I wish FOX would differentiate properly, but it does not matter if the Glenn Beck show is on the air, the FOX NEWS logo is still showing up.
Also the most egregious misleading information regarding global warming (and the political implications) showed up in the **Business **reporting section of FOX.
Shodan:
The reasonable ones, sure. The extremists are denying that liberal media bias exists, and labelling anyone who dissents as evil bigots and the usual mixture of foam and bullshit.
One advantage on the SDMB at least of Bricker ’s thread as cited is that the extremists don’t bother trying to prove what they say any more - just scream and repeat. This makes it easy to dismiss their opinions.
Not that I don’t anyway - I consume all sorts of media, and I can always count on some of the more vehemently silly posters on the SDMB to let me know what the news is saying in La-La Land.
Regards,
There are always going to be extremists though. I suppose my point was more in line with the idea that while most media is a little bad, some (ie, Fox) is quite a lot worse then the others.
So when someone tries to say that ‘MSNBC’ is just as bad, it’s not really true.
In any event, I agree with you overall point in that the correct avenue should be to digest several different sources.
Mr_Smashy:
Not necessarily. It’s possible that they choose to willingly ignore MSM gaffes since they’d be criticizing their own, so to speak. At least, that’s what so much of the right believes: they think that it takes a Fox or a Drudge to talk about RatherGate, or more recently, the Black Panther voter intimidation. Hell, didn’t it take one of those groups to take down ACORN? To expose MonicaGate and Clinton?
And almost all of the points you mention had been debunked, but not thanks to FOX , the only exception I grant you is RatherGate, but even there the right continues to ignore that the rest of the evidence still showed that George Bush’s sorry ass should had been sent to Vietnam.
“Both sides”
Already they are biased towards the flat-earth theory… :eek:
GIGObuster:
And almost all of the points you mention had been debunked, but not thanks to FOX , the only exception I grant you is RatherGate, but even there the right continues to ignore that the rest of the evidence still showed that George Bush’s sorry ass should had been sent to Vietnam.
Really? Who broke the Lewinsky scandal, then?
News of the scandal first broke on January 17, 1998, on the Drudge Report website,[19] which reported that Newsweek editors were sitting on a story by investigative reporter Michael Isikoff exposing the affair.
Debunked indeed.
Edit to add: I tend to group Fox and Drudge and Breitbart into the same camp. I trust the lefties here do too.
Stoneburg:
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?
As long as you apply the same standard to people who think that Saturday Might Live is a politically ‘balanced’ media outlet, or think of it as objective news outlet.
There was no intentional dishonesty in “Rathergate.” CBS got duped (and the essentials of the story were all true anyway). Fox is deliberately dishonest.
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.
-XT
If he considers Fox a politically ‘balanced’ media outlet, or think of it as objective news, then it doesn’t matter, we can dismiss him.
emacknight:
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.”
Well, I enjoy watching the Simpsons, I consider that pretty dfair and balanced.
Fox is news for the intellectually impaired, so I express my sympathy for their condition.
ACORN didn’t do anything that warranted its shutting down. The fact that you think that somehow what destroyed them was *journalism * is interesting. Since the case that was made against them wasn’t based on facts. It was based on the lies that FOX among others circulated.
The journalism part or the commentary part?
Oh snap.
Do you know of anyone that watches just the news part of Fox News on a regular basis?
emacknight:
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.
C’mon. How many liberals take Michael Moore literally? He brings up a few good points here and there but he’s more than a bit over the top.
Sam_Stone:
Frankly, I think the whole search for a ‘fair and balanced’ news outlet is the wrong way to approach things.
There’s no such thing as a completely fair and balanced news source. All of them have their biases. If not political, then geographical or social. The murder of a an American child gets more attention than the murder of 10,000 Rwandans. The nightly news is much more likely to focus on issues that affect California, New York, and Atlanta, since that’s where the influencers of the news are.
Rather than searching for the mythical unbiased source, I think you’re better to listen to all sides, assuming they all have their own biases. I watch Fox sometimes, but I also watch MSNBC. I read National Review, and I also sometimes read The Nation or The New Republic. I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olb… Okay, that last bart isn’t true. Both of them are bloviating gasbags. I can’t stand more than a few minutes of either one.
What we should care more about is bias that is hidden. If someone tells you they are non-partisan but bias everything towards a partisan viewpoint, that’s bad. I believe much of the mainstream media does this. But the fact is, on election night in 2008, hosts on CNN were weeping tears of joy, and hosts on Fox were crying in their milk. That tells me that both sides are biased. I just wish they had signs that said, “Get your LIBERAL news here! Get your CONSERVATIVE news here!” Then people wouldn’t be duped by them.
The only way you get to fair and balanced is to listen to both sides with an unprejudiced mind, and draw your own conclusions.
Why not simply watch CSPAN, NBC, ABC and CBS News? Sure they nmight get it wrong from time to time but they are not pushing an agenda.
Who made sure that the story that took them down was propogated? Who gave it airplay? Hint: it wasn’t Keith O.
I think what you’re missing is that it was a fake story. Fox wasn’t “reporting” anything, they were making it up. Making stuff up isn’t journalism.
CSPAN? ESPN? They don’t cover all the news but what they do cover they try to do with fidelity.
Well, now, since the evidence has surfaced that the entire O’Keefe-Breitbart project was a total pack of lies, is Fox News forthrightly admitting their error?
