So, when I left the US in 1999, I recall Fox news being a regular news channel.
Sure it had a slight slant to the right. Just like CNN is news from an American perspective and BBC is news from a British perspective.
Have been living in Asia since then, and a few years ago, I was so happy to find I could watch full episodes of Stewart and Colbert online. They seemed to joke about Fox quite a bit. I always thought they were comedy bits exaggerating some comments or news bits which Fox might have gotten wrong. I mean I do remember CNN in the early days (late '80’s) and how they would occasionally screw up.
Not long ago, Fox news became available on cable out here. Watching it, my jaw dropped. I’ve never seen anything so one sided in my life.
I’ve heard that they are the most popular news channel in the US. Is this true? Or is that a number invented by Fox, like so many things they seem to report.
I have to admit I can’t help watching it, much like watching a car wreck on the highway. I know I shouldn’t look, but I can’t help myself.
If anything, I now understand Stewart and Colbert so much more.
I’m curious, do you watch it? And do you believe it’s “Fair & Balanced”?
Personally, I can’t even consider it news.
So, when I left the US in 1999, I recall Fox news being a regular news channel.
More or less, it looks like. A commentary on how contemptible the typical American has become.
No, for the same reason I don’t bother to listen to political speeches. There’s no point in watching professional liars.
Not even close, it’s the Republican Party version of Pravda.
It isn’t, it’s propaganda. IIRC Britain denied them a license because they don’t qualify as a news channel, and because they insisted in court that they had a right to lie.
The most important part of the overall media landscape is that there are a multitude of new sources with a multitude of political slants. No media institution is without being political colored.
The BBC is the inheritor of the Pravda. A gigantic state-financed media.
And why should they require a license? Do we want the state to decide what constitutes proper news and what does not?
I find glenn beck absolutely hilarious. But every now and then you get a cold feeling as you realize that millions of people watching are taking this shit seriously.
That line gets trotted out a lot. Sure, pretty much every news source has some political slant. But good sources make an effort to gather as much actual data as possible, and at least try to form a conclusion based on the data. Also, for sources that do state an opinion, you can tell a good source when they will point out any prior errors or changes to their opinion.
State Financed is not the same as government run.
They require a license because a news outlet has to meet certain standards of accuracy and objectivity.
I am not a brit, but this seems enitirely logical to me. On the other hand, if Fox News wanted to change their name to Fox Entertainment then they well get a licence.
BTW - I know nothing about England’s Broadcasting laws,
WOW, is this what it’s like watching Fox News?
For the record, the BBC is funded by the tax payer, not the government, just like Fox is funded by the cable subscribers and advertisers. The licence fee is collected by the BBC, not the ‘state’, under a Royal Charter, which, by the way, recognises its editorial independence. Feel free to educate yourself here. The ‘state’ doesn’t get to touch the money.
And news channels require a licence to operate as ‘news’, because political propaganda is required to be upfront and open about its bias. News broadcasters are required to at least attempt to be unbiased. Now tell me, why doesn’t Fox want to comply with regulations requiring lack of bias? Why don’t they want to just broadcast as ‘entertainment’? Who’s behaving like Pravda now?
Some years ago I heard a program on Australian radio, a bunch of media analysts discussing news coverage of the Middle East. The moderator asked about a recent item on Fox News and one of the experts said, “Well of course Fox isn’t news, it’s just entertainment.” The rest of the panel immediately agreed.
No. The news media is is overwhelmingly dominated by middle-right to the far right, with only a narrow range of political viewpoints being tolerated. It’s heavily controlled; we just refuse to admit it because the ones doing the controlling are the corporations & the wealthy, not the government. And somehow that doesn’t count.
It’s part of the government’s job to decide what is fraud and not. Fox is fraud.
Nonsense. The BBC is not an institution dedicated solely to politically motivated lies; Pravda and Fox News are. You are just engaging in the standard libertarian nonsense about how something only counts as propaganda (or anything else bad) if the government does it.
People like you are so easy to rule.
You forget that Rune comes from a Scandinavian country where the people are regularly fed Pravda style propaganda from cradle to grave, whether directly from the government and its educator/indoctrinator class, or from its government subsidized - and indirectly controlled - news media.
People like you are easy to exploit, and enslave.
Even if that’s true, it means nothing since we are talking about Fox, and thus America. I fail to see how swapping “government” for “corporate” makes matters better.
Every media source in the world can be shown to carry lobsided stories or a editorial stance that favours one political direction over the other. This is normal and to be expected. People should always be wary when using just one place to get their news.
That said Fox News is the most ridiculous news station I’ve ever seen. I remember watching it with friends for entertainment. We’d just sit and laugh at the craziness we were watching. Partisan doesn’t even begin to describe what was happening. To even try to equate it with the BBC is laughable. It shows you have either (a) never seen Fox News (b) never seen the BBC or © so tied up with your own sides politics that you have lost all sense of actual truth.
Again I’m not saying that news can’t be biased or slanted but Fox is out there on their own from my experience with rolling news chanells.
It’s probably less funny when you reflect that it’s so widely believed as absolute truth.
Fox uses an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it.
Did you mean rule as in “keep subservient”? If so I don’t think you recognise DT.
When I saw your post I thought you had misspelled “rile” - and wondered if that counted as calling someone a troll.
Of course I meant ‘rule’.
Once you succeed in pumping a particular belief system into DT’s skull case and manage to make it stick he’s a tool in the hands of the ruling pumper.
Hey DT, could you provide some links to that, I hadnt heard of this before, I’d be interested. Thanks. (Something more solid than wiki if you can).
P.S: the BBC=Pravda. Just .
I have never watched Fox News, but you must have watched a lot of BBC. What you write is merely semantics. The taxpayers are forced to pay to BBC through a set of laws written by the government, and if a taxpayer refuses to pay the state will intervene with various forms of force and punishment to make sure he does what he is told. By comparison, as far as I know, no one is forced to pay to Fox. And if such compulsion exists then that is wrong too.
I don’t trust anyone to tell me what is proper news and what is not. That is a call I’m quite capable of making myself. You may feel otherwise.
Rune your problem with the BBC seems to be based on how it is funded and not it’s editorial content. This isn’t a debate about the UK’s (Ireland has one as well BTW) TV licence system. It’s about the content and balance on Fox News V’s other stations.
Yeah, pretty much. Repeat outrageous slander as straight fact enough times and eventually people will believe it.
The Murdoch media have been hammering away at the BBC’s status for years both in their own news and opinion reporting and, as much as is possible, via their supporters in Parliament. They either want a slice of the licence fee money or for the BBC to be hobbled.
In the UK these rules only apply to broadcast media; the print media are allowed to be as biased as you like. And boy howdy, they are. As a result, you can’t believe anything you read in the newspapers. But I guess it’s okay if they all lie, as long as they all lie differently in the interest of “balance”.
News International has a UK news channel; it’s called Sky News (although there’s been some recent corporate shuffling so I’m not sure who owns what at the moment). I think it’s Canada that recently turned down FoxNews due to excess bias.
Aquila, a challenge for you.
Go away and watch both Fox news and the BBC news. You can pick any 5 minute section of both programs, and if you want, you can cherry pick the ones that you think will make your case. Count the number of basic logic fallacies employed (you can find a list HERE) I’m pretty damn confident that the BBC at it’s very worst can beat FOX at it’s very best.
I discovered Fox when I was at University and it always has provided a kind of horrifying fascination, it’s like watching a really unsubtle parody of bad television reporting. I certainly agree with you that there are risks in relying unquestioningly on any single news source, including the BBC, possibly especially the BBC, given the degree of trust and respect it has accrued. Nevertheless comparing it unfavourably to Fox news in terms of political bias is just laughable.
The BBC has always walked a fine line between relying on the peoples good will to protect it from the government (the government has no control but can certainly cause them trouble) whilst not becoming overly populist.
Critically the British public’s love for the BBC is heavily associated with it’s reputation for impartiality and not just because it tells them what they think that they want to hear. This could change and if it does then the BBC will certainly have a lot of trouble maintaining it’s values. Most British citizens value the perception that the BBC will provide them with unbiased news rather than a narrative, it’s not like they don’t know where to go for alternative “News” sources when they wish to wallow in an echo chamber of their own prejudices :(.
Both organisations are ultimately responsible to their audience, if Fox’s audience suddenly decides they want the unbiased truth then they will probably get most of it. If the BBC’s audience suddenly decide they want a right (or left) wing version of Jackanory rather than journalistic integrity the BBC will be in a lot of trouble.