News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[Nicodemus]

This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".

If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.

BTW - did I use the word "friends"?

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?

 

[drankin]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

 

[Nicodemus]

This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

 

[WhoWee]

You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).

How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?

Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.

BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?

Please demonstrate your findings of "the vast preponderance of evidence" - that is a very definitive statement - that clearly needs supported.

As for "transformational" - I posted that Chris Matthews called President Obama "transitional" - no idea whatsoever as to what you are referring to - care to elaborate?

 

[drankin]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

You won't hear me arguing with that: I don't drink soda, but it makes a dandy cleaner when you let it react with baking soda. I think some fat coke-head marketed it as, "OxyClean", and left out the soda.

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

 

[Nicodemus]

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

I need to know: do you keep missing the point I'm making on purpose, or do you just do this as online for fun? If I wanted to play, 'top the other guy's metaphor', I'd trot on down to BC and talk to a Jesuit.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

 

[Nicodemus]

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

Yeah, but I was just making a joke about Mubarak exuding strength, the rest I could care less about. Really, Fox News is clearly biased, so is MSNBC, and CNN seems to leave bias up to each anchor. I wouldn't recommend ANY of them as a means to get news, only coverage of breaking events where assets ont he ground matter more than anything else.

This is also the link to nations having interests and not friends: it doesn't matter if Mubarak is truly a great man, it only matters how he serves American interests. No need to be sorry, this seems like a genuine misunderstanding, and really it seemed like it from the beginning.

 

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

What? "Tastes great; less filling" isn't a suitable standard for TV hoopla?

 

[WhoWee]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX?

 

[drankin]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX?

Is their an article online?

 

[WhoWee]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

 

[Ryumast3r]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

Which makes it even more hilarious when Fox news says anything about "Mainstream media ____" since... in america... they are obviously a good chunk of the mainstream media.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most

This will be reported as "almost three-quarters of Americans don't trust Fox."

 

[Char. Limit]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

 

[Ryumast3r]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

I'd say trust a news source as far as the news goes, not the commentary. When they say "something happened in Libya" I'd say it's reasonable to believe "Something happened in Libya" - it's when they start saying "This is why, this is what it will cause, this is what will happen, etc" that you need to throw anything they say out the window.

Of course, even what stories they choose to run is a bias as well, so it's best to look at several sources (not just news corporations, but people, trusted friends, whatever) and get as good of an idea of what's going on around you as possible.

Of course, me saying this is my biased opinion.

 

[CAC1001]

Fox News serves as a good conservative counter to the rest of the media IMO. I think they did a very excellent job with the Republican debate that took place in South Carolina, as they asked the candidates some tough questions. They didn't toss them softballs at all. For example, they asked Rick Santorum about his comment that women belong in the kitchen (or something like that).

 

[xxChrisxx]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

 

[amwest]

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

to your first point, it's sad but before public education most people we taught by the classical education system (grammer, logic, rhetoric) now we use the prussian system, which is argued to be more for indocternation than logical thinking.
2nd statement of yours, you have one its CSPAN! you get to judge for yourself what the politicians mean! (although they've started doing more cominatry)
3rd statement, but how else would we have known that the world was going to end on may 21?

 

[Al68]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

Of course every news source is biased, as every person is biased. But biased is not the same as untrustworthy.

The other major news networks have proven themselves untrustworthy not just because they were biased, but because their bias resulted in fraudulent misrepresentations of politicians and political issues, presented as honest (and unbiased) journalism. Their deception is what made them untrustworthy.

 

[hootsh]

I think the safest news stations are the ones that are suspected the most of being biased, like Iranian news stations for example, people are accusing Iran of defending Syria; the station (when covering Syrian revolution) always offer BOTH sides of the story, instead of other stations where they offer only the protesters side, in a situation like this it is clear that the protesters are right of course, but I'm talking about things in general.
When it comes to covering protests in Iran, you could just switch to another news station...etc.

I say the more a station is notorious for being biased towards a subject, the better that station will be, because they'll strive to prove otherwise, also the viewers will be aware that not everything said is 100% neutral.

 

[hillzagold]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

But there are degrees of bias. Fox News is about 50 degrees too biased for a decent person's taste.

If I follow the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Wired magazine, or Fisherman's Quarterly, I can expect some exaggeration. With Fox, I can expect them to start slinging insults left and right.

 

[russ_watters]

You consider MSNBC and Wired to be less biased than Fox? Really?

MSNBC in particular seems to have made a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox. They regularly attack Fox directly.

 

[hillzagold]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see your point, but maybe it is because you didn't see mine: I'm saying that MSNBC seems to make a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox and one manifestation of that is that they directly attack Fox (a lot).

In any case, you didn't answer the question, but I guess that's a "yes". Ok...

 

[hillzagold]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?

 

[russ_watters]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?

It is very difficult for a media outlet to show bias when reporting on non-political issues (though it does crop up in unexpected stories sometimes)! I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

[WhoWee]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

Care to support with a link?