Right. Because if they aren’t blatantly right-wing like Fox ‘News’, they must be blatantly left-wing. It isn’t possible that CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. actually fairly and in a balanced way report the news, for FOX is right-wing, ipso facto, all else is left-wing.
The bottom line:
When a news network creates, produces, sponsors and advertises an event whose purpose is to show a specific and far right point of view, a point of view held by minority, and then covers this event as “news”;
When the same network consistently and repeatedly airs factually incorrect information that favors a far-right point of view;
It is not simply a “point of view” that this news organization is operating as a political entity. That is, they are not right-leaning. They are an integral part of the political tools of one political party.
That is the difference between FOX news and other networks.
And not badly written, either, considering its God’s second language…
I probably shouldn’t ask, and really shouldn’t be surprised at the answer… but… really?
There was Mark Sanford, D-SC. Then there was Mark Foley, D-FL
/snicker
I am, occasionally, surprised to find out that there are actual people who watch this channel and who think of it as “news”. Knowing you’re watching a right-wing fanwank and reveling in the self-promotional wankery is one thing, but watching it as a source for “news” is something entirely different. I forget sometimes that a significant chunk of their viewership isn’t in on the joke. My parents, for example.
The water rights issue is an ugly one. I’m from a major rice-growing area in Northern California. You want to see a bunch of farmers get all het up, just bring up the topic of routing water to LA, and a few million people moving to a desert because they like the sunshine and then getting mad that they don’t have all the water they want (whether or not Southern California’s civilian water use is at the root of the issue left completely aside).
Yes, it was a LIE! One person motioning for the crowd to whoop it up, big deal. Fox is somewhat partisan, and other stations are somewhat partisan too.
Do you think CBS would have done a late breaking (weekend before the election) on Juanita Brodderick’s rape allegations?
Stations pick and choose what is “news” and what is “mainstream” and “outside the mainstream” every day. It’s opinion. It has to be. Yes, I guess you are naive.
That is bad…and probably intentional unless they make a mistake the other way every once in awhile.
However, I have noticed on other news stations that when a Repub does something bad it is Repub name (R)…but when a Democrat does something wrong then nothing is there (no D).
I consider this a lesser but similar crime.
Cite for this ever happening? I hear righties make this claim a lot, but they never back it up.
Arlen Specter and Ted Stevens, too. Either they missed their chance with Joe Wilson, or else they decided they like him.
If by “civilian” you mean residential, my understanding is that the amount used by homes is chump change compared to that needed for agriculture.
If they had any reason at all to think there was any factuality behind it, sure. It would have been news and not a smear.
But that latest in a long string of unfounded “allegations” had as much behind it as the “Clinton Chronicles” video. So why are you calling it comparable?
BTW, “one person” matters when they’re acting under the control of a larger organization whose ethics are being questioned. Isn’t that true of Fox’s trumped-up ACORN story? Why isn’t it true of Fox itself?
If other stations are “somewhat partisan too,” what are other examples of stations actively behaving and promoting a partisan position or viewpoint as Fox routinely does? Selecting which stories are featured on air or in a paper doesn’t make the content of those stories opinion - given the limitations of airtime and print space, it’s just called prioritization. While there may be some bias in that prioritization, more often than not, it’s just the bias of what looks and sounds sensational and what isn’t (i.e. “if it bleeds, it leads”).
The people who rant about the alleged and blatant bias at network/cable news and newspapers especially seem to have no idea what actually goes on at these places.
Bring up the competing interests of fishermen, and the broader responsibility of the government to protect the environment, and, if you like, Jesus’ demand that we be its stewards as well as each others’, and you have a complex, nuanced story well worth an in-depth news analysis.
But Fox picked a side to advocate for, one that has the deepest funding behind it (Big Time Agribusiness), and one that is most easily rabbleroused. At what point does one recognize them as just a flack shop for hire to the highest bidder, not a legitimate news organization?
FOX hasn’t got ads on this thread!!!
(copied from the bottom after ElvisL1ives post:
Where was Obama Born?
The President was Born in Hawaii. Don’t Believe the Lies. Learn More!
www.FightTheSmears.com
By “civilian” I meant “non-agricultural”. The line of thought goes “you plunk a major city in the middle of a desert, you shouldn’t whine when you find out it’s dry”.
Like I said, I’m not actually arguing that’s the cause of the water issue. The folks tearing off on that tangent are usually completely ignoring the fishing and environmental concerns. I’m just saying: if you want to see a bunch of NorCal farmers get all het up about water rights, just ask 'em how they feel about Los Angeles. 
I’ve seen it at least twice that I remember but cannot remember the offender.
Minneapolis Star Tribune and Minneapolis TV news stations are the most likely.
The two I remember because one scandal (for the Repub) came out soon after the other (for the Demo) and I remember noticing.
Edit - One had to be the Tribune because I remember looking through the whole article looking for any mention of ‘Democrat’ and there was none where the other article mentioned ‘Republican’ several times.
Threads about Fox News and Bush lies. Is this board in a time warp back to 2002?
No one has revised the “ethics handbook” on this issue, Mr. Moto. The goal of the reporter or the journalist is still to report the news as accurately as possible – not to shape it, or make it. A commentator’s job is a different, but she or he is still supposed to remain uninvolved with that which is presented for an opinion. You may be present for a war that you are reporting on or even commenting on, but you shouldn’t be actively fighting that war. (Investigative pieces are still a different category with different guidelines.)
I can remember how reporters and camera men agonized during the war in Southeast Asia when monks would set themselves on fire in the streets in protest of the war. The journalists wanted to step in to try to save a life, but that would have been interfering with the story and with the monk’s rights. And so the photographs of monks burning to death in the streets kept appearing in newspapers around the world.
Not everyone crosses the lines so casually as the gutless wonders at Fox News. Do you not believe in professional standards anymore?
BTW, I believe that Dan Rather did show unprofessional conduct at times. I switched to NBC when his ego became apparent. I don’t doubt his integrity though.
From the organization itself rather than the people they are hiring? How many people have been found guilty so far and of what? Of these, how many were on the administrative staff?
bri1600bvi, in speaking of the farmers protesting the lack of water, you said this:
You can always tell by what they look like, can’t you?
Someone else said the farm owners got their employees to protest. Maybe some of them did. Were the people at the tea party rallies Hispanic? Were these people Hispanic? I think most of the employees in the farms in the San Joanquin Valley are Hispanic.
Does it matter what they look like?
That is an excellent point. One of the few times that I saw the press in general actually lean to the right from the middle was after the attacks of 9-11. They seemed to swallow everything whole until the “facts” started to fall apart, our military was so poorly equipped, and money was disappearing too fast. By the time of “Mission Accomplished,” the news media knew it had been “done” by a drooling geezer.
This is what I thought this thread would be about. You should watch the video, but to sum it up: Fox “News” took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post with a picture of the 9/12 Teabagger rally in Washington. At the top, in big-ass type, it says “How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?” As it turns out, all of those networks covered the story, and in fact the picture in the ad appears to have been taken by CNN.
A producer working up the crowd? Piffle. Oh, it’s horrible journalism, but nobody with any sense accuses Fox of practicing journalism these days anyway. I’d be more surprised if it didn’t happen.
The ad, on the other hand, represents a new and spectacular low for Fox, and I don’t say that lightly. They’ve plumbed such depths that it can’t be easy for them to find new lows, and yet they’ve managed. They took out a full-page ad in one of the nation’s leading newspapers which contained, in giant type, a series of outright and easily refutable lies. There’s just no spin you can put on that to make it anything less than mind-boggling. It’s like they’re trying to see just how much complete bullshit they can get away with.
(In fact, I’d say it also represents a low for the Washington Post, for accepting the ad in the first place.)
But, of course, all news networks are exactly equally corrupt, so it doesn’t really matter. I mean…I mean…Dan Rather!