Because for many it is on/off. If you agree with me, you are unbiased. If you do not, you are biased.
Actually, I agree with you - Fox is biased right, many others are biased left, and it is easy to see.
Ditto to what Mr. Obvious said.
Are the mainstream network news outlets biased to the left? Slightly. Is Fox News biased to the right? Considerably. There is a difference between slightly and considerably.
I remain skeptical about the “other networks are biased to the left” claim. It’s a nice canard for conservatives to trot out and wail about being persecuted, but AFAIK there’s no reliable citation that that’s the case.
But perhaps this is a separate topic for another thread.
Because people love porn–even when it’s more ideological than sexual. Look at the popularity of the Left Behind novels.
How about a bias to objectivity aiding informed decisiion-making ?
Would anyone dispute NPR as a solid source ?
NPR is the propaganda arm of the Unitarian Church, kind of like the Jesuits for the Catholics. They get thier Birkenstocks for free and can buy Ben and Jerry’s at cost. God bless 'em, each and every.
You could probably find as many to dispute NPR as you could for FOX. Both sides see what they want to see.
I don’t get this “bias” crap. I switch back and forth between FOX, CNN and MSNBC all the time, and they all pretty much report the same stuff. In fact, I’ve tended to watch more FOX lately because the other two seem to be 24 Hour Laci Peterson/Kobe Bryant channels. FOX isn’t quite as bad in that respect. Again, I think a lot of people confuse the News Analysis programs (like Hannity and O’Reilly) with the News programs. You won’t find a nuttier far right News Analysis program than MSNBC’s Scarborough Country.
Good, that settles it then. :rolleyes:
There is no such thing as objectivity in the news business. It is impossible to be objective, unless you are dead.
Fairness is another matter.
The allegation that Fox News simply brings balance to a media that has a left wing bias has been thrown out any number of times. We have had thread after thread claiming that, one, NPR is a left wing organ, and two, that NBC, ABC and CBS news, as well as NPB have a leftist slant to their news broadcast. I suspect that much of the ‘lefty news media” talk turns on stuff like Walter Cronkite’s revelation that the war in Vietnam was a huge SNAFU, the guy with the bad hair not being as differential to President Reagan as one would expect when dealing with an elderly and some what forgetful gentleman, and one network anchor or another raising an eyebrow. The stuff with Cronkrite is more than 30 years old and there are few who will not concede that Vietnam was an immense screw up. Dan Rather’s forceful questioning is resented because the questionees did not want to answer those particular questions. The eyebrow thing is just laughable.
Just once, once and for all, in specifics of policy or reportage, I would like the people who defend things like Fox News as being complete and accurate or a necessary counter balance to the lefty slant of the other major news outlets to put up or shut up. If this is not the time or place for this, then tell me when and where is the proper time and place.
In the mean time I will continue to see Fox News as the wholly owned subsidiary of the National Republican Party and the licensed house organ of the committee to reelect George Bush.
.
Indeed Spavined Gelding, I will finish my contribution here with this thought:
Normally, biased cites are no good, but in this case if we want to judge what is left leaning, I would suggest to get the opinion from the left. Deciding what is left leaning or right leaning remains a matter of opinion: so here are left leaning opinion threads on the media at the Democratic Underground forum: (The reason they call themselves underground, is because the DNC is in reality center right)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=109
Some consensus I see: they (and I admit I agree with many of their points) CNN and other mainstream news sources are not left leaning. They think that many times the fairness they show to Bush, actually appears as a whitewash; I figure the mainstream looks left leaning to conservatives only because of the effort to be fair. I think in the case of the right, it is mostly selective memory that causes them to think, that the attempt to be fair, is left bias.
This is clear to me though:
AFAICR the consensus of the right is that FOX news is “their” news, if the consensus in the left is to complain about CNN, ABC, CBS, etc, it is obvious to me that CNN et al, are doing the right thing of being fair to both sides. And that the left has little or no outlets in the US mainstream.
Not really. I used to watch Fox News and their news reporting had a blatant slant towards G.W. Bush and the Republican party, especially during the period when the case for war was being made. The thing is news anchors like Linda Vester, Brit Hume etc often play the role of news analysts while they report the news.
To compare Fox and BBC is mind-boggling.
I don’t think anyone has. While I have mentioned them both, I was certainly not intending to imply any similarity.
But this thread is about the ‘memo’ from above - I guess they all be memoed as to the correct ‘take’. We’ve also had threads about the survey that says FOX viewers are more likely to believe the presidential line (Saddam linked to a-Q, 9/11, etc).
So summin’s up.
Of course its biased, all news media is, especially media in a free market.
People get the news they want, not the news some ivory tower schmuck thinks they need. If Fox is biased Right its because theyve figured out that news from that slant is going to sell, and they are going to make a profit. Theyre giving the people want they want. The media in a free society doesnt control the people, the people control whats on the media.
Its just like advertising/marketing; its reactive, not proactive. Its responding to peoples wants and perceived needs.
Im not really sure how anyone could have the idea that all they need to to do is plunck their ass in a chair and watch one station, or read one paper, or take one class, or listen to one professor, or listen to one politician and get an objective view of things. As if being educated was a passive process that required no effort on the part of the one seeking to be educated.
Every single media outlet in every single nation that has any amount of a free market and free press is going to be biased, if not for any other reason than to stay in existance by pleasing the people who pay for it. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Whats wrong is when people pretend theyre seeking to be educated about things but they only access information that tends to agree with their own view. This happens on the Left, Right and everywhere in between. But just as its easy to spot BiaS in the media for those who know its their own responsiblity to do so, its also easy to spot those who are merely pretending to want to figure anything out, all the while wanting their own view reinforced.
Anyone who wants to get as objective a view as possible is going to have to access as many different sources of information as they can, and then use their brain to parse the real from the crap. Especially as todays choices of information grow exponentially every day.
The only real way to eliminate bias in the media is to eliminate the amount of media choices that are out there. Anyone wanna go there?
I have to laugh when I read people here claiming any American commercial news outlet is leftist! All there are are shades of right-ness, by the standards of TROTW.
This truly represents the state of US public beliefs, so is not a problem in the news outlets themselves.
Right…Just to clarify, what they believe here are objectively false “facts”. (It’s not just that they have views or opinions more aligned with Bush.)
So we agree that Fox’s claim of being “Fair and Balanced” is just another big, fat, steamin’ lie?
If that’s true, then why should anyone try advertising?
Agreed. From now on, for the sake of us non-Americans, can we refer to “right” and “further right”.
** London_Calling** : “We’ve also had threads about the survey that says FOX viewers are more likely to believe the presidential line (Saddam linked to a-Q, 9/11, etc).”
Jshore: “Right…Just to clarify, what they believe here are objectively false “facts”. (It’s not just that they have views or opinions more aligned with Bush.)”
** National Review** “Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda,” Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.”
** Opinion Poll **
(1) Do you think that the possibility exists that Saddam Hussein had a link to al Qaeda ?
Fox Viewer: Yes. That possibility certainty existed.
(2) Do you think that* Saddam Hussein* had a link to the events of 911 ?
Fox Viewer: Of course. (Is there an echo in this room?) If Saddam had a link to al Qaeda it is reasonable to think that he had a link to the mass murder that you call an “event”, of 911.
So,* Jshore**, what we believe, we ourselves will determine whether or not we are believing objectively “false facts”. Thanks for your presumption, non-the-less.* _ 
No. You would want it to be fresh in the voter’s heads as they went to the polls. That’s all the talk was about going into election day. And I believe it was planned that way.
It didn’t work, but they tried. I’m a democrat who was done with Davis, and I saw that as a politically motivated move by the LA Times.