Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Is Fox News Fair and balanced?

  1. Mar 25, 2009 #1
    I report.

    http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg [Broken]

    You decide.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 25, 2009 #2
    Oh good, you were being facetious. I was about to come in all offensive-like, claiming that only an idiot wouldn't know they aren't.

    The only thing that would make this thread better if you broadened it to include all news, except maybe Charlie Rose and a view other shows on PBS.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
  4. Mar 25, 2009 #3
    There is no such thing as a news agency that is fair and balanced. Every one of them have a bias that is either personal to the agency or directed to a particular audience. It's about the demographics if they are competitive at all.
  5. Mar 25, 2009 #4


    And, some news:
    Obama Fails to Make the Sale
    Obama’s Budget: It’s Absolutely Insane!
    MICHAEL GOODWIN: President Obama Failed to Sell His Budget Plan to the American People
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  6. Mar 25, 2009 #5
    AHAHAHHAHHAH, say the name of this thread again?


    Hey Ivan, did you read the title of this tread? HAHAHHAha....woooooooooooo
  7. Mar 25, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That picture there apparently predates the arrival of the savant Glen Beck. Sad to say they have lurched even more to the bizarre and with Hannity's empty pretense of a liberal sidekick Coombs vanished ... oy. Who knew they could top themselves.

    Top to bottom I think they are all creations of Roger Ailes.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Mar 25, 2009 #7
    The straight news from Fox doesn't seem very slanted. The news radio station I listen to is a Fox affiliateand they just report the news. Its when you get the tv personalities involved that you see the bias from what I can tell. Its something permeating tv news all over. Either you hear little about actual news while they discuss things like American Idol and Paris Hilton or they discuss the news with a definite political lean to play to their demographic.
  9. Mar 26, 2009 #8
    I have never actually seen any straight news from FOX.

    Does it really exist?

    Could you perhaps provide an example?
  10. Mar 26, 2009 #9
    Fox News is more balanced than the other news stations such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc...that can easily be shown by the last election even, as it was the only station that bothered to actually investigate Obama.

    It is also the only station that has not been caught in some type of major lie or scandal, for example CBS's Dan Rather lying about George W. Bush's National Guard records.

    However, a lot of people confuse what the "news" is. The folks on Fox such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc...are not news shows. The news shows themselves, such as the "Special Report" with Brett Bair, or "America's Newsroom," are pretty balanced.

    MSNBC views Fox as to the Right, so their CEO decided to take that channel in particular to the hard Left.

    The best way, however, to get your news, is to just watch a variety of channels or avoid them altogether and read various websites.

    Agree or disagree with him politically, I think Glenn Beck said it best:

    "The news is like a sausage; you might or might not like the end product, but if you see how its made and what goes into it, you'd probably be repulsed!"
  11. Mar 26, 2009 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Asking if Fox news is fair and unbiased is like asking if a trout is dry. They're considered a major joke everywhere outside of the US.
  12. Mar 26, 2009 #11
    I hear it on the radio. Would you like me to record it and upload it to the internet for you? Most of it is probably canned product from the AP. They get 5-10 minutes at the top and bottom of the hour so they just relay it mostly without any comment. Its the talk show hosts that get a little crazy but even they tend to be on the level with facts and accuracy. Its a Clear Channel station so you may not trust it either.
  13. Mar 26, 2009 #12
    That's because everywhere outside of the U.S. is socialist and accepts big government and all that as an automatic good. They don't like it when a news organization has people who question such beliefs.

    This is like saying the United States's belief in individualism, entrepreneurialism, etc...is a joke everywhere outside of the U.S.
  14. Mar 26, 2009 #13
    You've got to be kidding me. No, I think they find it to be a trashy news station because it blindly supported the Bush administration and never bothered to investigate it. Funny, how we forget so quickly these small but important details...........

    These 'fair and balanced' guys are the same one's marching in step with Bush for the last 8 years, now they want to have a tantrum because Obama got elected. I will NEVER FORGET the day obama won and they had to announce it on fox. They all had a look on their face like their dog was just shot infront of them. IT WAS PRICELESS! I loved the look of misery on their faces. Serves those scumb bags right!

    They were like: "well................folks?...........I guess?............obama won...........??........??" AHAHAHA. No bias there.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
  15. Mar 26, 2009 #14


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Is that intended as parody? Or do you seriously believe that?

    And just what is it that they "uncovered" about Obama? That he was bright, personable, hard working, and has the best interests of the Republic and all its citizens at heart? The best they could do was pick on his use of the teleprompter? Or whip up a tempest that his public fist bump with his wife was a terrorist high sign? Or flog the fact that he served on an Annenburg Foundation Board promoting inner city education with a Viet Nam anti-war activist? They uncovered nothing, so much as expose how little they actually could turn up about Obama.

    Meanwhile they spent the election cycle trying to lionize this Sarah Palin? Herself in bed (literally it seems) with Alaskan Separatists? Yet no matter how much lipstick they put on her, she still came out looking unqualified and ill suited to lead the country.

    As to Glen Beck ... he looks to me to be just a Quaalude short of institutionalization. I think his bizzaro dramatics from his Bunker of Doom was pure Theater of the absurd masquerading as pseudo-serious news analysis. The best face I can put on it was that his bunker was irresponsible fear mongering. It left no question in my mind that how that sausage was put together would have indeed been repulsive to anyone that values reasoned factual analysis.
  16. Mar 26, 2009 #15
    Journalism professional and ethical standards:
    - Find and report every side of a story possible
    - Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;

    You might consider about finding a better new source.
  17. Mar 26, 2009 #16


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I think it's important here to distinguish between the Fox Cable News channel and the local affiliates. These are different operations with differing levels of autonomy appealing to different demographic markets. The Cable News operation appears to clearly be targeted to the Bible Belt areas that McCain managed to carry in the last election. That shrinking island of red in the middle of the country. For the most part my local Fox Channel doesn't carry the Roger Ailes nonsense that gets nurtured on the Cable News Channel, though they do take feeds of video and some of the Fox reporters on occasion that is actually news like clips from Fox interviews.
  18. Mar 26, 2009 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The local FOX affiliate was quite biased during the presidential campaign. As soon as Palin joined the McCain campaign, the anchorwoman started sporting a Palin up-do, which she dropped right after the election. When the other local news-casts gave about equal coverage to the Democrats and Republicans, the FOX affiliate was all over the GOP. Todd Palin visited Maine briefly, and they covered his visit like he was the Pope, before, during, and after. They flogged that horse. Maine is not winner-take-all in electoral votes, but apportioned, and the McCain strategy involved trying to pry away the more conservative 2nd district, thus the Palin visit. FOX gave them all the coverage they might have wanted.
  19. Mar 26, 2009 #18
    The point is not what was uncovered, but rather that they did the investigation.

    Oh they did NOT.

    Go back to your liberal blogs, where they tell you how bad FN is ... or better yet, that one website where they proudly proclaim (and their readers proudly swallow) that they filter the content.
  20. Mar 26, 2009 #19


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Of course they tried to lionize her. You had Greta Van Susteren positively fawning over Todd and his man toys. You had Craig Cameron tossing Palin softball after softball trying to minimize her disastrous interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, Trying to resurrect her ignorance over Supreme Court decisions, over Putin rearing his head, over what she apparently doesn't read ... etc. There was a heavy campaign to lipstick over her faux pas for the entire cycle. And Fox was the moving force.

    Now it turns out that Greta's hubby is involved with Sarah Pac, trying to set up funding and an organization for 2012. That hardly represents lack of bias, and certainly goes a long way to explaining her lame interviews with Palin after the election. (Politics makes strange bedfellows, with Greta and hubby John Coale being Scientologists to Palin's Christian Fundamentalism.)
  21. Mar 26, 2009 #20
    Oh please. You're sporting subjective opinions, (most likely prepicked), as facts, to create ammunition for your channel wars.

    What hour are you going to be watching fox news tonight? Let me know so I can take some notes.

    What time are we going to watch CNN?

    1) You need to establish a chronology to even begin to support this accusation.

    2) Why would you consider the interviews to be lame? The presidential race was over. The interviews were meant as an additional glimpse at a person who some sources thought was a possible future candidate. Do you think a grilling session would have been appropriate?
  22. Mar 26, 2009 #21


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm not fighting any channel wars here. I'm merely observing what I see Fox has been engaging in as regards to the last election cycle. They are clearly a biased network. Roger Ailes is a long time conservative hack that has devoted his efforts to promulgating conservative ideology for over a decade now. This is no secret.

    Hence it is no surprise that he would do what he can to give conservative candidates the best possible grooming for public media.

    The thought that Fox represents balanced broadcasting when they have indulged in such heavy partisan rhetoric the past election cycle, and continue to as well, is simply unsupportable.
  23. Mar 26, 2009 #22

    None of this is meant to be personal. So please stop the personal attacks on others.

    It is a joke. Like Fox News.
  24. Mar 26, 2009 #23
    The transcript will do.

    They are all clear channel stations aren't they?
  25. Mar 26, 2009 #24
    Fox has both conservative and liberal people on it, which automatically makes it more balanced than the other news stations.

    It has a greater viariety of opinion. The Left like to lob folks like Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity all into one group, but actually Beck is a strict Libertarian, O'Reilly is a traditional independent who rails against big oil companies, believes in global warming, rails against Wall Street "speculators," etc...(but because he has more socially conservative values or also criticizes big government, he is "conservative"), and Sean Hannity is a flat-out, textbook conservative.

    For being a "shrinking island of red," they must be incredibly numerous in that small spot, considering Fox continues to crush the other news stations in the ratings. Fox is one of the highest-rated cable news stations period.

    It wasn't whether they uncovered anything or not, it's that they didn't bother to check and were going to cover anything up that could harm his campaign. And IMO he is nothing but a standard, textbook politician who was power-hungry, and the facts bear that out. He attended a racist church with a Marxist philosophy for twenty years, stayed close to a racist pastor who travelled with one of the most racist people out there, Farrakhan, was involved with a corrupt real-estate businessman, sat on the board with an unrepentant terrorist, spoke in a completely elitist fashion regarding middle Americans, has an outright extremist view on abortion that should offend even strongly pro-choice people (which no one ever questioned him on), is completely anti-2nd Amendment, and an extremely high-degree of arrogance proven by his refusal to actually DEBATE any of the ridiculous policies he was proposing (and now enacting thus far).

    Ronald Reagan had the people's best interests at heart as he didn't shy away from debate. If you asked him a tough question, he was on you like a mongoose on a cobra. Barack Obama, on the other hand, shied away completely and let the media rip away at anyone who dared question him.

    You think a man who was willing to say absolutely whatever was required to get elected has the people's best interests at heart?

    You think a man who refused to debate any of his policy proposals has the people's best interests at heart? Everyone says he's so smart, he should have gone onto some conservative shows and ripped apart the conservative values, and explained why they were wrong. Instead, all he used were talking points with crowds, such as "failed Bush policies," blah blah blah and claimed it was McCain who was four more years of Bush, when it is him who wanted to spend incredible sums of money, which was one of the main criticisms of Bush.

    You think a man who folded up like a cheap suit when he was asked a few real questions, and then refused to debate further, as he did with the Philadelphia debate with Hillary, or that Joe the Plumber character, who asked a very basic question (which Obama folded again on), only to then allow the media to rip the guy up, has the people's best interests at heart?

    You think a man who supports the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act," which will take away a worker's right to a secret ballot vote, has the people's best interests heart?

    You think a man who wants to raise carbon prices high (as he himself said in an interview), which will destroy the very rustbelt region of the country he claims to be for, has the people's best interests at heart? (and yes, I know McCain and Palin supported a carbon cap-and-trade program, but there isn't a video of them speaking about it in terms of driving up prices so high as to skyrocket energy prices).

    And he also played the race card throughout the election.

    Now his administration is trying to micromanage firms with new legislation to grant enormous new powers over the economy.

    He is nothing but snake-oil, and his lipstick-on-a-pig comment regarding Palin solidified that, as he could not have been that stupid. One can only imagine the result if McCain had made a monkey joke, like if he had said off-handedly, "Monkey-see, monkey-do." He is an ideologue.

    And IMO, anyone who voted for him is a complete and utter hypocrite, because no "liberal" would EVER have let a white Republican who had attended a radical church for twenty years and befriended a minister who had travelled with a KKK or Nazi leader, off the hook (and justifably so).

    If you had has said white Republican running, and people were feinting and huge rallies forming, you can bet your butt Chris Matthews and all them would be running split-screen coverage of Hitler and proclaiming it was the 1930s all over again.

    But because Barack Obama was black, and good-looking, and could speak very well, and can flirt and dance with Tyra Banks and Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres and act cool, everyone conveniently ignores all of this and sticks their head up their fourth point-of-contact (and yet these are the same folks who proclaim Bush wanted to remove freedoms or was a fascist-Nazi-Hitler-whateverstupidnametheycalledhim).

    Why people are so blind to see through him is truly beyond me, but they are, for whatever reason.

    "Fox News" did not try to "lionize" Sarah Palin, they just gave her fair treatment, as they did Obama and Hillary and McCain. Certain people on Fox News, such as Sean Hannity did, and even then, Alan Colmes was right there criticizing her up and down, O'Reilly criticized her to an extent as well. The basic news programs on it, did not lionize her. People criticized her and people defended her. As for the Alaskan Separatists, while that is questionable in and of itself, as pointed out, there is plenty to question Obama on as well, and the Alaskan Independence Party doesn't have a history of setting bombs off to try and get their way, like the Weather Underground and William Ayers.

    I am not too concerned about someone involved with a group that would like Alaska to separate and become its own country in a legal manner because they believe strictly in individualism and liberty. Such a person isn't going to crush people's freedoms if put in power.

    And she "looked" just as qualified as Obama, the only difference is the media actually vetted her and asked her real questions, like why did she support the Bridge to Nowhere, why did she spend money for a sports complex as Wasilla mayor, what about foreign policy did she know, etc...to question if Palin alone was qualified to be President or VP was fine. To claim she was not qualified, but somehow Obama was to be President and Biden to be VP, made no sense and was completely unfair.

    But no one asked any of them anything tough. When Biden made his comment about FDR going on TV during the 1929 crash, the media ignored it as best they could. If Palin had said that, she'd have to have been pulled from the ticket.

    The media sent an army up to Alaska to scour the state from top to bottom, and found nothing, yet none of them will even go near Chicago because of all of the flashing red lights on Obama.

    The toughest interview Obama had was on O'Reilly, and he was limited in what he could ask and it was only for thirty minutes.

    Beck isn't "news," his is an opinion show.

    You think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc...do this all far better?
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2009
  26. Mar 26, 2009 #25
    Standard Leftist dogma. You criticize someone and get accused of doing "personal attacks" or being "hateful."

    None of it is personal, you are right, and I do not see any personal attacks from seycyrus. I do not see anyone calling anyone any names.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook