NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a little curious here as to what everyones beef with Fox news is.

Granted, they have a slightly higher amount of conservative pundits, but what is it that they are reporting that is SO slanted? Does anyone have any SPECIFIC news stories that are proof of the evil rightwing conspiricy that I hear so much about?

They report when troops are killed, they report the Presidents approval ratings just as accurately as anyone else. They have ALOT of Republicans on, as well as ALOT of Democrats too. I always see Senators like Nancy Pelosi, Barbera Boxer, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, they have Conservative shows on, but so does MSNBC and CNN. (Scarborough Country as one example)

So what exactly is the beef, besides the fact that they don't lockstep with Liberals?



And BTW, if your gonna mention the 2000 election call, do some research first. They weren't the first to call it for Bush.


NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

My favorite news bullet point (the text that appears below the pundits as they talk) "Why the fuss over torturing those who wish us dead?"

My favorite news bullet point (the text that appears below the pundits as they talk) "Why the fuss over torturing those who wish us dead?"
Are you saying you've actually seen this? I'm not sure how I could ask for proof on that one, so since I can't, I really don't believe it.

But hey, if you find proof, feel free to post it.

Not sure whether it's real or not, but this website seems to show a screenshot: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/08/why-all-the-fuss/

Not sure whether it's real or not, but this website seems to show a screenshot: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/08/why-all-the-fuss/

HA, just as I said. Thanks Gruenberg (whoever you are)...

Not sure whether it's real or not, but this website seems to show a screenshot: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/08/why-all-the-fuss/
Thats a quote from the man who you see in the picture. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing. They (all the news channels) always put quotes up of what people say as the shows go on. Anyone who's ever watched any news channel knows that.

Incidentally, the man in the pic is a retired Officer (Captain, I think) in the military, and I was watching that when he said it. It was not a "Fox Headline" Thats what the bar at the very bottom is for.



BTW- There's a controversy going on at the moment about CNN airing a video of a Cheney speech yesterday, with a black X across his face. They say it was a "technical glitch" but I don't see people jumping on that as bias.

Yeah, I wasn't making any comment. Just trying to find the source. And I agree, it's a quotation, not a scrolling newsbar.

I did not say it was a headline, I said bullet point, but apparently it was a quote from the guest (my mistake)...

By the way, what happened on CNN was clearly sabotage by someone who worked there, just like on adult swim when some wise guy drew beards and hats on all the anime characters... That is not bias!

I did not say it was a headline, I said bullet point, but apparently it was a quote from the guest (my mistake)...

By the way, what happened on CNN was clearly sabotage by someone who worked there, just like on adult swim when some wise guy drew beards and hats on all the anime characters... That is not bias!
I certainly don't think it's bias either. At least, not on a corporate scale. I was just making the point that if a big X appeared over Chuck Schumer on Fox, there'd be a shitstorm, and millions of people screaming for Fox to be shut down.

I just get sick of not wanting to post any story I find on Fox, because a bunch of idiots will invariably call it bullshit just because it comes from Fox.

You know, i hate to say it, but FNC is FAR to the right of the other news networks. This is not to say that FNC is a right wing news station, more to say that it is an answer to the deeply leftward slant of the others.

In a free system, such that a market economy allows, no one group can be ignored for long. As long as their beliefs are strongly held and homogenous, they will have a voice. This can be said for any thing. If there is a customer base for colored bubbles, a way will be found to make em. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/0a03b5108e097010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

The reason the left hates FNC is the same reason it exists. The ideas presented on FNC are rarely in line with those of the rest of the mainstream.

Who is right or not is a totally different argument. The reason there is seen a slant to FNC is because relative to the other networks, FNC IS slanted.

Hope i put that in small enough words for all the libs out there to gather what i am saying... Since i didn't mention my race or sex, i figure the majority of them will have to assume i'm a white male from the midwest... Since that is the only demographic that can be conservative. /sarcasim

I think that a lot of Democrats who don't regularly watch Fox think that O'Reilly and other pundits on the station are the actual news readers - and they are not.

If you just watch the actual news, it's not any better or worse than CNN.

One thing I find interesting - when I was watching the election night coverage during the last Presidential election, I watched CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox at the same time (multiple channel output to windows in screen).

While the last three seemed to make an honest attempt to work out the final possible electoral votes (and project Ohio based on the returns reported and the maximum possible remaining votes), of the last three Fox seemed to be the most careful, the most accurate, and by far had what appeared to be a more dispassionate and neutral statistician - and CBS could only put up Dan Rather, who in the face of all the other networks calling it based on the impossibility of it all, kept mewling about the how the election could not be called. You could see he was trying to decide between breaking down and crying or bursting a blood vessel in his head.

While it's possible to call it too early, it's also possible to drag it on too long when you know it's over.

I certainly don't think it's bias either. At least, not on a corporate scale. I was just making the point that if a big X appeared over Chuck Schumer on Fox, there'd be a shitstorm, and millions of people screaming for Fox to be shut down.

I just get sick of not wanting to post any story I find on Fox, because a bunch of idiots will invariably call it bullshit just because it comes from Fox.

Fox has a credability problem with a lot of people, ever wonder why? I read the Economist, which displays at times displays Classical Liberal opinons (Neo-Liberalism), but I subscribe to it because the information is accurate and indept.

Fox is also the most sensationalist of the caple networks, journalism centered on the pundit or the arguement is a problem for all caple news, but Fox is the worst offender. It's news is rather shallow...

What I dislike is "that's Fox, so it's biased". Yeah, and? EVERY news source is biased: admittedly, some more than others. Even so, it seems to me part of the point of discussion of news articles is to point out and evaluate the inherent biases of an article. If Fox can be said to have 'politics', I'm sure I wouldn't agree with them. But that doesn't mean constructive debate can't arise from posting of their sources.

Fox has a credability problem with a lot of people, ever wonder why? I read the Economist, which displays at times displays Classical Liberal opinons (Neo-Liberalism), but I subscribe to it because the information is accurate and indept.

Fox is also the most sensationalist of the caple networks, journalism centered on the pundit or the arguement is a problem for all caple news, but Fox is the worst offender. It's news is rather shallow...

I find MSNBC and CNN to be equally, if not more shallow. And the mainstream news channels (the non-cable CBS especially) have a more pronounced attempt to sensationalize and display bias directly in their reporting, because they only have 30 minutes out of the whole day to get your attention.

Fox has a credability problem with a lot of people, ever wonder why? I read the Economist, which displays at times displays Classical Liberal opinons (Neo-Liberalism), but I subscribe to it because the information is accurate and indept.

Fox is also the most sensationalist of the caple networks, journalism centered on the pundit or the arguement is a problem for all caple news, but Fox is the worst offender. It's news is rather shallow...
Thanks for proving my point. Heres your post, summed up.

"Fox lies. Fox is a sensaionalist network. I have no proof, but it doesn't matter because thats what I think. Oh, and I read a Liberal paper"
'


BTW, it's spelled "cable"

I think another reason people hate Fox is that while ALL news channels report when troops die, Fox also reports when a new school is opened up, or when a plot is thwarted, or when people say good things about the war.

God forbid a News Agency give us BOTH sides of the story! :rolleyes:

All American news networks are biased, most of them to the right, Fox however, is by far the worst one.

If anyone doesnt believe this, they fall into one of the following catagories:

1. Stupid.
2. Simply unaware, or apathetic.
3. equally politically biased to the hard-right, like Fox.

Random Disbeliever: "How so?,dont they simply report the news, like everyone else?"

That answer is no.
They dont.

First of all, Fox is particularly choosy about what they will, and will not air.
Some stories that are run on slightly more "liberal" networks, may not even be discussed on Fox.

Also, Fox has, rather often distorted facts (Much like thier arch-nemeis Micheal Moore) when reporting news events.

Random Disbeliever: "Like what, for example?"

Well, not too long ago, in New York, there was an anti-war protest.
Eye witness reports put the estimated number of people attending at around one million people.

Heres what Fox did...

They reported that an anti-war protest was taking place, with at least 30,000 in attendance.

The difference was approximately 970 thousand people, that Fox didnt mention.
Why not?
Becuase a demonstration of 30,000 people is more often uninteresting, and easier to ignore.
One million people, is a number that gets attention.

Random Disbeliever: "So,where they lying?"

No.
They were purposefully misleading the facts.
There was indeed, an antiwar demonstration of at least 30,000 people...however, many, many,many, more people were in attendance.

So, this is a clear example of bias in the media, on the part of Fox News.


Heres another, and lets look at that same protest.

Fox also reported that a large number of pro-war demonstrators showed up to protest the protesters.
In fact, only about 30 people showed up to do so, and the oldest among them was aged 28 years old.
They espoused being veterans, who were in favor of the war.
In fact, many of them were veterans.
Ones who had served a few years to gain the college money, and had never served in war.
Upon further investigation, some of them held low level jobs within Fox itself.

So, again, it IS true that some people did appear to demonstrate the demonstarters, but a "large group" is only applicable, if tyou consider "large" to mean "30 or more".

This, is the kind of blatant misrepresentation of facts, and political biasedness that Fox does everyday.

Read "Spanking the Donkey".

Fox News is appalling; granted all the US rolling news networks come across quite badly when you compare them with something like BBC24 but Fox is the worst.


Last time I was in the US I couldn't stand to watch it for more than fifteen minutes or so, even for a joke, as it was just too depressing and made me feel a bit ill. Ever other semi-hysterical item was about about some undisclosed 'terror event' which may or may not have happened, perhaps on US soil or possibly anywhere else in the world (?)


Of course there aren't any explicit, blatant examples of right-wing bias. They're not stupid at Fox News and you are a being bit naive by expecting us to present something like this. The reputation of any news media, including newspapers, is built over a period of time and only by careful examination of the 'meta-narrative' permeating their reporting on a whole range of issues can you start to draw conclusions about their respective political compass.


Yes, Fox has a few liberal commentators on it, but if you pay attention you'll notice the debate is always framed in such a way that they come across as lacking in credibility and authority.

Big load of BS
If you really believe there were 1 million protestors, and that Fox news actually sent people to counter protest, than your (and I'm quoting YOU here)

1. Stupid.
2. Simply unaware, or apathetic.
3. equally politically biased to the hard-left, unlike Fox.


Changes from the original in bold.

Fox News is appalling; granted all the US rolling news networks come across quite badly when you compare them with something like BBC24 but Fox is the worst.


Last time I was in the US I couldn't stand to watch it for more than fifteen minutes or so, even for a joke, as it was just too depressing and made me feel a bit ill. Ever other semi-hysterical item was about about some undisclosed 'terror event' which may or may not have happened, perhaps on US soil or possibly anywhere else in the world (?)


Of course there aren't any explicit, blatant examples of right-wing bias. They're not stupid at Fox News and you are a being bit naive by expecting us to present something like this. The reputation of any news media, including newspapers, is built over a period of time and only by careful examination of the 'meta-narrative' permeating their reporting on a whole range of issues can you start to draw conclusions about their respective political compass.


Yes, Fox has a few liberal commentators on it, but if you pay attention you'll notice the debate is always framed in such a way that they come across as lacking in credibility and authority.
So, to sum it up, you don't ever watch it, except for 15 minutes once, you have no proof they are biased because they are so smart, but they are biased, because you say so.

Brilliant reasoning. Man, do I feel dumb now! :rolleyes:

Thanks for proving my point. Heres your post, summed up.

"Fox lies. Fox is a sensaionalist network. I have no proof, but it doesn't matter because thats what I think. Oh, and I read a Liberal paper"
'


BTW, it's spelled "cable"


The Economist is not a liberal paper you cretin, It's Neo-Liberal (translation -globalisation is great)

Dick Cheney reads it FFS

So, to sum it up, you don't ever watch it, except for 15 minutes once, you have no proof they are biased because they are so smart, but they are biased, because you say so.

Brilliant reasoning. Man, do I feel dumb now! :rolleyes:


Sorry for using so many long words as you clearly haven't understood one word of what I wrote.

Fox News is appalling; granted all the US rolling news networks come across quite badly when you compare them with something like BBC24 but Fox is the worst.


Last time I was in the US I couldn't stand to watch it for more than fifteen minutes or so, even for a joke, as it was just too depressing and made me feel a bit ill. Ever other semi-hysterical item was about about some undisclosed 'terror event' which may or may not have happened, perhaps on US soil or possibly anywhere else in the world (?)


Of course there aren't any explicit, blatant examples of right-wing bias. They're not stupid at Fox News and you are a being bit naive by expecting us to present something like this. The reputation of any news media, including newspapers, is built over a period of time and only by careful examination of the 'meta-narrative' permeating their reporting on a whole range of issues can you start to draw conclusions about their respective political compass.


Yes, Fox has a few liberal commentators on it, but if you pay attention you'll notice the debate is always framed in such a way that they come across as lacking in credibility and authority.

Ok, let me see if i can sum THIS one up for anyone hoping to skim this thread.

Fox News sucks.

I don't live there, and I don't watch it, but it still sucks. I watched it for 15 minutes asnd they disagreed with what i believed, so it sucks.

I can't prove my point cause i hate your question and you're a moron.

Fox bends the rules so my team always loses...



There you go... pretty much summed it up. How do you say Crybaby in french?

If you really believe there were 1 million protestors, and that Fox news actually sent people to counter protest, than your (and I'm quoting YOU here)

1. Stupid.
2. Simply unaware, or apathetic.
3. equally politically biased to the hard-left, unlike Fox.


Changes from the original in bold.

First of all, how would you know anything about this?

You wouldnt, you probably werent there, nor do you have any idea of wich particular demonstration i am reffering to.
So, how would you know how many people where there?

You wanted to know about specific instances of Fox's bias...there it is.
Just becuase you dont like to hear it, doesnt make it true.'

You obviously fall into the third catagory.
You obviously dont WANT to know about Fox's bias, and merely wish to bash the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.

That's called trolling.

The author of the book I refered to, was indeed there, and saw for himself how many people were there
And before you can say "how did he know how many people were there?", if you've ever been in an extremely large crowd, you can easily tell the difference between 30,000, and one million.

30,000 is a crowded large auditorium....one million is a crowded large city.

Having been to Detroit to witness a couple of Red Wings parades, I can tell you what one milion people looks like.

So, if you want to take a good honest look at Fox's blatant political bias, then continue this thread and you'll see it..

If all you wanted to do is troll....take it somewhere else.

Thanks for proving my point. Heres your post, summed up.

"Fox lies. Fox is a sensaionalist network. I have no proof, but it doesn't matter because thats what I think. Oh, and I read a Liberal paper"
'


BTW, it's spelled "cable"

Typos happen...

And I said Classical Liberal! You have no idea as to the meaning of that term, do you? In American speak it would be pigon-holed as conservative (libertarian and very pro unfettered free market), but that would not be accurate. There are many times when I disagree with them, but the information they present is allways accurate and they pages of information on places/events which recieve only 15 seconds on cable news... I was using it as an example, the Economist is biased, as is every newsource in the history of the universe, but there is no lack of credability nor is its information widely viewed as inaccurate by a large section of the populace... Why do you think?

The Economist is not a liberal paper you cretin, It's Neo-Liberal (translation -globalisation is great)

Ok i have a point of contention.

globalization is a major goal of liberalism in the States. The goal of many libs here is to have a happy world where no one starves and everyone has the same things.

also, it doesn't do much good to get your point across by calling names... fag

Yeah, I remember when Fox News was putting up a big black "X" over John Kerry during the '04 debates and.....(Oh Yeah)

Ha, a fellow conservican comes to my rescue... i was afraid i'd have to surrender to these crazy libs... (have to take a lesson from the french of course)

Ok libs, what do ya'll think of Drudgereport.com? lib? Con? what-da-ya think?

Ok i have a point of contention.

globalization is a major goal of liberalism in the States. The goal of many libs here is to have a happy world where no one starves and everyone has the same things.


No, that is multi-culturalism and cosmopolitanism...

Globalization is about the breaking down of economic and trade barriers. It is the establishment of a more interconnected world. Globalization can describe either the economic transition of the last 20 years or government policies in favor of reducing economic barriers.

Ok libs, what do ya'll think of Drudgereport.com? lib? Con? what-da-ya think?

I have no idea what that is...

I'm a little curious here as to what everyones beef with Fox news is.FireAntz...or any other Bushite...

Do you have any beef with AlJazeera?

and if you do...
...What is your beef with AJ?

I can be a little curious too :D

I call that "Head-in-the-clouds wishful thinking"...

So what IS the definition of liberalism? I have to know exactly what it is I'm hating over here... In case i see it, i'll know what to shoot at... Would hollow-points work, or should i go with steel AP rounds?

FireAntz...or any other Bushite...

Do you have any beef with AlJazeera?

and if you do...
...What is your beef with AJ?



AJ, as you call them, is just the other side of the coin. They preach the things given to them by an outside group. All three networks (CNN, FSN, &AJ) opperate on the same premise "give the ppl what they want"

Just because an organization disagrees with me doesnt mean they are stupid or hidious. They just so happen to be the voice of the enemy today... get rid of the terrorist, and BBC could be the new voice of the enemy for all i care.

AJ, as you call them, is just the other side of the coin. They preach the things given to them by an outside group. All three networks (CNN, FSN, &AJ) opperate on the same premise "give the ppl what they want"

Just because an organization disagrees with me doesnt mean they are stupid or hidious. They just so happen to be the voice of the enemy today... get rid of the terrorist, and BBC could be the new voice of the enemy for all i care.
In other words, it's all a matter of perspective? If I'm a liberal democrat (as opposed to a run-of-the-mill democrat), then by your definition, FNC is the voiece of the enemy, right?

FireAntz...or any other Bushite...

Do you have any beef with AlJazeera?

and if you do...
...What is your beef with AJ?

I can be a little curious too :D
Sure. Here's my beef with Al-Jazeera.
1) Al-Jazeera refuses to call people who blow up civilians on purpose and cuts of peoples heads terrorists.

2) They play propaganda videos of mass murderers.

3) Its Spanish reporter was arrested for terrorist ties to bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

4)At least two of its Iraqi reporters and one executive had secret connections with, and apparently worked for, Saddam Hussein's intelligence service.
5) Described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs"

Shall I go on?

First of all, how would you know anything about this?

You wouldnt, you probably werent there, nor do you have any idea of wich particular demonstration i am reffering to.
So, how would you know how many people where there?

You wanted to know about specific instances of Fox's bias...there it is.
Just becuase you dont like to hear it, doesnt make it true.'

You obviously fall into the third catagory.
You obviously dont WANT to know about Fox's bias, and merely wish to bash the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.

That's called trolling.

The author of the book I refered to, was indeed there, and saw for himself how many people were there
And before you can say "how did he know how many people were there?", if you've ever been in an extremely large crowd, you can easily tell the difference between 30,000, and one million.

30,000 is a crowded large auditorium....one million is a crowded large city.

Having been to Detroit to witness a couple of Red Wings parades, I can tell you what one milion people looks like.

So, if you want to take a good honest look at Fox's blatant political bias, then continue this thread and you'll see it..

If all you wanted to do is troll....take it somewhere else. All I ask is this.
1)One CREDIBLE source saying there was anything close to one million people in any New York protest in the last 30 years.
2)A good reason why my asking a question is trolling, and your making lists calling people stupid isn't
3)An address I can go to to get the stuff your smoking.

Shall I go on?yes please do...

Let all your frustration out.

3)An address I can go to to get the stuff your smoking.

Bam. Flamebaiting. You lose.

In other words, it's all a matter of perspective? If I'm a liberal democrat (as opposed to a run-of-the-mill democrat), then by your definition, FNC is the voiece of the enemy, right?

Yeah, basically... except there is no defined war going on between libs and Cons right now...

What I dislike is "that's Fox, so it's biased". Yeah, and? EVERY news source is biased: admittedly, some more than others. Even so, it seems to me part of the point of discussion of news articles is to point out and evaluate the inherent biases of an article. If Fox can be said to have 'politics', I'm sure I wouldn't agree with them. But that doesn't mean constructive debate can't arise from posting of their sources.

Agreed, anyone who thinks Fox News is the only bias out there, hasn't been paying attention to Nancy Grace on CNN...

Thanks for proving my point. Heres your post, summed up.

"Fox lies. Fox is a sensaionalist network. I have no proof, but it doesn't matter because thats what I think. Oh, and I read a Liberal paper"
'


BTW, it's spelled "cable"

That would actually be Classical Liberal; though why they called it "Neo-Liberal" is beyond me.... Neo-Liberalism is what mainstream liberalism is; Classical Liberalism is Paleo-Liberalism...

Yeah, basically...If someone would tell me: "One network has to magically disappear..either FOX or AJ...pick one"

I would say none...but if I was forced to make a choice...I would have FOX disappear...

Why? because the Bushites/FOX tandem is way more dangerous the the AJ/insurgents tandem...

...it is not even close.

The FOX/Bushites tandem is hijacking Justice and Democracy in my country...the most powerful country in World...the largest nuke collection of the world...all in the hands of a chimp.

Saddam, Osama, Insurgents are nothing compared to that.

Agreed, anyone who thinks Fox News is the only bias out there, hasn't been paying attention to Nacy Grace on CNN...
So far as I know, no one has made the charge that there's an unbiased news source out there. Personally, I think that the people who charge CNN/MSNBC/CBS, etc. with political bias are wrong, but not because those organizations aren't biased--they are, but they're biased toward making a profit for their corporate owners, and as such, do a sloppy job reporting at times, especially when it comes to reporting on those people who can help their corporate owners financially.

The FOX/Bushites tandem is hick-jacking Justice and Democracy in my country...the most powerful country in World.

Consider the following:

1. No one forces people to watch one channel or the other. It's up to the market to decide who is the number one cable news network - Bush can't change that no matter how hard he might want to.
2. Fox News is the number one cable news network in terms of ratings. On the average, over the past few years, twice as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN.
3. It doesn't follow, therefore, that they are hijacking anything - if anything, it looks like there's a large audience for news that isn't slanted more or less to the Democratic Party worldview. Hence the abysmal slide of CBS News' ratings from the good old days of #1 to permanent third place.

Ok i have a point of contention.

globalization is a major goal of liberalism in the States.....

You mean Liberals like George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? The Republican Senate and House?

Hate to break it to you, bright boy, but neither major party in the States is opposed to globalization; the only contention is to what should such purpose mean....

On the average, over the past few years, twice as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN.this is what I am saying:
The Bushites hijacked the 2000 elections and FOX was instrumental.

this is what I am saying:
The Bushites hijacked the 2000 elections and FOX was instrumental.

You're missing the point. How did they hijack anything if they are far more popular than the #2 cable news network? Eh?

How were they instrumental?

In order to prove that they were instrumental, you have to show me how a station went from last place to first place - that's the market talking - the people voting with their remotes - not some conspiracy from on high.

You're missing the point. How did they hijack anything if they are far more popular than the #2 cable news network? Eh?

How were they instrumental?

In order to prove that they were instrumental, you have to show me how a station went from last place to first place - that's the market talking - the people voting with their remotes - not some conspiracy from on high.

Tabloids sell more than broadsheets. If you expect to get debate and balance from a tabloid.......

yes please do...

Let all your frustration out.
I'm not frustrated. Everyone who matters knows what Al-Jazeera is all about. I'd just like to kick Tony Blair for talking Bush out of leveling the place. Here's hoping for the future! :D

Bam. Flamebaiting. You lose.
Who's flaimbaiting? I wanna get stoned, damnit!

If someone would tell me: "One network has to magically disappear..either FOX or AJ...pick one"

I would say none...but if I was forced to make a choice...I would have FOX disappear...

Why? because the Bushites/FOX tandem is way more dangerous the the AJ/insurgents tandem...

...it is not even close.

The FOX/Bushites tandem is hijacking Justice and Democracy in my country...the most powerful country in World...the largest nuke collection of the world...all in the hands of a chimp.

Saddam, Osama, Insurgents are nothing compared to that.
Sounds like your the frustrated one! *points and laughs*

You're missing the point. How did they hijack anything if they are far more popular than the #2 cable news network? Eh?

How were they instrumental?

In order to prove that they were instrumental, you have to show me how a station went from last place to first place - that's the market talking - the people voting with their remotes - not some conspiracy from on high.I can tell how FOX got instantly very popular (with some kind of public)...

But...trust me..that will not prove that "they were instrumental on FloridaGate"...that cannot be proven on a forum anyway...IMO nothing can be proved here...we cant present any evidence (and no..links are no evidence IMO)

about FOX...Being a popular network does not automatically make them evil.

in US history...most previous top media conglomerates...have refused to get in bed with a candidate.

Tabloids sell more than broadsheets. If you expect to get debate and balance from a tabloid.......
Ocean is implying that somehow Bush and Fox are in a secret conspiracy.

Well, people don't read what they don't want to read. How is that a conspiracy?

No form of media, with the exception of a few, is going to be outwardly bias. Media bias is often VERY subtle, and often is reduced to just a choice of words. I'll give you an example here with forms of bias put in bold.



The Nowhere Times

Senator Ronald McDonald was blasted today by Senator Bubba Jones (R-MS) over the issue of healthy eating.

"We aint got the right to tell people what to eat!" Senator Jones said at the Senate proceedings today.

Senator McDonald, put on the defensive, responded with this statement: "We must help people make right choices in their eating habbits! Too many of our children are living with the anxiety of being obease!"

Senate Republicans, however, did not buy the arguement as attacks kept firing at Senator McDonald.

End.

Notice, at first glance, this wouldn't seem like bias... But, I tell you now, it has a heavy liberal bias. First off, the words they used when the Republicans went after McDonald made the Republicans appear as evil attackers on a noble crusader! The aint makes Senator Bubba Jones look stupid. Poor Ronald McDonald is on the defensive because of those nasty Republicans! And probably the most subtle, please take note that not once did I put a (D-VT) or something in front of Ronald McDonalds name... I could have added all sorts of extra subtle bias, but I think I've gotten my point across... THAT'S how Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all those other news stations are bias.

Ocean is implying that somehow Bush and Fox are in a secret conspiracy.

Well, people don't read what they don't want to read. How is that a conspiracy?
It's easy to explain. People like to call Bush stupid. Those same people got their asses handed to them by Bush in two elections in a row. So instead of admitting that either Bush is smarter than they say he is, or they got beat by a dummy, they have to come up with a grand conspiracy to excuse their political impotence.

And since CNN did everything short of publicly supporting Gore and Kerry, and nobody really watches MSNBC, Fox was the logical choice. Which is the dumbest thing they could have ever done, because they gave Fox more publicity than any corporation on earth could ever hope to have. And now no one has the market cornered for the Dems anymore.

And then, to my sheer and utter joy, Rather screwed the pooch, and now all they can do is shout from the rooftops that Fox is a mouth piece for the Whitehouse. Which makes them look like loons, increasing my joy tenfold.

The only other thing they could do to further screw themselves is to latch on to some Anti-American film maker who lies in his films to make money. (oh wait..........)

*points at the DNC and laughs* :D

Here in NZ we get CNN, BBC and Fox occasionally. Out of these 3, I much prefer BBC. I don't like Bush. I hear too much of him on Fox, and CNN I just don't like anymore. That doesn't make Fox any more/less bias. I just don't like it heh.

REad my earlier post, EVERY single news provider is bias in one way or another.... Some more subtly than others..

REad my earlier post, EVERY single news provider is bias in one way or another.... Some more subtly than others..

Yes, that's true. But there are some Democratic Party supporters who will insist to the end that only Fox is biased.

Yes, that's true. But there are some Democratic Party supporters who will insist to the end that only Fox is biased.

And conservatives will insist to the end that CNN and the New York Times are bias while liberals say they're not... Parties protect the news agencies that are on their side.... Now, I've made my point, I'm going to go play World of Warcaft.

Ok, let me see if i can sum THIS one up for anyone hoping to skim this thread.

Fox News sucks.

I don't live there, and I don't watch it, but it still sucks. I watched it for 15 minutes asnd they disagreed with what i believed, so it sucks.

I can't prove my point cause i hate your question and you're a moron.

Fox bends the rules so my team always loses...



There you go... pretty much summed it up. How do you say Crybaby in french?


oh dear


Hmmm... have you noticed that your 'summing up' is practically identical to that of your equally confused fellow Fox cheerleader? One semi-retarded misinterpretation was perhaps ok, two is just an annoyance.


I was referring to the most recent time I have watched Fox News and yet you both seem to have assumed that I was talking about the only time I have watched it. You may not be aware that we actually have cable TV in the UK and I have previously taken the time to enjoy Fox News on many occasions. Presently, I don't live in a house with said cable (mostly garbage anyway) but rest assured, next opportunity I get I'll give it another go. After all, it is kind of funny (for 15 minutes at a time)


What are all these references to my 'team' and my 'beliefs' about? I have given you no indication of my political views. You just seem to made the simplistic assumption that because I have criticised one arena I must be placed within the opposing example.

Ok i have a point of contention.

globalization is a major goal of liberalism in the States. The goal of many libs here is to have a happy world where no one starves and everyone has the same things.

also, it doesn't do much good to get your point across by calling names... fag


once again.. you're just embarrassing yourself aren't you? You don't even appear to know what globalisation is.

And to top it off - a homophobic insult - nice.....

And to top it off - a homophobic insult - nice.....

Hopefully he means "Former Action Guy" - an idiomatic expression identifying the person as ex-Special Forces or ex-SEAL.

I think my beef with Fox is it's claim to be 'Fair and Balanced'.

it's about as fair and balanced as the SUN, the one tht called half of Pariament traitors! (admittedly, Murdoch also owns tje Sun...)

Here in NZ we get CNN, BBC and Fox occasionally. Out of these 3, I much prefer BBC. I don't like Bush. I hear too much of him on Fox, and CNN I just don't like anymore. That doesn't make Fox any more/less bias. I just don't like it heh.
Thats the most honest reason I've seen for not liking Fox! Kudos to you, sir!

Thats the most honest reason I've seen for not liking Fox! Kudos to you, sir!
Heh. Well I don't particularly have anything against Fox.. I watch quite a bit of it. But it's only on at like 12am onwards. We get that morning show, with the 3 people. I don't know, don't know much about any of them. Oh well haha

Not sure whether it's real or not, but this website seems to show a screenshot: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/08/why-all-the-fuss/
My dad had it on at the time when I was home visiting him ... I remember seeing this I think

I think my beef with Fox is it's claim to be 'Fair and Balanced'.

it's about as fair and balanced as the SUN, the one tht called half of Pariament traitors! (admittedly, Murdoch also owns tje Sun...)

Yes, I have that problem with Fox as well. You're asking for trouble if you're a media outlet and you make any assertion of neutrality, fairness, or balance.

Of course, I also have a problem with the motto of the New York Times.
"All the News That's Fit to Print"

I think they've actually been living more along the lines of "All The News That Fits, We Print".

Thats a quote from the man who you see in the picture. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing. They (all the news channels) always put quotes up of what people say as the shows go on. Anyone who's ever watched any news channel knows that.

Incidentally, the man in the pic is a retired Officer (Captain, I think) in the military, and I was watching that when he said it. It was not a "Fox Headline" Thats what the bar at the very bottom is for.



BTW- There's a controversy going on at the moment about CNN airing a video of a Cheney speech yesterday, with a black X across his face. They say it was a "technical glitch" but I don't see people jumping on that as bias.

We will play your little trick ... got any proof of that?

hmmz intresting article on the subject

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

We will play your little trick ... got any proof of that?
Here's the link to the X on Cheney's face
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-11-23T010131Z_01_MCC303600_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-CNN.xml&rpc=22

If you want to see the picture...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5cnc.htm

Here's the link to the X on Cheney's face
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-11-23T010131Z_01_MCC303600_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-CNN.xml&rpc=22

If you want to see the picture...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5cnc.htm
Wow ... thanks

Wow ... thanks
You will notice that Reuters is willing to give CNN the benefit of the doubt. And CNN is claiming it's just a technical problem.

Now, imagine if we had Bill Clinton, or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, or Cindy Sheehan appear on Fox News, and this same thing happened with a big X.

Honestly, would any of you Fox-haters cut Fox any slack at all?

I think not. You would be shouting "Conspiracy!" from the rooftops.

You will notice that Reuters is willing to give CNN the benefit of the doubt. And CNN is claiming it's just a technical problem.

Now, imagine if we had Bill Clinton, or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, or Cindy Sheehan appear on Fox News, and this same thing happened with a big X.

Honestly, would any of you Fox-haters cut Fox any slack at all?

I think not. You would be shouting "Conspiracy!" from the rooftops.
I do ... I am just more upset at the talking heads

But I supose thats all I see (thats what my dad watches on my few trips home to visit)

Personaly I dont watch any TV news, I tend to not enjoy the wattered down news they feed to tv consuming audiences

No offence to any Americans out there, but a lot if not all, of the mass media corporations and their outlets (CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, ugh SKY etc etc) just plain suck at giving the bloody news!

24hr news is a stupid, tabloidish attempt to 'jazz up' what would otherwise be seen as a rather boring arena- the news! Sensationalism, crass commercialisation and tabloid style tactics are the name of the game when it comes to this type of reporting.

I'll have to go with simply the BBC (not BBC24) or maybe ITN if I want basic news facts- even more so, BBCWorld Radio, for presenting the facts in a clear and untainted manner.

Yeah, basically... except there is no defined war going on between libs and Cons right now...
Not right now, but in '08? Yeah, the war is coming.:sniper:

Here's the link to the X on Cheney's face
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2005-11-23T010131Z_01_MCC303600_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-CNN.xml&rpc=22

If you want to see the picture...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5cnc.htm

The explanation they give is bullshit. Completely. You know how I know? I worked in a news station for about six months. You can't put an X up there with out being really determined.

Honestly, the reason I don't watch cable TV news is because they all recycle the same crap. Maybe they paint it a different color, but at the end it's all pure crap, with their punditry, sensationalism, never going indepth, etc. It's pure entertainment, they're not news anymore.

At least the Daily Show makes one laugh intentionally.

Yeah, basically... except there is no defined war going on between libs and Cons right now...

Technically yes. It is automatically assumed that if you are a liberal you are a dem and if you are conservative you are a republican.

Unfortunately, there is no grey area. People can be liberal and have no political affiliation. Same for conservatives.

George Washington warned us agaisnst party politics and look where it got us. A two party system in which you are either this way or that, and no other way.
:headbang:

Honestly, the reason I don't watch cable TV news is because they all recycle the same crap. Maybe they paint it a different color, but at the end it's all pure crap, with their punditry, sensationalism, never going indepth, etc. It's pure entertainment, they're not news anymore.

At least the Daily Show makes one laugh intentionally.
Absolutly agreed

Bias can also be demonstrated by how much wieght is given to a a story that is covered. Now, Media Matters is pretty good at documenting when false statements are made on the news by ANY broadcaster. They also look for signs of bias.

For example, suppose you give more coverage to one candidate thant he other. This equates to the oportunity for that candidates views to better reach the audience. You can say "Hey, we carried both speeches", but if you air ALL ofone but only snippets of the other then you have not covered them fairly.

Media Matters documented many such instances during the last election cycle
like this one: (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190007)


FOX carried more of Bush's speech, less of Kerry's than other cable stations
On October 18, President George W. Bush delivered a speech in Marlton, New Jersey, on national security, and Senator John Kerry delivered a speech in Tampa, Florida, on health care. FOX News Channel carried Bush's speech live for 47 minutes -- four minutes more than MSNBC and eleven minutes more than CNN. Before going to live coverage of Kerry's speech, FOX News Channel anchor Martha MacCallum said: "And now we take you directly for fair and balanced coverage in Tampa, Florida, where John Kerry will be speaking moments from now." FOX then carried Kerry's speech live for just under 10 minutes -- 30 minutes less than MSNBC and 25 minutes less than CNN.


MSNBC
Bush speech 43:27
Kerry speech 39:35

CNN
Bush speech 36:42
Kerry speech 35:25

Fox
Bush speech 47:14
Kerry speech 9:40



Frankly, I am curious why some people try and pretend like Fox (or CNN, or whoever) ISN'T biased. Hell, be happy that you get the news presented to you the way you like it. But don't pretend like that's not why you watch it.

If the news shows were all presenting the same content after all, then there would be no real fight for ratings as the channel choice would be irrelevant.

Absolutly agreed

I find it better to read my news online - cross reference the same story across multiple sources. And then for more views on the same story, read a variety of blogs.

I've found that for European perspectives, it is useless to read US news web pages, and you'll only get the perspective if you read their blogs http://fistfulofeuros.net/ is the best. It also has a good variety of cross links.

Bias can also be demonstrated by how much wieght is given to a a story that is covered. Now, Media Matters is pretty good at documenting when false statements are made on the news by ANY broadcaster. They also look for signs of bias.

For example, suppose you give more coverage to one candidate thant he other. This equates to the oportunity for that candidates views to better reach the audience. You can say "Hey, we carried both speeches", but if you air ALL ofone but only snippets of the other then you have not covered them fairly.

Media Matters documented many such instances during the last election cycle
like this one: (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190007)



Frankly, I am curious why some people try and pretend like Fox (or CNN, or whoever) ISN'T biased. Hell, be happy that you get the news presented to you the way you like it. But don't pretend like that's not why you watch it.

If the news shows were all presenting the same content after all, then there would be no real fight for ratings as the channel choice would be irrelevant.

Wow 9-47 Eek

But you are right with the drive for raitings ... they present to the audience that watches
That usualy is annoying enought to me to stick to online sources