would appear skewed. It's all about perspective.

Since when did we become a nation where people are officially ranked? Unless I have failed to understand the constitution properly, no one is required to show respect for the 2nd in command. By the very nature of democracy, those that are given power by the people are the servant of the people, not the opposite.

The government does not exist to serve the people and the people do not exist to serve the government, it is a give and take relationship, both must make certain sacrifices in order to recieve certain benefits, it is called a compromise, and that is all the relationship between the people and government is, a series of compromises, the people need to give taxes and occasionally military service so the government can supply them with their basic needs, the government must also supply these needs or else the voters can remove them from power.

No, what a liberal media would do would be to refuse to call an election, no matter what the results, unless their candidate was winning. Look at 2004 and the refusal of AP and CBS to call the election for several days after Kerry conceeded.

No. They decided to not call the election because of the embarrassing bit of reporting they did last time by calling the last election like that.

They did in 2004 what they all should be doing and that's letting the final tally of votes decide who the winner was.

Well, this is how I look at things.

All news networks are highly sensationalist. Fox news tends to focus on local issues, particularly highlighting those issues that attract the most shock-value attention. This tends to be poor people shooting other poor people for the most part. The kind of thing that anyone really interested in pressing issues tends to ignore. Aside from that, most of their "news" is acquired second hand. Beyond that, they specialize in commentary, which is not news.

Major networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS may be ranked from conservative to liberal in the aforementioned order. ABC-Disney is the 2nd most conservative network.

CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC are all centrist. CNN specializes in international news. If you want good first-hand international news, best bet is CNN. For a financially conservative, but otherwise socially progressive news source, MSNBC is probably your best choice. W/ Rather leaving CBS, I expect that network to react in a fairly conservative swing for the most of the next few years, doing pennance for flouting the will of the administration, so expect plenty of toadying.

Blah...enough for now.

I just don't like it when they justify they say "some people say" this or "some people say" that when they are interviewing. That is extremely unprofessional and, frankly, is pathetic coming from a official news agency.


Another thing that really pissed me off is this one time they said, "You have a better chance of being killed in California then in Iraq." This statement was completely and outrageously false. All they did was compare how many people died, but they didn't take into account the number of people involved. There are far, far more people in California than in Iraq, of course more people will have died there.

This is why I don't like Fox News. If you need more info, watch "Outfoxed". It's very informative.

It *is* biased, you fools. AMERICA-biased.

CNN = Clinton News Network, Communist News Network. Those are the petnames for it. They're not center-right. TO see the bias of a network look more at its shows than the standard news reports because those are from AP & Reuters.

Please. 'Clinton' News network? CNN was hounding him like all the other networks. Not exactly on his side.

Repub media always gives the organizations who don't report glowing reviews of Republican actions cute litle nicknames like this. A nickname given in malice does not make them wrong. It's a little thing they do to mock those who present unfavorable truths so none of the arguments they present have to be confronted.

It's called an Ad Hominem attack. A logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Yeah, when I see ads for conservative newsletters saying that "We tell you what the media WON'T!" on FOX news and not any liberal things (or conservative things) like that on any other nation, I tend to think a station might have a slightly conservative bent... *cough*

It *is* biased, you fools. AMERICA-biased.

No, it just goes to great lengths to suggest you are a bad American if you disagree with them.

A few weeks ago I was annoyed at a website column Fox had about the Netherlands. However, it was a column. An opinion. An either extremely poorly researched opinion or a deliberately manipulative piece of negative propoganda type of opinion - but still just an opinion, and freedom of speech is a good thing[tm]. Even when one makes grave accusations, but is very careful not too mention specific names. After all, people may sue.

And now they broadcast it on tv. They even added the obligatory link to Osama bin Laden. Bravo. Lets all buy this: http://www.foxblocker.com/

I can receive 2 American television news channels here; Fox News and CNN International. Personally, I find CNN rather skewed to towards the US national opinion, especially in its coverage of events like the Iraq war. Fox News is out of this world - incredibly funny, as it appears almost as if it's supposed to be satirical.

I believe most domestic American television news channels cover international news very poorly, unless the USA is directly involved in the events. US news coverage also tends to be rather more tabloid and sensationalist (e.g. soundbite culture) than Swedish (and over generalising, wider European) tv-news programming.

No, what a liberal media would do would be to refuse to call an election, no matter what the results, unless their candidate was winning. Look at 2004 and the refusal of AP and CBS to call the election for several days after Kerry conceeded.
They were wrong on both counts, fox scooped them both times. Nothing wrong with reporting the news first when it is accurate.

I can receive 2 American television news channels here; Fox News and CNN International. Personally, I find CNN rather skewed to towards the US national opinion, especially in its coverage of events like the Iraq war. Fox News is out of this world - incredibly funny, as it appears almost as if it's supposed to be satirical.

I believe most domestic American television news channels cover international news very poorly, unless the USA is directly involved in the events. US news coverage also tends to be rather more tabloid and sensationalist (e.g. soundbite culture) than Swedish (and over generalising, wider European) tv-news programming.

You see Borgoa some people don't think Fox is acting funny, but actually believe every word they say even the Commentary. (which looks like news so people think it might be)

I watch MSNBC and the Daily show(on Comedy Central) for my news mostly.

How Is Fox News Biased?

I think the better question would of been "How is it not?" It would of been a shorter list. ;)

Since when did we become a nation where people are officially ranked? Unless I have failed to understand the constitution properly, no one is required to show respect for the 2nd in command. By the very nature of democracy, those that are given power by the people are the servant of the people, not the opposite.
people are not ranked, but offices are, such as policeman, judge, mayor, senator and president, for example. You do not disrespect the office.

The Liberal Media would call the election 7 hrs before all polls closed as they did during 2000.

Fox called the Election after all polls closed in the country, the Alphabet Media called the election 2 hrs before polls closed in Florida. Who jumped the gun there?

Fox seems biased to the Dems because they no longer control every media outlet in the US. Even now they still control more of the media than anything the Repubs do. But more people have realized that bias from the Alphabet Media and have looked elsewhere. For example the Internet and Fox news.

Where do people get the idea that Fox news is biased? I've seen Republicans, Democrats, Rich people, Poor people, all walks of life on there or interviewed. They've interviewed Nader, Bush, and several of Über-Democrat people on there. Sure, most of the people that work there are republican, but they just voice there opinion on things like people do ON THIS FORUM!

.. im sorry.. this is being naive.. I am republican.. i would say pretty far right republican.. but even i cannot commit myself to watch Fox.. it is blatenly propoganda..

Yes.. they inter view democrats.. but who is on their panel when they do.. 2 "contributuors of fox" who are by all definition of the word republican.. the democrat.. and the host... The whole debate becomes a 3v1 argument against policies.. This is not "fair and balanced" ..

Bill O'riely.. "the no spin zone" PLEASE!!! .. half of what he says are out right lies which even other news organizations can't help but point out.. and he skews all of the information he talks about to the extreme right..

HAnity and Colms.. the Democrat in that pair is a pansy... while the republican is a fanitic pratically attackign people who dont agree with him..

While 250,000 people died in a tsunami.. Fox concentrated on the scandel in the UN .. not that the UN scandel should be ignored.. but a quarter million people die.. i would think that would be primetime headline news

You never find it odd that they always seem to agree with the policies Bush is pushing ? Not that i dont agree with them..b ecause.. hell as far as im concenred they are right.. but comon... They havn't critized bush once.. And if they mention anything controversial about the Bush administration it is immediatly followed by the word Clinton and a story after that <.<

>.>

I think the better question would of been "How is it not?" It would of been a shorter list. ;)
I haven't seen a list at all. Name one biased news report that has appeared on Fox.....Okay, you can't. It's fun to complain, the "in" thing to do, but there isn't a critical thinker on this thread, otherwise you'd have managed to at least lie about it.

I haven't seen a list at all. Name one biased news report that has appeared on Fox.....Okay, you can't. It's fun to complain, the "in" thing to do, but there isn't a critical thinker on this thread, otherwise you'd have managed to at least lie about it.

A link was already provided - read the topic. Of course, you will probably say that list is biased too. Probably right. I personally referred to a column 1, but didn't provide backup - so perhaps you thought I was babbling. Let me correct that mistake. I will also touch upon the televised report. And yes, I am biased.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140612,00.html

Something terrible is happening in the land of wooden shoes, windmills, Rembrandt (search) and wonderful breakfasts.

Step one: put the Netherlands done as a cute quaint country.

A Dutch hospital is euthanizing — killing — newborn babies who don't measure up to an arbitrary standard set by the hospital. The hospital at first requested guidelines for so-called "mercy killings" of newborns. It then revealed it has been engaging in the practice without any guidelines at all.

Step two: use a shock effect. Stay general, don't use details. If you name the hospital, you have a libel case. If you actually say what the deformities were the impact is lost. Just say arbitrary and babies and your readers/viewers will assume the worst. To make sure, add televised items in which you suggest it is things like missing fingers.
For those interested: it concerns babies that were in pain 24/7 and spent most of that time crying with no hope of recovery.
Literally this paragraph is true. The conveniently forgotten context however does change things somewhat IMO.

Three years after the Dutch parliament passed a law allowing doctors to actively kill patients they deemed terminally ill, in great pain and with no prospects for recovery, it has come to this. At least with the elderly sick, they had to be consulted about their wishes. Newborns receive no such privilege.
Step 3: blame it on a previous decision that seemed reasonable at first sight. Say that babies have no say, and leave out the fact the parents are consulted. Do not offer another solution - but do imply later on that with a government with principles that would not have allowed the first to occur this wouldn't have happened. Let the people fill in which "moral high ground party" this could be.

I'm not surprised.

Of course not. And now the article gets interesting.

Once a single category of life is declassified as having no intrinsic value and a right to life, it is a very short step to declassify other categories when they are considered inconvenient, or burdensome.

Lets go back a few sentences. "terminally ill, in great pain and with no prospects for recovery". "they had to be consulted about their wishes". So where does this talk about "no intrinsic value and a right to life" come from ?
Nevermind those details, you silly critic. Lets move on.

Holland is a perfect example of what happens when there is no governing moral standard

Intruiging statement. Without a governing moral standard one can have no laws. Yet the Netherlands does have those. The main party which supplied the prime minister is called 'the Christian democratic appeal' and uses the slogan 'values and moral standards' to promote itself. In fact every party (there are a lot more than 2) has multiple articles in their programme on how they view one should treat another.

The Dutch have decriminalized most drugs and people smoke dope openly in venues set aside for the practice.

And as a result drugabuse in the Netherlands is one of the lowest in the world - only a fraction of that in the USA.For some reason the televised item finds it necessary to state the opposite.
Downside of this policy: the export of drugs, especially XTC, is one of the worlds largest. Some claim this has more to do with the fact that the Netherlands have the worlds busiest harbour (Rotterdam), a main hub airport (Schiphol) and good connections into western Europe though.

Prostitutes display their wares like mannequins in department store windows.
And the number of drugshookers or illegal prostitutes held as slaves is surprisingly low as a result. As is the number of prostitutes with STDs.

And now we have at least one hospital murdering already born babies because someone has decreed them unworthy of life.

Again: go back a few paragraphs. Where does this statement come from ?

The Dutch are now grappling with their open border policy

True. But what does this have to do with the topic ? Oh - of course. A certain party proposes to do it differenty and needs to be promoted.

They have admitted thousands of radical Islamists who have not assimilated and are threatening the stability of the nation. A Dutch filmmaker (search) was murdered last month by a radical who didn't like a film he made criticizing Islam's treatment of women.

Radical ? The tvshow even spoke of Osama bin Laden.. oh dear... But it is true. And it appears we are killing innocent babies by letting hookers injecting them with drugs obtained from radical islamists. Otherwise I cannot see a relation between all these things that are suddenly thrown on a great heap.

And now we have the killing of newborns. All of this in a country where the Nazis murdered Ann Frank just because she was Jewish and therefore less than human.

Yes. Not because she was pitied. Goebbels would be proud of you.

The Alma Mater, that was simply genius. Honestly, one of the best rebuttal posts I've read in a while.

I bow.

A link was already provided - read the topic. Of course, you will probably say that list is biased too. Probably right. I personally referred to a column 1, but didn't provide backup - so perhaps you thought I was babbling. Let me correct that mistake. I will also touch upon the televised report. And yes, I am biased....
Sure, it's biased. It's an OPINION column. Try again. This time, use a news story.

Sure, it's biased. It's an OPINION column. Try again. This time, use a news story.

I did. This column was used as basis for something that was presented as an objective news story.

And as I said, anti-fox sites which have more examples, like http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ , http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 , http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090008 or outfoxed are just as biased of course. Just look at the names of some.

I did. This column was used as basis for something that was presented as an objective news story.

And as I said, anti-fox sites which have more examples, like http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/ , http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 , http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090008 or outfoxed are just as biased of course. Just look at the names of some.

That link to Cal Thomas was an opinion column. O'Reilly is a opinion columnist. The fair.org link complains that conservatives like Fox and then uses a bunch of opinion shows to prove the point. Medimatters.org does the same thing, except that they throw Fox and Friends into the mix. That show is about as much news as the Today show, except for the five minutes each hour that are devoted to reading news.

So Fox presents a lot of conservative opinions in an editorial format. So what? There are still no credible examples of bias in the news portions of theirs shows.

Since you are still having problems with what is news and what is opinion, let me give you an example. This is from a story on the front page of the Atlanta Journal Constitution

By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON — President Bush named John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as the government's first national intelligence director Thursday, turning to a veteran diplomat to revive a spy community besieged by criticism after the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
During consideration of his U.N. nomination, critics suggested he had played a key role in carrying out the Reagan administration's covert strategy to crush the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua — an element of the Iran-Contra scandal.
...

The first paragraph is very straight forward. Facts. The next paragraph presents an unsupported charge that was disproved during hearings. That's bias. Get the idea?

So Fox presents a lot of conservative opinions in an editorial format. So what? There are still no credible examples of bias in the news portions of theirs shows.

So... you are saying it is ok to distort facts to promote certain ideas in an opinion column, just as long as you don't do that in a news item - and that you are under no obligation whatsoever to ever correct a false image created in such an opinion column ?
But what if the columns are the only things you use to report on certain issues ?

Since you are still having problems with what is news and what is opinion, let me give you an example.
Oh, I do understand. But does the average Fox viewer ?

So... you are saying it is ok to distort facts to promote certain ideas in an opinion column, just as long as you don't do that in a news item - and that you are under no obligation whatsoever to ever correct a false image created in such an opinion column ?
But what if the columns are the only things you use to report on certain issues ?

Oh, I do understand. But does the average Fox viewer ?

Other news networks have historically offered editorial opinions, even in the middle of a story - where there has been no announcement that the statement is an opinion, not a fact.

Walter Cronkite is famous for declaring tha the war in Vietnam could not be won. Was there absolute proof for that statement at the time, or was he expressing an opinion that radically shifted American opinion against the war?

If each and every statement that comes out of the pen or mouth of any reporter or news anchor is not directly supported by an incontrovertible fact, then it is opinion.

I don't recall Fox News forging documents out of whole cloth as was done at CBS. Nor do I recall, in the aftermath of such forgery, seeing the network fire only one person involved in the incident, and ask the people who actually warned that the story was a forgery "to voluntarily resign". And still give the man who was at the center of the story a cushy way out.

Dudley Do-Right once said, "if it's in the newspaper, then it must be true". Like Dudley, only an idiot would take what they read in the paper or see on the news at face value - news must be carefully gleaned to see what is supportable fact, and what is opinion.

I don't believe that it would be a violation of the First Amendment to mandate that news organizations be required to identify each statement that is an opinion as such. They obviously go out of their way to say that people charged with crimes are "alleged" to have committed them (which is as it should be). Why they should be permitted to play fast and loose with their opinions is something I don't understand.

I would also like to see criminal felony penalties for people who forge stories and materials or conspire to do. In my mind, the forged CBS documents go far, far beyond slander and libel.

So... you are saying it is ok to distort facts to promote certain ideas in an opinion column, just as long as you don't do that in a news item - and that you are under no obligation whatsoever to ever correct a false image created in such an opinion column ?
But what if the columns are the only things you use to report on certain issues ?


Oh, I do understand. But does the average Fox viewer ?
It is absolutely, positively fine to do whatever you want in an opinion column. These guys that write columns are only entertainers when they put on the columnist hat. We read their columns and decide if we agree with the opinions. If we don't like the facts they use to support those opinions, then we can still either agree or disagree with the opinion. If you decide you agree with the opinion and try to support it with bad facts, you run the same risk that the columnist does -- that no one will agree with you.

What issues are only reported in opinion columns? That's the same as asking what issues are only reported in editorials.

Oh, I do understand. But does the average Fox viewer ?

On what factual basis do you arrive at the "opinion" that the average Fox viewer can't tell the difference. Most Fox viewers I know don't watch news without trying to make a comparison with some other source.

That's how a lot of us found out that networks like CBS were spewing hooey.

All news media is biased. The "Liberal" news media is socially liberal but economically conservative. The "Conservative" media is socially conservative and economically conservative.

Why?

Because making news is dammed expensive. And only the rich can afford to do it. And, as the Fox exec / owner says, if you pay $8 billion for a channel, you want it to show what you want to watch.

All news media is biased. Even the "Liberal" media, even the "Conservative" media.

And the American "Liberal" media is centre-right, especially compared to the "Liberal" media in the UK. And that is comfortably on the side of the establishment.

Oh, the poor, unjust fate of Fox! Trapped as the only Fair and Balanced news outlet, in a whole universe of liberalist left-wing commie-nazis! Isn't that a shame? The world is sliding toward liberalism, and only the United States (half of it anyway) are hanging onto those good ol' Moral Values! They are RIGHT, and the Rest Of The World is WRONG!

Oh, and for Fox-viewers: /sarcasm.

Oh, the poor, unjust fate of Fox! Trapped as the only Fair and Balanced news outlet, in a whole universe of liberalist left-wing commie-nazis! Isn't that a shame? The world is sliding toward liberalism, and only the United States (half of it anyway) are hanging onto those good ol' Moral Values! They are RIGHT, and the Rest Of The World is WRONG!

Oh, and for Fox-viewers: /sarcasm.
That's about the most ignorant and pointless thing I've read today. If Dan Rather and Jason Blair would just quit making up news, we'd probably see the end of these discussion.

Other news networks have historically offered editorial opinions, even in the middle of a story - where there has been no announcement that the statement is an opinion, not a fact.

But "others also do it, and many are much worse" is not an excuse to do wrong yourself - unless you clearly state that that is what you are doing.
Here I am not comparing Fox with others - I am judging it on how it should behave. In my opinion of course.

If each and every statement that comes out of the pen or mouth of any reporter or news anchor is not directly supported by an incontrovertible fact, then it is opinion.

Really ? Take the statement "I consider Saddam Hussein a very evil man because he eats babies every day."
Up to because this is an opinion. From because on I claim to produce a fact. In this case a lie (as far as I know) - but I'm not stating it as an opinion. Basic psychology learns that if I'm reasonably famous a significant number of people will believe me without question.
This goes even further: lieing is not necessary - people have a tendency to fill in the blanks on basis what they believe and this belief can be 'guided'. Assume I'm writing a very negative article about the governor of California. As one of the arguments against him I'll put forward that I witnessed him emptying a gun into the bodies of women and children. I leave out the facts that he was a moviestar and that this was in one of his movies. Have I lied ? No. Was I honest, fair and balanced ? No. And if people ask I can always claim that I was speaking in jest and convinced everybody knew about the Governator.

I don't recall Fox News forging documents out of whole cloth as was done at CBS.
Well.. the column I quoted was pretty good at avoiding to mention specifics, yes. "A hospital". "Babies". Again: a good propagandist does not lie or fabricate evidence. He just 'forgets' to provide inconvenient details and context. He leads peoples thoughts in a certain direction, implies connections and lets their own minds do the rest. It is creating images that stick in peoples heads.

Dudley Do-Right once said, "if it's in the newspaper, then it must be true". Like Dudley, only an idiot would take what they read in the paper or see on the news at face value - news must be carefully gleaned to see what is supportable fact, and what is opinion.

So you check *everything* you get told ? Take the sentence "Something terrible is happening in the land of wooden shoes, windmills, Rembrandt and wonderful breakfasts." Would you check the wooden shoes, windmills, rembrandt and wonderful breakfasts claim or consider that unimportant details compared to the rest ? And is that image now stored somewhere in your memory ?
If you do I both applaud and pity you - because this would take you a lot of time.

I don't believe that it would be a violation of the First Amendment to mandate that news organizations be required to identify each statement that is an opinion as such. They obviously go out of their way to say that people charged with crimes are "alleged" to have committed them (which is as it should be). Why they should be permitted to play fast and loose with their opinions is something I don't understand.I would also like to see criminal felony penalties for people who forge stories and materials or conspire to do.

I agree wholeheartedly - but as I hope to have demonstrated it is more complex than that...

On what factual basis do you arrive at the "opinion" that the average Fox viewer can't tell the difference.

Where did I say that this was my opinion ? Nowhere - you just choose to interpret my question as such. Of course, this guiding *was* my intention.

But do you consider it likely that in e.g. 5 years time you will still be able to tell me exactly by heart which 'facts' about for instance the Iraq war were presented in columns and which in news stories ?

It is absolutely, positively fine to do whatever you want in an opinion column. These guys that write columns are only entertainers when they put on the columnist hat. We read their columns and decide if we agree with the opinions. If we don't like the facts they use to support those opinions, then we can still either agree or disagree with the opinion. If you decide you agree with the opinion and try to support it with bad facts, you run the same risk that the columnist does -- that no one will agree with you.

Same question as I asked Whispering Legs: do you check everything ? Even the seemingly unimportant details ? I hope for your sake you don't - and in an ideal world you shouldn't have to IMO. I want to trust a columnist to give an opinion based on research and facts - not a 'spot the lies/mistakes' game.

What issues are only reported in opinion columns? That's the same as asking what issues are only reported in editorials.
My point is that that not every 'fact' presented in an editorial or column is also mentioned/repeated/refuted in objective news stories. And as I asked whispering: will you be able to remember what was said where in 5 years time ? Or after 1 year even.

Same question as I asked Whispering Legs: do you check everything ? Even the seemingly unimportant details ? I hope for your sake you don't - and in an ideal world you shouldn't have to IMO. I want to trust a columnist to give an opinion based on research and facts - not a 'spot the lies/mistakes' game.


My point is that that not every 'fact' presented in an editorial or column is also mentioned/repeated/refuted in objective news stories. And as I asked whispering: will you be able to remember what was said where in 5 years time ? Or after 1 year even.
I don't have to check every last detail. There is also the test of whether the evidence is consistent with what I know to be true already. Plus, I read a lot of contradicting columns. Discrepancies show up pretty blatantly, as columnists like to point out the failings of others.

They are biased, definetely, they say terrorists instead of insurgents. Now can you see how that is a problem? People now think that the war was a war on terrorism if everyday the news reports that "14 terrorists were killed today by US coalition forces." I actually saw them report that on Fox News. while every other news station said insurgents. Funny isnt it? Would Bush have won if it werent for Fox news? I doubt it. They always give opinions too. Talking about how the PATRIOT act is a "necesary evil" and "it doesnt really take away our rights." Now their is nothing wrong with saying this, unless you are reporting news. You can not give opinions in those conditions.

They are biased, definetely, they say terrorists instead of insurgents. Now can you see how that is a problem? People now think that the war was a war on terrorism if everyday the news reports that "14 terrorists were killed today by US coalition forces." I actually saw them report that on Fox News. while every other news station said insurgents. Funny isnt it? Would Bush have won if it werent for Fox news? I doubt it. They always give opinions too. Talking about how the PATRIOT act is a "necesary evil" and "it doesnt really take away our rights." Now their is nothing wrong with saying this, unless you are reporting news. You can not give opinions in those conditions.
No, I think that "insurgent" is a biased word. Most of these attacks are made by non-Iraqis. The use of "insurgent" implies otherwise. Reuter's has been calling the radical Islamists "terrorists". Scare quotes are theirs. They can't bear to actually abandon the idea that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, even in the face of cowardly attacks like those of September 11th.

Same question as I asked Whispering Legs: do you check everything ? Even the seemingly unimportant details ? I hope for your sake you don't - and in an ideal world you shouldn't have to IMO. I want to trust a columnist to give an opinion based on research and facts - not a 'spot the lies/mistakes' game.

My point is that that not every 'fact' presented in an editorial or column is also mentioned/repeated/refuted in objective news stories. And as I asked whispering: will you be able to remember what was said where in 5 years time ? Or after 1 year even.

Maybe I have a unique advantage. I have a lot of spare time, and I read over 5000 words per minute. I am highly educated, and I know many people who are highly educated with whom I can discuss things. I also travel the world regularly, and can speak to highly educated people in other places.

What makes a journalist more qualified than I to form an opinion? Is he somehow more intelligent, gifted, well-read, or better educated?

I have met many "pundits" from different US networks at parties downtown (in fact, I see some of them at services on the weekend). In no way do any of them strike me as being more intelligent, more well-read, or having access to any more information than I do - and I am not a "journalist".

If you like having your information pureed and spoon-fed to you so that you will know what to think from people I regard as being of average intelligence and education, who are paid by people who always have an agenda, who work for people who have an agenda, then that's fine. As for me, I prefer not to let my prefrontal cortex atrophy.

What makes a journalist more qualified than I to form an opinion? Is he somehow more intelligent, gifted, well-read, or better educated?

The fact that it is his job. Same reason a plumber is more qualified to fix my plumbing - even though my level of education is probably higher. With the additional benefits that he has the necessary tools at his disposal: the resources of a newsstation. I e.g. cannot fly to Iraq for a quick look to see how things are going. I can not get interviews with presidents. I do not personally know people that can either. He probably does.

If you like having your information pureed and spoon-fed to you so that you will know what to think from people I regard as being of average intelligence and education, who are paid by people who always have an agenda, who work for people who have an agenda, then that's fine. As for me, I prefer not to let my prefrontal cortex atrophy.

No - I want to get my *information* from people that have researched it while I was spending my time researching something else. I want to be able to trust they tell me the truth. And yes - if he has researched it well his opinion carries some weight as far as I'm concerned. I may be (or not) more intelligent, but he is supposed to have more knowledge on the subject. I will be critical, I will not parrot - but the opinion carries weight.

I don't recall Fox News forging documents out of whole cloth as was done at CBS. Nor do I recall, in the aftermath of such forgery, seeing the network fire only one person involved in the incident, and ask the people who actually warned that the story was a forgery "to voluntarily resign". And still give the man who was at the center of the story a cushy way out.

This did not happen. No one other than yourself has ever alleged that CBS forged any documents. What did happen is that a former Texas National Guard official (Bill Burkett), gave CBS some documents to be used in one of their stories. CBS failed to properly verify the authenticity of these documents and proceeded to include them as part of an otherwise accurate "60 Minutes Wednesday" report. It turns out the documents were forged. However, no one with any credibility has ever alleged it was CBS who forged these documents. CBS failed to follow proper journalistic procedures in verifying the authenticity of the documents, but that is a far cry from your unfounded accusation that they had something to do with forging the documents given to them by Bill Burkett.

Mary Mapes prodded and pleaded for something like this to come to light for 2 years. In essence she did produce these out of whole cloth as she wanted this story to be true, even if it was fabricated. You can not have an factual or good news story with forged documents. So in essence her obbession with Bush and finding anything negative to effect an election was the direct cause of the document surfacing. As Burkett had a hard on for nailing Bush for something that happened decades before. Really you liberals need to move on with other things and find some happy spot. You know not everything in the world is horrible and needs to be highlighted. There are good things that happen everyday, maybe one day the liberals will grow up and see them.

Is anybody besides me REALLY sick of gross and idiotic generalisations?

All Liberals are...

All Conservatives are...

All Christians are...

All Atheists are...

All Communists are...

All Capitalists are...

The world is not that fucking simple.

This did not happen. No one other than yourself has ever alleged that CBS forged any documents. What did happen is that a former Texas National Guard official (Bill Burkett), gave CBS some documents to be used in one of their stories. CBS failed to properly verify the authenticity of these documents and proceeded to include them as part of an otherwise accurate "60 Minutes Wednesday" report. It turns out the documents were forged. However, no one with any credibility has ever alleged it was CBS who forged these documents. CBS failed to follow proper journalistic procedures in verifying the authenticity of the documents, but that is a far cry from your unfounded accusation that they had something to do with forging the documents given to them by Bill Burkett.

Considering the tenacity with which they clung to the "authenticity" of the documents, and considering how close Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes were on this story, it beggars belief that she did not actually know that the documents were forged. In fact, it beggars belief that Dan Rather did not know, as he has personally admitted that he was deeply involved in the story.

I believe that the most likely scenario (and I'm a fan of Occam's Razor) is that Bill Burkett paid someone to forge the documents using Microsoft Word, and then he and Mary Mapes and Dan Rather colluded on presenting them as authentic.

There's the story of the three other people on the story who, instead of being fired, were asked to resign. Legally, CBS did this so that the three would have no grounds to sue, would remain paid by CBS whether they left or not, and so would be either forced to remain silent on the story (to keep their pay/retirement) or try for a long shot lawsuit. CBS is being very, very smart and canny on this, because it has already come out that there are emails from one of those three that Dan Rather and Hewitt were personally warned in email, writing, and in direct talks that the documents were probably false - they were warned multiple times, beginning with the first time the documents were brought to CBS.

All of the three are suing. Why? Because they want the truth to come out - that they DID warn people that the documents were forged. And the lawsuits are apparently going ahead - CBS is now unable to get them dismissed. In a few months, you're going to see Dan Rather and Hewitt's underwear flapping in the breeze on national televsion.

Oh, and it's also no secret that because of the whole thing, the morale at the news division of CBS is at an all time low - the staffers there are apparently siding completely with the three people who are suing - they are in lockstep against Dan Rather and Hewitt.

Wonder why? It's because Rather and Hewitt would rather wipe their asses with their employees to cover up the stink of their conspiracy.

Is anybody besides me REALLY sick of gross and idiotic generalisations?

All Liberals are...

All Conservatives are...

All Christians are...

All Atheists are...

All Communists are...

All Capitalists are...

The world is not that fucking simple.yep. but it does give me a good laugh from time to time.