Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-26-2013, 05:46 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,408
The article has apparently aged off of the politics breaking news page, but it's still on the Fox News website, with the same headline.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...rve-on-juries/
  #252  
Old 05-03-2013, 09:16 AM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,086
Another month of playing, "Does Foxnews report the jobs numbers on the front page of their site like every single legitimate news source?"

Answer: Unemployment went down, so no.
  #253  
Old 05-03-2013, 09:35 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Actually, this raises a question for me. Fox Nation (not Fox News) has the accurate version of the headline. Does anybody know what the difference between the two is?
Fox Nation is a separate web operation, rather than an adjunct to a TV channel, which is more opinion-oriented. In less politic terms, it's a forum for the cranky to whine about negroes, gays, Hispanics and liberals in a manner that might undermine whatever credibility the channel has left if they reproduced it there.
  #254  
Old 05-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Another month of playing, "Does Foxnews report the jobs numbers on the front page of their site like every single legitimate news source?"

Answer: Unemployment went down, so no.
That's pretty amazing. I figured it had to be there somewhere, even if just a headline link. But from what I can see there isn't a single mention of the unemployment report anywhere no the main page...

At least they have to put their stock ticker up, so maybe eventually it will sink in that Obama isn't killing the economy. Of course they also have this headline on the main page: "Does a Rally Still Count if it's led by Defensive Stocks?" So maybe not.
  #255  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:26 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,086
You should check it out when the numbers are bad. Then it gets a "Breaking News" ticker.
  #256  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:36 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,609
They added a front-page headline about the jobs numbers!

Here it: "Does positive jobs report tell full employment story?"

They report, you decide!
  #257  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:50 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
They added a front-page headline about the jobs numbers!

Here it: "Does positive jobs report tell full employment story?"

They report, you decide!
Cavuto Mark sighted!
  #258  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:07 PM
esmeralda2 esmeralda2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeschines View Post
First off, I'm very liberal.

Second off, I watch almost zero TV news. I catch it at my parents (not necessarily Fox), doctors' offices, and times like that. I do see a bunch of clips all the time of Fox News programs such as those featuring Hannity and O'Reilly. And sometimes it's a clip of an ordinary Fox News story, not necessarily anything political. That doesn't mean, however, that I haven't watched large chunks of Fox News over the past few years. I interpret at doctors' offices and often am waiting for patients. For some reason, Fox News is a popular choice to have on.

I think Hannity and O'Reilly are buffoons, but their programs are obviously and explicitly Conservative in message. One may blame the Fox Network for carrying such crap, but I don't, really. There's no hidden agenda, and those shows are fulfilling a demand for that message. In any case, I don't think those shows taint Fox News itself.

So, what about Fox News? It's slogan is, "Fair and Balanced." People, especially liberals, accuse it of being blatantly pro-Conservative. The thing is, when I've watched it, it's seemed like your typical stupid network news without a whole of lot biass either way. Plus, they have some hot blondes on there, which is nice.

I find network news to be boring and Conservative as a default setting. No matter what, it seems to reinforce the status quo. Keep calm and carry on, as the Brits used to say. No huge need for change, although there are problems problems problems, and isn't that interesting? Yesssss, watch. Watch more. Consume more. And... be happy (THX-1138).

Fox News seems well-produced with competent newscasters (some of whom are hot blondes). It does seem to tell the basic news without too much of a slant; which is to say, it's slanted toward the status quo--just like all news shows. There is nothing truly excellent about it, yet there doesn't seem to be anything *exceptionally* execrable about it either.

TL;DR: Fox News is Conservative, but all network news shows ares fundamentally Conservative, inasmuch as they subtly and unsubtly validate the status quo.

What do you think?
My impression of Fox News, and I am responding to the OP w/o having read other posts, so not influenced by other posts.

I don't live in the US and haven't for more than 10 years. When I did, I did not watch Fox News. I don't remember why, just some vague idea it was sort of tabloidy and right wing. Then, I lived in places for 9 years where I didn't get Fox News at all, so I never saw it. Then last summer, I was in a place for 2 months that had it. It was before the election in November, and much of the 'news' was about the election. My impression was that Fox News, so called 'news,' was 24/7 free campaign advertisement for Romney. Nearly everything was about how great the Republican candidate was and how bad the Democratic candidate was;there was very little coverage of international events, unless they were directly linked to the above. This wasn't 'news.' it was campaigning, outright and direct, imo, for the Republican party. And that is just the 'news;' I didn't even watch any of the discussion programs. It was sickening. So, imo, yes, Fox News is really that bad.
  #259  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:16 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
I was thinking on posting this on the Republican ideas thread on the pit, but it fits better here, are they trying to fill the void left by the closing of Weekly World News?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...on_reason.html
Quote:
Anthony Foxx, the mayor of Charlotte and Obama's pick for the next Secretary of Transportation, issued two city proclamations yesterday. One of them recognized the National Day of Prayer; the other one declared the day to be a Day of Reason. The second proclamation noted that the country was founded on the principles of reason and that "it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to promote the development and application of reason." Even though we have no evidence that Mayor Foxx was taking a passive-aggressive swipe at the folks at Fox News, they decided to take it as an affront anyway, bringing on Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women for America, to worry that once you start using reason, next thing you know, you're committing a mass genocide and starting a world war.

The relevant quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox News
"You know the Age of Enlightenment and Reason gave way to moral relativism. And moral relativism is what led us all the way down the dark path to the Holocaust."
While my reasonable side suggests I shouldn't argue with fools, I can't help but point out that anti-Semitic institutions like the Spanish Inquisition and the myth of blood libel long predate the age of enlightenment. Then again, that's using reason, and we know how Nance feels about that. As Jon Stewart famously demonstrated, Nazis are Fox News’ catch-all villain, used to denounce anything they dislike: being liberal, supporting Obama, criticizing Fox News for its misinformation.
  #260  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:29 PM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
I'm glad someone has finally stripped the veil off reason, exposing it to be the tool of the Devil it really is! Kudos to Fox for standing against it.
  #261  
Old 09-24-2013, 03:21 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Fox News ran this story:

One man's ObamaCare nightmare

It starts off "Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently got a nasty surprise in the mail."

And it ends as you would expect: a hard-working, typical American family being screwed by the evils of Obamacare.

One thing which seems relevant to the piece is that Mr. Mangione's is the Vice President, Government Relations, for AMAC. The AMAC is the "conservative alternative" to AARP.

Mr. Mangione is a lobbyist who is lobbying AGAINST Obamacare! In fact, the insurance company which sent him the letter is a company where he was previously as an executive!

At no time in the video nor in the accompanying story is this even mentioned. That's pretty unethical, isn't it?
  #262  
Old 09-24-2013, 03:55 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Oh, and Kentucky is investigating the letter as being "misleading."

USA Today
  #263  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:43 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
‘I’m not saying she deserved to be raped but…’
  #264  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:37 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,126
I'm still waiting for those who claim FoxNews is middle-of-the-road to provide some examples of media to the right of it. Weekly World News, perhaps?
  #265  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:44 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I am no fan of Fox, but that hardly makes your point.
The quote is from a defense attorney, (whether of one of the two boys involved is not stated), and the Fox News host immediately jumps on his claim as bullshit. For once, someone in Fox News was acting responsibly.
  #266  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:44 AM
DoctorJ DoctorJ is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Eastern Kentucky
Posts: 6,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am no fan of Fox, but that hardly makes your point.
The quote is from a defense attorney, (whether of one of the two boys involved is not stated), and the Fox News host immediately jumps on his claim as bullshit. For once, someone in Fox News was acting responsibly.
This is a big deal--we've found something too shameless even for Fox News. Apparently, saying that a 14-year-old rape victim was asking for it is a bridge too far.

We may have found the summit of Bullshit Mountain.
  #267  
Old 10-18-2013, 12:19 PM
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am no fan of Fox, but that hardly makes your point.
The quote is from a defense attorney, (whether of one of the two boys involved is not stated), and the Fox News host immediately jumps on his claim as bullshit. For once, someone in Fox News was acting responsibly.
That was my take as well.
  #268  
Old 10-18-2013, 12:50 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 12,540
As a conservative, there is a clear and undeniable rightward lean to Fox News. That being said, I disagree that they lie or are incapable of journalism anymore than other news sources. MSNBC is just as bad on the left, and all of the other mainstream news sources skew left.

My major gripe with Fox News is the stories they choose to cover. I remember when Benghazi came out, they covered that ALL DAY LONG for a few days. If you only watched Fox News, you would have gotten the impression that Benghazi was ripping the country apart and that impeachment was nigh.

And that clip in the PA diner last year is also a good example. I don't know if it was malicious or not, but the reporter had the story in his head: there would be supporters on both sides (like in most diners), so its a close race here in PA, and going to be a close election! The suspense is mounting! Stay tuned through election day!

Well, it didn't work out, and instead of being able to adjust on the fly, the reporter (in no small part due to his probable bias) simply stuck to his script. That's piss poor, but not an example of a blatant lie.

Fair and Balanced? No, but that's just puffery. Your local car dealership won't always give you the best deal on a new car purchase, but that's always been an accepted form of advertisement.

The biggest compliment I have with Fox or MSNBC is that their bias shows that a normal politician can't get past his talking points. Get him out of his comfort zone and challenge his boilerplate, and he/she usually folds. O'Reilly is typically very good at this. I like that better than the old school journalism where the pols got away with saying what they wanted to.
  #269  
Old 10-18-2013, 12:57 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
As a conservative, there is a clear and undeniable rightward lean to Fox News. That being said, I disagree that they lie or are incapable of journalism anymore than other news sources. MSNBC is just as bad on the left, and all of the other mainstream news sources skew left.
Not really, as I pointed before on post #203 FOX even has a policy rule/advice to their reporters to use false equivalency and misleading info when climate change is the subject.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=203
  #270  
Old 10-18-2013, 01:30 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm still waiting for those who claim FoxNews is middle-of-the-road to provide some examples of media to the right of it. Weekly World News, perhaps?
Has anybody said that Fox is centrist? I think the argument is that Fox is no less biased than the other MSM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am no fan of Fox, but that hardly makes your point.
The quote is from a defense attorney, (whether of one of the two boys involved is not stated), and the Fox News host immediately jumps on his claim as bullshit. For once, someone in Fox News was acting responsibly.
Don't ruin the narrative.
  #271  
Old 10-18-2013, 02:09 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Has anybody said that Fox is centrist? I think the argument is that Fox is no less biased than the other MSM.
As discussed in a different thread, the bigger issue is that FOX is not only showing the normal bias of political favoritism, but they also have bias against science and factual information on many subjects.

Generally speaking, FOX is doing the reverse of what Thomas Jefferson was expecting to see. With FOX there is less of a chance to see people that are well informed so they can be trusted with their own government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Don't ruin the narrative.
Do you know what "for once" means?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-18-2013 at 02:10 PM.
  #273  
Old 10-18-2013, 02:45 PM
tim-n-va tim-n-va is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,069
Hannity Fact Check

The standard defense is usually that he is a commentator not a reporter. I suppose you could also say that he didn't say anything wrong, it was his guests who made those statements.
  #274  
Old 10-18-2013, 02:51 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Honestly, at this point, I have to ask of anyone who thinks "Fox isn't that bad", or "The rest of the media is just as bad" -

Why do you think the support of hate groups that want to deport all Muslims, ban religious freedoms, and call for the targeting and harassment of LGBT people, including specifically targeting individual children is something that can be waved away as "political differences"?

What has MSNBC ever done that's ANYWHERE near as bad? (not going to mention CNN, because Nancy Grace is a boil on the ass of humanity)
  #275  
Old 10-18-2013, 03:42 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As discussed in a different thread, the bigger issue is that FOX is not only showing the normal bias of political favoritism, but they also have bias against science and factual information on many subjects.
Yes, we've discussed this. Fox appears to be heavily biased against AGW which is your cause célèbre. However in other areas (like reporting on presidential elections) they appear to be less biased. That, in my book, makes them no more biased overall.
  #276  
Old 10-18-2013, 03:50 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Yes, we've discussed this. Fox appears to be heavily biased against AGW which is your cause célèbre. However in other areas (like reporting on presidential elections) they appear to be less biased. That, in my book, makes them no more biased overall.
Any response to how biased they are with respect to targeted harassment, photoshopping pictures, and defending hate groups, as shown above?
  #277  
Old 10-18-2013, 03:59 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
I don't doubt that Fox photoshopped pictures; they are biased, after all. That can be countered by the selective audio that other media played during the whole Zimmerman fiasco. They are all biased and they all have an agenda. Fox's bias happens to run counter to the bias of the SDMB so they get extra scorn.

I'm not interested in anecdotes. I posted a couple of independent studies (one of them a meta study) that indicated that Fox news is less biased than the other MSM in certain topics. GIGO posted a study showing Fox to be heavily biased against AGW.

Last edited by Deeg; 10-18-2013 at 04:00 PM.
  #278  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:02 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
I see. You think deliberately attempting to target children for harassment, threats, and violence is an anecdote not worth commenting on, and that defending hate groups is less than other media do.

What hate groups have MSNBC defended? What subset of Americans does MSNBC think deserve to be deported, or are all terrorists?
  #279  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:04 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Yes, we've discussed this. Fox appears to be heavily biased against AGW which is your cause célèbre. However in other areas (like reporting on presidential elections) they appear to be less biased. That, in my book, makes them no more biased overall.
Calling it my cause célèbre does not change the fact that FOX has orders for their minions reporters to misinform their viewers. There is still a big difference between bias and deception.

You are even ignorant on what I have a beef with FOX, the record on the SDMB shows that a lot of the issues started with the "Moon Hoax" show that FOX aired that misled many people and posters. (If you think it was just their entertainment division who did that, a few years ago Gerardo in a FOX interview still made a reference to it and not to disparage that conspiracy theory, it still remains a useful one to discredit a successful government program)

Also what Karrius pointed out supports what I also said about other factual things being misrepresented by FOX.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-18-2013 at 04:07 PM.
  #280  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:14 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
And we should also mention the FOX misleading (one would have to say that they are lying the longer they do not post a mea culpa in their site) coverage of the Healt care reform.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/insi..._on_obamacare/
Quote:
Finally, I called Robbie and Tina Robison from Franklin, Tenn. Robbie is self-employed as a Christian youth motivational speaker. (You can see his work here.) On Hannity, the couple said that they, too, were recently notified that their Blue Cross policy would be expiring for lack of ACA compliance. They told Hannity that the replacement plans Blue Cross was offering would come with a rate increase of 50 percent or even 75 percent, and that the new offerings would contain all sorts of benefits they don’t need, like maternity care, pediatric care, prenatal care and so forth. Their kids are grown and moved out, so why should they be forced to pay extra for a health plan with superfluous features?

When I spoke to Robbie, he said he and Tina have been paying a little over $600 a month for their plan, about $10,000 a year. And the ACA-compliant policy will cost 50-75 percent more? They said this information was related to them by their insurance agent.

Had they shopped on the exchange yet, I asked? No, Tina said, nor would they. They oppose Obamacare and want nothing to do with it. Fair enough, but they should know that I found a plan for them for, at most, $3,700 a year, a 63 percent less than their current bill. It might cover things that they don’t need, but so does every insurance policy.

It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.

I don’t doubt that these six individuals believe that Obamacare is a disaster; but none of them had even visited the insurance exchange. And some of them appear to have taken actions (Paul Cox, for example) based on a general pessimistic belief about Obamacare. He’s certainly entitled to do so, but Hannity is not entitled to point to Paul’s behavior as an “Obamacare train wreck story” and maintain any credibility that he might have as a journalist.

Strangely, the recent shutdown was based almost entirely on a small percentage of Congress’s belief that Obamacare, as Ted Cruz puts it, “is destroying America.” Cruz has rarely given us an example of what he’s talking about. That’s because the best he can do is what Hannity did—exploit people’s ignorance and falsely point to imaginary boogeymen.
  #281  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:36 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karrius View Post
I see. You think deliberately attempting to target children for harassment, threats, and violence is an anecdote not worth commenting on, and that defending hate groups is less than other media do.

What hate groups have MSNBC defended? What subset of Americans does MSNBC think deserve to be deported, or are all terrorists?
Are you prepared to say that no other MSM has ever done something similar to what you claim Fox has done? They've never photo-shopped a picture to make opponents look bad? They've never falsely reported a story as true that was made up by someone else?
  #282  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:40 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Are you prepared to say that no other MSM has ever done something similar to what you claim Fox has done? They've never photo-shopped a picture to make opponents look bad? They've never falsely reported a story as true that was made up by someone else?
No other? No. I am pretty sure I directly specified I was not saying "no other" in my mention of Nancy Grace.

Why do you try to get me to agree to something that I already said I disagreed with?
  #283  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:43 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Then we both agree that other MSM are biased like Fox.
  #284  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:51 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Are you prepared to say that no other MSM has ever done something similar to what you claim Fox has done? They've never photo-shopped a picture to make opponents look bad? They've never falsely reported a story as true that was made up by someone else?
Well, the thing is that when the FOX scandal appeared they were not able to produce any relevant or useful examples of other mainstream sources doing the same assholish move. I think there are example of modified images elsewhere, but not with the purposely made distortions made to the FOX images.
  #285  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:52 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Then we both agree that other MSM are biased like Fox.
That's not what I said either, though. "Fox did this a dozen times, MSNBC did this once, they're both basically the same" doesn't cut it for me.

I will, however, ask proof for the two following:

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and whatever other media you choose as "mainstream" have ever defended an organization as vile as the ones Fox are defending.

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, have ever photoshopped pictures of somebody else's face to portray them in a negative light. The only thing I can think of is the Time magazine blackening of OJ Simpson. (I don't consider the "kayaking during ankle-high flood" stuff to count, here).

Because while I won't go for the stab you seem to be aiming for, those two I HIGHLY doubt are done by anybody else.

Also, I consider there to be a HUGE difference between falsely reporting a story, and falsely reporting a story that is specifically opening up a child for harassment, abuse, and violence. This is the equivalent to publishing a story put out by the KKK naming and attacking a specific person - only targeting a child. Decent news organizations - decent people - just wouldn't do that.

Last edited by Karrius; 10-18-2013 at 04:53 PM.
  #286  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:54 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Then we both agree that other MSM are biased like Fox.
Again, as per your own words, you are contradicting yourself, just on the Climate change alone as you admitted; but then there is plenty of evidence on how extreme FOX is on the moon hoax, the health care issue, and the latest government shutdown.
  #287  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:05 PM
Uncle Jocko Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Then we both agree that other MSM are biased like Fox.
Even if we agree the "MSM" is biased to the left - and I refuse to totally accept that premise - wouldn't the best response to that purportedly slanted coverage be a news organization that actually was "fair and balanced" for reals? If Fox lived up to its marketing slogan, and actually reported news in an unbiased, truth-seeking fashion, they'd have my respect and would no doubt still be a successful media enterprise.

Instead, it's flat-out admitted by many that they just slant their coverage rightward (in a supposed counter to the socialistic coverage of MSNBC and CNN and ABC and ... every other broadcast news outlet there is), slant it so hard that they're basically a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. How is that a good thing?

Countering what you see as lies and misrepresentations by the other side with lies and misrepresentations of your own is no way to gain respect or acknowledgement as a "balanced" news organization. It locks in a lot of viewers, naturally, because people love to hear validations of what they already believe - but you're no better than a reflection of how biased and slanted you think the other side is.

Last edited by Uncle Jocko; 10-18-2013 at 06:06 PM.
  #288  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:18 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karrius View Post
That's not what I said either, though. "Fox did this a dozen times, MSNBC did this once, they're both basically the same" doesn't cut it for me.

I will, however, ask proof for the two following:

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and whatever other media you choose as "mainstream" have ever defended an organization as vile as the ones Fox are defending.

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, have ever photoshopped pictures of somebody else's face to portray them in a negative light. The only thing I can think of is the Time magazine blackening of OJ Simpson. (I don't consider the "kayaking during ankle-high flood" stuff to count, here).
IMO you're pulling out specific examples that you know of, not remembering any incidences in your media, and calling Fox biased. Dan Rather backed a bogus report because it attacked Bush. IMO Zimmerman got shafted by the media with the stupid "white hispanic" nonsense and they way he was portrayed. You don't think another media has had a reporter defend, say, the Muslim Brotherhood?

Like I said, Fox is biased in a way that runs counter to your own beliefs. You dislike Fox for that reason. But that doesn't make them *more* unbiased.
  #289  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:22 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jocko View Post
Even if we agree the "MSM" is biased to the left - and I refuse to totally accept that premise - wouldn't the best response to that purportedly slanted coverage be a news organization that actually was "fair and balanced" for reals? If Fox lived up to its marketing slogan, and actually reported news in an unbiased, truth-seeking fashion, they'd have my respect and would no doubt still be a successful media enterprise.

Instead, it's flat-out admitted by many that they just slant their coverage rightward (in a supposed counter to the socialistic coverage of MSNBC and CNN and ABC and ... every other broadcast news outlet there is), slant it so hard that they're basically a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. How is that a good thing?

Countering what you see as lies and misrepresentations by the other side with lies and misrepresentations of your own is no way to gain respect or acknowledgement as a "balanced" news organization. It locks in a lot of viewers, naturally, because people love to hear validations of what they already believe - but you're no better than a reflection of how biased and slanted you think the other side is.
I mostly agree--"Fair and Balanced" is a BS marketing slogan but do we pass judgment on the other slogans? CNN calls itself (among other things) the best political team on TV. That's also marketing BS.

They're all biased and Fox isn't any worse than the others.
  #290  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:31 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am no fan of Fox, but that hardly makes your point.
The quote is from a defense attorney, (whether of one of the two boys involved is not stated), and the Fox News host immediately jumps on his claim as bullshit. For once, someone in Fox News was acting responsibly.
You invite someone on your show as a guest, maybe their opinions are not necessarily the same as yours but it does reflect on you.

It's one thing for someone who is somewhat newsworthy to have repugnant views and give them a forum for them. A politician comes on and says something crazy, well, that person was there for a reason. You have someone involved with a news story on your show and everyone knows why they are there.

But who the fuck was this guy? He wasn't someone who was a part of a news story. He wasn't a witness to something that was newsworthy.

He was just a guy, their "expert" (as Jon Stewart famously said "Who the fuck is that guy?"). There are a hundred more qualified people to have on as a guest. So who do they choose? Some sleazy guy who says crap like this.

It's even better this way. They can have someone provide "expert analysis" yet still distance themselves as if they are above the fray. And they invite him back, again and again.
  #291  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:37 PM
Karrius Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
IMO you're pulling out specific examples that you know of, not remembering any incidences in your media, and calling Fox biased. Dan Rather backed a bogus report because it attacked Bush. IMO Zimmerman got shafted by the media with the stupid "white hispanic" nonsense and they way he was portrayed. You don't think another media has had a reporter defend, say, the Muslim Brotherhood?

Like I said, Fox is biased in a way that runs counter to your own beliefs. You dislike Fox for that reason. But that doesn't make them *more* unbiased.
"You don't think? You don't think?"

I don't know, why don't you try providing some evidence that supports your position that justifies your defense of an organization that aids a hate group in their attack on children?

Sure - show me some examples of news reporters defending the Muslim Brotherhood and statements of belief from the Muslim Brotherhood that put them on par with an organization that says that gay people are terrorists and specifically advocates for the deportation of all Muslims. Put up or shut up.

Last edited by Karrius; 10-18-2013 at 06:37 PM.
  #292  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:37 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Oh goodie! Some both-sides-are-bad (but Fox ain't so bad) fan boys are here! Maybe they can answer on the post I made some time ago that went ignored.

Here, let me repeat myself:

People who watch Comedy Central are better informed than people who watch Fox News

Say you're a news station. If your viewers tend to be less knowledgeable about things in the news, would you say you're doing a good job presenting it?

Quote:
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.

Forbes
That was from earlier this year. During the 2010 election, another study found similar results:

Quote:
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

World Public Opinion
Even way back in 2003 with regard to the Iraq War, you had this study come out:

Quote:
A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

World Public Opinion
These are a few of the several surveys that show Fox News viewers are consistantly less informed about world events, science, the economy and politics than those who got their news from other sources.

So what are we to conclude? Seems to me that it's one of these only:
  1. Fox News is really bad at informing their viewers.
  2. Fox News is really good at misinforming their viewers
  3. Fox News viewers are mostly mouth-breathers.
  4. A combination of any or all of the above.

So the answer the OP " Is Fox News really all that bad?" I have to say forget about bias. Look at how informed their audience is. If a news station consistently shows that their audience doesn't know the news, how can anyone make the argument that the station is "good?"
  #293  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:13 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
If a news station consistently shows that their audience doesn't know the news, how can anyone make the argument that the station is "good?"
They have the hottest women.
  #294  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:21 PM
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
They're all biased and Fox isn't any worse than the others.
This has been shown to be false time and time again.
  #295  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:33 PM
Aquadementia Aquadementia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I mostly agree--"Fair and Balanced" is a BS marketing slogan but do we pass judgment on the other slogans? CNN calls itself (among other things) the best political team on TV. That's also marketing BS.

They're all biased and Fox isn't any worse than the others.
CNN doesn't have the same Orwellian sense of humor. They don't have one guy writing about sports on their web site and call that the best political team on tv.
  #296  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:53 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,408
Yes, MSNBC is just as bad as Fox. Every time Fox did a story about what Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers said 30 years ago, MSNBC would counter with something Bush or Cheney said that day. Completely equivalent.
  #297  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:19 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
You invite someone on your show as a guest, maybe their opinions are not necessarily the same as yours but it does reflect on you.
Meh.

Any news outlet has a handful of "go to" people for getting "expert opinions" in a field. Given the topic, the response of the lawyer seems more than a bit odd. He might have provided decent, (or even Right-leaning) perspectives on multiple previous occasions and wound up surprising the Fox employee with his claim, this time.

I am hardly an expert on "experts," but the one time I was interviewed on TV, the interviewer had no idea what I was going to say and simply asked questions. There was neither a vetting process nor a preparatory interview.

Beyond that, what point do you think they were trying to make with the interview as it actually played out? "Look! Even we Fox people can recognize stupid, nasty ideas when we hear them!"? Had the lawyer's victim-bashing been allowed to stand, I could see a case that the Fox station was trying to use a third party to slip in some nasty comments with plausible deniability. However, with the way the interviewer responded, the worst case scenario that I could see would be some sort of stealth attack on defense lawyers where that idiot was held up as an example of "typical" defense tactics. Do we have any evidence that that occurred?
And if it did, it still did not amount to Fox condemning the victim, even in an underhanded way.
  #298  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:28 PM
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Yes, MSNBC is just as bad as Fox. Every time Fox did a story about what Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers said 30 years ago, MSNBC would counter with something Bush or Cheney said that day. Completely equivalent.
Are you serious?
Without knowing the accuracy and content of those stories there's absolutely no proof from your example that they're equivalent - or did I just get whooshed?
  #299  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:15 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Are you serious?
Without knowing the accuracy and content of those stories there's absolutely no proof from your example that they're equivalent - or did I just get whooshed?
You just got whooshed.
  #300  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:58 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
This has been shown to be false time and time again.
I'll respond to just this one.

Please, show me a cite of an independent study. The only one I've seen is the one that GIGO posted but it was limited to just AGW. I posted cites to two independent studies that show Fox to be less biased.

I have no stake in this; I don't watch Fox nor do I care about it in particular. My #1 news source is NPR. I'm only putting up a fight here because, when looking into this because of an argument with a friend, the only studies I found that weren't just a list of anecdotes were the ones I listed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017