NationStates Jolt Archive

With the appointment of Bush into office in 2000, we witnessed a 180 degree turnaround of FOX News' perception of the President. From all out attack mode against Clinton, to the handling of Bush with kid gloves and following his every move like he'd do something Earth shattering any second. FOX News is basically a proponent of the GOP. It is obvious. Bill O' Rielly claimed he isn't right-wing because he "believes in global warming." I believe in free enterprise but that doesn't make not me left-wing. Rupert Murdoch also claimed he had liberal commentators and anchors. When asked who, he gave two names. Those two people were also portrayed as less presentable therefore less credible to the audience.

Making liberal commentators on FOX look less credible than conservative ones is only a tiny brick in the wall of FOX's strategies to promote a conservative agenda. They continually blend opinion and commentary with actual news, making it harder for the viewer to decipher what is true and what is false. Opinions are harder to prove false, and FOX takes that to the extreme. This isn't the bothersome part, it is their use of the slogan "fair and balanced" which is a slap in the face to the viewers because FOX is anything but fair and balanced. Special Report with Brit Hume has 5 times as many republican guests as democratic guests. And the democratic guests either agree with the conservatives, or are too weak to make their own case. Bill O' Rielly does his share of trashing liberals...he doesn't give his liberal guests an ounce of respect, he is physically incapable of letting them talk for 15 seconds without interuppting and yet he is FOX's most successful program.

When something emerges onto the political playing field as a threat to the Republicans, FOX News is the first to descredit and throw enough mud on the person that they either back down or the public doesn't trust them. For example, when Richard Clarke released his book attacking the Bush regime of failing to stop 9/11, FOX News launched an all out smear campaign only topped by that against John Kerry. They immediately portrayed Clarke as a partisan out to sell a book, "giving Clinton a pass and attacking Bush," they effictively diffuesed the threat that Clarke posed to the Bush administration.

All of these contribute to the fact that FOX News manipulates the public into accepting a certain ideology while discrediting the other, but one is most sinister and most effective. It is a tactic used by Bush's evil scrip writer and puppet master, Karl Rove. Fear. FOX News has a way of instilling fear into the heads of the American public. Whether it's a 2 hour special on "how to survive a dirty bomb" or them telling you that gay marraiges will lead to certain destruction, FOX News leads all other media outlets in making people scared. The stories that FOX covers almost always coincide with what the Bush administration is saying. From the brief, yet intense fear of almost certain use of a dirty bomb in a populated city, to another terror attack on American soil, FOX always mirrors White House statements.

FOX News is a proponent for the neoconservative agenda present in the White Houes. The beauty of FOX though, is not their 24/7 voicing of conservative views, but people believing that these views are centrist or liberal, but even worse, the other networks following FOX's stories. FOX News portrays other media sources with vile contempt thus forcing the other media outlets into submission for fear of losing viewer support. FOX News, along with the White House, uses fear of terrorism and loathing of democratic resistance to manipulate the public, this public, into accepting perpetual war and totalitarian rule.

you fail to mention the important bits.
1. FOX News repeatedly claims they are "fair and balanced" (give me a break) which is false advertising
2. FOX News executives actively conspired to have an extreme conservative bias withing the network. see: Outfoxed <---good movie

Although I'm not much of a fan of FOX news doesn't it level the balance, (in an extreme way perhaps), of the seemingly leftist, (I hate these terms, somewhat crude), bias/focus within many televised media news forums in the US?

Although I'm not much of a fan of FOX news doesn't it level the balance, (in an extreme way perhaps), of the seemingly leftist, (I hate these terms, somewhat crude), bias/focus within many televised media news forums in the US?
a lot of people say this but i dont see any liberal conspiracy like with fox news.

a lot of people say this but i dont see any liberal conspiracy like with fox news.

Well, for example you had the anchor of one of the more famous syndictated television news channels making spurious claims against Bush jr's war-time record and was duly removed.

I would never say conspiracy but I make the assumption that news media usually focus on the negative stories, or give oxygen and exaggerate certian news items that are generally negative, (e.g. no real focus of the reconstruction of Afghanistan or Iraq, merely its continued deconstruction by the choas there).

And shouldn't people realise what they're watching might not be 100% balanced, and if they don't with FOX News questions have to be asked over the viewers....

Poor liberalism and it's suckiness.

Poor liberalism and it's suckiness.
at least it beats libertarianism

Please, for the love of god, won't somone sit and think about this for a minute? There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

Secondly, it has come to my attention that pretty much the only alternative here is a state controlled media system, which frightens me even more. Fox News can--if they want-- tell you that it will rain elephants tomorrow and that your neighbor is really a colony of cockroaches living in a meticulously crafted humanoid robot.

Only a fool relies on one source for the information they gather and process about the world around them. I watched Outfoxed for about ten or twenty minutes before I was grossly offended by their perception of the avrage American: nonwhistanding that I'd rather have 10 comapnies telling me half truths than one government that can tell me whatever it wants to tell me.

you fail to mention the important bits.
1. FOX News repeatedly claims they are "fair and balanced" (give me a break) which is false advertising
2. FOX News executives actively conspired to have an extreme conservative bias withing the network. see: Outfoxed <---good movie

Documentary Films, news, whatever, as long as a human mind has interpreted it for you, don't expect absolutely "unbiased" views. The best one can expect is they present both sides of the issue but once the editorializing (making opinions) starts, take things with a grain of salt.

Everyone has a bone to pick, an issue to press and remember it's show BUSINESS and that doesn't exclude news. While News fulfills the watchdog role in society don't forget that it can transform into a parrot.

Take it from an ex-journalist.
Cathenia

Please, for the love of god, won't somone sit and think about this for a minute? There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

Secondly, it has come to my attention that pretty much the only alternative here is a state controlled media system, which frightens me even more. Fox News can--if they want-- tell you that it will rain elephants tomorrow and that your neighbor is really a colony of cockroaches living in a meticulously crafted humanoid robot.

Only a fool relies on one source for the information they gather and process about the world around them. I watched Outfoxed for about ten or twenty minutes before I was grossly offended by their perception of the avrage American: nonwhistanding that I'd rather have 10 comapnies telling me half truths than one government that can tell me whatever it wants to tell me.
you should watch the rest. some of the interviews with FOX News employees are good. and it has some pretty shocking memos from fox execs.

Although I'm not much of a fan of FOX news doesn't it level the balance, (in an extreme way perhaps), of the seemingly leftist, (I hate these terms, somewhat crude), bias/focus within many televised media news forums in the US?

and here is another example of the ideas the republican party and concervatives are pushing. CNN and MSNBC do as much Bush ass-kissing as everyone else, but they also report a few less favorable (for Bush) things that up the ratings. These things are all for ratings, no one cares about what is actually happening. If they did, people would have the number of Iraqis that have died in this war who WEREN'T "suicide bombers", "Saddam loyalist" or "insergants."

What should be more of a worry is the rise of 24/7 New media which is hideous. The invasion of Iraq was a perfect example. The "rebellion" of Qasr? The famous Tank battle? The finding of WMD'S? Load of news networks all reporting in an instanteous fashion that has no time to query the information and diffuses this rubbish to an ever believing public.

That's the cancer we should watch out for.....

Bah, again people mention O'Reilly. How many times do I have to say this...

THE O'REILLY FACTOR IS OPINION! O'reilly is not a news reporter, nor does he claim to be. His job is tp provide his own analysis. He is biased, just like op-ed pieces in newspapers are.

That being said, the actual news reporting in Fox is actually quite fair.

Here we go. Alright, Fox News and all of the Fox channels are owned by one person. He is an extreme conservitive. On every one of his channels, he controls what is reported and what is not. So, all of the views of all of his channels are just that: his.

The "liberal conspiracy" is completely different than Fox News. On all of the other channels, they may have some liberal views. But they are mostly balanced out with both sides of the argument, and tend to only give out...get this...FACTS! Fox News centers around opinions, which are easily controlled. That's why it's completely unreliable as a real news source.

The Media in general is the problem. Fox is just the worst of them, being disturbingly slanted while having the audacity to have their motto - "we report, you decide;" and "fair and balanced."

We need to find a way in which niether the state nor private companies out to make profits and push agendas control the media.

My message to media - Give us the info, then shut the hell up. We'll decide how to take it.

That's why I choose The Daily Show, with John Stewart. The only news program where you can tell when they make crap up. In addition, with The Daily Show, we KNOW the Jews are controlling the program...

But the flux capacitor was not tested by Emmett Brown until 1985?

Wow, who would think the media would change their perspectives to match the crowd they are selling to. How could they!

Please, for the love of god, won't somone sit and think about this for a minute? There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

Secondly, it has come to my attention that pretty much the only alternative here is a state controlled media system, which frightens me even more. Fox News can--if they want-- tell you that it will rain elephants tomorrow and that your neighbor is really a colony of cockroaches living in a meticulously crafted humanoid robot.

Only a fool relies on one source for the information they gather and process about the world around them. I watched Outfoxed for about ten or twenty minutes before I was grossly offended by their perception of the avrage American: nonwhistanding that I'd rather have 10 comapnies telling me half truths than one government that can tell me whatever it wants to tell me.


I agree that no news source can be truly unbiased, but State media might not be as bad as you think. I am not talking about the Russian style here (where State media is politically motivated), but take for example the British Broadcasting Commission (BBC) or Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), both of which are publicly funded. In Australia, at least, the ABC is obliged by legislation to report on both sides of a story. As it doesn't run adds, the stories are reported because of their importance, as opposed to only reporting sensationalist stories which advertisers like.

It’s amazing how much leftists hate one channel so much that they obsess over it night and day. Come on libs, where’s your anti censorship chants? Hey hey, ho ho?

Besides, if want your fill of all the news that fit to make up, forge, and gathered from "anonymous sources" there’s plenty of outlets. You just need to look up CBS, NBS, ABS, CNNBS, NPRBS, BBCBS, PBSBS, MSNBCBS, MTVBS, the DNCBS, democratunderground.bs, moveon.org.bs, DailyKOSBS, NYTimesbs, Washington Postbs, The Sunbs, Seattle P.I.bs, SF Gate Chroniclebs, Newsweekbs, Reutersbs. The list goes on and on.

I agree that no news source can be truly unbiased, but State media might not be as bad as you think. I am not talking about the Russian style here (where State media is politically motivated), but take for example the British Broadcasting Commission (BBC) or Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), both of which are publicly funded. In Australia, at least, the ABC is obliged by legislation to report on both sides of a story. As it doesn't run adds, the stories are reported because of their importance, as opposed to only reporting sensationalist stories which advertisers like.

I'll concede that I have been oddly surprised at the quality of NPR programming, but I'm not enthusiastic about the government having any sort of legislative power connected to much of anything in the private sector. If they want to run their own news agency, it should only be allowed to succeed on virtue of its programming, just like anything else. If they give the kind of 'fair, unbiased news' that so many of us supposedly want, everyone else will be forced to ship up or get lost. If not, then the masses have spoken: we're either all stupid or we just don't care what happens in the outside world.

The lack of a credible TV news source in this country is compensated for--in a way--by mediums like the ones we're using now. A lot of us are connected to the internet, which if nothing else is the single largest melting pot of ideas and thought that I've ever seen. This puppy reaches more people worldwide than any one news giant anyway. They aren't calling it the "Information Age" for nothing. Fifty years ago I wouldn't be able to talk to crazy European nutjob socialists every day like I can now. People who are interested in real ideas and real knowledge will find a way to get it. Those that don't want to will just stare at their TVs. People like us are angry at them typically because we have gotten past the stupid TV news bullshit. If we wanted to start blaming everyone for failing to do things the way we've done them, that's when the walls between you and fascism crumble.

Meh. I dont watch TV news. I get my stuff from the net, yahoo news usually. No real bias I can find, as I see both diehard conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals using it.

It’s amazing how much leftists hate one channel so much that they obsess over it night and day. Come on libs, where’s your anti censorship chants? Hey hey, ho ho?

Besides, if want your fill of all the news that fit to make up, forge, and gathered from "anonymous sources" there’s plenty of outlets. You just need to look up CBS, NBS, ABS, CNNBS, NPRBS, BBCBS, PBSBS, MSNBCBS, MTVBS, the DNCBS, democratunderground.bs, moveon.org.bs, DailyKOSBS, NYTimesbs, Washington Postbs, The Sunbs, Seattle P.I.bs, SF Gate Chroniclebs, Newsweekbs, Reutersbs. The list goes on and on.

Since when did we advocate censorship? We just said Fox sucks. Way to go, standard conservative tactic. Turn the discussion into something it wasn't.