From the OP:
We’re talking about FOX news in its entirety.
Hannity is on a news channel, Stewart is not. Most of what is on FOX isn’t journalism. If he’s no more biased than Stewart, do you have examples of Stewart being as blatantly dishonest?
I watch Jon Stewart and it’s pretty obvious that it’s not news. For example he refers to his own show as “fake news”, he calls himself a comedian and the show is presented as a comedy show on Comedy Central. I don’t think anyone without a severe mental disability will confuse that with a news show.
I just watched the clips posted with Hannity and it looks, and sounds, like news. It is presented as if it was news. And the logo says “Fox News Channel”. It’s the Colbert Report without the funny. Presented as news.
I don’t watch much US news so I don’t have a lot of references, but I’ve seen this Glenn Beck guy a couple of times now. My impression was “How can this guy be on TV? He should be getting medical attention.” He’s a crazy person. Seriously.
If you’re going to juxtaposition him to someone it would be Osama Bin Laden. An extremist with an ultra-radical world view who has a sect-like group of fanatical followers.
The idea of moral relativism doesn’t mean that “everything is as biased”. That’s crazy talk. I’m biased, and I am aware of it. I don’t consider myself as the litmus test of objectivity, if someone agrees with me on everything they’re biased too. That doesn’t mean I can’t construct a barometer of objectivity. The idea that it can’t be done seems teleologically constructed. Basically “if I follow this way of thinking I come to a conclusion I don’t like, so I’ll start with the conclusion I like instead and try to work it backwards”.
Hmm. I guess I answered my own original question there. People who think FOX is balanced or objective can be reasonably assumed to lack certain critical thinking skills and be heavily partisan.
I honestly think you’re missing the point.
There is a huge part of this country that believes that the MSM deliberately buries stories that make the Dems look bad so they can keep their buddies in power, which has worked of late (at least, until this Nov). The Lewinsky scandal is but one example; unless you are prepared to say that that Wiki has it wrong and Newsweek wasn’t sitting on the story, to a righty this is pretty cut and dried evidence that Fox and their friends publish stuff that the MSM isn’t willing to publish, if only because it hurts their cause.
There’s also a big contingent of people who believe that the left deliberately hypes stories that make business, capitalism, etc look bad. Personally I don’t buy into that one: I think that the nature of journalism success is pushing as many David v Goliath stories as they can; those tend to be the ‘little guy’, whom the left disingeniously claims to support, vs some big company.
Same thing with the recent non-prosecution of a pretty cut and dried case of voter intimidation. That story was broken by the Washington Times, a right wing publication.
Finally, I notice that nobody has acknowledged that Chris Wallace was hammering a Republican on FNS this week, over the tax cuts. So one cannot seriously claim that Fox News is merely a mouthpiece for the GOP or an organ of the RNCC.
The “mainstream media” (defined by me as the networks, cable and over-the-air, major city newspapers, Time and Newsweek) is right wing?
You’re kidding, right?
The proper response to which would be, “You mean, arguments not any way based on faith or tradition?”
I would say that the one that is kidding is you, have you missed the huge middle in your argument?
This doesn’t make any sense, but I love that you keep proving the OP’s point.
So your proof is that Newsweek sat on a story, that the Drudge Report broke?
First, the Drudge Report isn’t Fox News. Second, they just report shit at random. The Drudge Report WANTED this story to be true, how confident are you that they did any fact checking? As far as I can tell, they threw shit at the wall and hope it stuck.
Third, reporting that rumor isn’t what MSM is supposed to do. Jessica Simpson might be pregnant, should the NYT be reporting on that?
Forth, how does one news outlet represent ALL news outlets. “MSM” didn’t sit on a story, Newsweek did. The editors didn’t all get together and decide together. You do realize that right?
I guess the Jews that control everything might not have wanted the name Lewinsky to be tarnished (it’s a Jewish name right?).
Tell me again, who (or what) is the “mainstream media” ?
I gave you my definition - you got a better one, bring it.
as for your other post, now I know I’m being whooshed.
You are comparing Jessica Simpson being pregnant to adultery by the President? yes, Newsweek did sit on it. Still awaiting a cogent reply on that, BTW. And a ‘right wing’ journalist broke it. That’s the reason why many do watch Fox News, read Drudge and the WaTimes, etc ( and as an aside, even though I’m not one of them, I understand the idea - you cannot trust the other networks, which hype liberal stories, to present both sides in a balanced manner).
(By the way, it sounded as if you doubted Drudge’s story, saying he didn’t fact-check… um, you do know that Clinton admitted the affair already, which also implicated him as a perjurer… right?. But then again I’m pretty sure it was part of the vast right wing conspiracy.)
I know if you are on the left it’s easier just to make fun of the organizations, or the people who watch them. Fine, whatever, kids will be kids (Lobo being exhibit A. But ridiculing people who don’t trust Newsweek, ABC, et al to actually report something, or in the case of Rather and CBS, report it honestly in the face of massive evidence to the contrary because a certain story fits his agenda, makes you look, well, emotional and small; even in the best light, you look elitist.
HA
Okay, read your last paragraph, then read your first.
I’ll give you some time.
.
.
.
.
.
Well?
The question of Fox News’ overrall balance is one of opinion. The nature of opinions is that they vary. If you dismiss someone because of their opinion you’re being careless and cavalier.
If you wanted to live in a world of facts, you might note I’m saying that FOX News promotes non factual stories.
That is to say, they promote things that are not true. You do not seem to care, probably because the lies they tell you make you feel warm and cozy.
FOX News promotes lies. Your cognitive dissonance is so strong, you simply cannot understand that. Interesting. But then again, you do often ignore it when you’re wrong.
Garbage. We are talking about lies and errors, not “opinion”. You cannot “make your own reality”, much as the Right likes to believe it can.
Your positing an absolute from a generalization, which is flawed and irrational thinking.
For example on Fox News right now, I see that they are promoting a story that BP is testing it’s new cap. That is true. So, while Fox News may promote things that are not true (and I think you mean “report,” not “promote” if you’re trying to be careful and accurate) they also promote/report things that are true.
Similarly, in 2008 CNN posted a story titled “Power Ranger faces death penalty in yacht kilings,” but the subject of the story Skyar Deon was never actually a power ranger.
So, it can also be said that CNN promotes/reports things that are not true.
In reality you can say the same thing about any news source that has ever made an error or editorialized, or taken a stance which was a matter of opinion. I would go so far as to say that this would be a group that encompasses ALL news sources.
SO… your complaint against Fox News is a complaint that would apply to any or all news sources.
This is why you are wrong. Absolutes cannot derive from generalizations in the context of logical and intelligent discussion.
We all inhabit our own realities tainted as they are by the Doors of our perceptions.
Errors and falsehoods in reporting are not unique to Fox News. You see them as egregious and unusual because of your perceptions.
The problem here seems to be that you feel that your perceptions represent some sort of measuring stick versus somebody else’s. That is the nature of these kind of arguments.
Ultimately, it’s kind of foolish.
I think there’s a difference between making an error in reporting (like someone being or not being a Power ranger) and reporting something you know, or reasonably should know, is false.
It can be proven that CNN makes mistakes.
It can be proven that FOX makes mistakes.
It can be proven that FOX reports things they know or should know aren’t true
It can NOT be proven that CNN reports things they know or should know aren’t true
To me, it’s a huge difference. The difference between accidentally bumping into someone and repeatedly and intentionally hitting someone in the face.
I mean promote. They ran free commercials for tea-party rallies.
You appear to be unable to critically think about the severity of things. In particular, you seem to have an utterly binary view of reality.
Everyone has hit someone else. Few people have smashed a mans head against a tree until he shit himself. Please, if you can’t understand why your argument is laughable, just think about it for awhile.
If you want to have a logical and intelligent discussion, I await the wonderful day you decide to start.
Nonsense. There is a real, objective world that is what it is, regardless of your opinions. Funny how the Right tends to retreat to solipsism when challenged. Of course, when your whole worldview is a fantasy it’s not like you can afford to take reality seriously.
No, it’s because Fox is systematically more factually wrong than other sources, and are known, admitted liars.
No, it’s trying to pretend that Fox is just another news organization, and trying to pretend that reality doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist that is foolish.
It was on purpose that I chose a non sensationalist error for CNN. I wanted to avoid the “that wasn’t really an error” argument that occurs when a news source reports something arguable or subject to point of view (which they all do.)
Certainly, I can think of examples where CBS and the NYT reported things that they either knew were untrue or failed to perform reasonable due diligence to determine truth on, which is to say they both lied in their reporting.
Given the longevity and predisposition of CNN I’m sure I could find some examples if I cared to.
I’m thinking these whole kind of arguments are flawed and naive. Humans, by nature and evolution think and believe things that aren’t true. There is a blind spot in the center of your vision covered by your optic nerve. Your brain fills in what it thinks should be there. As eyewitnesses, we are terrible reporters of accuracy.
Our brains don’t do a very good job of discerning facts and truths of even very simple things, much less complicated and arguable things that are reported on the news. We have to work very very hard to be accurate and factual. The truth is that we have to work so hard to be accurate that we are generally ineffective when we try to do so.
Our brains have evolved not to give us the truth, but to give us a quick and dirty workable answer in most circumstances. These are called heuristics and they are almost impossible to bypass and they color everything that we do.
Allow me an example:
If you lived in a village and every day you had to walk down a path to get water, and there was a cliff above the path, and at the top of that cliff, right at the edge overhanging the cliff was a giant rock, and that rock had been there for 500 years and you had walked under it every day of your life, and your parents had walked under it for every day of their lives, would you be worried about the rock falling on you?
Conversely, if you were new to the village the rock might terrify you. The villagers would probably laugh at your foolish fears. You would think they were insane.
Whether or not you think the rock is safe to walk under will depend upon your viewpoint and experience with the rock. If you are unfamiliar with it, it will likely appear more hazardous to you. If you are familiar and comfortable with it, you will likely discount the danger.
In both cases the perceptions are heuristic in nature, based on quick dirty guesses to provide a useful answer.
The reality is that one would need to complete a geologic engineering survey on the rock to get even close to an accurate answer as to the safety of the rock, and that might be flawed, too.
CNN might report the rock as being safe, and FOX might report the rock as being an extreme hazard. If your a fan of Fox News and hate CNN, and the rock falls you will cite this as evidence to support your viewpoint. If it doesn’t fall, you will simply note that that doesn’t prove Fox news wrong because it still might fall, the danger still exists and CNN is foolish for not acknowledging it. And vice versa.
We remember and cite examples where we are right, and forget and discount examples where we are wrong as the very fundamental basis of our humanity.
“Confirmation bias” is a demonstrable significant effect. Scientists and statisticians undertake great pain and effort to attempt to bypass it.
When somebody says that Fox news sucks or CNN doesn’t, or that people that like fox news are dumbasses my reactions is that they are telling me something about themselves.
What they are telling me is that they are not smart enough to recognize the role their biases play in their perceptions. Or, that they are too lazy to make the effort.
I like Fox News. Partly I like it because its politics are similar to my own. Partly I like it because it provides a contrarian viewpoint to the biases of other news sources by setting itself up in an antagonistic alternate view to the mainstream media, which it argues (and I agree) has a bias.
Similarly, I like this place, the SDMB not because its posters are particularly brilliant or accurate compared to elsewhere, but because they tend to provide a contrarian viewpoint to my own biases and those of people with whom I associate.
That contrarian viewpoint is useful in highlighting my own biases and helping me develop a more accurate worldview.
I think a rational person who disagrees with Fox’s politics might feel the same way.
An irrational, exceptionally biased person is going to take issue with it.
Viewpoints contrary to your own are valuable and should be sought.
A liberal that is dismissive of of Fox News because of its bias is revealing his or herself to be foolish and unreliable.
Most of the very smart and successful and effective people that I know are surprisingly open to ideas antagonistic to their viewpoints. That reality check is what makes their viewpoints accurate.
I think that being open to viewpoints and sources antagonistic to one’s beliefs or to those that one has a bias against is one of the strongest indicators of intelligence, intellectual honesty, and effectiveness… because it takes all three of those to do it.
I can take a news channel somewhat seriously if it makes a mistake regarding a story about a Power Ranger. A say somewhat because I would think a news channel has better things to talk about, right or wrong. But there’s no way I can take a news channel seriously when it asks me to take Ted Nugent’s declarations on the constitutionality of Obama’s policies seriously. Ted Nugent!
Fox News is drivel. Republican wank material. Its propaganda merchants openly support torture, thus they are scumbags. I can’t believe anyone can sit through an entire show by one of their quote-entertainers-unquote.