NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading a news bulletin the other day about a comment made by MSNBC correspondents about Fox News and how they are conservatively biased. One of the remarks followed a note Fox News passed out to its employees about how, regardless of the election results, the War on Terrorism still continues, and so on and so forth. MSNBC, a historically liberally-biased news group, turned these notes to suggest that Fox News has a strong conservative bias and should be ignored because of it.

It seems silly to me when one news corporation with an opposite bias calls another news corporation biased as well. So is this just the pot calling the kettle black?

Its all relative
MSNBC--middle of the road--------------------------------------------------fox

OR
MSNBC-------------------------------------------middle of the road --fox

the USian news media is all lies. every channel.

Well, the only issue here is that MSNBC is the only one with the actual bias. Fox just follows in the tradition of actually covering the news while MSNBC is a corrupt organization which only further subverts the media to the liberal agenda.

Their both Bias, but i would say fox is more so. I don't put my trust in any news agency anymore.

Fox? MSNBC? Umbrella Corporation? They're all the same to me.

i agree its all perspective.

its frustrating, though, to have to go to MSNBC for your liberal bias, Fox News for your conservative bias, and somewhere in between the two youll actually get comprehensive news coverage.

I was reading a news bulletin the other day about a comment made by MSNBC correspondents about Fox News and how they are conservatively biased. One of the remarks followed a note Fox News passed out to its employees about how, regardless of the election results, the War on Terrorism still continues, and so on and so forth. MSNBC, a historically liberally-biased news group, turned these notes to suggest that Fox News has a strong conservative bias and should be ignored because of it.

It seems silly to me when one news corporation with an opposite bias calls another news corporation biased as well. So is this just the pot calling the kettle black?Well, you must understand that all US news channels suck. Fox just sucks a bit more. So, it is both hypocritical and valid criticism by MSNBC.

i agree its all perspective.

its frustrating, though, to have to go to MSNBC for your liberal bias, Fox News for your conservative bias, and somewhere in between the two youll actually get comprehensive news coverage.Nah. That's the mistake. Believing that you can balance out a bad news source with an even worse one is what shuts most Americans away from what goes on in the rest of the world.

I don't have cable, but I'd go with MSNBC because NBC has Conan O' Brien. :)

I was reading a news bulletin the other day about a comment made by MSNBC correspondents about Fox News and how they are conservatively biased. One of the remarks followed a note Fox News passed out to its employees about how, regardless of the election results, the War on Terrorism still continues, and so on and so forth. MSNBC, a historically liberally-biased news group, turned these notes to suggest that Fox News has a strong conservative bias and should be ignored because of it.

It seems silly to me when one news corporation with an opposite bias calls another news corporation biased as well. So is this just the pot calling the kettle black?

Huh? The same MSNBC that airs Joe Scarborough? The same one that cancelled Donahue when it was their highest rated show before the Iraq War because they were afraid to have someone who was questioning the war on the air? They're historically liberally biased? On what planet? Bizzarro World?

FOX honestly reports the most important news stories, albeit with colorful and entertaining language (which is construed by some liberals as "bias," although it is factually correct). MSNBC, on the other hand, simply delivers their liberal agenda; they may not have very evident biases, put only pick the stories which suit them. That, in itself, is bias.

FOX honestly reports the most important news stories, albeit with colorful and entertaining language (which is construed by some liberals as "bias," although it is factually correct). MSNBC, on the other hand, simply delivers their liberal agenda; they may not have very evident biases, put only pick the stories which suit them. That, in itself, is bias.

could you kindly tell me what you are smoking.

Huh? The same MSNBC that airs Joe Scarborough? The same one that cancelled Donahue when it was their highest rated show before the Iraq War because they were afraid to have someone who was questioning the war on the air? They're historically liberally biased? On what planet? Bizzarro World?

I was wondering a similar thing. The only overall bias I've seen on MSNBC is a general Americo-centric bias, which is hardly unexpected for an American network.

could you kindly tell me what you are smoking.

I generally stick to opium; it allows me to see the truth without any nasty side-effects.

I was reading a news bulletin the other day about a comment made by MSNBC correspondents about Fox News and how they are conservatively biased. One of the remarks followed a note Fox News passed out to its employees about how, regardless of the election results, the War on Terrorism still continues, and so on and so forth. MSNBC, a historically liberally-biased news group, turned these notes to suggest that Fox News has a strong conservative bias and should be ignored because of it.

It seems silly to me when one news corporation with an opposite bias calls another news corporation biased as well. So is this just the pot calling the kettle black?

I assume by "historically liberal-biased" you mean that conservative revisionist historians are trying to make the network that fired Donahue, their most profitable asset, because he was their most liberal asset sound like it's liberal when it is in fact conservatively biased, but merely still slightly beholden to reality?

MSNBC does not have a liberal bias. They don't even have a reality bias. What they have is a "for the love of God try to maintain some semblence of sanity" bias. Which is what FOX lacks completly.

I was wondering a similar thing. The only overall bias I've seen on MSNBC is a general Americo-centric bias, which is hardly unexpected for an American network.

One could make the argument that since Olbermann got his voice, he's the gold standard of liberalism on a news channel, but even if you use that as a touchstone, he's easily balanced by Scarborough, who's as conservative as they come. And let's not forget Tucker! Carlson either.

And let's not forget Tucker! Carlson either.

What about him? He's about as classically liberal as he come; he's a staunch proponent of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

They both fail, MSnbc less so. Bbc is the only decent news source out there. That and the intrawebs.

What about him? He's about as classically liberal as he come; he's a staunch proponent of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

He's a hack who'll say whatever he thinks will get him ratings.

Coe on--you're usually funnier than this when you're trolling. Where's that famous MeansToAnEnd imagination I've come to enjoy so much? Shouldn't you be saying that his opposition to legalized abortion is a liberal position or something?

FOX honestly reports the most important news stories, albeit with colorful and entertaining language (which is construed by some liberals as "bias," although it is factually correct). MSNBC, on the other hand, simply delivers their liberal agenda; they may not have very evident biases, put only pick the stories which suit them. That, in itself, is bias.

Such as the nonstop reports shortly after that white girl disappeared in Aruba because she was a dumbass. Yeah, that is important news.

No, Fox News is a terrible news source, as is MSNBC. CNN slightly less so. BBC is far better. Dry, non entertaining, but actual news on the world.

Coe on--you're usually funnier than this when you're trolling.

See, that's exactly the problem. Too many liberals viewed me as a troll for my outlandish views, and I want to be taken and debated seriously. Thus, I cut back on my more obscure stances and I refrain from posting my notions which are well outside the mainstream.

Shouldn't you be saying that his opposition to legalized abortion is a liberal position or something?

Well, unless liberals are hypocritical, it is. Liberals are bleeding their hearts dry complaining about all those civilian deaths in Iraq, yet are perfectly fine with the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. They are depriving those who have done nothing wrong of life with a smile, but cry over the deaths of criminals.

See, that's exactly the problem. Too many liberals viewed me as a troll for my outlandish views, and I want to be taken and debated seriously. Thus, I cut back on my more obscure stances and I refrain from posting my notions which are well outside the mainstream.



I think you cut back because you don't want to get banned for trolling.

I think you cut back because you don't want to get banned for trolling.

My two week vacation certainly caused me to tone down my act a bit.