This country is fucked: Survey says Fox now most trusted name in news.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Smashy

Look at the OP again. The lack of trust was not due to your perceived version of reality… it was due to the perceptions of the public at large. The Echo Chamber of the SDMB likes to pile on Fox News, and they probably deserve it in some cases.

But my comment pertained to the high-profile incidents of RatherGate and the Lincoln Bedrooms purchased by CNN. Nobody here can admit to themselves that those incidents (plus an actual tilt IMHO, plus working the refs by talk radio) have in many ways caused this public perception. In other words, the left brought this on themselves.

The question then becomes why are the public outraged at the RatherGate and CNN-Lincoln Bedroom deals, but not at Fox’s equally (and probably more) egregious sins against objectivity?

[Robot_Arm]

CBS admitted the error, appointed a review panel including a Republican former governor, fired a couple of producers of the show, and Rather himself was out soon after. When has Fox News done anything even remotely close to that level of self-examination and accountability?

[GIGObuster]

@Mr_Smashy

Gigo, I see you still completely miss the point. Oh well.

Look at the OP again. The lack of trust was not due to your perceived version of reality… it was due to the perceptions of the public at large. The Echo Chamber of the SDMB likes to pile on Fox News, and they probably deserve it in some cases.

But my comment pertained to the high-profile incidents of RatherGate and the Lincoln Bedrooms purchased by CNN. Nobody here can admit to themselves that those incidents (plus an actual tilt IMHO, plus working the refs by talk radio) have in many ways caused this public perception. In other words, the left brought this on themselves.

Remember that there are more conservatives than liberals in this country. If the media won’t align themselves along those lines, why would this poll surprise anyone?

The point I come from is ignorance, there is really no excuse for it.

And do your points have ever an expiration date? (Not to mention that I agree that those items were bad but as the media is mostly beholden to ratings and the corporations say so, it should not be surprising that even I remember even more examples that show the mainstream media ignoring news the left considers important)

As I’m not dealing much here with the American public but supposedly more sophisticated readers, what I pointed out was the current certifiable unscientific trash that FOX is showing to the American public. It may sound not important, but clearly knowing what Fox is doing with their reporting should be enough reason to avoid them today.

[Shodan]

@Robot_Arm

CBS admitted the error…

At 5PM on Thursday, September 9, CBS News released a statement saying the memos were “thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity”,[66] and stating, “this report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources,”[67] In an interview, CBS News spokesperson Kelli Edwards said, “CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written.”[68] The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted this claim.[69]

In response to the media attention, a CBS memo said the documents were “backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content” and insisted that no internal investigation would take place.[74] On the CBS Evening News, on September 10, Rather defended the story and noted that its critics included “partisan political operatives.”[75]

Rather presented footage of the Strong interview, introducing it by stating Robert Strong “is standing by his judgment that the documents are real,” despite Strong’s lack of standing to authenticate them and his brief exposure to the documents.

In an appearance on CNN that day, Rather asserted “I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been.”

The analysts and experts cited by Rather did not include the original four experts consulted by CBS. Rather instead presented the views of Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. Glennon, a former typewriter repairman with no specific credentials in typesetting beyond that job, was found by CBS after posting several defenses of the memos on blogs including Daily Kos and Kevin Drum’s blog hosted at Washington Monthly

All from here. CBS actually lied several more times before the repeated rubbing of their nose in what was screamingly obvious to a stone-blind reader with only a vague knowledge of Braille finally forced to concede their own lies and misrpresentations.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

CBS actually lied several more times before the repeated rubbing of their nose in what was screamingly obvious to a stone-blind reader with only a vague knowledge of Braille finally forced to concede their own lies and misrpresentations.

And yet they still filed pretty much their entire senior news team afterwards. Where has Fox News done any such thing?

[VinylTurnip]

@Shodan

For heaven’s sake, even the ombudsman at The Washington Post can see the pro-Obama bias at her own paper.

Hey, remember a few months ago when you produced the same link and gave it the same dishonest spin? And I corrected you? Pointed out that what she actually says is not that she found ‘pro-Obama bias’, but simply more *photos *of Obama than McCain, and that he was featured in about 50% more stories than McCain? And that she provides several legitimate reasons why this might be so, none of which constitutes bias?

I guess it didn’t take, but that’s okay. I’m still here. See you again next time you trot it out.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

And yet they still filed pretty much their entire senior news team afterwards. Where has Fox News done any such thing?

I know that we should all take as read that Fox (Faux) News is evil and dishonest. But for my benefit, could you run down the list of actions that rise to the level of the CBS National Guard scandal, or the president of CNN buying the Lincoln Bedroom for $50k campaign donations?

I believe the country thinks that Big Media (or what talk radio would call mainstream media) a) covers for politicians, and b) does a lot of david-vs-goliath stories that push an anecdotal message for adopting liberal policies. Didn’t it take the previously unheard of Drudge to bust the Lewinski/Clinton scandal?

I know that the mindset of many on this board don’t see it, because it runs counter to their way of thinking. Take a look at a couple of recent Pit threads:

• the ‘Health Care Horror Story’ which started with someone complaining that some couple had hospital bills that their insurance then decided not to cover. The upshot was that we need healthcare reform NOW. An anecdotal story used to push a policy or an agenda.

• 2 weeks later someone posted that they hate Brock Lesnar because his experience with the socialized Canadian medical system was bad, causing complications to his diverticulitis (sp?). Nobody points out the contradiction this time, because it runs counter to their policy preferences; ie an anecdotal story being used to push an agenda.

I think the public believes that the traditional media chooses anecdotes from only one side of the political spectrum, as a subtle way to shape the debate.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@joebuck20

With her being an avid Fox News watcher, I’m surprised she didn’t “know” that NPR is a commie, liberal, homosexual bullhorn.

Which is what makes it even more disturbing. The Foxfolk who rail against other media entities are at least somewhat aware of some of what those entities are saying.

[elucidator]

@Mr_Smashy

I know that we should all take as read that Fox (Faux) News is evil and dishonest. But for my benefit, could you run down the list of actions that rise to the level of the CBS National Guard scandal, or the president of CNN buying the Lincoln Bedroom for $50k campaign donations?..

Good God, man, think of the poor hamsters! If we posted one tenth of the bald faced lies vomited up by Fox Gnaws over the last few years, they’d be running their little feet off. A little extra methedrine in their water bottle only goes so far, you know!

Have pity!

[Shodan]

@VinylTurnip

Hey, remember a few months ago when you produced the same link and gave it the same dishonest spin? And I corrected you? Pointed out that what she actually says is not that she found ‘pro-Obama bias’, but simply more *photos *of Obama than McCain, and that he was featured in about 50% more stories than McCain? And that she provides several legitimate reasons why this might be so, none of which constitutes bias?

I guess it didn’t take, but that’s okay. I’m still here. See you again next time you trot it out.

The folks at The Washington Post don’t agree with you.

Ed Thiede, assistant managing editor for the news desk, said that the numbers are “eye-opening. We should be more cognizant.” Du Cille and Thiede were both surprised at the numbers. Du Cille said, “The disparity in the numbers is indeed hard to reconcile. As photojournalists, we always strive to be fair. We have tried to be balanced, but it seems that in a large operation such as ours, we need to monitor the use of political images even more closely.”

So feel free to trot it out whenever you like - you will be wrong when you do.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Missed the edit window -

This kind of slanted coverage is characteristic of media coverage of the campaign, which was heavily slanted against McCain. Again, this is characteristic - in every Presidential campaign of the last thirty years, the Democratic nominee has always received more positive coverage than the Republican.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr_Smashy]

@elucidator

Good God, man, think of the poor hamsters! If we posted one tenth of the bald faced lies vomited up by Fox Gnaws over the last few years, they’d be running their little feet off. A little extra methedrine in their water bottle only goes so far, you know!

Have pity!

hamsters?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Smashy

I know that we should all take as read that Fox (Faux) News is evil and dishonest. But for my benefit, could you run down the list of actions that rise to the level of the CBS National Guard scandal, or the president of CNN buying the Lincoln Bedroom for $50k campaign donations?

I can’t think of any, offhand - but I found it pretty shocking that the directors who deliberately used footage of things other than tea parties to inflate apparent tea party attendances weren’t disciplined in anyway.

I believe the country thinks that Big Media (or what talk radio would call mainstream media) a) covers for politicians, and b) does a lot of david-vs-goliath stories that push an anecdotal message for adopting liberal policies. Didn’t it take the previously unheard of Drudge to bust the Lewinski/Clinton scandal?

Drudge was the first one to report it. I read “it took Drudge” to mean that it wouldn’t have been reported at all otherwise, which is a bit tinfoil-hattish.

• the ‘Health Care Horror Story’ which started with someone complaining that some couple had hospital bills that their insurance then decided not to cover. The upshot was that we need healthcare reform NOW. An anecdotal story used to push a policy or an agenda.

• 2 weeks later someone posted that they hate Brock Lesnar because his experience with the socialized Canadian medical system was bad, causing complications to his diverticulitis (sp?). Nobody points out the contradiction this time, because it runs counter to their policy preferences; ie an anecdotal story being used to push an agenda.

Well, unless you count Sinaijon, who pointed it out in Post 10. And Jackmanni in Post 25. And Euphonius Polemic, who agreed with him in the following post. And stuthehistoryguy in Post 39. Other than them, nobody pointed out the contradiction.

[The_Tooth]

Fox endorses invading sovereign nations under false pretenses. Fox endorses torture. Both are far more odious than being fooled by some forged letters concerning some spoiled kid who was in the National Guard 40 years ago. I can’t believe anyone would ask what the propaganda arm of the Bush Administration did that was so bad.

[Ludovic]

Well IMO several “anonymous copyeditors” should have been fired already for their blase attitude toward party affiliation of political scandals.

[Slypork]

I’ll admit that I prefer Fox News over MSNBC/CNN/ABC. I’m not talking about the talking head shows (Beck, Cavuto, Hannity, Olberman, Madow, Schultz and the rest of their ilk). One side is fellating the president while the other side is trying to rip his head off. I’m talking about the NEWS reports. It seems like Fox will carry stories that are missed by the others until enough people raise a stink.

Remember the “scandal” of ACORN personnel advocating fraud and abetting child prostitution? Fox covered it and there were blogs reporting on it but nothing was showing on the other networks. Charlie Gibson showed his ignorance on the radio(I was listening to the radio that morning and my jaw dropped when I heard him say it). Whether you think it was just a tempest in a teapot, it was still not being covered or investigated by the other networks until enough people got worked up. It took a lot of average people calling radio stations and networks and writing letters and emails to finally garner enough attention. Similar things happened with the Met email theft, town hall conflicts, and others.

I’m not saying that these are scandals or that there is some shadowy cabal that is conspiring to keep these stories out of the public eye. But it does seem odd that they don’t get any play until enough people start talking about them. When the stories do get more attention sometimes they amount to very little, other times they lead to further investigation. Be that as it may, it seems like stories that might portray liberal causes in a negative light are not as quickly picked up by anyone outside of Fox.

Before you think I’m just another pubbie hanging on every golden syllable that drips from Rush’s mouth, I also listened to Air America (until they went belly up again) for a comparison. And what do I hear? The same kind of slant. The day that Maj. Hasan “allegedly” went on a shooting spree at Ft Hood I was listening to the reports on an AM afternoon show (Roe Conn on WLS) and flipping over to Ron Reagan on AA. WLS reported his name and that witnesses heard him shouting, “Allahu Akbar” as he was shooting. Ron kept saying that they had no info about the shooter’s name, ethnicity and that any speculation that he might have been a Muslim was unfair and just profiling! I then flipped to a different radio news station that gave the same info as WLS. It’s not like the information wasn’t available. It appeared as if any non-PC statements were verboten on AA.

I watch the Sunday morning news shows and, while I am more impressed with the diversity of guests on Fox, I will say that CBS is pretty good as well.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Slypork

I’m not saying that these are scandals or that there is some shadowy cabal that is conspiring to keep these stories out of the public eye.

Fox News accuses the other networks of ignoring stories on a more-or-less ongoing basis. Invariably, it turns out to be absolute rubbish, such as when they accused CNN of ignoring the tea parties but had to borrow CNN footage in their story about it.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Mr_Smashy

• 2 weeks later someone posted that they hate Brock Lesnar because his experience with the socialized Canadian medical system was bad, causing complications to his diverticulitis (sp?). Nobody points out the contradiction this time, because it runs counter to their policy preferences; ie an anecdotal story being used to push an agenda.

You seem to have screwed up the facts of this event quite nicely, so I thought I’d correct you. I expect you to react exactly the same way FOX news does.

I can’t recall anyone posting that they “hate” this celebrity because he had a bad experience. Hmmmm… Nope, this is your spin. Certainly people pointed out that he was an idiot though.

You seem to think that the Canadian medical system caused Mr. Lesnar complications to his disease. Got any cite that shows this to be true? No? Didn’t think so. This is a pretty shitty incorrect statement for you to post then.

Mr. Lesnar apparently got pissed off when the hospital he was in would not do an MRI just because he wanted one. The medical opinion was that he did not need one to confirm an obvious diagnosis. And the doctors were right. The whiny little baby Mr. Lesnar still wanted his “choice” of a pointless test. So he left to go to a place where he could freely spend his private insurance comapanies money on useless and extraneous testing so he could feel important.

[Der_Trihs]

@Mr_Smashy

hamsters?

A reference to an old running joke about the board being powered by hamster wheels.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Slypork

Remember the “scandal” of ACORN personnel advocating fraud and abetting child prostitution?

If that’s what you think happened, it’s your fault for watching Fox.

Whether you think it was just a tempest in a teapot, it was still not being covered or investigated by the other networks until enough people got worked up.

It’s as if they still follow outdated, old-school notions about separating reporting from advocacy, and fact from fiction. Sad, isn’t it?