News Why Do Americans Support Right Wing Media Outlets Like Fox News?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vertices
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the appeal of Fox News and right-wing media to American audiences, particularly in contrast to left-leaning outlets. Participants note that many viewers feel frustrated with perceived liberal bias in mainstream media, prompting them to seek alternatives like Fox News for a different perspective. Critics argue that right-wing media often resorts to sensationalism and propaganda, undermining journalistic standards. The conversation also highlights the lack of a strong left-wing equivalent to Fox News, with MSNBC being viewed as less influential. Overall, the dialogue reflects concerns about media bias and the impact of partisan reporting on public perception and democracy.
vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
As a someone looking in on American politics from the outside, I'd like to understand the appeal of Fox News and other right wing media to ordinary Americans.

In the world's most powerful democracy, I find it incredible that you have media outlets that spew the most egregious propaganda masqueraded as journalism. I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist" (although this 'comeback' does seem rather inane to me)

Without wanting to ruffle any feathers, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, but I do find it amazing how so many people swallow so much right wing tripe hook line and sinker.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: What inspired this post was a website and you tube channel I recently discovered, which I urge you to check out:inappropriate source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
vertices said:
As a someone looking in on American politics from the outside, I'd like to understand the appeal of Fox News and other right wing media to ordinary Americans.
It's very simple: most of the media leans to the left and people who lean to the right get fed up with it and look for a respectable news source that leans to the right. Foxnews is the closest thing to it there is.
In the world's most powerful democracy, I find it incredible that you have media outlets that spew the most egregious propaganda masqueraded as journalism. I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist" (although this 'comeback' does seem rather inane to me)
Rush Limbaugh isn't on Fox and it is very important to separate the commentators from the actual news. Have you ever actually spent any time reading the website or listening to the actual news broadcast (not the opinion shows) or does your opinion come from clipped soundbytes culled together by people who don't like FoxNews? Have you listened to similar soundbytes from FoxNews's less successful mirror, MSNBC? What is your opinion of them? Have you read any of the real op-ed pieces on FoxNews?

Fox and the right wing radio get slammed by the left because there is no left-wing equivalent, with the closest being MSNBC, which is only a tiny fraction of the viewership. It's not like they haven't tried though. They just don't have the audience. Fear not, though: the left absolutely dominates the print media as much as the right dominates radio.

Though I don't generally like getting personal, I'll say this about myself: Until the Fort Hood shooting I never looked at FoxNews except when linked by people on this forum attacking something they saw on it. But after the despicable reporting on the incident by the entirety of the left leaning media - even the supposedly moderate outlets such as CNN and USA Today - I went looking for alternatives that lacked their slant. Now I check Foxnews.com almost daily for the perspective from the other side. It's not a great site, but it is necessary to get the full story.

For stories with no political content, all news sources are basically the same (heck, they all share info anyway) except that some have a little more or a little less sensationalism. For stories that do have political content, they are vastly different between right and left leaning news sources in what they tell and how they tell it.

One story that got very little traction that I've been meaning to post a thread about is that the White House tried to bribe a challenging Senate candidate in a primary election with a non-paying job offer in the administration in exchange for him dropping out of the election in order to protect a high profile incumbent. It's an impeachable offense - had you even heard about it? Slick Willy had nothing on Obama and we have a democratic majority, so we hear almost nothing about it from the left-leaning media.
Without wanting to ruffle any feathers, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, but I do find it amazing how so many people swallow so much right wing tripe hook line and sinker.
It's a little surprising to hear that since over on this side of the pond, the media in the UK has a heavy reputation for tabloid journalism, particularly in the print media. I assume you're talking mostly about the BBC, which has the reputation for being the UK's CNN - a high quality but nevertheless somewhat left-leaning news source. The bigger difficulty though comes from lack of choices: since your TV news comes from one source, you don't have anything to measure it against.
 
Last edited:
yeah, mostly what russ said (except for the impeachable offense thing). most of the television media is pretty far to the left. even more centrists news outlets like CNN are still center-left. and what most people complain about when they're criticizing the slant of the news isn't even news, it's "editorial" shows (O'Reilley, Olbermann).

in any case, i don't understand the complaint. unless you've got contrarian voices, you really get no checks and balances.
 
"Right Wing" news media is not all that popular I do not think. It is just more popular than "Left Wing" news media because most "Left Wing" news consumers listen to their news on entertainment shows like Howard Stern, Kevin and Bean, The Daily Show, ect. If more "Left Wing" people were actually interested in listening to/watching the news then there would be much more of it out there and/or the "Right Wing" news sources would try to be more moderate. For example in the area that I live "conservatives" are much more moderate on the whole and the local "conservative" news and talk shows are correspondingly more moderate.
 
It is certainly not necessary to suffer fox in order to get "the entire story".

I feel very sorry for american people who only speak english. Journalism in the US is very poor.
 
vertices said:
I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist"...
Why is it incredible? It's their socialist agenda, not the person, that is "disliked". The word socialist in this context is used to describe the political beliefs, and therefore the reason for the disagreement, with the person. Why would someone with socialist beliefs consider the word socialist a smear, anyway?

I've asked before on this forum for an accurate alternative to the word "socialist" that means a belief that the economy should be managed, controlled, regulated, etc by government. Anybody have one yet?
 
vertices said:
As a someone looking in on American politics from the outside, I'd like to understand the appeal of Fox News and other right wing media to ordinary Americans.

In the world's most powerful democracy, I find it incredible that you have media outlets that spew the most egregious propaganda masqueraded as journalism. I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist" (although this 'comeback' does seem rather inane to me)

Without wanting to ruffle any feathers, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, but I do find it amazing how so many people swallow so much right wing tripe hook line and sinker.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: What inspired this post was a website and you tube channel I recently discovered, which I urge you to check out:inappropriate source

Its much easier to digest spoon fed nonsense, rather than spend the time to learn about the issues. Joe six pack would rather watch Football, than good news sources. The end result is clowns like Bill O'foolery being popular.
 
russ_watters said:
Fox and the right wing radio get slammed by the left because there is no left-wing equivalent, with the closest being MSNBC, which is only a tiny fraction of the viewership. It's not like they haven't tried though. They just don't have the audience. Fear not, though: the left absolutely dominates the print media as much as the right dominates radio.

Though I don't generally like getting personal, I'll say this about myself: Until the Fort Hood shooting I never looked at FoxNews except when linked by people on this forum attacking something they saw on it. But after the despicable reporting on the incident by the entirety of the left leaning media - even the supposedly moderate outlets such as CNN and USA Today - I went looking for alternatives that lacked their slant. Now I check Foxnews.com almost daily for the perspective from the other side. It's not a great site, but it is necessary to get the full story.

CNN is crap - unless you like to watch "Black in America", and techno-wizardry on their big flag screen tvs.

The only new show on FOX that I like is the Sunday News Hour with Brett Hume and company, which airs on CSPAN radio. That is actually quite good. But all the talk show folks are a bunch of horses asses.

Similarly, Keith Doperman is a drama queen. Matthews is o.k., but also a loudmouth bully like O'foolery.

My choices are:
[1] CSPAN RADIO
[2] FOX News hour (on CSPAN Radio, Sundays)
[3] Charlie Rose

Side: Someone previously mentioned the Daily show, that is not a news program - it's an entertainment show.
 
Al68 said:
I've asked before on this forum for an accurate alternative to the word "socialist" that means a belief that the economy should be managed, controlled, regulated, etc by government. Anybody have one yet?
Social-liberal, social-democratic...
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Have you ever actually spent any time reading the website or listening to the actual news broadcast (not the opinion shows) or does your opinion come from clipped soundbytes culled together by people who don't like FoxNews? Have you listened to similar soundbytes from FoxNews's less successful mirror, MSNBC? What is your opinion of them? Have you read any of the real op-ed pieces on FoxNews?

Yes I frequent the fox news website. I've seen more egregious pieces than I care to remember. The combination of sensationalism and spin leads to misrepresentation, which totally undermines democracy imo.

Fox and the right wing radio get slammed by the left because there is no left-wing equivalent ..Fear not, though: the left absolutely dominates the print media as much as the right dominates radio.

Yes, there are no "left-wing equivalents" to Fox News - ie. those that slander and misrepresent. But the left wing media is the US is pretty strong - take Democracy Now for example (I won't link to it but do go look it up). I don't consider NYtimes or the Washington Post to be left wing at all, I would call them mainstream. The centre ground in your political spectrum is set way to the right (which is very surprising for a democracy).

I also sense that most Americans have been conditioned to reflexively be intolerant of left wing views, hence the censoring of the very popular website I linked to (which if you want to look them up on google, has won awards for the Best Political Podcast and Best Political News Site of 2009)

One story that got very little traction that I've been meaning to post a thread about is that the White House tried to bribe a challenging Senate candidate in a primary election with a non-paying job offer in the administration in exchange for him dropping out of the election in order to protect a high profile incumbent. It's an impeachable offense - had you even heard about it? Slick Willy had nothing on Obama and we have a democratic majority, so we hear almost nothing about it from the left-leaning media.

May be because it has no basis in fact? If you heard about this on Fox news (who clearly have an agenda against Obama), I really think it's probably not even credible, and as such, not worthy of investigation.

It's a little surprising to hear that since over on this side of the pond, the media in the UK has a heavy reputation for tabloid journalism, particularly in the print media. I assume you're talking mostly about the BBC, which has the reputation for being the UK's CNN - a high quality but nevertheless somewhat left-leaning news source. The bigger difficulty though comes from lack of choices: since your TV news comes from one source, you don't have anything to measure it against.

Well, I guess its in our culture to be more neutral and objective in our reporting. We have a stiff upper lip which means we don't do touchy feely sensationalism. Ofcourse we let our hair down when it comes to tabloids:)
 
  • #11
Al68 said:
Why is it incredible? It's their socialist agenda, not the person, that is "disliked"

Yes but it is used by O Reilly and his ilk as a slur. Whenever he gets owned by guest, he robotically shouts and screams these words: "but you're just socialist-communist aren't you".
 
  • #12
vertices said:
Yes, there are no "left-wing equivalents" to Fox News - ie. those that slander and misrepresent.
MSNBC. Less successful, but otherwise a near-exact mirror.
I don't consider NYtimes or the Washington Post to be left wing at all, I would call them mainstream. The centre ground in your political spectrum is set way to the right (which is very surprising for a democracy).

I also sense that most Americans have been conditioned to reflexively be intolerant of left wing views...
Perhaps the real problem then is relativity:

-The center of the US is to the right of the center of Eurpe.
-Therefore the right of the US is well to the right of center of Europe...
-...and the left of the US is near the center of Europe, thus you judge it as "mainstream".

This is just your regional bias setting the reference point.
May be because it has no basis in fact? If you heard about this on Fox news (who clearly have an agenda against Obama), I really think it's probably not even credible, and as such, not worthy of investigation.
It does have basis in fact. The Obama administration first flatly denied it, then admitted something happened and promised specifics - and promised it wasn't inethical/illegal - but hasn't provided them. This was about two weeks ago. In other words, he acknowledged it has some basis in fact, but didn't address it and waited for the media to lose interest and let the issue drop. Again, I ask: have you even heard this before?

Yes, of course FoxNews is biased against Obama. And other news sources are biased in favor of Obama. So do you think that a legitimate story that paints him in a bad light will get fairer reporting from an anti-Obama source or a pro-Obama source? Obviously, if the issue is already anti-Obama, there is nothing for Fox to spin. But there is something for the liberal media to spin (or suppress). This is exactly why you need to diversify.

And also - why do you assume I heard it only on Fox? I first heard it locally, since it happened locally. I tracked the story throughout the news, as it went national (it briefly appeared on CNN), then died before Obama (failed to) gives his explanation.
Well, I guess its in our culture to be more neutral and objective in our reporting.
We have a stiff upper lip which means we don't do touchy feely sensationalism. Ofcourse we let our hair down when it comes to tabloids:)
So...you like sensationalism but you like objective reporting? You don't see an inherrent contradiction there?

Again, the issue here is that you've defined yourself and your country/media to be at the absolute center of the political spectrum. The problem is that no such absolute center exists. So while you see America as being to the right, we see the UK as being to the left and both are true, but in the relative sense. Understanding this is critical for proper judging and work-around of people's own bias.

Know thyself.

That said:
I also sense that most Americans have been conditioned to reflexively be intolerant of left wing views, hence the censoring of the very popular website I linked to...
I didn't delete the link, but your characterization confuses me - when you say it is "left wing", does that mean you understand it is biased but you acknowledge a liking of biased news/political commentary? Aren't you arguing against your own point here?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Perhaps the real problem then is relativity...This is just your regional bias setting the reference point.

But by democratic standards the US is absolutely (as opposed to relatively) right wing - this is really the point I was making. I mean, it is an aberration when it's somehow mainstream for ordinary people to vote for policies that are clearly against their economic interests, which is exactly how it is the US.

It does have basis in fact. The Obama administration first flatly denied it, then admitted something happened and promised specifics - and promised it wasn't inethical/illegal - but hasn't provided them. This was about two weeks ago. In other words, he acknowledged it has some basis in fact, but didn't address it and waited for the media to lose interest and let the issue drop. Again, I ask: have you even heard this before?

Yes, of course FoxNews is biased against Obama. And other news sources are biased in favor of Obama. So do you think that a legitimate story that paints him in a bad light will get fairer reporting from an anti-Obama source or a pro-Obama source? Obviously, if the issue is already anti-Obama, there is nothing for Fox to spin. But there is something for the liberal media to spin (or suppress). This is exactly why you need to diversify.

Fox News has form when it comes to putting out, quite frankly, lies about Obama. You judge people by what they've done. The NYtimes or WP do get things wrong sometimes, but they never do anything to compromise their integrity, so the argument that you need to turn to Fox News to redress any potential bias does not hold water.

So...you like sensationalism but you like objective reporting? You don't see an inherrent contradiction there?

I wasn't aware I said I liked sensationalism? I do like objective reporting though.

That said: I didn't delete the link, but your characterization confuses me - when you say it is "left wing", does that mean you understand it is biased but you acknowledge a liking of biased news/political commentary? Aren't you arguing against your own point here?

Yes ofcourse the "left wing" media has a bias. But as I said before, as far as I am aware no left wing media outlet, blatantly misrepresents and lies.
 
  • #14
vertices said:
Yes ofcourse the "left wing" media has a bias. But as I said before, as far as I am aware no left wing media outlet, blatantly misrepresents and lies.

What a laughable idea!

Most recent example:

The complete set of BS produced around the Mavi Marmara, and the (a) hapless, sleeping peace activists, (b) who only wanted to freight life essentials to the (c) starving population at Gaza, and that (d) unprovokedly and (e) unnecessarily were butchered by IDF

(a)-(e) were outright lies.
 
  • #15
arildno said:
What a laughable idea!

Most recent example:

The complete set of BS produced around the Mavi Marmara, and the (a) hapless, sleeping peace activists, (b) who only wanted to freight life essentials to the (c) starving population at Gaza, and that (d) unprovokedly and (e) unnecessarily were butchered by IDF

(a)-(e) were outright lies.

would you care to provide a link to this article?
 
  • #16
vertices said:
would you care to provide a link to this article?

Pick up your favourite leftie paper on the day of the attack.

Odds are (a)-(e) are included in whatever article you'll read there.
 
  • #17
arildno said:
Pick up your favourite leftie paper on the day of the attack.

Odds are (a)-(e) are included in whatever article you'll read there.

hey you made the claim, I'm asking you to back it up.
 
  • #18
vertices said:
hey you made the claim, I'm asking you to back it up.

No, YOU made the claim, namely that leftist newspapers don't lie.

Go back to the first reports and see how utterly divorced they are from the reality provided by hard photos, videos, stats that gradually have proven Israel's version to be the correct one.

YOU are the one who needs a reality check, not at least by making your own effort in disillusioning yourself.

That is why I won't be doing that job for you.
 
  • #19
arildno said:
No, YOU made the claim, namely that leftist newspapers don't lie.

Go back to the first reports and see how utterly divorced they are from the reality provided by hard photos, videos, stats that gradually have proven Israel's version to be the correct one.

YOU are the one who needs a reality check, not at least by making your own effort in disillusioning yourself.

That is why I won't be doing that job for you.

This isn't a thread about Mavi Marmara - but yes, I did follow this flotilla story on BBC news (left wing enough for you?). They did not lie about anything.
 
  • #20
vertices said:
This isn't a thread about Mavi Marmara - but yes, I did follow this flotilla story on BBC news (left wing enough for you?). They did not lie about anything.

Hmm..let's see, the following from Jun 1:
Inquiry urged into Israel's convoy raid"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10200000/newsid_10202700/10202756.stm

Submitted untruths/misrepresentations in that article:

1. It wasn't a "raid", but a well publicized operation to uphold a blockade.

2. "Commandos stormed the ship". No, first, a low-key lowering of 4 IDF with paintball guns happened. These were immediately seized and pummeled, as numerous photos show.

3. "At least 10 people killed." Wrong. Already the same day, the correct number was furnished, leftie media tried as long as they could to have the death toll at 19 or so

4. "campaigners say Israeli forces opened fire without warning." A complete untruth spread, without comment.

5. "The flotilla was carrying 10,000 tonnes of aid". Hmm..no. The Mavi Marmara had absolutely nothing on board.

6. "The newly created State of Israel soon found itself in a war with neighbouring Arab countries"
Nice way to obscure who made the attack

7. "Since 2007, political control has been in the hands of Hamas - a militant Islamic group"
What's wrong with "terrorist group that has sworn in its charter to eliminate Israel?" Along with the severe repression internally in Gaza committed by..Hamas?

8. "Regular rocket attacks on Israel from within the Gaza Strip have been blamed on Hamas"
Insinuating someone else stood behind the rocket attacks. The Chines perhaps, or IDF?

9. "A limited amount of humanitarian aid is allowed into the region". "Provably sufficient" is less misleading

10. "Critics of the blockade say it has a particularly damaging affect on the refugee population, limiting food and medical supplies."
Complete lie. What has shortage of concrete&coriander to do with anything??

11. " The blockade has led to a growth in smuggling through tunnels under the Egypt/Gaza border"
Here, Israel is FAULTED for smuggling operations!

12. "While Palestinians say this is necessary to get vital supplies into the area, Israel claims is used to supply Hamas with arms"
It is the 100 truckloads of food passing through Israel every day that carries the life essentials, not tiny tunnels.

This is such a completely moronic mirepresentation of the required logistics one may wonder what the journalist got in maths.



An extremely shoddy piece of journalism, from the hallowed BBC


As for my selection criterion, I just typed in "Mavi Marmara" in the search field, went to the last page, and picked an article at random.

The other articles are probably equally shoddy.



Note that the correct narrative was ALREADY in place, and therefore, it is the totally unfounded distrust&suspicion harboured by the left-wing media that allowed the true picture become smeared by leftie&islamist lie campaigns.

Fortunately, in this case, the independent evidence was so overwhelming, and quick in coming, that the orchestrated smear campaign against Israel has been halted.

Until next time.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
arildno, this is wildly off-topic. I could go through each of the points one by one (which are all trivial, dishonest and false) but I don't want to derail this thread.

But please for the life of me tell me how the author of the report is lying or even spinning? Hint: Consider this sentence: "X says/claims/reports Y ..." Pay special attention to the verbs. The article presents Israel's claims as well as those of the peace activists - isn't this what good quality journalism should be about? Can you honestly tell me that Fox News' reports on the issue presented the views of both sides?

Finally just for the record, you linked to the Radio 1 website. Radio 1 plays cool music that people in their early twenties and below listen to. Not that I am dissing this audience (I belong to it myself) but if you want to slate the news articles on BBC - I suggest you go to the News Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
 
  • #22
"The article presents Israel's claims as well as those of the peace activists, isn't this what good quality journalism should be about?"

No, it is like if a science journalist gives equal space to flat-earthers.

The journalist acted like a brainless hen, without any capacity of critical evaluation.

Due to his/her deep-held biases against..Israel, and an utter lack of proficiency in regard to maths (the logistics example).
 
Last edited:
  • #23
arildno said:
Due to his/her deep-held biases against..Israel, and an utter lack of proficiency in regard to maths (the logistics example).

"Deep-held biases against Israel"... You know this how? Just because he/she may be a lousy reporter, does not support your accusation.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Cyrus said:
"Deep-held biases against Israel"... You know this how? Just because he/she may be a lousy reporter, does not support your accusation.
Point taken.

It was a hypothesis as to her possible motivation. It might not be true, but in Bayesian ways, given the general tendency of the Pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli views in MSM, it is more probable that this journalist shares those views, too, rather than the other way around.
 
  • #25
As for her horrendous maths skills, I stand by that accusation.
 
  • #26
arildno said:
Hmm..let's see, the following from Jun 1:
Inquiry urged into Israel's convoy raid"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10200000/newsid_10202700/10202756.stm

Submitted untruths/misrepresentations in that article:

1. It wasn't a "raid", but a well publicized operation to uphold a blockade.

2. "Commandos stormed the ship". No, first, a low-key lowering of 4 IDF with paintball guns happened. These were immediately seized and pummeled, as numerous photos show.

3. "At least 10 people killed." Wrong. Already the same day, the correct number was furnished, leftie media tried as long as they could to have the death toll at 19 or so

4. "campaigners say Israeli forces opened fire without warning." A complete untruth spread, without comment.

5. "The flotilla was carrying 10,000 tonnes of aid". Hmm..no. The Mavi Marmara had absolutely nothing on board.

6. "The newly created State of Israel soon found itself in a war with neighbouring Arab countries"
Nice way to obscure who made the attack

7. "Since 2007, political control has been in the hands of Hamas - a militant Islamic group"
What's wrong with "terrorist group that has sworn in its charter to eliminate Israel?" Along with the severe repression internally in Gaza committed by..Hamas?

8. "Regular rocket attacks on Israel from within the Gaza Strip have been blamed on Hamas"
Insinuating someone else stood behind the rocket attacks. The Chines perhaps, or IDF?

9. "A limited amount of humanitarian aid is allowed into the region". "Provably sufficient" is less misleading

10. "Critics of the blockade say it has a particularly damaging affect on the refugee population, limiting food and medical supplies."
Complete lie. What has shortage of concrete&coriander to do with anything??

11. " The blockade has led to a growth in smuggling through tunnels under the Egypt/Gaza border"
Here, Israel is FAULTED for smuggling operations!

12. "While Palestinians say this is necessary to get vital supplies into the area, Israel claims is used to supply Hamas with arms"
It is the 100 truckloads of food passing through Israel every day that carries the life essentials, not tiny tunnels.

This is such a completely moronic mirepresentation of the required logistics one may wonder what the journalist got in maths.



An extremely shoddy piece of journalism, from the hallowed BBC


As for my selection criterion, I just typed in "Mavi Marmara" in the search field, went to the last page, and picked an article at random.

The other articles are probably equally shoddy.



Note that the correct narrative was ALREADY in place, and therefore, it is the totally unfounded distrust&suspicion harboured by the left-wing media that allowed the true picture become smeared by leftie&islamist lie campaigns.

Fortunately, in this case, the independent evidence was so overwhelming, and quick in coming, that the orchestrated smear campaign against Israel has been halted.

Until next time.

Don't forget the http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...p_a_Photo_to_Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon" And that's not the first time Reuters was caught editing photos to slant a story either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Over a 5-minute period, I just picked out the inaccuracies and untruths that was conveyed by that particular BBC article.

That other lies have figured abundantly in the leftie media, is also true.
 
  • #28
vertices said:
As a someone looking in on American politics from the outside, I'd like to understand the appeal of Fox News and other right wing media to ordinary Americans.

In the world's most powerful democracy, I find it incredible that you have media outlets that spew the most egregious propaganda masqueraded as journalism. I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist" (although this 'comeback' does seem rather inane to me)

Without wanting to ruffle any feathers, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, but I do find it amazing how so many people swallow so much right wing tripe hook line and sinker.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: What inspired this post was a website and you tube channel I recently discovered, which I urge you to check out:inappropriate source

Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly or Beck or are you relying on out of context snippets?

Skippy
 
  • #29
A CHALLENGE TO VERTICES:

Provide a SINGLE instance where the Israeli first claim was contradicted by some activist claim, and where later on it has been proven the Israeli claim was wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
vertices said:
Finally just for the record, you linked to the Radio 1 website. Radio 1 plays cool music that people in their early twenties and below listen to. Not that I am dissing this audience (I belong to it myself) but if you want to slate the news articles on BBC - I suggest you go to the News Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Nonsense.
That's where I got my article from. Numero 3 from the bottom of last page, using "Mavi Marmara" as the search phrase.

If BBC wants to stay serious, they'd better toss out from their serious pages links to non-serious parts of BBC.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
skippy1729 said:
Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly or Beck or are you relying on out of context snippets?

Skippy

I've watched O'foolery, not only is he wrong most of the time, he shouts over the other person as if it makes him right. Beck, should be in a mental hospital. That guy is out of his mind insane, and I mean that literally not in hyperbole.
 
  • #32
Cyrus said:
I've watched O'foolery, not only is he wrong most of the time, he shouts over the other person as if it makes him right. Beck, should be in a mental hospital. That guy is out of his mind insane, and I mean that literally not in hyperbole.
I'm sure you're right.

That doesn't mean vertices' preposterous claim that "there are no lies in the left wing media" is supportable.

Besides, I'm not sure if Beck lies, or merely fantasizes..
 
  • #33
arildno said:
Besides, I'm not sure if Beck lies, or merely fantasizes..

I think he does drugs (seriously). If you've seen his show, he really is out of his mind. He starts crying, among other theatrics. Zero reporting respect for that guy. Not even his commentary is worth hearing. Go youtube why he decided to switch religions - its scary.

That doesn't mean vertices' preposterous claim that "there are no lies in the left wing media" is supportable.

There are lies in the media. But, I wouldn't not explicitly say "lies", but slant and/or bias.
 
  • #34
Cyrus said:
CNN is crap - unless you like to watch "Black in America", and techno-wizardry on their big flag screen tvs.

Some of if is. However, I see things on CNN that I go to post and can't find any other source... for a day or two. Eventually everyone else catches up. It depends on what you want. If you want the headlines and basic coverage, you can't beat CNN. If you want analysis, go to PBS. However, I must say, CNN has added my favorite analyst to their panel of experts - David Gergen. In fact, he is now their senior political analyst. Beyond a doubt, Gergen is one of the best.

Has anyone noticed who is most asked to moderate Presidential debates?

PBS anchors, of course. Fox anchors have never been asked.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
russ_watters said:
It's very simple: most of the media leans to the left and people who lean to the right get fed up with it and look for a respectable news source that leans to the right. Foxnews is the closest thing to it there is.
Rush Limbaugh isn't on Fox and it is very important to separate the commentators from the actual news. Have you ever actually spent any time reading the website or listening to the actual news broadcast (not the opinion shows) or does your opinion come from clipped soundbytes culled together by people who don't like FoxNews? Have you listened to similar soundbytes from FoxNews's less successful mirror, MSNBC? What is your opinion of them? Have you read any of the real op-ed pieces on FoxNews?

Fox and the right wing radio get slammed by the left because there is no left-wing equivalent, with the closest being MSNBC, which is only a tiny fraction of the viewership. It's not like they haven't tried though. They just don't have the audience. Fear not, though: the left absolutely dominates the print media as much as the right dominates radio.

Though I don't generally like getting personal, I'll say this about myself: Until the Fort Hood shooting I never looked at FoxNews except when linked by people on this forum attacking something they saw on it. But after the despicable reporting on the incident by the entirety of the left leaning media - even the supposedly moderate outlets such as CNN and USA Today - I went looking for alternatives that lacked their slant. Now I check Foxnews.com almost daily for the perspective from the other side. It's not a great site, but it is necessary to get the full story.

For stories with no political content, all news sources are basically the same (heck, they all share info anyway) except that some have a little more or a little less sensationalism. For stories that do have political content, they are vastly different between right and left leaning news sources in what they tell and how they tell it.

One story that got very little traction that I've been meaning to post a thread about is that the White House tried to bribe a challenging Senate candidate in a primary election with a non-paying job offer in the administration in exchange for him dropping out of the election in order to protect a high profile incumbent. It's an impeachable offense - had you even heard about it? Slick Willy had nothing on Obama and we have a democratic majority, so we hear almost nothing about it from the left-leaning media. It's a little surprising to hear that since over on this side of the pond, the media in the UK has a heavy reputation for tabloid journalism, particularly in the print media. I assume you're talking mostly about the BBC, which has the reputation for being the UK's CNN - a high quality but nevertheless somewhat left-leaning news source. The bigger difficulty though comes from lack of choices: since your TV news comes from one source, you don't have anything to measure it against.

Someone who is part of a forum that supposedly values reason is supporting Fox news? Really?
 
  • #36
vertices said:
As a someone looking in on American politics from the outside, I'd like to understand the appeal of Fox News and other right wing media to ordinary Americans.

In the world's most powerful democracy, I find it incredible that you have media outlets that spew the most egregious propaganda masqueraded as journalism. I find it incredible that people like Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh unashamedly and robotically smear anyone they dislike by calling them "socialist-communist" (although this 'comeback' does seem rather inane to me)

Without wanting to ruffle any feathers, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, but I do find it amazing how so many people swallow so much right wing tripe hook line and sinker.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: What inspired this post was a website and you tube channel I recently discovered, which I urge you to check out:inappropriate source

Imo, it is really very simple. If you don't like the facts, you go for the right-wing propaganda machines, like Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, and the entire gaggle of gooses. I don't know of any dedicated hate-radio or Fox fans who are genuinely well informed. They really just want to yell at the TV and hate liberals.

I know a guy who likes to play the market. He fancies himself to be quite the market whiz. He is also a dedicated hate radio nut. Just recently he was trying to tell me how terrible Obama is and how he is killing the stock market. When I pointed out that the market is up by almost 60% since March of 2008, he was clueless. Apparently his stocks have not peformed as well as the Dow. Then he tried to blame Obama for the recent drop in the market. I pointed out that almost every analyst says we are due for a correction of about 20%. Again, he was clueless. He knew nothing about it. This is typical of every hate-radio and junk TV nut that I know.

Btw, hate-radio nut, Michael Savage, was labeled a danger to society and banned from the UK.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Mu naught said:
Someone who is part of a forum that supposedly values reason is supporting Fox news? Really?

This one-liner is rather meaningless.
 
  • #38
1. What sort of media immediately refused to regard Malik Hassan's Fort Hood massacre as everything BUT a jihadist attack?

2. What sort of media began commiserating with a would-be car bomber on Times square that he recently had lost his house, and was otherwise a perfectly normal guy?

Was that FOX News?
 
  • #39
Does anyone remember when I cited Chad Myers, from CNN [I incorrectly attributed this to Miles O'Brien], who said that it is possible to damage the BOP while lowing the dome - the first effort to capture oil - on the leaking well in the gulf, and cause the flow to increase to perhaps 100K barrels per day? I was challenged to provide a source on the 100K barrel number. No one had even mentioned the possibility a leak that severe, until then. Of course, since I saw it on CNN, there were no other sources available at that time.

Now we know that the claim was absolutely true. But it took about a week for everyone else to catch up. It is so common for CNN to be way ahead of the crowd, that I take it as a given.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
Does anyone remember when I cited Chad Myers, from CNN [I incorrectly attributed this to Miles Obrian], who said that it is possible to damage the BOP on the leaking well in the gulf, which could cause the flow to increase to perhaps 100K barrels per day? I was challenged to provide a source. Or course, since I saw it on CNN, there were no other sources available at that time.

Now we know that the claim was absolutely true. But it took about a week for everyone else to catch up. It is so common for CNN to be way ahead of the crowd, that I take it as a given.
So??

The IDF was the only source saying that they had been attacked by a well-prepared, armed crowd.

It happens to be absolutely true as well.
 
  • #41
Cyrus said:
I think he does drugs (seriously).
I wouldn't know.
If you've seen his show,
An interview, once, with Ayyan Hirsi Ali.
he really is out of his mind.
He wasn't then.

He starts crying, among other theatrics.
So have effective politicians and lawyers done up through times.
It is called demagoguery, and need not signify either insanity or actual emotional outbreaks.
 
  • #42
The following article by Bernard Henri-Levy should put disinformation in regard to left-wing media in its proper perspective:
BHL said:
Of course, my position hasn't changed.

As I said the day it happened, in a fierce debate with one of Netanyahu's ministers in Tel Aviv, I continue to find the manner in which the assault against the Mavi Marmara and its flotilla was effected off the Gaza coast as "stupid."

Had I had the least remaining doubt, the inspection of the seventh boat, carried out without a trace of violence this Saturday morning, would have convinced me there were other ways to operate to have kept the tactical and media trap set for Israel by the provocateurs of Free Gaza from snapping shut, in a spilling of blood.

That said and repeated, the flood of hypocrisy, bad faith, and, ultimately, disinformation that seems to have just waited for this pretext to flow into the breach and sweep across the media of the world, as is the case every time the Jewish State slips up and commits an error, is by no means acceptable.

The catch-phrase trotted out ad nauseum, of the blockade imposed "by Israel," when the most elementary honesty requires one to make it clear that it has been undertaken by Israel and by Egypt, conjointly, on both borders of the two countries that share frontiers with Gaza, and this with the thinly-disguised blessing of all the moderate Arab regimes, can only be described as disinformation. The latter, of course, are only too happy to see someone else contain the influence of this armed extension, this advanced base and, perhaps one day, this aircraft-carrier of Iran in the region.

The very idea of a "total and merciless" blockade (Laurent Joffrin's editorial in the June 5th edition of the French daily, Liberation) "Taking hostage, the humanity [of Gaza] in danger" (former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin in Le Monde, of the same date) constitutes disinformation. We mustn't tire of reminding others the blockade concerns only arms and the material necessary to manufacture them. It does not prevent the daily arrival, via Israel, of between a hundred and a hundred and twenty trucks laden with foodstuffs, medical supplies, and humanitarian goods of every kind; humanity is not "in danger" in Gaza, and it is a lie to state that people are "dying of hunger" in the streets of Gaza City. It is debatable whether a military blockade is the right option to weaken and, one day, bring down the fascislamist government of Ismaïl Haniyeh or not. But the fact that Israelis who cover the checkpoints between the territories night and day are the first to make the elementary but essential distinction between the regime (that they seek to isolate) and the population (that they are careful not to confuse with the regime, even less to penalize them since, once again, aid has never stopped passing into Gaza) is indisputable.

Disinformation: The utter silence, throughout the world, about Hamas' incredible attitude now that the flotilla has carried out its symbolic duty, which was to catch the Jewish State out and relaunch, as never before, the process of demonization.

In other words, now that the Israelis have carried out their inspection and mean to take the cargo of aid to those for whom it is supposedly intended, Hamas' attitude in blocking that aid at Kerem Shalom checkpoint, allowing it to slowly rot, is met with silence. To hell with any merchandise that has passed through the hands of Jewish customs! Chuck out the "toys" that brought tears to the eyes of good European souls but became impure because they spent too many long hours in the Israeli port of Ashdod! Gaza's children having been nothing more than a human shield for the Islamist gang who took power by force three years ago, or cannon fodder or media vignettes. Their games or their wishes are the last thing anyone worries about there, but who says so? Who shows the slightest indignation? Liberation recently ran an awful headline, "Israel, Pirate State," which if words still mean anything, can only contribute to the delegitimization of the Hebrew State. Who will dare to explain that, if there is a hostage taker, one who coldly and unscrupulously takes advantage of people's suffering and, in particular, that of the children -- in sum, a pirate -- in Gaza, it is not Israel, but Hamas?

Disinformation once again, laughable but, given the strategic context, catastrophic disinformation: The speech at Konyan, in central Turkey, of a Prime Minister who has anyone who dares to evoke the genocide of the Armenians in public thrown in prison, but who has the nerve, there, before thousands of fired-up demonstrators yelling antisemitic slogans, to denounce Israeli "State terrorism."

Still more disinformation: The lament of the useful idiots who, before Israel, fell into the clutches of these strange "humanitarians" who are, in the case of the Turkish IHH, Jihad enthusiasts, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish apocalyptical fanatics, men and women some of whom, just days before the attack, expressed their wish to "die as martyrs." (the Guardian, June 3rd, Al Aqsa TV, May 30th). How can a writer of the calibre of Sweden's Henning Mankell allow himself to be taken advantage of this way? When he tells us he is thinking of forbidding the translation of his books into Hebrew, how can he really forget the sacrosanct distinction between a stupid or wrong-headed government and the masses of those who do not identify with it and whom he associates, nonetheless, in the same insane plan for a boycott? How can a chain of cinemas ("Utopia") in France decide to cancel the release of a film, A Cinq heures de Paris, in the same way, simply because its author, Leonid Prudovsky, is an Israeli citizen?

Disinformers, finally, the batallions of Tartuffes who regret that Israel declines the demands for an international inquiry when the truth is, once again, so much simpler and more logical: What Israel refuses is an inquiry requested by a Council of Human Rights of the United Nations, where those great democrats, the Cubans, Pakistanis, and other Iranians reign. What Israel does not want is a procedure of the kind that resulted in the famous Goldstone report commissioned, after the war in Gaza, by the same sympathetic Commission whose five judges, four of whom had never made a secret of their militant anti-Zionism, wrapped up 575 pages of interviews of Palestinian fighters and civilians conducted (an absolute and unprecedented heresy in this kind of work) under the watchful eye of Hamas political commissioners in a matter of mere days. What Israel could not stand for is the masquerade of international justice such a botched inquiry -- whose conclusions would be known in advance and would only serve to haul, as usual and perfectly unilaterally, the sole and unique democracy of the region into the defendants' dock -- would be.

One last word. For a man like me, someone who takes pride in having helped invent, with others, the principle of this kind of symbolic action (the boat for Vietnam; the march for the survival of Cambodia in 1979; various and sundry anti-totalitarian boycotts and, more recently, the deliberate violation of the Sudan border to break the blockade that hid the perpetration of the massacres of Darfur), in other words, for a militant of humanitarian interference and the media fuss that goes with it, this pathetic saga has something of a caricature, a gloomy grimace of destiny. But, all the more reason not to give in. All the more reason to refuse this confusion of genres, this inversion of signs and values. All the more reason to resist this hijacking of meaning that places the very spirit of a policy conceived to counter the intent of barbarians at their service. Destitution of the anti-totalitarian dialectic and its mimetic reversals. Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as though they were dictatorships or fascist States. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last thirty years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled. A word to the wise is sufficient.
From the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/israel-gaza-an-end-to-the_b_602850.html
 
  • #43
arildno said:
An interview, once, with Ayyan Hirsi Ali.

She's good.

He wasn't then.

You got lucky that time you watched.

So have effective politicians and lawyers done up through times.
It is called demagoguery, and need not signify either insanity or actual emotional outbreaks.

But, he does have emotional outbreaks. It's almost comical to watch.
 
  • #44
Cyrus said:
But, he does have emotional outbreaks. It's almost comical to watch.

Pathetic is more the word that comes to mind. I agree; Beck has some serious mental issues.
 
  • #45
Ivan Seeking said:
Pathetic is more the word that comes to mind. I agree; Beck has some serious mental issues.
I don't know about that. His histrionics remind me of the tactics of televangelists. Is he truly delusional, or is it an act for his audience? I can't stand to watch him long enough to try to figure that out.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
Imo, it is really very simple. If you don't like the facts, you go for the right-wing propaganda machines, like Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, and the entire gaggle of gooses. I don't know of any dedicated hate-radio or Fox fans who are genuinely well informed. They really just want to yell at the TV and hate liberals.

I know a guy who likes to play the market. He fancies himself to be quite the market whiz. He is also a dedicated hate radio nut. Just recently he was trying to tell me how terrible Obama is and how he is killing the stock market. When I pointed out that the market is up by almost 60% since March of 2008, he was clueless. Apparently his stocks have not peformed as well as the Dow. Then he tried to blame Obama for the recent drop in the market. I pointed out that almost every analyst says we are due for a correction of about 20%. Again, he was clueless. He knew nothing about it. This is typical of every hate-radio and junk TV nut that I know.

Btw, hate-radio nut, Michael Savage, was labeled a danger to society and banned from the UK.

Then Savage began proceedings to sue Jacqui Smith for libel and she resigned in disgrace.
 
  • #47
TubbaBlubba said:
Al68 said:
I've asked before on this forum for an accurate alternative to the word "socialist" that means a belief that the economy should be managed, controlled, regulated, etc by government. Anybody have one yet?
Social-liberal, social-democratic...
None of the three component words, social, liberal, or democratic, have the intended meaning. In fact, they already are used to mean something different. That's why such labels mislead more than they enlighten.

The thing that the word "socialist" has that alternatives don't have is that when it is used, there's no confusion about its meaning.
 
  • #48
YA7-BvVDV10&feature=related[/youtube] Wow...
 
  • #49
Proton Soup said:
Then Savage began proceedings to sue Jacqui Smith for libel and she resigned in disgrace.

You heard that from Savage, I presume? She resigned three months before he tried to sue.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is to stand down from the Cabinet to focus her efforts on saving her Commons seat after bruising revelations over her parliamentary expenses.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6415037.ece
 
  • #50
vertices said:
, I do realize that I am probably accustomed to a higher standard of journalism, living in the UK, ...
Of course. How gracious of you to express your concern about US low standards. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
253
Views
27K
Replies
59
Views
13K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
9K
Back
Top