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.
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.
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
AHAHAHHAHHAH, say the name of this thread again?
Hey Ivan, did you read the title of this tread? HAHAHHAha....woooooooooooo
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.
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.
I have never actually seen any straight news from FOX.
Does it really exist?
Could you perhaps provide an example?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
Separate names with a comma.