Agreed. People with beards are scary.
Even in the context of what she was reporting it was inaccurate.
First it wasn’t a 2 mintue segment, it was 15 minutes. Second, nice strawman. I never said she needed to explain the intricacies or minutia of the programs. Fast and Furious is the name of an operation that started under the Obama administration. It is not a reference to a law enforcement strategy. It wasn’t a singular operation that was started and ran continuously through two administrations. Operation Wide Receiver ended while Bush was still in office. Fast and Furious started during the Obama administration.
Nobody was indicted for the mishandling of guns under the Bush administration. All indictments came under the Obama administration. For actions that began in 2006, under Bush.
Is cancer really all that bad ? I know this isn’t the OP’s question. My answer to both is: Yes, and worse than bad. But, I’m biased; I hate lies and the lying liars who tell them. Thanks, Al Franken.
Bumping an old thread, but this is just too good while at the same time not justifying a whole new thread :
Fox News apes Bioshock Infinite, without an atom of (intentional) irony.
Media Matters shows how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covered today’s jobs numbers: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/03/how-the-websites-of-fox-news-msnbc-and-cnn-are/199973.
To be fair, I don’t know if those snapshots are entirely fair comparisons. What’s at the top of a news site can change fast, so it may be the case* that Fox had the jobs numbers at the top of the site shortly before or after these screen captures were taken.
Anyway, Fox business analyst Charles Payne suggested that the jobs numbers might be “too good” (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/03/fox-business-host-jobs-report-might-be-too-good/199972). Saying the numbers are misleading, or they’re not good enough is old hat. Yep, these numbers are too good.
*probably not.
I’ve been monitoring this (see upthread where I’ve mentioned this phenomenon when the monthly jobs numbers come out). At no point today was this a headline on Foxnews.
Seriously, this is the biggest piece of news of the day on every single other site, and yet Foxnews doesn’t bother reporting it as anything higher than a subheading on the bottom of a page. How can anyone justify the fact that Foxnews (not its opinion, but its “news”) doesn’t bother to report the jobs numbers, but only when they are positive?
It’s clear as crystal to anyone with a brain that Fox “News” prefers to avoid highlighting any story that would cast Obama or his administration in anything but a negative light.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-checking-site-finds-fox-news-tells-truth-18-percent-time/
**Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time **
The problem is that MSNBC gets only a 31% and CNN 60%. I’d guess PBS is closer to 100% than either of those. Probably Al Jazeera is better too.
It isn’t Fox News, but all American news networks. Yes, Fox has an obvious slant to the right and then, almost in an act of facetiousness, claim to be fair and balanced. Any news network that would hire Rachel Maddow, also is obviously slanted as well.
They are all owned by only four corporations at this point. This presents a big problem. The term "third estate"came from the French Revolution which was a pamphlet stating that the common people should have a voice especially when it came to balancing out the power the ruling elites. It is the job of the media and the press to report facts and the truth in service to the citizens of this country to keep them informed. It is not there to play politics or interject personal opinion and ideologies in the guise of journalism. All media outlets serve the will of and follow the agenda of their owners. It is used to shape the zeitgeist and manipulate public discourse by spinning the language, distorting or perverting the facts, focusing news attention on things that are meant to distract or invoke a particular emotional response in the public etc.
The news media outlet, whether conservative or liberal, is delivering news in a way similar to how store fronts sell things out front to hide the mob operation in the back room. The reality of it is that money and consolidation of power are the ones that are shaping the content broadcasted to manipulate, distract, and control the public.
The press doesn’t do what they existed to accomplish in the first place anymore, to give a voice to the common citizenry. Now it simply exists as a sycophant which is channeling propaganda (right or left)
Serious question: If Fox News vanished, who would serve as the counterbalance to the leftward tilt in media?
Should America have an unbalanced, left-leaning media rather than a somewhat balanced one?
From my perspective, there is no leftward slant in American media. If anything, they all hold a corporatist viewpoint, which is NEVER really leftward. Yes, MSNBC has Rachel Maddow. They also have Morning Joke.
Of course, those of you who are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun will see most of the American media as left-leaning, but I’m not responsible for your delusions.
Uh, no, that was not a serious question.
When has that happened? You really need to recalibrate your view of the media because most of the left does not see any mainstream media source as left leaning as FOX is to the right.
From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter:
J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied:
“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything? Including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”
Amazingly, that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:
In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron’s economic models were bananas and Enron was likely not a good investment or a failure to come.
The Times economic reporter had this commentary, on why they did not report much of that conclusion before Enron was history:
Because “Other things came up!”
Charlie Rose, by not making any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer just completed the picture, media that depends on corporation revenue will have many inconvenient points of view not covered much if at all.
Like global warming, worker’s rights, women’s rights, access to health care; in essence the left does not have a ready made mainstream source that harps day in and out about issues that they consider important.
Rachel Maddow is opinion. Bill O’Reilly is opinion. I have no problem with that. I would argue that Glenn Beck or the Fox and Friends guys are considerably further to the right than Maddow (or anyone who has ever been an MSNBC show head) is to the left, but whatever. (I can’t defend having Al Sharpton have his own MSNBC show, and I won’t even try!)
What reeks is when you leave opinion and enter news. Can you comment on the fact that Foxnews simply does not report the jobs numbers when they are good during the Obama administration. It is generally nowhere to be found on their site. If they report anything at all, it is to somehow suggest that the good numbers are fake. When the job numbers are bad, they are all over it and it is on their headlines. So, their viewers, understandably believe that the unemployment rate has increased under Obama.
They are skewing the news in ways that you just don’t see on any other “legitimate” venue. By legitimate, I mean that I’m sure that you can find some equally egregious examples from the sidelines of news, but CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, and even more rightward examples like the Wall Street Journal report the jobs numbers every month because it is generally the biggest news of the day.
Care to explain what you believe this leftward tilt is and how it manifests?
The problem isn’t that Fox slants conservative, it’s that its conservative viewpoint takes precedence over its journalism. It is certainly possible to have a conservative slanted news source and still be respectable. See for example the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or the Weekly Standard. If Fox news was like one of these, journalism from a conservative view point rather than conservative propaganda in a journalistic wrapper, then I don’t think I would have such a problem with it. I wouldn’t like it, and would chose a different source to get my news, but at least I would respect it.
Exactly. Much of Fox News seems to be “news as product” or perhaps “conservative reassurance as product.” My Google Finance news feed often has multiple articles, two saying some version of “Stocks edge lower due to disappointing numbers,” plus Fox Business saying “Stock drop due to Obamanomics?” They take opinion pieces and present them as fact.
I think America should have a balanced media, but the conservative side deserves far better representation than Fox News is providing.
As I said on another forum: “If Fox News is ‘the conservative side’, then one question - why the fuck can’t you do better?”
I agree with the first sentence. But it seems to me that respectable conservative media are rare – the WSJ and National Review seem to have greatly declined in quality in recent years. WSJ publishes outright climate change denialism in its opinion pages, often written by complete scientific illiterates, and National Review has shrill and sophomoric idiots like Mark Steyn now writing for them.
It’s the Fox News Effect.
Thoughtful, non-shrill conservative journalism and editorials just ain’t sexy anymore.