NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Only because they call their opinion based shows news shows.

Online, all websites misrepresent the same AP article in different ways.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/fox-news/

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

I don't consider them as bad as CSN or some of the right wing - and left wing, for that matter - sites that just lie, but they spin everything. And I read them almost everyday. I don't watch any TV news.

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

well being English I've never come across it but I have heard of the nasty things that go on (I remember reading a movie being made by former employees)

And didn’t you make a thread along the lines of “do you really think the media isn’t biased?”

I have actually watched some of FNC and I just roll my eyes at my TV at what they call "fair and balanced" reporting. I'm going to agree with Al Franken and say that FNC just exists to piss off liberals. Being so biased can have no other effect.

yeh, i've sat and watched it but i had to turn off cuz i was alternately laughing and cringing at the stupid fear mongering, grandstanding and nationalistic jingoism. plus a while ago when they were covering the foot-and-mouth cattle epidemic in the uk it was just ridiculous, they made it sound like the whole country had been quarantined and everything and everyone was at grave risk of death. it was diabollical.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.

well being English I've never come across it but I have heard of the nasty things that go on (I remember reading a movie being made by former employees)

And didn’t you make a thread along the lines of “do you really think the media isn’t biased?”

Well, if you personally haven't watched them or read their website, I don't feel that you can judge them based solely on what "nasty things that go on" you heard from other people.

and Yes I did make a thread about, something along the lines of "media biased?" What's your point? I feel that the majority of media is biased. I also feel that out of all the media oulets in the world that FNC, in my own opinion is not nearly as biased as the likes of CNN and al-jazeera and Yes even the BBC.

yeh, i've sat and watched it but i had to turn off cuz i was alternately laughing and cringing at the stupid fear mongering, grandstanding and nationalistic jingoism. plus a while ago when they were covering the foot-and-mouth cattle epidemic in the uk it was just ridiculous, they made it sound like the whole country had been quarantined and everything and everyone was at grave risk of death. it was diabollical.

Did you see where they asked the question "Is Bush the best president ever"?

:rolleyes:

I have actually watched some of FNC and I just roll my eyes at my TV at what they call "fair and balanced" reporting. I'm going to agree with Al Franken and say that FNC just exists to piss off liberals. Being so biased can have no other effect.

Well, I was going to comment but after you brought up "Al Franken" I think that says it all.

I watched the Democratic Convention on FOX in 2004. I was amazed how blatant they were about being biased. I feel that counts.

I read an article on Fox where they were shouting against Euthanasia in the Netherlands. They said the Dutch people killed Anne Frank. If Fox fancies spreading such inaccuracies it is hard to take them serious.

Well, I was going to comment but after you brought up "Al Franken" I think that says it all.

Does it now? I liked his quote but I hardly needed him to tell me that Fox News is nothing but conservative propaganda. But maybe you think Rupert Murdoch started Fox out of wanting journalistic balance?

Yes even the BBC.

well here is what it boils down to the BBC is funded by the people in the form of a T.V licence (not at all linked to the government) and as such it has the obligation to be completely impartial no matter what the ratings (hence why Antiques road show is on and such) also because the news isn’t after ratings (no commercials so no point) it can afford to say “no the commies have no put bombs in all the kidneys the sell” unlike things like sky news (which to be fair isn’t really biased but meh)

Meh, all cable news is just infotainment...it's impossible to get unbiased news on those networks because competition forces them to attract an audience rather than inform people. And, what better way to attract an audience than by advertising and designing your content for the market you're trying to capture.

I've watched it and have noticed a clear right wing and Pro Bush bias.

I own the DVD "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

I also hear the bias in otner news sources too but FOX takes the cake - whats worse is that they claim to be "Fair and Balanced" which is why I think people focus more attention on them.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Yes. I've sit down and watched FOX News.

Unlike a lot of people who decide bias by asking if the news they're watching falls to the left or to the right of them I take a look at how they interperet facts and which direction they editorialize.

e.g. Recently Bill Clinton has been accused of "loosing control" in an interview. If you watch the interview, he clearly did not loose control. He was angry, but he took control in that interview, he didn't loose it.

All the news outlets described him as loosing control. They're all owned by and serve big corporations which lean towards Republicans for those juicy upper income tax breaks. They have right-wing biases.

FOX news not only editorializes to favor republicans. They LIE to favor republicans. They will misinterpret, and ignore facts in order to arrive at conclusions that are contrary to fact.

e.g. Not questioning the whole "we were left with no comprehensive counter-terrorism plan," bullshit that Condoleeza Rice was spouting. In her testimony to the 9/11 commission she said that they did, she just called it something else and said it wasn't a plan. If you went to a bar and they told you they had no beer, they only had bevereges made of fermented grains and hops which contain alcohol, what would you think?

Brit Hume, on FOX lied and said that FDR wanted a privatized Social Security system like Bush proposed.

Bill O'Reilly routinely makes up statistics on the spot to "prove" his point.

No matter how biased you are, you can not honestly, and informedly claim that FOX is unbiased.

Did you see where they asked the question "Is Bush the best president ever"?

:rolleyes:

no i've only watched a few programmes cuz i live in the uk.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source. in a perfect world a professional journalist should be as unbiased as possible,the facts without any personal opinion attached to it. Fox makes no attempt to be objective in their reporting, celebrity opinion shows disguised as news programs are nothing more than blatent propaganda forums.

I do find Fox good for comedy however, Bill O'reilly may be the funniest man on tv.

I've watched it and have noticed a clear right wing and Pro Bush bias.

I own the DVD "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

I also hear the bias in otner news sources too but FOX takes the cake - whats worse is that they claim to be "Fair and Balanced" which is why I think people focus more attention on them.

"They really don't care. They even have an Employee of the Month program to show how much they care. That's how much they don't care." - Terry Pratchett.

"They have no objectivity or balance. They even have the slogan Fair and Balanced to show that they have objectivity and balance. That's how much objectivity and balance they don't have." - Paraphrase of Above.

Well, if you personally haven't watched them or read their website, I don't feel that you can judge them based solely on what "nasty things that go on" you heard from other people.

and Yes I did make a thread about, something along the lines of "media biased?" What's your point? I feel that the majority of media is biased. I also feel that out of all the media oulets in the world that FNC, in my own opinion is not nearly as biased as the likes of CNN and al-jazeera and Yes even the BBC.

And what is your basis for determining bias?

BBC is one of the most, if not the mose, respected news organizations in the world. Rupert Murdock (the guy who owns FOX news) like to portray it as horribly liberal because he has failed in his attempts to gain control over it. How can you call it more biased than FOX news?

CNN is about the least biased news outlet in the US, but it is still a right-wing outfit since Ted Turner sold it.

I'm not going to get into Al-Jazeera, it's impossible to appraise it unemotionally.

But here's the big one. On what Earth (more to the point, on what basis) can you credibly claim that FOX is (even relatively) unbiased? You say over and over that you think other outlets are worse, but you have yet to provide your own yardstick for making the judgement, despite asking us for ours.

And what is your basis for determining bias?

BBC is one of the most, if not the mose, respected news organizations in the world. Rupert Murdock (the guy who owns FOX news) like to portray it as horribly liberal because he has failed in his attempts to gain control over it. How can you call it more biased than FOX news?

CNN is about the least biased news outlet in the US, but it is still a right-wing outfit since Ted Turner sold it.

I'm not going to get into Al-Jazeera, it's impossible to appraise it unemotionally.

But here's the big one. On what Earth (more to the point, on what basis) can you credibly claim that FOX is (even relatively) unbiased? You say over and over that you think other outlets are worse, but you have yet to provide your own yardstick for making the judgement, despite asking us for ours.

If you would of read my thread that you quoted thoroughly you would have seen that I said about FNC isn't "nearly as biased" with that being pointed out I do understand that their is a bit of biasedness coming from Fox but I personally don't feel that it is as strongly as you and some in this world claim them to be.

In America, FNC is the most trusted news media coming out of America. With that being said, that doesn't really mean to much.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/Welcome.asp

If you would of read my thread that you quoted thoroughly you would have seen that I said about FNC isn't "nearly as biased" with that being pointed out I do understand that their is a bit of biasedness coming from Fox but I personally don't feel that it is as strongly as you and some in this world claim them to be.

In America, FNC is the most trusted news media coming out of America. With that being said, that doesn't really mean to much.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/Welcome.asp

You know the big blinking "Warriors of the Right Click Here" button calls that sites neutrality just a little into question.

I have watched Fox news (it's available on cable TV here in Aus) & it is without doubt, the most biased news channel I have ever watched. Much of it is actually opinion peices & editorial comment, rather than news, but it is falsely presented as "fair & balanced" news & reporting.

An example that springs to mind is; prior to the actual Iraq war I watched a discussion on Fox & the topic was, "why hasn't the USA already invaded". Not, "should we send the military", or "are there other wasy we could resolve the situation", but "why haven't we already done so".

I have actually watched some of FNC and I just roll my eyes at my TV at what they call "fair and balanced" reporting. I'm going to agree with Al Franken and say that FNC just exists to piss off liberals. Being so biased can have no other effect.

Actually, I think it does have an effect, but not the one that most people think it has. I think it acts as a reinforcement mechanism for conservative talk radio. It's easy to dismiss someone like Shawn Hannity or Bill O'Reilly as a nut on the radio, but television adds cachet to their talk--undeserved, in this case, but adds it nonetheless. And when people who listen to Limbaugh or Savage or Ingraham or Liddy or any of the other dozens of right-wing talking heads on the radio hear the same stories spun the same way on television, it acts as a reinforcement to those stories, makes them more believeable in a way.

It's easy to downplay the Fox effect, because even though they're the biggest cable news network, they're still tiny compared to the networks, but they're targeting the right demographic for the Republican party, to the point where they're little more than a propaganda arm for the right now.

Well for starters they are the only news agency that when talking about Iraq, use the "war on terror" headline. All others correctly just use something like the fight for Iraq or something. They are also the only ones to call suicide bombers, homocide bombers. I could go on but frankly I'm hungry and everyone already knows of their bias. Dont believe me? Bill O'Reilly.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.
Oh god, I watched them for half an hour once and almost died. They were ranting about how the Supreme Court was "assaulting" religion because they wouldn't let courthouses stick the Ten Commandments all over the place. Then they continued on to a story about how the Liberals were causing all the division in our country and everything would be so much better if they just shut up and obeyed Bush.

For more information, see Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Having actually watched Fox News, and done some serious fact checking on their talking heads, I can tell you that FNC is indeed biased towards sources of wealth and power, particularly the "Christian Right" and the Bush supporters.

Only because they call their opinion based shows news shows.

And CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC don't show any bisa in their "news shows." :rolleyes: Give me a break.

And CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC don't show any bisa in their "news shows." :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Come on, man. You're too old to be playing that kindergarten shit. "Mommy, the other shows are biased so I get to be twice as bad the other way. Waah."

Besides, any bias those other channels show is toward whoever supports their corporate interests, not toward any ideology. It's cash talking, baby, and that's the only language they give a fuck about.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...Whenever I go look at the site of Fox News, I see clear evidence of twisting things to cater to a conservative audience. While they don't lie outright, they make trivial things appear more important than what really is. Also, the perspectives they show stories from show a clear bias, in the form of favoritism, for one side in certain conflicts. Fox News makes its money by letting the conservative audience see what it wants to see.

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.Some people personally feel that God created us from mud, and that modern scientific progress is founded on lies.

I watch Fox news regularly... it's just like the Colbert Report with the laugh track removed.

Come on, man. You're too old to be playing that kindergarten shit. "Mommy, the other shows are biased so I get to be twice as bad the other way. Waah."

Besides, any bias those other channels show is toward whoever supports their corporate interests, not toward any ideology. It's cash talking, baby, and that's the only language they give a fuck about.

All of them show some bias, first toward where the sponsor money is, and secondly political view of the owners/managers. I just happen to prefer a more conservative slant than a liberal slant. Personally, I rate FOX as first, CNN as second, and don't pay much attention to ABC, NBC, or CBS.

(P.S. My wife says I'm in my second childhood.) ::p

I just happen to prefer a more conservative slant than a liberal slant.Therein lies your problem. Only listening to the news he wanted to hear was how Hitler lost WWII. ;)

Come on, man. You're too old to be playing that kindergarten shit. "Mommy, the other shows are biased so I get to be twice as bad the other way. Waah."

Besides, any bias those other channels show is toward whoever supports their corporate interests, not toward any ideology. It's cash talking, baby, and that's the only language they give a fuck about.

I wouldn't mind if people would stop saying there is liberal bias in the mainstream media myself. Anyone who was half awake during the Clinton investigation, impeachment etc., would quickly realize that liberal bias does not exist at all. If anything, the media is biased towards sensationalism. But that is no surprise. Ratings after all are what matter, not truth.

Therein lies your problem. Only listening to the news he wanted to hear was how Hitler lost WWII. ;)

I don't rely on one. I read several different news sources on the Internet including but not limited to FOX, CNN, BBC, SBC, Reuters, MSNBC, etc. For TV news, I watch FOX, ABC, and NBC. Once in a while, I watch CNN.

If anything, the media is biased towards sensationalism. But that is no surprise. Ratings after all are what matter, not truth.

Amen and so :(

I don't rely on one. I read several different news sources on the Internet including but not limited to FOX, CNN, BBC, SBC, Reuters, MSNBC, etc. For TV news, I watch FOX, ABC, and NBC. Once in a while, I watch CNN.You see, that sounds like a smart idea, but it's not. Apart from the fact that they all suck, Fox also manages to push the scales even further off target.

You see, that sounds like a smart idea, but it's not. Apart from the fact that they all suck, Fox also manages to push the scales even further off target.

In other words you don't want to know what the "other side" is saying? From what you are saying I can only conclude you either don't read any news, or you only read the news that is slanted toward your personal philosophy. Perhaps you can clarify your statement.

In other words you don't want to know what the "other side" is saying? From what you are saying I can only conclude you either don't read any news, or you only read the news that is slanted toward your personal philosophy. Perhaps you can clarify your statement.

For me, everytime I try to watch Fox News to "see what the other side is saying" I always want to hurl something at my TV set. So you see, I can't watch it, I don't have the money to buy a new TV.

For me, everytime I try to watch Fox News to "see what the other side is saying" I always want to hurl something at my TV set. So you see, I can't watch it, I don't have the money to buy a new TV.

Oh! Here, have a cookie. :fluffle:

For me, everytime I try to watch Fox News to "see what the other side is saying" I always want to hurl something at my TV set. So you see, I can't watch it, I don't have the money to buy a new TV.

P.S. and off post. I just noticed you are a Red Sox fan. Are you from Bean Town? I was born in Brockton and raised in Belmont.

Oh! Here, have a cookie. :fluffle:

Thanks.

*eats cookie*

Now to go on a mission to reform Fox News... or at least make sure Hannity is seen as the lying dirtbag that he is. Think I can have much success? The cookie has really given me confidence and energy to try!

P.S. and off post. I just noticed you are a Red Sox fan. Are you from Bean Town? I was born in Brockton and raised in Belmont.

Afraid not. Born and raised in the western part of MA. Deerfield to be precise. You know I've only gotten to be at Fenway Park once? Now I'm stuck here in Cincy. So far away... :(

Now to go on a mission to reform Fox News... or at least make sure Hannity is seen as the lying dirtbag that he is. Think I can have much success? The cookie has really given me confidence and energy to try!


If Colmes can't prove him, a "lying dirtbag" I'm not sure you can succeed. Hey, maybe we can take their place, I can be Hannity and you can be Colmes. :D

Sean Hannity is awesome.

I wouldn't mind if people would stop saying there is liberal bias in the mainstream media myself. Anyone who was half awake during the Clinton investigation, impeachment etc., would quickly realize that liberal bias does not exist at all. If anything, the media is biased towards sensationalism. But that is no surprise. Ratings after all are what matter, not truth.Like I said--corporate bias, not liberal bias. Fox is the exception.

There has been several polls conducted that the media in America as a majority leans to the liberal side. Whether thats tv, newspapers, mags, etc...

Like I said--corporate bias, not liberal bias. Fox is the exception.

Yes FOX is the exception. They are not as politically, or corporate, biased as the rest of them. :p Here Nazz have a cookie and some milk. :fluffle:

If Colmes can't prove him, a "lying dirtbag" I'm not sure you can succeed. Hey, maybe we can take their place, I can be Hannity and you can be Colmes. :D

Colmes is a joke. He is there to play the liberal fool to Hannity.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? etc...Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours?

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Please. As if no one could figure out that the only reason you feel Fox News isn't biased is because they agree with your viewpoint. :rolleyes: ALL news is biased -- usually toward whatever they think will give them an audience.

There has been several polls conducted that the media in America as a majority leans to the liberal side. Whether thats tv, newspapers, mags, etc...

I thought polls weren't supposed to mean anything.

Besides, given all the attacks against liberal figures shown on "news" programs I find the claim of liberal bias stupid.

I have had the dubious pleasure of watching FoxNews. It was, at best, just as shoddy as CNN - and the rest of the time, seemingly most of the time - it served little purpose other than as a soapbox for the rabid right-wing, assorted Bush cheerleaders, and various others living life with sand covering the bridges of their noses.

That wasn't news I saw - that was televisual masturbation of the clumsiest sort.

Ill admit, Fox is a tennsy too the right. But this is balanced out too CNN and MSNBC being slightly left wing. All is right with the world.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.
Yes, I have watched Fox news.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...
Use of language, what was and what wasnt reported. Whether or not I shared their views wouldnt really be relevent if their views didnt supercede their 'reporting'.

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.
I personally think you are not a good judge of news reporting quality.

I personally think you are not a good judge of news reporting quality.

Okay, that bit made me laugh a bit. Thanks, Z.

I am wondering if it is really possible for a News source to be completely unbiased. When I hear people talk about something being "objective" or "unbiased", what they usually mean is that its biases happen to agree with their own.

With regard to News Sources, no matter how much they stick to reporting "facts", there will inevitably have to be some selection of which "facts" are reported and which aren't. And in that selection, bias is likely to creep in.

Not that this excuses those new sources who choose to try to pass off opinions as fact or that deliberately report incorrect or misleading facts ... but it just makes me wonder ...

I am wondering if it is really possible for a News source to be completely unbiased. When I hear people talk about something being "objective" or "unbiased", what they usually mean is that its biases happen to agree with their own.

With regard to News Sources, no matter how much they stick to reporting "facts", there will inevitably have to be some selection of which "facts" are reported and which aren't. And in that selection, bias is likely to creep in.

Not that this excuses those new sources who choose to try to pass off opinions as fact or that deliberately report incorrect or misleading facts ... but it just makes me wonder ...The idea that you can have completely objective journalism is a fallacy. Of course the people reporting on the news are going to have their own biases, as are the people editing the news and the owners of the media outlets. They're human. Objectivity is the golden fleece they're all supposedly striving for.

In Britain, the various news outlets wear their leanings proudly. The problem with Fox News isn't that they have a bias--they clearly do--it's that they pretend they don't and call themselves "fair and balanced" when in reality they're the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

The problem with the rest of the news media in the US--as I've said many times before--is that it's corporate and is concerned with making money first, last, and always, and while that's good for stock prices, that's bad for journalism, because investigative journalism ain't cheap, and it doesn't always pan out with blockbuster stories. And that's how you wind up with shit like the Aruba girl and Jon Benet Ramsey dominating headlines for months at a time.

The only reliable, unbiased news source is the Socialist Workers Press.

If you would of read my thread that you quoted thoroughly you would have seen that I said about FNC isn't "nearly as biased" with that being pointed out I do understand that their is a bit of biasedness coming from Fox but I personally don't feel that it is as strongly as you and some in this world claim them to be.

In America, FNC is the most trusted news media coming out of America. With that being said, that doesn't really mean to much.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/Welcome.asp

I did read it and that's why I added the caveat of "even relatively."

What I asked is HOW do you make the determination of how biased a source is. What do you base your belief in FOX's relative fairness on?

You say that you don't feel it's as biased as I do. The point is I don't simply feel it. I gave you evidence of its bias. It is more than just biased, which all news outlets are. It is actually fraudulent. It lies in consistent support of a Republican agenda. They never interpret information in favor of Democrats.

e.g. I watched their coverage of the 10 commandments in court story. Their "balance" consisted of a balance between secular far-right pundit Anne Coulter and a religous far-right minister. Other news outlets, also right-wing biased, had several stripes of right-winger saying the commandments should stay and each had one fairly unknown secular left-winger getting tag-teamed.

Also. They're not the most trusted. They're the highest rated 24-hour news network. That's not the same thing. People who get their news from Jon Stewart are more well informed.

The only reliable, unbiased news source is the Socialist Workers Press.

Sure you don't mean Socialist Worker's Daily (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)? ;)

Sure you don't mean Socialist Worker's Daily (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)? ;)

Nono, Socialist Workers Press. I have it right in front of me. It's truely unbiased. Nope, no bias here. Just high quality newz.

Ill admit, Fox is a tennsy too the right. But this is balanced out too CNN and MSNBC being slightly left wing. All is right with the world.

The same question I put to King Bodacious.

On what are you basing your appraisal of their bias? Where they fall relative to your views?

It is not slightly biased to lie to support your views as FOX does.

MSNBC canceled their most profitable show (Donahue) because it was critical of the upcoming Iraq war effort. It sacrificed money to support the Republican agenda. And that's the most left wing of the 24 hour news networks. They are all right-wing networks. It's just that CNN and MSNBC are biased in the way of deluded simpeltons whereas FOX is biased in the way of PT Barnum ("no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.")

People who get their news from Jon Stewart are more well informed.
Which has been statistically proven, I do believe...

Anyways, yeah, the Daily Show rocks. They report on the things the other networks won't touch.

It seems many here think news is accurate if they agree with the way it is presented. Maybe y'all think CNN and the networks are so great because you have personal biases that are represented by the personnel at those channels.

If you like Fox, watch it. If you don't like Fox, don't watch it. They don't make up news, but they do report it differently (some might say more accurately) than the others.

I like it. Espeically Special Report with Brit Hume and Hannity and Colmes. Bill O'Reilly is a windbag. Greta VanSustern is not very interesting. I don't watch Shepherd Smith. If you're one of those anti-Fox types that never watches, that all probably means nothing.

It seems many here think news is accurate if they agree with the way it is presented. Maybe y'all think CNN and the networks are so great because you have personal biases that are represented by the personnel at those channels.
You ever heard the one about what happens when you assume? Well, the only one you made an ass out of is yourself, so I guess it doesn't really apply here.

But I'm not surprised. It's often the case that the type of person who sees value in what Fox News presents is the type of person who thinks in simple dichotomies--if not Fox, then it must be CNN and the networks, never stopping to consider that there are many other options out there from which to gather news. The world's got more than two outlooks--you might try some of them out one day. It'll be enlightening.

I understand that a lot of you here in NSG has given FNC the "most biased of them all" title. So I am curious to know if you have actually sat down and watched them on tv or gone online and checked their site out when you gave them that title.

How did you decide that they are biased? Be honest and fair about it. Have you actually took the time to check them out or did you just follow the online trend and other people's opinions on the biasedness? Did you conclude that their biased because their views may be different than yours? etc...

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Let's look at the types of interviews, now shall we.

With Bill Clinton: "Why didn't you do more to capture Osama?"

With Condaleeza Rice: "How does one ask out the Secretary of State?"

Which one is more friendly? Why didn't they ask Rice "Why haven't you done enough catch Osama?"

That should sum it up pretty good.

Let's look at the types of interviews, now shall we.

With Bill Clinton: "Why didn't you do more to capture Osama?"

With Condaleeza Rice: "How does one ask out the Secretary of State?"

Which one is more friendly? Why didn't they ask Rice "Why haven't you done enough catch Osama?"

That should sum it up pretty good.


Well, Condoleezza Rice is much hotter than Clinton. Or his wife, for that matter.

Well, Condoleezza Rice is much hotter than Clinton. Or his wife, for that matter.

I'd rather fuck a snake than any of 'em.

Point is, Fox aint' "fair and balanced," they crucify based on party lines.

There has been several polls conducted that the media in America as a majority leans to the liberal side. Whether thats tv, newspapers, mags, etc...

Polls indicate nothing factual.

There was a study done in which a poll was conducted asking people what they thought of a particular proposition that was up for referendum.

about a third were strongly in favor of it. A third strongly opposed. And a third didn't know.

There was no such proposition.

People think there is a liberal bias because conservatives have been telling that lie for the last 30 years. It just isn't true however many suckers believe it.

I'd rather fuck a snake than any of 'em.

Point is, Fox aint' "fair and balanced," they crucify based on party lines.

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure that's just to make the Republisheep feel better about themselves.

But, in fairness, I personally don't believe that there is any mass media outlet free of bias.

It seems many here think news is accurate if they agree with the way it is presented. Maybe y'all think CNN and the networks are so great because you have personal biases that are represented by the personnel at those channels.

If you like Fox, watch it. If you don't like Fox, don't watch it. They don't make up news, but they do report it differently (some might say more accurately) than the others.

I like it. Espeically Special Report with Brit Hume and Hannity and Colmes. Bill O'Reilly is a windbag. Greta VanSustern is not very interesting. I don't watch Shepherd Smith. If you're one of those anti-Fox types that never watches, that all probably means nothing.

Brit Hume and Hannity are the biggest liars. If you are among those who say that FOX reports the news more accuratly then you are a fool. Each man is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts.

I've already pointed out one of Hume's most egregious lies, the one about FDR wanting a Bush-like privatized social security system.

Hannity is as bad a windbag as O'Reilly.

I've watched them. I'm anti-FOX because of familiarity. By watching them and accepting them as a source of news you are making yourself dumber. It has been statisticly established. People who get their news from FOX news are the most misinformed in the world.

Colmes is a joke. He is there to play the liberal fool to Hannity.

The show should go back to its working title.

Hannity and Unnamed Liberal.

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure that's just to make the Republisheep feel better about themselves.

But, in fairness, I personally don't believe that there is any mass media outlet free of bias.

I don't think there's any human or organization that is free of bias.

But there are certainly degrees of acceptability concerning how slanted someone presents things.

In the case of news organizations, they at least have to try to be convincing, to *pretend* that they're more neutral and aloof than, say, the 6 year old who lives down the street. Otherwise they wind up simply becoming the news, not really reporting it.

Well, Condoleezza Rice is much hotter than Clinton. Or his wife, for that matter.

Condi... hot? In what contrived world do you live in. Actually, as actual physical looks go, I'd say that Clinton has held up nicely over the years. Not terrible looking.

Hillary, on the other hand, looks like she could scare off a troll.

Condi... hot? In what contrived world do you live in. Actually, as actual physical looks go, I'd say that Clinton has held up nicely over the years. Not terrible looking.

Hillary, on the other hand, looks like she could scare off a troll.

I'm sorry, but politics aside, I think Condi is the hottest politician since John Tyler.

I'm sorry, but politics aside, I think Condi is the hottest politician since John Tyler.

Well, politicians, almost as a rule, are unattractive. So, I guess that isn't saying much...

But it's still giving the impression that she is attractive, which is the main problem with me.

Well, politicians, almost as a rule, are unattractive. So, I guess that isn't saying much...

But it's still giving the impression that she is attractive, which is the main problem with me.

I happen to find tall, powerful, smart black women that occasionally dress in all leather quite attractive.

I personally, feel that they are a good and reliable news source.

Their news is good and reliable. It's their everything else that leans decidedly to the right.

I happen to find tall, powerful, smart black women that occasionally dress in all leather quite attractive.

So can I. Condi, on the other hand, is not only physically unattractive, but a terrible personality as well(from what I have seen, anyway). She seems far to arrogant and rather condescending to me. Of course, that's how she rubs me, and those two personality traits are the most unattractive, to me.

Well, if you personally haven't watched them or read their website, I don't feel that you can judge them based solely on what "nasty things that go on" you heard from other people.

and Yes I did make a thread about, something along the lines of "media biased?" What's your point? I feel that the majority of media is biased. I also feel that out of all the media oulets in the world that FNC, in my own opinion is not nearly as biased as the likes of CNN and al-jazeera and Yes even the BBC.

I agree with you that all media outlets are biased though I couldn't say which one is more biased.

The only times I am able to fully discern the amount of bias in the reporting of a news item is in subjects that I have a great deal of knowledge in. So for me that generally means the physical sciences where I am regularly appalled at the quality of jounalism in reporting news in this area.

A comment on the BBC, the TV news is generally quite good, the politcal news reporters generally the worst of the bias. The bbc news website I find has more ingrained bias than the TV news but is still ok if you come to it with a critical mind. The only area of the website that annoys me on a regular basis is the 'Have your say' section where they ask you to comment on current news stories. The questions they ask there nearly always seem worded in such a way that it instantly polarises the debate and destroys any small chance there was of any sensible discussion.

So can I. Condi, on the other hand, is not only physically unattractive, but a terrible personality as well(from what I have seen, anyway). She seems far to arrogant and rather condescending to me. Of course, that's how she rubs me, and those two personality traits are the most unattractive, to me.
When she was the Lead Dean of Rochester Uni in the states, according to a family friend who is the actual current Lead Dean, apparently 100% of the staff disliked her.

He said (and I do paraphrase a little) "I reckon that everyone dislikes their manager a bit, but this was much more than a little bit of dislike, she was pushy, aggressive, a whole load of things."


Oh and yeah... FOX is barely a news channel. And when the talk about Iran and say "When will they get nukes? Who will they use them on first? WHO CAN STOP THEM NOW?" it all gets a bit... well... it's just difficult to watch.

www.euronews.net

Now there's some proper news.

When she was the Lead Dean of Rochester Uni in the states, according to a family friend who is the actual current Lead Dean, apparently 100% of the staff disliked her.

He said (and I do paraphrase a little) "I reckon that everyone dislikes their manager a bit, but this was much more than a little bit of dislike, she was pushy, aggressive, a whole load of things."


Oh and yeah... FOX is barely a news channel. And when the talk about Iran and say "When will they get nukes? Who will they use them on first? WHO CAN STOP THEM NOW?" it all gets a bit... well... it's just difficult to watch.

www.euronews.net

Now there's some proper news.
When I was at Stanford a couple of years ago, and hopes were high that Rice would be out of a job soon, I wondered aloud to a group of colleagues whether she'd try to get her old job as Provost back. The general consensus was "I hope to God not."

Colmes is a joke. He is there to play the liberal fool to Hannity.

Plus he admitted to not even being liberal.

Plus he admitted to not even being liberal.

It just shows how biased FOX is that it's viewers think that an impotent moderate is really a liberal.

It just shows how biased FOX is that it's viewers think that an impotent moderate is really a liberal.

True.

Is Fox "Fair and Blanaced?" Well I generally consider myself somewhat conserative and I can barely stand the conserative point scoring that the so called "fair and balanced" Fox news channel provides. On the other hand, as far as cable news goes I can stand Fox slightly longer than I can the liberal cable news talking heads.

If you want fair and balanced, I much prefer the slightly liberal leaning NPR. I prefer it so much that I contribute regularly to my local public radio station. (The proper way to do it, not with commericals, or with a tax, but where the listeners actually contribute to have those programs go out on the air ... even to those who don't contribute their fair share.) I even prefer the definitely liberal PRI (like Marketplace) to Fox.

I mean suppose you were to have the worst oil disasters in the world, one that makes the Exxon Valdeese #2 in terms of disasters and no one reported it. Well it happened! Right in Lebanon, and the watchers of Fox's fair and balanced news never even got word of it in passing. Fortnuately I heard it on NPR.

How can news be fair and balanced when it's so massively filtered anyway?

Is Fox "Fair and Blanaced?" Well I generally consider myself somewhat conserative and I can barely stand the conserative point scoring that the so called "fair and balanced" Fox news channel provides. On the other hand, as far as cable news goes I can stand Fox slightly longer than I can the liberal cable news talking heads.

Considering how the media doesn't attack Bush on his slanting of facts and outright lies like they should be doing, I don't see how there really is any liberal media. Mainstream media is really just lazy, picking up what the talk shows and bloggers have to say (often conservative ones) and just using those instead of finding anything out for themselves.

Is Fox "Fair and Blanaced?" Well I generally consider myself somewhat conserative and I can barely stand the conserative point scoring that the so called "fair and balanced" Fox news channel provides. On the other hand, as far as cable news goes I can stand Fox slightly longer than I can the liberal cable news talking heads.


Again. I must ask. On what basis do you make that determination?

Also I must ask, what liberal talking heads? There aren't any liberal news networks. The radio has Air America, but all TV has is a few isolated Democracy NOW airings.

Just look at how the networks and the 24 hour channels, all of them, treated Clinton's aggresive handling of his FOX interview. He did not loose control, he told the interviewer off for being bad at his job (or good at his veiled job of propagandist.) Yet from the way it was treated on all the networks you'd think that Clinton contracted rabies and it just kicked in during the interview.

I actually did not notice all that much bias on Fox at all... until one day, Fox aired a segment on Mel Gibson's criticisms of Bush and the Iraq war. This was IMMEDIATELY followed by a recap on one of his anti-semetic quotes from that drunken tirade he made a couple months ago. That is argumentum ad hominem, if anything is.

Again. I must ask. On what basis do you make that determination?

Also I must ask, what liberal talking heads? There aren't any liberal news networks. The radio has Air America, but all TV has is a few isolated Democracy NOW airings.

Just look at how the networks and the 24 hour channels, all of them, treated Clinton's aggresive handling of his FOX interview. He did not loose control, he told the interviewer off for being bad at his job (or good at his veiled job of propagandist.) Yet from the way it was treated on all the networks you'd think that Clinton contracted rabies and it just kicked in during the interview.

Yup. Just ignore the very good points he made, just go after him for getting aggressive with an annoying "journalist". The question "Why didn't you do more to capture Osama bin Laden?" was such an outrageous thing to ask anyway. What reaction should he have given? It was obviously a move for the conservatives to score points by blaming Clinton, always a fun game for Republicans.

Yup. Just ignore the very good points he made, just go after him for getting aggressive with an annoying "journalist". The question "Why didn't you do more to capture Osama bin Laden?" was such an outrageous thing to ask anyway. What reaction should he have given? It was obviously a move for the conservatives to score points by blaming Clinton, always a fun game for Republicans.

Yep. Our country is slowly sliding into oblivion, but the neo-cons have to have their liberal witch hunt.

I must admit that I do not watch Fox News, and thus base my opinion of it largely on secondary sources. Partly this is because I simply watch very little television from any source. Aside from that, Fox has an established bias in favor of fiction over fact, even in non-political matters.

Fox and the Moon Landing 'Hoax' (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm) (Source: NASA)

Fox and the Pyramids (http://www.csicop.org/si/9909/fox.html) (Source: Skeptical Inquirer)

These two examples, which I'm sure are not alone, shaped my opinion of Fox before I ever looked at its political bias (which, by most reports, is fairly definite).

Yup. Just ignore the very good points he made, just go after him for getting aggressive with an annoying "journalist". The question "Why didn't you do more to capture Osama bin Laden?" was such an outrageous thing to ask anyway. What reaction should he have given? It was obviously a move for the conservatives to score points by blaming Clinton, always a fun game for Republicans.

That's where Stewart really makes his money--when he points out the stupidity of the way the media covers stories.

That's where Stewart really makes his money--when he points out the stupidity of the way the media covers stories.

He has said as much repeatedly, especially when he goes on the more "serious" shows and wonders why they don't ask any hard questions, actually tell acurate stories, why they won't stop being lazy....

I wouldn't be surprised if they just use white house press releases and figured, it must be true! :rolleyes:

He has said as much repeatedly, especially when he goes on the more "serious" shows and wonders why they don't ask any hard questions, actually tell acurate stories, why they won't stop being lazy....

I wouldn't be surprised if they just use white house press releases and figured, it must be true! :rolleyes:

And it's hilarious when they accuse him of not asking serious questions.

Remember the lead up to the 2004 election when he went on (I think) Crossfire?

They accused him of being "Kerry's Buttboy." His response: "My lead-in is a show with muppets making crank phone-calls. You're CN frickin' N!!!

It was the one time I regret not watching more of the 24-Hour cable Olds.