News Does Fox News live up to the slogan Fair and balanced?

[Ivan Seeking]

Not to mention at least one guest who openly joked about Obama being assasinated - hoping so, IIRC.

Let's be clear that FNC is the so-called "Fox News Channel", which includes the likes of Beck, who is something between a clown and a complete nut. "Regularly" certainly applies to him. I know: I get all of the talking points from my foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing friends who can no longer see or think straight. Most of my customers and neighbors are Fox News and/or hate radio addicts. Yes, I said addicts! They are addicted to hating the imaginary liberals and all of their secret plots. Their heads are so full of nonsense that I think it qualifies as brainwashing.

Ailes was exactly what I expected. He is a clown as well.

 

[MotoH]

How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration. They are private companies and can air whatever they want as long as it complies with the FCC. What is seriously the big deal?

 

[Gokul43201]

How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration.

How about you put some teeth into that currently toothless assertion?

So far, you have one example of Fox faking footage for an event to help them support the news they made up. Your turn to match that by providing similar examples of faking the news by CNN and MSNBC. Then the ball's back in the court of those that assert that Fox is, in fact, doing something worse than the others.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this a tennis match? Are you keeping a running tally, Gokul? To me it just looks like a bunch of people throwing darts back and forth without a real thesis to defend.

MotoH did not assert anything about a score and for my part I'll say Fox might be less accurate or more biased than MSNBC, but certainly it can't be proven by throwing mud back and forth in this thread.

Get real. The reality is that we have a lot of people here who like throwing mud at Fox and not a lot that like throwing mud at MSNBC and as a result, we always have a lot more anti-Fox traffic in these threads. Whether MSNBC is better or worse than Fox, it doesn't make it any less acceptable for Fox to employ - as Ivan put it - "nut"s, than for MSNBC to employ nuts. And Keith Oberman is every bit as nutty as O'Reilly or Beck.

 

[russ_watters]

Just for you, though, Gokul, as we all know, mocking Sarah Palin has become a sport and MSNBC has used fake photos of Palin for that purpose: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091113035138.aspx

Does this imply that Fox isn't biased or prove that MSNBC is more biased? Certainly not. I'm not interested in keeping score: let's just not close our eyes and pretend that a Fox doesn't have a counterpart on the left.

And as always, to me the general left bias that permeates the media is mroe troublesome than the open bias of channels like MSNBC and Fox. With them, at least you know where you stand. When watching CNN or CBS, you really need to pay attention to make sure you aren't being duped, as many people were immediatly after the Fort Hood shooting.

 

[russ_watters]

I have Fort Hood on the brain tonight, so I'll elaborate on that:

In the days immediately following the Fort Hood shooting, the media made up and forwarded a truly rediculous theory of the motivation of the shooter while (with Obama's help) actively suppressing discussion of other theories and providing pointed/biased arguments against them. Near as I can tell, the theory (vicarious PTSD) was made up by Newsweek, but it is tough to tell because it quickly became the predominant theory of the motive, reported by the vast majority of the mainstream media. We had discussion of it in here and I just couldn't believe how many people fell for the media's fictional story of the crime hook, line and sinker.

People - even people here who I consider intelligent - see that kind of thing on CNN and just accept it without thought. That is far more dangerous than what Fox and MSNBC are doing. A crowd video from the wrong rally, a fake photo of Palin in a bikini and a guest's stuipd joke about assassinating Obama - how do these things really matter? The joke is completely pointless and the fake photo and wrong crowd video are just fuel for zealots on both sides. Someone who is watching to see what a Fox commentator has to say about a Tea Party rally is already a right (or left) end zealot, so whether the video is misleading really doesn't change anything. Same goes for the Palin photo. But a biased story on CNN can have a huge impact and is a much bigger problem.

And maybe that's the point? For years, the left bias of the media has been a thorn in the side of the left, when pointed out by those on the right. Now the left has something to harp on. It allows people to divert attention from the bigger problem.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is this a tennis match? Are you keeping a running tally, Gokul? To me it just looks like a bunch of people throwing darts back and forth without a real thesis to defend.

Of course there's a thesis to defend. Which news network demonstrates the least respect for common journalistic standards? Is there a measurable difference between the quality of news provided by Fox and most other mainstream networks, or are they all about the same (or, is Fox significantly better than the rest).

MotoH did not assert anything about a score and for my part I'll say Fox might be less accurate or more biased than MSNBC, but certainly it can't be proven by throwing mud back and forth in this thread.

On the other hand, simply dropping assertions out of a hat, without any evidence to back them up, is not only toothless, as I mentioned, but also in direct violation of the Guidelines for this forum (specifically rule #2).

Get real. The reality is that we have a lot of people here who like throwing mud at Fox and not a lot that like throwing mud at MSNBC and as a result, we always have a lot more anti-Fox traffic in these threads. Whether MSNBC is better or worse than Fox, it doesn't make it any less acceptable for Fox to employ - as Ivan put it - "nut"s, than for MSNBC to employ nuts. And Keith Oberman is every bit as nutty as O'Reilly or Beck.

Olbermann is probably every bit as biased as the O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity. Sure! But that alone hardly makes MSNBC as bad as Fox, unless you believe that the quality of a news network can be determined entirely by the bias displayed by its most biased anchor/host. And in your own opinion, this is not true.

My opinion is that Fox is worse than MSNBC, and both are a lot worse than CNN, when it comes to demonstrating objectivity, honesty and journalistic rigor (i.e., verifying stories, checking through multiple independent sources, not participating in the creation of a story, etc.) - and all three are way below PBS/NPR. And that's not even counting outright buffoonery by opinion piece hosts, like yelling at your guests, physically intimidating viewers who call in with their opinions, embellishing your journalistic credentials (claiming to have won awards that you didn't, or claiming to have been in a war zone when you never have, etc.), and simply making up stuff whenever you don't have a real answer to a question.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just for you, though, Gokul, as we all know, mocking Sarah Palin has become a sport and MSNBC has used fake photos of Palin for that purpose: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091113035138.aspx

Does this imply that Fox isn't biased or prove that MSNBC is more biased? Certainly not. I'm not interested in keeping score: let's just not close our eyes and pretend that a Fox doesn't have a counterpart on the left.

I never asserted that MSNBC isn't biased to the left. It's pretty obvious, and extremely annoying. But I was responding to the assertion that Fox, MSNBC and CNN, all display about the same quality of content, presentation and rigor. If you also disagree with this assertion, you agree with me and disagree with MoToH. There is nothing contradictory about a conclusion that MSNBC demonstrates blatant bias towards the left, and still provides better quality of news than Fox.

As for the fake Palin photos on MSNBC, yes that's pretty pathetic, but at least it was in what was admitted at the outset to be a light-hearted segment copying the style of Letterman's "top ten" lists rather than during serious news coverage. It is similar to the Fox piece I cited above in that in both cases, the visuals were known to have been fake, but still used. It is dissimilar in the manner it was used. But even if it were used in a serious piece, that would only be the beginning of a comparison between Fox and MSNBC - with nothing about CNN yet.

The usefulness of a tennis match is that it gives you a statistically significant number of comparison points to derive a reasonable conclusion from. Not even performing any comparison based on actual evidence, is like determining the winner of a Pro-Wrestling fight by the insults they hurl at each other before the bout.

And as always, to me the general left bias that permeates the media is mroe troublesome than the open bias of channels like MSNBC and Fox. With them, at least you know where you stand. When watching CNN or CBS, you really need to pay attention to make sure you aren't being duped, as many people were immediatly after the Fort Hood shooting.

This is a fair argument to make, but a little different from the primary thesis of this thread, though one could presumably relate the perception or influence of certain coverage on the audience with the journalistic quality of the network providing it. But I'm not sure that you are making this argument yet.

 

[drizzle]

Fox occassionally makes mistakes like all the news organizations, but it serves as a nice balance I think.

You'd be close if you replace 'occasionally' with 'regularly', 'makes mistakes' with 'fabricates news', 'like' with 'not quite like' and 'doesn't serve' instead of 'serves'.

You've missed it, unless you want to keep some irony in this post

 

[Dembadon]

How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration. They are private companies and can air whatever they want as long as it complies with the FCC. What is seriously the big deal?

People in this country make voting decisions based on what they see on those news programs. I'd say that's a big deal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't watch MSNBC but apparently most everyone on Wall Street does - according to people from the stock exchange floor who were interviewed on the Frontline documentary about the meltdown [linked in a couple of threads here]. MSNBC was described as being pervasive on Wall Street. So while it may be that MSNBC is hard left, and I don't know that to be true, they are allegedly also respected as THE news channel for matters of money.

I don't know one person who does watch MSNBC for their so-called hard left stance. In fact, the only person that I know who says he watches it regularly is a hard righty that is heavily into investments.

On the other hand, I can often cite the talking points from Rush and Fox that day based on the irrational rants from hard righties.

I would like to know what bias towards Bush was promoted by CNN. The only anchor that I like on CNN is the Wolfman, so maybe I just don't see it, but I definitely don't see Blitzer promoting nonsense like that coming from Fox or Rush. I do note that other anchors on CNN, like Kira Phillips, can't keep their opinions to themself. And I have caught Phillips misreprenting the views of guests in order to get her shots in, which, btw, are usually right-leaning. In fact, she is the only anchor I have ever emailed to complain about biased reporting. One day she completely distorted the opinions of a guest who was still sitting there! My guess would be that she is a Conservative Catholic.

CNN's morning guy is a yutz and Rick Sanchez is an idiot [really, just all fluff]. I give you that.

 

[mheslep]

I don't watch MSNBC but apparently most everyone on Wall Street does ...

Almost - that's CNBC, a sister channel, same parent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Almost - that's CNBC, a sister channel, same parent.

Ah, it is possible that I have confused the two since I don't watch either.

In that case I don't know anyone who claims to watch MSNBC.

 

[MotoH]

Whenever I do watch the news (not during supper time) it is usually that HLN or something of the sort. They have cool graphics and have more to do with pop culture and the like. Attack of the Show is also a pretty awesome news source! hahaha

 

[Gokul43201]

Ah, it is possible that I have confused the two since I don't watch either.

Never watched CNBC! You don't know what you've been missing!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Never watched CNBC! You don't know what you've been missing!

Honestly, until recently [not just now, but recently, say in the last year], I didn't realize that we had CNBC and MSNBC. I thought NBC had one cable news service. I have long been distrustful of cable news of all brands.

 

[celebrei]

Fox news balanced? hmmmm... yes indeed, and O'Reilly truly loves democrats

 

[Cod]

The lack of "fair and balanced" is apparent in all US media outlets. For any non-bias take on politics, news, etc., you have to branch out to a lot of the world news agencies. I will, however, give CNN a little props because of their sister network CNN International. Personally, I tend to drift towards Al-Jazeera and BBC for my news.

 

[Pythagorean]

The lack of "fair and balanced" is apparent in all US media outlets. For any non-bias take on politics, news, etc., you have to branch out to a lot of the world news agencies. I will, however, give CNN a little props because of their sister network CNN International. Personally, I tend to drift towards Al-Jazeera and BBC for my news.

Yeah, all the political news station are bull. BBC and Haper's are the least bias I know of. Never watched Al Jazeera.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I like the BBC and CNN International. PBS is also great for quality news reports and high-quality political documentaries. I also think shows like This Week [ABC] , and Meet the Press [NBC], can be quite informative and are generally reliable. Unfortunately, both have lost their edge lately. With MTP, it was lost with the passing of one of my heroes, Tim Russert. An hour with Tim was worth a week of most anything else. It will take time to fill that void. As for This Week, Stephanopoulos is leaving and has apparently gone soft - he has joined Good Morning America! EGAD! Maybe he is just sick of politics. Right now the show is adrift.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't watch MSNBC but apparently most everyone on Wall Street does - according to people from the stock exchange floor who were interviewed on the Frontline documentary about the meltdown [linked in a couple of threads here]. MSNBC was described as being pervasive on Wall Street. So while it may be that MSNBC is hard left, and I don't know that to be true, they are allegedly also respected as THE news channel for matters of money.

I don't know one person who does watch MSNBC for their so-called hard left stance. In fact, the only person that I know who says he watches it regularly is a hard righty that is heavily into investments.

On the other hand, I can often cite the talking points from Rush and Fox that day based on the irrational rants from hard righties.

I would like to know what bias towards Bush was promoted by CNN. The only anchor that I like on CNN is the Wolfman, so maybe I just don't see it, but I definitely don't see Blitzer promoting nonsense like that coming from Fox or Rush. I do note that other anchors on CNN, like Kira Phillips, can't keep their opinions to themself. And I have caught Phillips misreprenting the views of guests in order to get her shots in, which, btw, are usually right-leaning. In fact, she is the only anchor I have ever emailed to complain about biased reporting. One day she completely distorted the opinions of a guest who was still sitting there! My guess would be that she is a Conservative Catholic.

CNN's morning guy is a yutz and Rick Sanchez is an idiot [really, just all fluff]. I give you that.

Please label this post as your opinion.

 

[celebrei]

The lack of "fair and balanced" is apparent in all US media outlets. For any non-bias take on politics, news, etc., you have to branch out to a lot of the world news agencies. I will, however, give CNN a little props because of their sister network CNN International. Personally, I tend to drift towards Al-Jazeera and BBC for my news.

quite so, go to MSNBC and we hear glorification of the left, go to Fox news and we hear all-praises for the right.

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.outfoxed.org/

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't watch ... and I don't know that to be true...I don't know one person ... In fact, the only person that I know who ... I would like to know... that I like on CNN ... so maybe I just don't see it, but I definitely don't see ... I do note that ... And I have caught ... My guess would be that ...

Please label this post as your opinion.

Aren't all those labels in the post making it sufficiently clear that he is expressing his opinion?

 

[edpell]

The "press" reflects the desires of the owners of the press. No big surprise there.

 

[WhoWee]

Aren't all those labels in the post making it sufficiently clear that he is expressing his opinion?

I should have typed it this way..."Please label THIS post as your opinion." If you want to know why...read all of his posts.

 

[Proton Soup]

i had a sudden realization today. based on Beck's self-reported history, the way he behaves, and the amount of bodyfat he carries, i think he's suffering from alcoholic hypogonadism. before, i thought it was just some kind of crazy, as he seems emotionally unstable, but now I'm thinking it's the estrogen roller-coaster.

Olbermann still eludes me.