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?
Then we both agree that other MSM are biased like Fox.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
That was from earlier this year. During the 2010 election, another study found similar results:
Even way back in 2003 with regard to the Iraq War, you had this study come out:
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:
[LIST=A]
[li]Fox News is really bad at informing their viewers.[/li][li]Fox News is really good at misinforming their viewers[/li][li]Fox News viewers are mostly mouth-breathers.[/li][li]A combination of any or all of the above.[/li][/LIST]
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?”
They have the hottest women.
This has been shown to be false time and time again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.