I constantly see the majority of the SDMB bash Fox News at every turn, so I gotta finally ask - what’s everyone’s beef with it? It’s not my primary source of news, but I watch it because it’s “edgy” and the personalities are for the most part entertaining. Their color schemes, set pieces, and music interludes can be garish and jingoistic at times, and they report on Michael Jackson WAY too much, but I don’t see why it’s this big harbinger of ignorance and evil people here make it out to be. I see a right wing slant in it as much as I see a left wing slant to CNN.
So why do people here hate it so? In your response, please avoid politically motivated bomb tosses. I want honest, “fair and balanced” feedback here.
If you want to avoid “politically motivated bomb tosses,” then I think this is in the wrong forum.
IMHO, Fox’s conservative bias is comparable to CNN’s liberal bias, but its journalistic integrity – specifically, its devotion to impartiality – is not comparable to CNN’s, so its bias is more blatant and intrusive.
Then again, I have a liberal bias, so you should take my answer with a grain of salt.
I haven’t watched Fox News much so I really can’t comment on them in general. One minor yet annoying thing I did notice once when I happened to tune in was their insistence on using the term “homicide bomber” to refer to Middle Eastern suicide bombers. Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were homicide bombers. People who strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them with the deliberate plan of killing themselves as well as others are suicide bombers. (I suppose someone who bombs an empty building, like some anti-war radicals during the Vietnam War era, or some anti-abortion radicals, are non-homicide bombers, although anytime you go around blowing things up you run the risk of killing folks.) The particular tactic of suicide bombing presents unique problems to law enforcement authorities combating terrorism and populations targetted by it; silly, politically correct phrases don’t help any. I can see not wanting to call suicide bombers “Paradise-bound martyrs to the glorious jihad against Jewish and Crusader imperialism” or something, but simple, factually descriptive terms should not be eschewed by a news organization for ideological reasons.
The set pieces, schemes, music, and bumpers are way too much for me. The conservative bias is too much for me. Bill O’Reilly is way too much for me.
Overall, Fox News puts too much “Look at us. We’re Edgy!!” into their news. They try to work “Fair and Balanced” like some sort of shield whenever somebody accuses them of bias.
In order to be more fair and balanced (all rights reserved, hail Rupert Murdoch), I will say that I hate the other news networks as well. Too much sensationalism for me. Call me old fashioned but I like my news boring.
Huh? Not that I particular like the term, but what part of blowing up school buses or restaurants don’t qualify being described, simple and factually, as being homicide bombings as much as Timothy McVeigh’s bombing? Different method doesn’t make the outcome any different. In any case it’s a helluva lot better than the gorilla or freedom fighter used by some media, or the gunmen used by CNN to describe the recent terrorists killings of a pregnant mother and her small children.
I’ve never understood the critizism, and think they are more honset in a way. They (Fox) will tell you their POV and also let you know from what side of the political isle they are from, as opposed to other news outlets where they claim to state things non-politically and never mind who they voted for.
I think it’s an issue of intollerence on the part of some who feel the ‘conventional’ news is middle of the road/unbiased.
I think Fox News is great! Never seen it on TV, and just very rarely go past their web-site. But basically I’m of the opinion that when it comes to (not state controlled) media I keep to the simple rule of the more the merrier – especially when the more means views from different political angels. I also think A’Jazeera is great for the same reason – though I’ve never seen (web-site only) a more vile and disgusting if thoroughly ridiculous news outlet.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I’ve never understood the critizism, and think they are more honset in a way. They (Fox) will tell you their POV and also let you know from what side of the political isle they are from, as opposed to other news outlets where they claim to state things non-politically and never mind who they voted for.
[QUOTE]
They also try to blur the line between what is POV and what is fact in their broadcasts. Not that the others don’t, Fox just tries harder and yells louder than the others.
It’s a question of deliberately using a term that contains less information, for ideological or propaganda purposes. “Bomber” or “bombing” have less information than a more specific term like “car bomb” or “truck bomb” or “letter bomb” or “pipe bomb” (which give some sense of the scale of destructive power of the bomb involved); “suicide bomber”, as opposed to “time bomb” gives an idea of the particular tactics involved. In the phrase “homicide bomber” the “homicide” doesn’t really tell you anything you don’t already know (since these days most people will assume as a matter of course that a Middle Eastern bomb attack is intended to be homicidal). In a headline like “Homicide bomber kills 4”, the word “homicide” is purely propagandistic and has zero informational content: “Homicide killer homicidally kills 4, homicidally”. By contrast “Suicide bomber kills 4” or “Time bomb kills 4” or “Booby-trapped teddy bear kills 4” tells you something about the tactics being used by the terrorists.
personally, I watch the news to be informed, not entertained. I watch news that does that. I watch RTE, BBC and Sky news, and of the three Sky (another Murdoch company) is the only one that has an unnatural bias, so to speak. Not to any particular idealology, rather to whatever side of a story that would favour Rupert Murdoch or his interests.
Christ on a subcommittee, its prissy avoidance of any kind of serious questioning of US policy had me marking it down as pretty conservative, while FOX simply appeared an absurd parody of CNN’s conservatism.
The only other places in the world where I felt that the news reporting was so selective and la-la-la-ear-fingered were not even democracies.
Do all the Americans on posting here (above) really think that CNN is a* leftist * news site? I can’t honestly see how anyone could ever get that impression.
I watch it a fair bit and only when I want to hear the pro-US, pro-corporate right-wing POV on a particular incident.
To suggest it is in any way left-leaning is completely laughable to this European.
(although I can see how it it may possibly be seen as the least-right of all the major US news broadcasters)
If you think CNN is leaning left, I’d love to see your faces if you wanted Ch4 news in the UK.
Indeed.
CNN was quite popular in Europe during and after the first US-Iraq war.
This time round many people just stopped watching the channel because of the shitloads of propaganda speeches repeated on the hour, every hour. You had to sit through 20 minutes of brainwashing rubbish to get a small bite of news. And even that little bit of news was the approved, official, patriotically correct version of what was going on.
Well I see mileage do indeed vary, for the first thing that enter my mind when I hear bomber attack are not bombs set off to maximize the number of dead humans. Rather it’s along the lines of sabotage a la WWII or perhaps the bombs favoured by some terrorist organisations, like the ETA, where they plant a bomb and then announce some time in advance they have planted it. The “homicide bomber” on the other hand awakes associations of bombs deliberately set off to kill as many people as possible. This is a fairly new invention of the extremist like Hamas and deserve specific notice. So perhaps homicide bomber do add the extra information that it is a bomb meant to kill people whereas suicide bombing just tells something about the chosen method. McVeigh on the other hand as far as I know, didn’t set out to kill as many people as possible - thought surely he didn’t go out of his way to avoid it, so I can’t see how you think he deserves the moniker but not the likes of Hamas and Al Quaeda whose target are primarily people.
It would appear that Fox News’ propagandistic word games have had their intended effect, in that you appear to believe that only Hamas and their ilk have ever set out to carry out terrorist attacks with the intent of deliberately killing large numbers of people.
And I’m not saying the term “homicide bomber” should be used for Timothy McVeigh instead of Palestinian suicide bombers; I’m just saying it’s a stupid, propagandistic term, and shouldn’t be used at all.
No, we don’t. And, we are constantly providing evidence (see here or here) of how it and the media as a whole in the U.S. does not have a left-wing bias. (And, one of those points is comparing the media in the U.S. to that around the world. However, there are apparently many people willing to subscribe to the point-of-view that “everybody is out of step but my Johnny”.) It is also hard to fight a tidal wave of silly claims coming from the right.