I’ve realized that if someone tells me that they consider FOX to be a politically ‘balanced’ media outlet, or think of it as objective news, I will dismiss them. Meaning I will basically consider their opinions so wildly biased that I will give little or no credence to whatever they say on certain issues.
Is that OK or is it bigoted?
OK vs. Bigoted, I don’t know. But my reaction is the same as yours when it happens.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Bias is purely subjective and in the eyes of the beholder, so don’t be surprised if that same person dismissing you for much the same reason that you dismiss them.
Personally, I think it’s better to judge based on the content of their position instead of where they get their news, but that’s just me. YMMV…
-XT
Judging somebody for saying they think Fox News is balanced IS judging them on the content of their opinion.
I don’t necessarily dismiss somethinmg just because somebody says they saw it on Fox, but if they tell me they think Fox is fair and balanced, or an objective source, then they’re telling me something about themselves. “Fox News is fair and balanced” is not an intellectually defensible opinion.
No, you are prejudging them on what you THINK their opinion would be (on a range of given subjects) based strictly on where they get their news.
Depends on one’s world view and political outlook I’d say. Personally, I would agree with you…but then I have similar (though not the same) prejudices you do on this topic.
-XT
It’s not an opinion that Fox news is unbalanced. It is a demonstrable fact.
It’s bigotry.
It’s nothing of the kind. If somebody tels me they like Rush Limbaugh, I don’t care. If someone tells me Rush Limbaugh is a completely honest and accurate source of information, then I know they’re an idiot.
And since when did it become “bigotry” to judge somebody’s opinions? Is Limbaugh a bigot when he bashes liberals?
How would you demonstrate it? From what perspective? From a left wing perspective? Centrists? Right wing? Some immutable fantasy yardstick? If one is on the right wing, then Fox IS ‘balanced’, since it caters to that political world view.
As a thought experiment: My dad watches Fox News pretty much continuously. What’s his opinion on abortion? How about concerning the deficit? Medicare? The war in Iraq? Prayer in school?
-XT
From a scientific perspective. It’s no trick to measure the amount of time given to overtly conservative views as compared to that of liberal views.
I didn’t say you could tell anything about somebody by whether they watched Fox News, I said you can tell something about them by whether they think it’s a balanced presentation of the news. It is not. Anyone with any intelligence knows that it is not. Anyone who actually believes the “fair and balanced” mantra lacks critical thinking skills.
Doesn’t this follow the same line of reasoning as, “is it okay to dismiss someone in the KKK?” Their either racist assholes, or ignorant buffoons, neither group worthy of respect.
I think the moral of the story here is to the better person, since there isn’t any reason to dismiss someone based on a single criteria.
As a side example: last year my wife and I “won a free dinner” to a wellness seminar. Long story short it turned out to be a sales pitch by a chiropractor. The guy turned out to be really knowledgeable and charismatic, making a really convincing case for the benefits of chiropractic treatment. Right up until the point he mentioned he didn’t vaccinate his children. We politely excused ourselves shortly after hearing that.
Was I bigoted, hell ya.
Would I trust my money and health to a guy that doesn’t understand vaccinations, hell no.
I can tell quite a bit about someone’s political views if she says that Fox gives the most balanced presentation of the news.
But it doesn’t tell me if that person is a kind, interesting or decent human being. It just tells me that that person is a conservative who is somewhat gullible.
If someone said the same thing about ABC news, I would not be able to make any judgments about their political views. They could be just as conservative and gullibe or liberal and gullible.
Just for clarity, are we talking about the “news” part of Fox News, or the station as a whole?
The Fox News Network is a series of right leaning political commentators. But they do have little 5min segments of reporting every hour or so. That stuff is moderately balanced in that, “Police are a chasing a fugitive.”
Someone that is pro-choice, in favour of big government, supports Obama, and wants UHC would have a very difficult time sitting through Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, and O’Reilly. That’s 3 solid hours where someone talks about how Obama wants to raise taxes, kill babies, and ruin medicare.
If you believe that it sounds like sweet music. If you don’t, it’s like nails on a chalk board.
It might help if we defined what we mean by Fox News.
Fox News admits bias! Insiders on Fox admit it. It so obvious that it does not require a confession. But every now and then they do it.
No, it is not. If you are resorting to such infantile tactics as pretending that any Republican that does something wrong is actually a member of the Democratic Party, or photoshopping images of your opponents to make them look ugly and inhuman, you are, objectively speaking, biased.
How would you quantify what’s a ‘liberal view’ vs a ‘conservative view’, and how are you drawing the center line? Based on what yardstick? I’m not seeing as how a ‘scientific perspective’ is going to be able to determine this, since it’s subjective, not objective, but if you’d like to lay out at least how it would work I’d appreciate it.
Mind, I think that Fox IS biased…but then, I’m basing that on my own political perspective and prejudice and bias against it. If there was actually a news organization that catered to my own political views then I’d see that as the yard stick, so anything they presented that would be left or right of that view point I’d see as ‘balanced’ and ‘fair’. You probably view the news you listen too in much the same way, and probably think of your view as the center point.
Would you think that anyone with ‘intelligence’ could believe in a divine being? Or that they lack critical thinking skills? You are making assumptions based on your own bias and projecting those biases onto those who don’t see the world in the same way you do. Personally, I think that everyone has blind spots and biases…which means that one some subjects a person can be rational, on others completely bonkers. It’s why I can have a calm, rational discussion with you on some subjects, but not so much on others. 
-XT
Well, some evidence was shown to demonstrate how Fox news is unbalanced,so how about by using science? 
To get some background, I bring this post from the great former member of the SDMB Phil Plait, aka “The Bad Astronomer” (Darn, I really miss him!)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/01/climategates-death-rattle/
And I did point before that FOX was (and is) one of the most misleading sources of information regarding this “scandal”
http://mediamatters.org/columns/201007090048
Of course, we will see soon as many reports discussing the exoneration of the scientists at FOX just like the ones they made pumping up the “scandal”…
Sorry, I can not even hold my breath for even a nanosecond expecting that FOX will do the right thing.
Also, as a liberal comparison, think back to the movie *Sicko *by Michael Moore.
It’s no secret that I am a proponent of UHC, and I watched that movie expecting to hear things I agreed with.
But the guy sucks. His arguments suck. He did a disservice to liberals.
I know a lot of ill-informed and gullible people that watched that with a big grin nodding the whole time–sucking down the kool-aid, then regurgitating for the little gullible baby birds around them.
No self-respecting liberal would think Michael Moore presents a fair and balanced look at topics. So we can say that it’s okay to dismiss someone that thinks Michael Moore is a journalist.
It’s fine to enjoy his movies, but don’t consider them factual.
My own view is look for who is saying the path of Love and connecting between God’s children. Sometimes that view is expressed on ‘conventional’ media, sometimes on ‘alternative’ media, sometimes neither sometimes both.
I have found that there are no hard and fast rules, nothing that can be written down as guidelines when it comes to where the path of Love is. If you are dismissive of someone for using alternative media that is just as bad as a person who accepts it, neither is right, though they may be right on some issues.
Well, I agree with you, as I agree with DtC that Fox is biased. The thing is, if someone watches MM and sits there nodding, does that really tell you anything about what they think on OTHER subjects? Can you simply dismiss anyone who watches MM movies and agrees with them? Can you know what their positions will be on other subjects and simply know that they won’t have any valid points or bring anything interesting to the discussion?
As with the Fox News watcher, I think you’d need to judge for yourself, and that said judgment might change depending on the topic under discussion. Maybe some MM Sicko fan doesn’t know shit about health care, but knows quite a bit about economics, or partial physics, or who the best porn stars are. Will you simply dismiss them because they like MM?
-XT