NationStates Jolt Archive

There seem to be alot of people here that seem to think that the Fox News channel is Satan incarnate. Personally I dont see how its so different from CNN, MSNBC, etc. And I will admit right now that I watch it regularly. I watch Fox and Friends in the mornings and the regular news in the evenings. Now the reason why I bolded news is because I do not watch the editorial shows. I.E. Hannity(sp?) and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly. Is the animosity for Fox News because of the generally right of center editorial shows? Please clarify this.

Now the reason why I bolded news is because I do not watch the editorial shows. I.E. Hannity(sp?) and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly. Is the animosity for Fox News because of the generally right of center editorial shows? Please clarify this.
The editorial shows are often the reason why any news network is disliked, but not to put aside shoddy reporting. It has to do with personal opinions and your own tastes.

Because weak people need to define themselves by what they hate.
news is news, to me, anyway. whatever political bent it has is negligible.

There seem to be alot of people here that seem to think that the Fox News channel is Satan incarnate. Personally I dont see how its so different from CNN, MSNBC, etc. And I will admit right now that I watch it regularly. I watch Fox and Friends in the mornings and the regular news in the evenings. Now the reason why I bolded news is because I do not watch the editorial shows. I.E. Hannity(sp?) and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly. Is the animosity for Fox News because of the generally right of center editorial shows? Please clarify this.

I think it has more to do with the fact that it's entire purpose is to counter the lock the left had for so many years with the big three. Once the media found out the degree of power they had over the direction the country would take they took on a whole new self image. Fox shattered that and it has cost them dearly. No longer can they create news, invent stories, and generally deal their propaganda without a strong chance of being exposed as has happened several times in recent history. The bottom line is now they get checked, and naturally they don't like it. Now they have to comptete and they are finding that it is very difficult to do when you have no history of it. Same as microsoft and AT&T.

because its the mouthpiece of the GOP and attack dogs on liberals. They fuckin lie and distort facts to fit a heavy conservative point of view. Yeah, I know that generalization's been said before, but I've hashed out how I hate FOX News so many times before, I'm not even going to try again.

Liverbreath']I think it has more to do with the fact that it's entire purpose is to counter the lock the left had for so many years with the big three. Once the media found out the degree of power they had over the direction the country would take they took on a whole new self image. Fox shattered that and it has cost them dearly. No longer can they create news, invent stories, and generally deal their propaganda without a strong chance of being exposed as has happened several times in recent history. The bottom line is now they get checked, and naturally they don't like it. Now they have to comptete and they are finding that it is very difficult to do when you have no history of it. Same as microsoft and AT&T.

Ok... assuming all of this is not just random speculation why hasnt there been a massive public outcry for the "supposed" fake news that Fox is reporting? (I would like sone links from reputable news sources please.)

because its the mouthpiece of the GOP and attack dogs on liberals. They fuckin lie and distort facts to fit a heavy conservative point of view. Yeah, I know that generalization's been said before, but I've hashed out how I hate FOX News so many times before, I'm not even going to try again.


and you're saying that CNN MSNBC, and other obvious liberal media outlets don't do the same thing?

My big issue with FOX isn't their overt right-wing agenda, hard as that may be to believe. My problem is that they are very, very, good at hiding their bias with statements like "the only reason we seem biased is because the rest of the media is so far left. We're actually centrists!"
My other issue with FNC is the fact that they are really eager to break stories with only cursory fact-checking and research, especially if those stories mesh nicely with their agenda. (This isn't exclusively FOX's territory, but they seem more blatant about it)

and you're saying that CNN MSNBC, and other obvious liberal media outlets don't do the same thing?

Those channels are only as liberal as the conservative editors who control them.

Fox News gives false news reports but doesn't retract the false stories. Fox News reported several times on Hillary Clinton's failing presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton never had a presidential campaign. Fox News reported that John Kerry had voted 350 times in the Senate to raise taxes. The correct number was 51.

Fox News also reports opinions as fact. The statement that is supposed to go, "In this reporter's opinion, John Kerry is the most liberal senator," was instead given as, "John Kerry is the most liberal senator."

Their false stories and opinions given as fact don't seem to make the Republicans look worse for some reason

and you're saying that CNN MSNBC, and other obvious liberal media outlets don't do the same thing?
here's one reason:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9060965&postcount=1

my other rant:
Through subtle techniques, FOX News manipulates the viewer into accepting a heavy right-wing viewpoint as at most "less liberal than the rest of the media." How do they pull it off? Stories that separate themselves from the rest of the media and continuously insulting the concept of reporting fact. They do it through the use of always-moving graphics and over use of the American flag, thus furthering the Newspeak definition of "patriotism." They do it through subtleties between appearnce of the conservative anchors and the two "liberal" anchors. Like Hannity and Colmes. The former is usually well groomed and always on top, whereas the latter, the liberal, is usually "squirrlly" looking and you get a subtle message that the liberal is less smart than the conservative. Like during the 2004 campaign, virtually every picture of Bush, he is doing something heroic and is neatly groomed; whereas nearly every picture of Kerry, he was skiing or in a protective suit or in some way or another looking unpresidential and/or French.

Another technique FOX does is use fear to enhance the Bush Administration's policies and further Rove's totalitarian strategies. They so closely mimic the White House, whatever Scott McClellan has to translate from Dubya into English. From 2 hour specials on how to avoid a dirty bomb attack (which they said "don't inhale anything that might be radioactive" so "don't breathe") or to be afraid of any unorthodox behaviours such as gay marriage, abortion, anything slightly liberal.

"the thing that makes American propaganda so great is that the people don't know they are being subject to propaganda."

Please show statistical evidence that proves CNN and MSNBC are liberally biased.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9228979&postcount=107

Obviously it doesn't exist.

Fox News gives false news reports but doesn't retract the false stories. Fox News reported several times on Hillary Clinton's failing presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton never had a presidential campaign. Fox News reported that John Kerry had voted 350 times in the Senate to raise taxes. The correct number was 51.

Fox News also reports opinions as fact. The statement that is supposed to go, "In this reporter's opinion, John Kerry is the most liberal senator," was instead given as, "John Kerry is the most liberal senator."

Their false stories and opinions given as fact don't seem to make the Republicans look worse for some reason

People... I dont care. If you dont give links to the quotes in question (hey that rhymed), because frankly if I cant see the sources of what you're talking about Im going to assume you're lying.

Ok... assuming all of this is not just random speculation why hasnt there been a massive public outcry for the "supposed" fake news that Fox is reporting? (I would like sone links from reputable news sources please.)

Actually there has been. For instance dan rather and the CBS story that got everybody but the responsible people fired is one example. Why do you think all the anchors at the big three news orgainzations quit or retired? That was not just a fluke. They knew the gig was up. Lets not forget the print media either. The New York times lost its credibility with their own little story teller along with USA Today and theirs. Fox has so stirred the pot that these folks are even going to the JS Schools and re-writing their own revised journalistic standards. Fox news like it or not, has by it's very existence has done a great thing for all of journalism. In fact, if it forces the old media to adhere to some basic journalistic standards then it may well be these companies saving grace.

here's one reason:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9060965&postcount=1

my other rant:


Please show statistical evidence that proves CNN and MSNBC are liberally biased.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9228979&postcount=107

Obviously it doesn't exist.

Thats cool quoting yourself with no facts or anything to back it up. And I personally dont think that any news is biased... you people keep whining and bitching about it but FAIL time and time again to produce and evidence to this effect. And the editorial shows can be expected to use dubious methods to back up their viewpoints, so im nto really sure what that video has to do with Fox NEWS...

Liverbreath']Actually there has been. For instance dan rather and the CBS story that got everybody but the responsible people fired is one example. Why do you think all the anchors at the big three news orgainzations quit or retired? That was not just a fluke. They knew the gig was up. Lets not forget the print media either. The New York times lost its credibility with their own little story teller along with USA Today and theirs. Fox has so stirred the pot that these folks are even going to the JS Schools and re-writing their own revised journalistic standards. Fox news like it or not, has by it's very existence has done a great thing for all of journalism. In fact, if it forces the old media to adhere to some basic journalistic standards then it may well be these companies saving grace.


I refuse to accept the fact (im using the word loosely here) that all of this is because of Fox News. Has it occured to you that mybe this is all because people are sick of bullshit?

People... I dont care. If you dont give links to the quotes in question (hey that rhymed), because frankly if I cant see the sources of what you're talking about Im going to assume you're lying.
At least Achtung actually does have links. You just have to look at his links to his other posts to find them...

And I personally find the belief that the media is somehow liberally skewed in the US one of the most perplexing things about that funny little country of yours. No one has ever seen it happen, there is no proof and there never has been an answer when I asked for it, yet everyone knows it for a fact.
The closest I come to explaining it is that once upon a time, the media reported about things like Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement. That apparently offended a few Klansmen-type people and since then the media was viewed as the enemy of the right (ie it's been seen as "left").

I LIKE fox news. to me, its not as right as they say it is.. but i won't deny it is on the right. but i'm a little on the right, so its cool for me... the other networks are to the left though.. so I think if you get a taste of both, you're have a pretty good idea of what is ACTUALLY going on

Fox News = :sniper:

Everyone else = :headbang:

That's why I like Fox News.

Also, you feel better watching Steve Forbes and a bunch of uber-capitalists tell you things are looking up, buy NOW! than you do when you watch a bunch of cranky liberals tell you things are going in the toilet because of W.

My other issue with FNC is the fact that they are really eager to break stories with only cursory fact-checking and research, especially if those stories mesh nicely with their agenda. (This isn't exclusively FOX's territory, but they seem more blatant about it)

Sounds like Dan Rather.

Here's an excellent reason why Fox News is nothing more than Fox Opinion...In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In a 617-page report, the group also found that "Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals," while CNN is "the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view."

The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others.

Last March, Fox reporter Todd Connor said that "Iraq has a new interim constitution and is well on its way to democracy."

"Let's pray it works out," said anchor David Asman.

Another time, after hearing that Iraqis helped capture a Saddam Hussein henchman, Asman said: "Boy, that's good news if true, the Iraqis in the lead."

Fox legal editor Stan Goldman challenged the hiring of attorney Gloria Allred to represent Amber Frey (Scott Peterson's mistress), saying: "If you want to keep a low profile, Gloria is not the lawyer to represent you."

In an interview, Fox's executive daytime producer, Jerry Burke, says: "I encourage the anchors to be themselves. I'm certainly not going to step in and censor an anchor on any issue. . . . You don't want to look at a cookie-cutter, force-feeding of the same items hour after hour. I think that's part of the success of the channel, not treating our anchors like drones. They're, number one, Americans, and number two, human beings, as well as journalists."

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson says the study "reaffirms what anyone watching CNN already knows: CNN's reporting is driven by news, not opinion." MSNBC declined to comment.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington-based research group, offers a three-part breakdown of cable journalists voicing their opinions. From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC and 2.3 percent on CNN. Among news-oriented evening shows, journalist opinions were voiced on 70 percent of the stories on Fox's "Special Report With Brit Hume," due in part to its regular analysts panel at the show's end; 9 percent on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann"; and 9 percent on CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown."

As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story—97 percent—contained opinion on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor"; 24 percent on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews"; and 0.9 percent on CNN's "Larry King Live." King devoted nearly half his time to entertainment and lifestyle topics, twice as much as O'Reilly and more than three times as much as Matthews.

The project describes cable news reporting as pretty thin compared with the ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts. Only a quarter of the cable stories examined contained two or more identifiable sources, compared with 49 percent of network evening news stories and 81 percent of newspaper front-page stories.

This, says the study, is in part because cable leans heavily on live reports, 60 percent of which are based on only a single identifiable source ("the White House said today," etc.). What's more, cable news is far more one-sided than other media outlets, with only a quarter of the stories involving controversy making more than a passing reference to a second point of view. By contrast, says the report, the network morning shows, PBS and newspaper front pages were more than three times as likely to contain a mix of views.

Cable networks "have gravitated, particularly as Fox has surged in the ratings, toward programs and somewhat less toward reporting," says Tom Rosenstiel, the group's director. He says opinion-laden journalism "probably is part of Fox's identity, but it's not true of all the programs."

As for the tone of Iraq coverage, 38 percent of Fox stories were positive, compared with 20 percent on CNN and 16 percent on MSNBC, the report says. But war stories were about as likely to be neutral on Fox (39 percent), and more likely to be neutral on CNN (41 percent) and MSNBC (28 percent).

Despite its 24 hours of available air time, cable isn't exactly bursting with new news. Seven in 10 reports involve recycling of the same subject matter, with only 10 percent adding meaningful updates. "The time required to continuously be on the air seems to take a heavy toll on the nature of the journalism presented," the report says.

On the broadcast front, journalists offered no opinions on 83 percent of the evening news stories, 89 percent of the morning news reports and 97 percent of the pieces on PBS's "NewsHour." The biggest exception: campaign stories, where nightly news correspondents felt comfortable offering horse-race and other opinions 44 percent of the time.

One interesting contrast among the nightly newscasts: CBS was 50 percent more likely than NBC and twice as likely as ABC to air reports on disasters and other unexpected events (Dan Rather loved hurricanes). The "CBS Evening News" was also twice as likely to carry feature stories (such as the ethics of using high-tech duck decoys, or rising credit card debt) unconnected to breaking news .

The morning shows, which run at least two hours, still covered major stories less than the evening newscasts, the project says, devoting much of their time to Martha Stewart, Laci Peterson and other crime, lifestyle and celebrity topics. The morning programs were also more upbeat than not in their Iraq coverage, with positive reports 31 percent of the time and negative 19 percent. By contrast, 32 percent of Iraq stories on the nightly news casts were negative and 18 percent positive, while half were deemed neutral.

The project, which examined 16 newspapers -- from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph -- praised them for offering longer and more deeply sourced stories. Overall, 7 percent of stories contained anonymous sources, down from 29 percent in 2003. But the figure was 20 percent for front-page stories at the biggest papers, compared with 7 percent at the smallest. Stories about the Iraq war were more likely to be negative (31 percent) than positive (23 percent), but just as likely to be neutral in tone (33 percent).

The newsweeklies continued a drift toward softer and broader coverage, the report says. Newsweek did six celebrity and entertainment covers last year to Time's one, while Time did two covers on sports, two on history and one on the environment (the thinner U.S. News & World Report took a more traditional hard-news approach). Newsweek ("The Secret Lives of Wives") and Time ("Low Carb Nation") also ran a number of covers on what the project says might be called "faux trends."

Marching Orders?

Speaking of Fox, a Detroit News story last week called it "consciously biased"—without attribution—and quoted onetime Fox producer Dan Cooper as saying: "In the morning, everyone is told what today's key issues are and how those issues are viewed by Fox News. The entire staff understands how the organization feels about them."

Cooper, whose job was eliminated weeks after the channel launched in 1996, says the quotes were "fabricated" and he "never said anything like that." He says his other, more neutral quotes were accurate—except for one likening Fox to "talk radio"—but complains that reporter Tom Long used the disputed comments after this loaded sentence: "But the clear bias of Fox News troubles many."

"I love Fox News," he says. "I watch Fox News all day long."

News Editor Mark Silverman told Cooper by e-mail that after checking Long's notes, "we believe his story accurately portrayed what you said to him" and "there is nothing for us to correct." Silverman offered Cooper either a letter to the editor or a longer op-ed piece, as long as it didn't criticize Long's article.Need I say more? Well, since you asked, this just reaffirms the already known about good 'ol Fox Opinion...The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly kept referring to “The Daily Show” audience as “stoned slackers.”

So they did a little research. And guess whose audience is more educated?

Viewers of Jon Stewart’s show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch “The O’Reilly Factor,” according to Nielsen Media Research.

O’Reilly’s teasing came when Stewart appeared on his show earlier this month.

“You know what’s really frightening?” O’Reilly said. “You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it’s true. You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote.”

Comedy Central executives realized, and O’Reilly acknowledged, that he was poking fun. But they said they didn’t want a misconception to persist.

“If the head of General Motors was watching O’Reilly’s show, that could be very important to us,” said Doug Herzog, Comedy Central president.

“If you listen to O’Reilly, you get the sense that it was crazy longhairs behind the show,” he said. “And it’s not. It’s great, smart television that attracts a well-compensated audience, most of whom are voting age.”

No sense of humor at Comedy Central?

Relax, said Fox News Channel spokesman Rob Zimmerman.

“Comedy Central must have lost their sense of humor,” Zimmerman said. “Without Jon Stewart, Comedy Central would turn into the Great American Country Channel.”

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of “The Daily Show” were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don’t.

Comedy Central had no statistics on how many people watch “The Daily Show” stoned.

Although seemingly taken aback by repeated “stoned slackers” references while talking with O’Reilly, Stewart was ready with a joke.

“This election is going to rely on the undecided,” he said. “And who is more undecided than stoned slackers? Ice cream or pretzels? Ice cream or pretzels? What’s it going to be?”

Whether it’s the slacker or no-slacker zone, O’Reilly is entering it Oct. 7, when he’s scheduled to appear on “The Daily Show.”

So if Stewart’s audience is comprised of stoned slackers, how would Herzog describe O’Reilly’s audience?

“I’m not getting into that game,” he said.And to all the people who actually watch Fox and think the rest of the media leans to the left, here's a clue: they aren't. You just assume so because the of the minimal bias that other networks show compared to a heavily-leaning right-wing network like Fox. It's all in your head...

I refuse to accept the fact (im using the word loosely here) that all of this is because of Fox News. Has it occured to you that mybe this is all because people are sick of bullshit?

I'd never dream of saying it is all because of Fox news, but one cannot discount the fact that they report the stuff in a heartbeat instead of ignore each others digressions. In fact, you can give most of the credit to people being fed up, because that is what opened the door for fox to even exist. People were fed up with the news as it was. With the introduction of some competition in basic ideology, they have no choice but to increase their integrity.

Almost forgot my sources...then again, it isn't terribly hard to just copy the first sentence and enter it into Google now is it?

First Quote: On Fox News, No Shortage of Opinion, Study Finds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32631-2005Mar13.html)
Second Quote: ‘Stoned slackers’ watch Jon Stewart? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/)

Here's an excellent reason why Fox News is nothing more than Fox Opinion...Need I say more? Well, since you asked, this just reaffirms the already known about good 'ol Fox Opinion...And to all the people who actually watch Fox and think the rest of the media leans to the left, here's a clue: they aren't. You just assume so because the of the minimal bias that other networks show compared to a heavily-leaning right-wing network like Fox. It's all in your head...

hahaha! I saw that phoney report. Is that why you didn't bother to list the source or their funding! hahahha

While the Fox News is obviously right-wing, I like because it is obvious. You know it from a conservative viewpoint, and can recognise the stories are from their view and know they are biased.
The left news is not as obvious, most of them disguise their bias, pretending to be neutral when in some cases they are worse than Fox News.
Another thing I like is the editorials and hosted programs, such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes etc. actually argue directly with their opponents, allowing the arguments of both to be heard to a reasonable extent.

While the Fox News is obviously right-wing, I like because it is obvious. You know it from a conservative viewpoint, and can recognise the stories are from their view and know they are biased.
The left news is not as obvious, most of them disguise their bias, pretending to be neutral when in some cases they are worse than Fox News.
Another thing I like is the editorials and hosted programs, such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes etc. actually argue directly with their opponents, allowing the arguments of both to be heard to a reasonable extent.

What left news?

The left news is not as obvious, most of them disguise their bias, pretending to be neutral when in some cases they are worse than Fox News.
Where is that kind of thing coming from, people? Where?

Oh, and I don't think O'Reilly is known for letting others argue.

Thats cool quoting yourself with no facts or anything to back it up. And I personally dont think that any news is biased... you people keep whining and bitching about it but FAIL time and time again to produce and evidence to this effect. And the editorial shows can be expected to use dubious methods to back up their viewpoints, so im nto really sure what that video has to do with Fox NEWS...
what the fuck!? No news is biased!? If only it was that perfect. You make me think you're being sarcastic here but your whining seems legitimate enough, I am forced to state the obvious for you.

All news is put together by a human. Or more than one in some cases. Nonetheless, that human's views will surface in the article/story whatever no matter how hard they try not to. Moving on to FOX now, Rupert Murdoch, who's media outlets reach 3/4 of the world's population, is firecly conservative. I've just about had it with FOX News I'm not going to argue any more. You're just gonna ask for "more evidence" because you can't put two and two together to make four.

Liverbreath']hahaha! I saw that phoney report. Is that why you didn't bother to list the source or their funding! hahahha

The article itself says the data comes from a report done by the Project for Excellence In Journalism that is attached to the Columiba University School of Journalism. The Project is underwritten by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Here is PEJ mission as shown on their website:

"The Project was started because of widely held concern that this is a critical moment for journalism.

Increasingly, the profession seems overwhelmed by the sheer size of the media, by hidebound habits, by infotainment, by the quest for sensation and gossip, by the imperatives of the stock market or by a pursuit of ever-fragmenting audiences that lead us ever-farther from home.

It is uncertain whether the essential mission of journalism--to be a public service for democracy--always remains clearly in mind. The crisis in journalism is a crisis of conviction.

Yet, the surest way for journalism to survive is by emphasizing what makes it unique -- its basic purpose and core standards. Even in a new era, journalism has one responsibility other forms of communication and entertainment do not: to provide citizens with the information they need to navigate the society. That does not preclude being entertaining or profitable -- or publishing something merely because it's interesting. That does not mean journalism should not abandon failed habits in the way we present news.

But it does imply a commitment to comprehensiveness, to offering certain information about democratic institutions, and to ordering information in some relationship to its significance so that people can use it as a map to travel through the culture."

I realize that this is almost totally taken form their website, but i figured it was important for this discussion. I usually stick to reading various sources online, I'm too much of a cheap bastard to pay for a newspaper. Sticking with one source isn't going to give you a clear picture of any event because everything is biased, there is no escaping it.

"The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions.

Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS."

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/media.html

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

"The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions.

Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS."

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/media.html

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
So just why might Karl Rove and his neocon pals be wanting to make PBS as conservative as FOX (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0505-22.htm)?

because its the mouthpiece of the GOP and attack dogs on liberals. They fuckin lie and distort facts to fit a heavy conservative point of view. Yeah, I know that generalization's been said before, but I've hashed out how I hate FOX News so many times before, I'm not even going to try again.


Yeah, and the other News channels don't? hah. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and the other News channels don't? hah. :rolleyes:
Arrrgn.
Could you prove it to me? No one else seems to want to.

People... I dont care. If you dont give links to the quotes in question (hey that rhymed), because frankly if I cant see the sources of what you're talking about Im going to assume you're lying.Sure. I'll just go back in time, get some blank tapes, record Fox News shows, and send the tapes to you. What's your address? The Fox News web site only goes back about two months so it's either go back in time or just watch political stories on Fox News tomorrow. There might be something about how politicians from a certain party are better at fighting terrorism than politicians from another party. Fortunately, I did find an article on its web site about the presidential campaigns of several people who are not running for president http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160856,00.html

So just why might Karl Rove and his neocon pals be wanting to make PBS as conservative as FOX (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0505-22.htm)?

Apparently the success of the party depends upon the misinforming of the voting public?

You can't call editorializing news! Since when did opinion become fact? News is the straight facts, and everything else can be taken with a grain of salt. And if anybody is too dumb to see through the bullshit when they want actual news instead of entertainment, they deserve to live in ignorance!

Another thing: Fox News is villified for the wrong reason. I'd say it's the worst for misrepresenting commentary as news, but what it is truly guilty of, as some others have alluded to, is leading the change in what we consider "fair and balanced" news broadcasts. When it becomes commericalized (also privatized and personalized) to the extent of Fox News, there is nothing left but glitz and propaganda. Of course the "more liberal" networks had to respond, because it's all about the money! They serve their owners before the public.

If you don't like this new status quo, I suggest supporting your local public broadcasting station. Regardless of whether you think they're liberal, the quality of their news programming, with in-depth analysis and interviews that last longer than two minutes, is unmatched by the corporate media. Who gives a shit about American flags in the background and patriotic or dramatic music when you want to actually LEARN something???

Sure. I'll just go back in time, get some blank tapes, record Fox News shows, and send the tapes to you. What's your address? The Fox News web site only goes back about two months so it's either go back in time or just watch political stories on Fox News tomorrow. There might be something about how politicians from a certain party are better at fighting terrorism than politicians from another party. Fortunately, I did find an article on its web site about the presidential campaigns of several people who are not running for president http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160856,00.html

Well... since I keep hearing so much about how they are misinforming the viewers I really would like to see some evidence for this. But it seems all the people can do to back up these claims is... make more claims with not references or anything. Accusing a television news network of deliberately misleading the audience are very serious accusations... and would warrant some type of hard factual evidence.

Greater Valia seems to have no obligation to give links to his accusations, though others must for anything and everything. When they do give links, he changes the subject.

Ahh, fox news watchers.

I prefer to watch Fox News and yet still hate it. Take this for the first part; CNN will show some old lady talking about the invasion of Iraq while it happens, Fox News showed us with a video phone the invasion of Iraq while it happened. On the other hand you have the fact that Fox news is right wing and anti-left as well as certain shows make up stories and facts.

Greater Valia seems to have no obligation to give links to his accusations, though others must for anything and everything. When they do give links, he changes the subject.

Ahh, fox news watchers.

Cute. And what accusations are you accusing me of? If you're talking about the comment that most people here seem to have problems with Fox News then I suggest you read through this thread.

-snip-
So the entertainment value is more important than any bias?

-snip-
Both Achtung 45 and Pantylvania have now provided links with their accusations, who else are you talking about?

Cute. And what accusations are you accusing me of? If you're talking about the comment that most people here seem to have problems with Fox News then I suggest you read through this thread.

I thought links to nationstates didnt count? You discounted other such links.

Both Achtung 45 and Pantylvania have now provided links with their accusations, who else are you talking about?

Yeah im sorry I said links from legitimate sources. Not www.commondreams.org a site that appears to be nothing more than page after page of editorials. Now Pantylvania posted a link from the fox news site itself... good job but he/she posted it out of context by saying it was a story about presidential candidates who arent running for president. Nice try heres the title. Would-Be Presidential Candidates Get Early Starts Im sorry, but this looks like speculation to me not a story about people who are running for president. :rolleyes:

I thought links to nationstates didnt count? You discounted other such links.

I said read the thread... I didnt give you a link. And this is out of context of the argument...

I want signed affidavits from at least eight unbiased people, in triplicate, reviewed and authorized by the Holy See and the Secretary-General of the UN, definitively stating, in less than 300 words, their distaste for FOX News and their reasons for said distaste. I expect these affidavits, Greater Valia, delivered to me personally by yourself, on Monday, March 7, 2005. Anything less than this will be considered by me to be insufficient evidence to support your opinion.

he/she posted it out of context by saying it was a story about presidential candidates who arent running for president. Nice try heres the title. Would-Be Presidential Candidates Get Early Starts Im sorry, but this looks like speculation to me not a story about people who are running for president."On June 27, Fox News ran a story that referred to John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist, and Rudy Giuliani as having political ambitions in 2008. In fact, none of these five people are running for an elected office in 2008, nor have they announced any plans to run for office in 2008. Fox News regrets this error."

Now if Fox News would just say something like that, it wouldn't be so bad.

I want signed affidavits from at least eight unbiased people, in triplicate, reviewed and authorized by the Holy See and the Secretary-General of the UN, definitively stating, in less than 300 words, their distaste for FOX News and their reasons for said distaste. I expect these affidavits, Greater Valia, delivered to me personally by yourself, on Monday, March 7, 2005. Anything less than this will be considered by me to be insufficient evidence to support your opinion.

Hey thats pretty funny... Wait no its not you're just being facetious. But lets look at this in retrospect. I have read testimonials from people that have posted in this thread that Fox News purposefully misleads their viewers and intentionally spreads deceptive right wing propoganda in the guise of regular cable news. Naturally claims that a multinational news corporation is spreading false information is so vile and devious its basically a conspiracy. All I asked was hard facts that proved this was the case. And what did I get? Sarcastic responses and not one link from a legitimate news source (that was not an editorial) that proved this.

"On June 27, Fox News ran a story that referred to John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist, and Rudy Giuliani as having political ambitions in 2008. In fact, none of these five people are running for an elected office in 2008, nor have they announced any plans to run for office in 2008. Fox News regrets this error."

Now if Fox News would just say something like that, it wouldn't be so bad.

The article says ambitions. It never said anything like, "THESE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008." Ok? They arent running for election... the article never said anything like that.

-snip-
Why did you start the thread in the first place if you aren't going to listen to others' viewpoints?
You could also watch OutFoxed. I never saw it, but it apparently has a lot of statistics and good footage from the Fox Archives.

Why did you start the thread in the first place if you aren't going to listen to others' viewpoints?
You could also watch OutFoxed. I never saw it, but it apparently has a lot of statistics and good footage from the Fox Archives.

I was actually going to rent it last night but they didnt have it so I had to settle for Primer, and The Big One. And theres a difference between viewpoints and intentionally skewing the facts. Although you could say we are both interpreting the article differently.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080002

From the July 6 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest-hosted by Gibson:

GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?

From the "My Word" segment of the July 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080004

From the July 7 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: That's, ah, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. Very powerful, excellent. And it was such a great contrast to what we're seeing in our own media this morning with the hand-wringing I was speaking about and the "Oh, woe is us" and "Oh, what did we do to cause this?" and "Oh, does this mean we're going to get hit?" and "Oh ..." It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded, out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn't succeed in doing anything, and that's just what you just heard the mayor say: "You don't scare us. You didn't accomplish diddly-squat. We've been through this before, much worse than this. And look at us -- we're in the 20th century, you're still back in the 14th century. Blah, blah, blah."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070007

HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070007

HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy."

The other two have nothing to do with Fox News... (Maybe the radio factor but it wasnt even O'Reilly hosting but again, this has nothing to do with it because the O'Reilly factor is an editorial show and not news.)

And what does the last thing have to do with anything? Its in the context of stocks....

I don't get it.

We say what's so bad about Fox News. You say you need links.

We give you links. You say the links aren't good enough.

We cite sources like the Pew Charitable Trusts. You don't respond.

Here's my challenge. Let's see some conservatives post evidence that CNN, NBC, and CBS have strong liberal biases, and then we'll meet the standards you set, link for link.

Let's see some [...] evidence that CNN, NBC, and CBS have strong liberal biases...
Hear, Hear!

Liverbreath']hahaha! I saw that phoney report. Is that why you didn't bother to list the source or their funding! hahahhaPhoney? I listed the sources...two posts after my original. Perhaps if you would have kept on reading you would have noticed that.

On Fox News, No Shortage of Opinion, Study Finds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32631-2005Mar13.html)
‘Stoned slackers’ watch Jon Stewart? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/)

Here's my challenge. Let's see some conservatives post evidence that CNN, NBC, and CBS have strong liberal biases, and then we'll meet the standards you set, link for link.Can I get an amen? Seriously, we've seen plenty of sources from reputable places about how opinionated Fox News (if you want to call them that) is, yet I've yet to see sources on how "oh so liberal" the other news sources are.

It's almost ironic; just like Fox News, all we've seen is nothing but opinion. Where's the sources, where's the facts?!

FOX is fair and balanced. Now if you repeat that to yourself a dozen times you might start to believe that.

Yeah im sorry I said links from legitimate sources. Not www.commondreams.org a site that appears to be nothing more than page after page of editorials. Now Pantylvania posted a link from the fox news site itself... good job but he/she posted it out of context by saying it was a story about presidential candidates who arent running for president. Nice try heres the title. Would-Be Presidential Candidates Get Early Starts Im sorry, but this looks like speculation to me not a story about people who are running for president. :rolleyes:

What about the MSNBC link? Thats certainly legitimate, right?

The Media Resource Center at www.mrc.org is full of (what they see) as liberal bias in the media.

They give examples such as Time magazine where Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas are labeled "staunch conservatives" while Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are "moderate liberals".
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050707.asp#3

And how, like on Jul.6's Good Morning America, Bush is consistently blamed for failing to sign the Kyoto when it would be impossible for him to ratify something that was voted against 95-0 when it hit the Senate floor.

Then you have NBC anchor Brian Williams comparing George Washington and America's fore-fathers to terrorists.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050701.asp

Then, of course, you have books like Bernard Goldberg's Bias which specifically lists instances of unconcious liberal bias in the media. Here's an interview transcript from '02
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050701.asp

The Media Resource Center at www.mrc.org is full of (what they see) as liberal bias in the media.

They give examples such as Time magazine where Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas are labeled "staunch conservatives" while Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are "moderate liberals".
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050707.asp#3

And how, like on Jul.6's Good Morning America, Bush is consistently blamed for failing to sign the Kyoto when it would be impossible for him to ratify something that was voted against 95-0 when it hit the Senate floor.

Then you have NBC anchor Brian Williams comparing George Washington and America's fore-fathers to terrorists.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050701.asp

Then, of course, you have books like Bernard Goldberg's Bias which specifically lists instances of unconcious liberal bias in the media. Here's an interview transcript from '02
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050701.asp

Saying someone is a staunch conservative makes you a liberal? Could it not be that a conservative might think the same way, that those judges were more to the right, while the liberals were closer to the center?

Comparing the founding fathers to freedom fighters/terrorists makes one a liberal? Why? Theres nothing particularly liberal about that, its a valid comparison that has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives.

Not going to buy any books, not that they usually prove things definitivly anyways. The link just went to the same founding fathers/iraq insurgency comparison.

I ignored the one you didnt link.

What's so good about FOX NEWS?

It's racist and Islamophobic. You get a slap in the face if you question the Bush administration.

It's quite sad that some Americans are manipulated by the media, and I felt sickened that FOX NEWS considered our British SKY Network as a "sister" network during the London tragedy, SKY shouldn't be associated with these ego-centric morons.

My beef with Fox News is that they make the claim 'Fair and Balanced,' when thier reporting shows them to be anything but. They are conservative media, pure and simple. There is nothing wrong with them being conservative media, but they make the claim that they are 'Fair and Balanced,' so that's just lying. And false advertising. And by making that claim, it sends a message that other media is neither fair nor balanced. So, if they would just stop lying to everyone and declare themselves to be a conservative news machine, I really wouldn't care what they do. But, since they are the mouthpiece of the right, they will just perpetuate the lie, because to the right, lies are the truth. And vice versa.

While the Fox News is obviously right-wing, I like because it is obvious. You know it from a conservative viewpoint, and can recognise the stories are from their view and know they are biased.
The left news is not as obvious, most of them disguise their bias, pretending to be neutral when in some cases they are worse than Fox News.
Another thing I like is the editorials and hosted programs, such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes etc. actually argue directly with their opponents, allowing the arguments of both to be heard to a reasonable extent.

Like when O'Reilly tells his guests to "shut up" and "take you perverted lifestyle away from normal people" (in regards to interviewing a young gay male).

As for "bias", its bullshit; I've yet to see this mythical "left wing bias" in action - I've seen crappy reporting, and crappy quality news shows, but I've yet to see a liberal bias news report.

Arrrgn.
Could you prove it to me? No one else seems to want to.

You never hear about how power stations are back up in Iraq, or hospitals being rebuilt. All you hear is soldiers dying and everyone is blowing themselves.

Then there is G-bay, the five star prison that 'tortures' people by saying nasty things to the prisoners and raising their arms up for several hours. The media went ballistic over the "inhumane" tortures.

But that guy who got his head cut off by terrorists? Took less than a week for people to care.

No bias? Sure, keep telling yourself that.

My beef with Fox News is that they make the claim 'Fair and Balanced,' ....

Well, almost.

If you look carefully, you'll see that it's actually "Fair & Balanced ®". Kinda changes the meaning a bit, doesn't it?

- ME -

I just wish people would stop using the word "Fox" and "News" in the same sentence.

Want proof of liberal bias? Here's a random story that I clicked on at the CNN website. No searching whatsoever, it was the first article I clicked on, and it shows a considerable bias to the left. I'll search for more, if you'd like, but I already feel dirty just having my browser open to the CNN website.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/09/dems.radio.ap/index.html

Fox News is okay, except when they get stuck on a story and wont stop!?!?!

Arrrgh, I think they've interviewed every single Aruba citizen at least twice by now! :rolleyes: I've been watching CNN more lately, but for opinion and fun, FOX rocks, when they have the Ann Coulter (spelling?) lady on she just cracks me up :D

Want proof of liberal bias? Here's a random story that I clicked on at the CNN website. No searching whatsoever, it was the first article I clicked on, and it shows a considerable bias to the left. I'll search for more, if you'd like, but I already feel dirty just having my browser open to the CNN website.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/09/dems.radio.ap/index.html

Want proof of conservative bias?

Sticks And Stones (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html)

I like Fox better because, more often than not, they have representatives from opposing sides debating an issue. I seem to notice on CNN that, more often than not, it's just a group of liberals talking about an issue and agreeing that Republicans have screwed everything up again. Now, which is more "Fair and Balanced" in your opinion?

And yes, I do favor Fox News more. But my favorite show is Hannity and Colmes because, no matter what, there is always someone from both sides presenting an opinion. Sean Hannity has the best radio show, too, in my opinion.

Now Bill O'Reilly is a totally different matter. Yes, he's an arrogant extremist with a big mouth, but he's always right when it comes to the facts. If I recall correctly, I've only found him to be wrong one time with his facts and he admitted and apologized to it the very next day. Dan Rather has surely never done such a thing.

Want proof of liberal bias? Here's a random story that I clicked on at the CNN website. No searching whatsoever, it was the first article I clicked on, and it shows a considerable bias to the left. I'll search for more, if you'd like, but I already feel dirty just having my browser open to the CNN website.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/09/dems.radio.ap/index.html
And here is the first one I clicked on. Surprisinly centrist as they don't criticize nor rally behind the President.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/bush.terror.ap.ap/index.html

Here's the same story on FOX, it's the same thing as CNN's article, but added several paragraphs of praise for the President.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162097,00.html

Want proof of conservative bias?

Sticks And Stones (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html)

This thread is about Fox News, not personal news reporters' biases. But thank you for finally bringing proof that O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are conservative, it was a mystery all along! :rolleyes:

I like Fox better because, more often than not, they have representatives from opposing sides debating an issue. I seem to notice on CNN that, more often than not, it's just a group of liberals talking about an issue and agreeing that Republicans have screwed everything up again. Now, which is more "Fair and Balanced" in your opinion?
...Because there a hardcore liberals on FOX :rolleyes: The last rare occassion I watched FOX, they were debating about oil and future of energy. They had three guys, all supposedly to have different views when they introduced everyone, yet the "liberal" kept agreeing with everything the other two conservatives said. There was absolutely no real liberal voice, but they said he was a "liberal."
And yes, I do favor Fox News more. But my favorite show is Hannity and Colmes because, no matter what, there is always someone from both sides presenting an opinion. Sean Hannity has the best radio show, too, in my opinion.
Even if Colmes looks less legitimate than Hannity.
83% of Brit Hume's guests on Special Report are Republican. The other 17% are weak Democrats that agree with the Republicans or are unknown and make an ass of the themselves.
Now Bill O'Reilly is a totally different matter. Yes, he's an arrogant extremist with a big mouth, but he's always right when it comes to the facts. If I recall correctly, I've only found him to be wrong one time with his facts and he admitted and apologized to it the very next day. Dan Rather has surely never done such a thing.
lol! hahahah!! When the hell was that? When he was busy saying "I'm not biased, but anyone who opposes the War on Terror are regarded enemies of the state"?

Or, "I'm liberal, I believe in global warming..." :gundge:

Well, almost.

If you look carefully, you'll see that it's actually "Fair & Balanced ®". Kinda changes the meaning a bit, doesn't it?

- ME -

Ha! yeah, it does. They trademarked fair and balanced, so no one else is/can be! How funny, I never before saw that.

Yes, he's an arrogant extremist with a big mouth, but he's always right when it comes to the facts.


He said Canada was bankrupted.

Nuff said.

Canada City']He said Canada was bankrupted.

Nuff said.

He probably meant "morally bankrupt", because y'know, we allow personal freedoms here and all.

Canada City']You never hear about how power stations are back up in Iraq, or hospitals being rebuilt. All you hear is soldiers dying and everyone is blowing themselves.

My guess is that last story made the "Contortionist's Daily Telegraph"...

LOL

My guess is that last story made the "Contortionist's Daily Telegraph"...

LOL
haha. it's among the greatest typos ever. Or was it a typo? :eek:

I find it difficult to believe Fox News is considered a news channel... it comes accross as almost satirical (in fact sometimes it's hilarious if you don't take it seriously - the worrying thing I guess is that it is supposed to be serious).

Want proof of liberal bias? Here's a random story that I clicked on at the CNN website. No searching whatsoever, it was the first article I clicked on, and it shows a considerable bias to the left. I'll search for more, if you'd like, but I already feel dirty just having my browser open to the CNN website.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/09/dems.radio.ap/index.htmlHere's proof of conservative bias at CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/clinton.speech.ap/index.html
Could it be that CNN has an even mix of liberal and conservative bias?

Whats so bad about Fox News?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seem to be alot of people here that seem to think that the Fox News channel is Satan incarnate. Personally I dont see how its so different from CNN, MSNBC, etc. And I will admit right now that I watch it regularly. I watch Fox and Friends in the mornings and the regular news in the evenings. Now the reason why I bolded news is because I do not watch the editorial shows. I.E. Hannity(sp?) and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly. Is the animosity for Fox News because of the generally right of center editorial shows? Please clarify this.

This thread also known as Am I the only one who doesn't give a...? Part II (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430883).

Say what you will about the source of the web page (and I know you'll have a lot to say) but these are internal memo's from Fox News chief, John Moody.

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8147&fcategory_desc=Fox%20News,%2024hr%20Republican%20Network

"The NY Times this morning has an unnamed source citing a "general mood" that anti-Americanism is rising and the insurgence is getting broader. However, the majority of other report from the region (AP, Reuters and our competitors) state the opposite. Stick with what we know."

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

Or we could end this entire discussion right now with an article about how Fox News admits to being biased...
Fox News Admits Bias!

Timothy Noah | May 31, 2005 | Source (http://slate.com/id/2119864/)

Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.

Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a drill. Repeat: This is not a drill. Assume battle stations! Fire in the hole! A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga!

The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)

I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to compare Norvell's op-ed to the Vatican's belated admission, after 359 years, that Galileo had it right when he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now how about a prime time seppuku by Fox News chief Roger Ailes? Failing that, maybe ABC News could lend Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer for Ailes' weepy confession. Hey, there, funny face, where's the broken-winged sparrow underneath that tough-guy exterior? Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago—and everything to gain in terms of heightened visibility. Say it with me, Roger: "Eppur si muove!" Doesn't that feel good?No news channel is without bias, that would be foolish to think so; but compared to stations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc., FOX News is considerably more biased, sympathetic to the Bush cause, and a "Siren" for Republicans everywhere...imagine if liberals had a frickin' mouthpiece to tune into everyday, instead of the "O'Reilley Show" you would have the "Moore Show"...

That, my friend, is a beautiful piece by Tim Noah. I salute you. :D

...but this conversation was ended already. A week ago.

Why must people gravedig?

There seem to be alot of people here that seem to think that the Fox News channel is Satan incarnate. Personally I dont see how its so different from CNN, MSNBC, etc. And I will admit right now that I watch it regularly. I watch Fox and Friends in the mornings and the regular news in the evenings. Now the reason why I bolded news is because I do not watch the editorial shows. I.E. Hannity(sp?) and Colmes, and Bill O'Reilly. Is the animosity for Fox News because of the generally right of center editorial shows? Please clarify this.

There was a story on the BBC prior to the last election about the beliefs of people who watch FOX news relative to other people. They found that the more people watched FOX news, the more wrong they were, or rather, the more likely they were to believe inncorrect things.

e.g.
% average Americans who thought Saddam was behind 9/11 - 66.
% FOX viewers who believed the same - 90.

They tend to actually believe that Bush is consistent and Kerry a "flip-flopper," which is inserted into the "hard" news as commentary as well as their editorial shows.

The station lies fairly constantly. I don't mean presenting a slanted or biased view of the truth. I mean actual lies. "FDR favored privatized social security." "Bush never said that he'd fire the leaker." "There's an economics journal called the Paris Business Review."

FOX news is not news. It is propaganda. And it is not merely the conservative counterpart to the "liberal" stations. There is nothing liberal about the other networks. They're less corporate conservative, but only insofar as they don't think that people will believe the patently absurd. FOX knows that they will, and that's why they make so much more money. The same reason that "Real World Cancun" tanked at the box office. Fiction is more popular than things that actually happened. Even when what actually happened is sensationalist bullshit.

Or we could end this entire discussion right now with an article about how Fox News admits to being biased...
No news channel is without bias, that would be foolish to think so; but compared to stations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc., FOX News is considerably more biased, sympathetic to the Bush cause, and a "Siren" for Republicans everywhere...imagine if liberals had a frickin' mouthpiece to tune into everyday, instead of the "O'Reilley Show" you would have the "Moore Show"...

Listen to Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com) for a while and then tell me how much of a liberal bias CNN or MSNBC has. They're all conservative, because they're all owned by large corporations that have conservative interests. FOX is just the most overtly so.

They go far beyond bias. They go far beyond venturing into deciet. They are trailblazers of dishonesty. PBS may give you the truth. Network news may give you 90 degrees from the truth. The administration may give you 180 degrees from the truth. But FOX has found ways to be even more dishonest than saying the exact opposite of the truth. Bill O'Reilly is a bit behind compared to some of his colleagues. He claims to be for "conservative values" yet wrote a novel about child molesters and crack whores. He tells people he's from a poor neighborhood, when he's actually from the rich town next too it. He cites sources that he makes up. That's why people think he's the most conservative. He's the easiest to catch in his bullshit. But they're all full of bullshit, including their "hard" news coverage.

I just wish people would stop using the word "Fox" and "News" in the same sentence.

How 'bout FAUX News? (http://www.fauxnews.com/)