# What's so bad about Fox News? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2004, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041 "2004-06-01T10:14:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/81 "2004-06-02T11:08:01Z")
> [@Brainiac4](#): > > …which is \*probably \* because neither of those two instances involved the bomber killing himself in the act of bombing. Or is there some deeper meaning you’re getting at here? Actually, I hadn’t really thought of that. Apologies. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/82 "2004-06-02T11:32:11Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Aside from the rather low-brow political bias and desire to speak to the lowest common denominator evident in their news division, it also pays to consider FOX’s lacklustre history of general programming: the moon landing hoax documentary, the alien autopsy tape, various conspiracy theories, the execrable “Signs from God” documentary, promotion for psychic claptrap, and many, many others. > > FOX has shown repeatedly that they are not to be trusted for a fair view of just about anything. We are hardly talking about material fit to be called educational or balanced. Once again, with feeling: “it’s not news, it’s entertainment”. > > I do like some of their productions though, can’t go wrong with the X-Files or Millennium. And some of their reality programming is amusingly watchable from a voyeuristic point of view, although in small doses. But I think it’s ridiculous that FOX is assigned any credibility for current events coverage and documentaries. But the thing is is that charge can be leveled against the rest of the networks as well. But the Fox broadcast network and Fox News have generally been fairly seperate from one another. True, Fox broadcast affiliates will pick up the national feed from Fox News if something big is being covered and there is Fox News Sunday on broadcast, but I actually have seen less coverage devoted to the so-called “news” items of TV shows on Fox News than I have watching broadcast news, especially the broadcast morning news and the newsmagazines. CBS, after all, kicked off the silly thing with their Survivor coverage on the Early Show, and [here’s](http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/01/tv.datelines.critics.ap/index.html) a story in CNN about Dateline NBC. Network television overall seems to be getting worse and worse, but I don’t see why just having crappy non-news programming doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to put together a good news program. ---
**Author:** ![fubar\_tabarnac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/cdc98d/32.png) [@fubar\_tabarnac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubar_tabarnac)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/83 "2004-06-02T12:08:24Z")
faux news is not as of yet available in canada, but that may soon change, and the grope & flail has recently run a series of rave reviews: > [@](#): > > The other day I read in this newspaper – an abidingly reliable source – that some honchos in the cable-TV racket are applying for permission to offer the Fox News Channel in Canada. > > Beauty. Bring it on, I say. We’re all in need of a good laugh. The barking-mad Fox News Channel is something that most Canadians have only heard about. It’s time we saw it for ourselves, and made up our own minds about the phenomenon. We’ll find out if this Bill O’Reilly fella is as stupendously pompous and preening as he appears to be in the rare clips we see of Fox News. [globe & mail](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040419/DOYLE19//?query=doyle) > [@](#): > > I’ve never been called “a douche-nozzle” before. At least, not that I know about anyway. The insult came from one supporter of the Fox News Channel. > > But then I don’t think The Globe and Mail has ever been called “the far-left Toronto Globe and Mail” before. That’s what this great newspaper was called by Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel on Monday night. > > Reacting to my column, which cheerfully suggested that the proposal to bring the Fox News Channel to Canada should be acted upon promptly, so that we can all take a look, and get a laugh, O’Reilly gave us a Fox-style whacking. In his segment The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day, he quoted from my column (which called him “pompous”), dismissed The Globe as a lefty outfit and said, “Hey you pinheads up there, I may be pompous, but at least I’m honest.” > > Right. But the very idea that The Globe and Mail is “far left” only proves my point that the Fox News Channel is the most hilarious thing on American TV since Seinfeld. When we get to see it, we’ll decide if, like Seinfeld, it’s about nothing. [ibid](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040421/DOYLE21//?query=doyle) > [@](#): > > Well, it seemed that we could leave this Fox News to one side for a while, but no such luck. > > I am informed that on Wednesday evening on the Fox News Channel, chief ranter Bill O’Reilly took a swing at me, The Globe and Mail, and the CBC. I’ll admit that I’ve been baited into paying attention. > > O’Reilly quoted from my column and, referring to The Globe, proclaimed: “That paper has consistently taken liberal positions on almost every issue. And Doyle strikes up the band.” > > Honestly, I had no idea that people knew this. I thought it was a secret that the editorial board takes all its instructions from me. [ibid](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040423/DOYLE23//?query=doyle) > [@](#): > > I think Fox News Channel is comically overheated with its wailing about “left-wingers” and “elites.” I also think O’Reilly is nothing more than an intolerant windbag, what the Irish astutely call a gobshite. > > If somebody wants to make the Fox News Channel available in Canada, fine. Believe me, if you thought Dan Rather’s occasional outbursts of jittery, googly-eyed American jingoism were comical, you haven’t seen anything yet. O’Reilly makes our Ed the Sock look like a reasonable chap. > > The Fox News philosophy of finger-pointing about perceived lapses in patriotism and suspicion of outsiders is no more representative of the true spirit of the United States than the Taliban represents Islam. > > A week ago, I wrote about how my mockery of Fox News and O’Reilly had resulted in some highly abusive and comically ill-written e-mail from the United States. > > This stirred many Americans to write and apologize for their fellow Americans, and for the existence of Fox News. That was the story so far. Then The New York Times called. > > Last Sunday, the Times carried a feature about my mockery of Fox News and O’Reilly, the expletive-filled responses from his followers and the apologies that followed. The Times found it funny, and it was. It turns out that a lot of Americans read The New York Times on a Sunday. > > Since then I have received thousands upon thousands of e-mails from Americans who are mortified. People in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Denver and Phoenix have invited me out to dinner. Many others have invited me to stay in their homes. [ibid](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040429/DOYLE29//?query=doyle) > [@](#): > > Mr. O’Reilly is not a smart man. He’s like one of those old guys you see on the street ringing a bell and shouting about eternal damnation. He talks to his trousers. You know the type. They let wasps nest in their hair so they can lure weasels, trap 'em and eat 'em slow over the summer. > > We were supposed to be discussing American deserters fleeing to Canada; instead, he went off on some wild thing about the mayor of Vancouver injecting people with heroin and unless Canada shapes up, “we” will boycott you and destroy your economy, just like “we” did to France. > > I said France seemed to be doing fine. He implied that France now looked like Dresden in 1945. I hadn’t heard that. > > I said the United States couldn’t boycott Canadian goods because it would be mutually damaging. “We’re your biggest trading partner.” > > “No, you’re not.” (We are.) Naturally, I wanted to reply, “Yes, we are,” so that he could say “No, we’re not,” and then I’d say, “Everything you say bounces off me and reflects back on you, so there,” but I couldn’t regress that far. Mr. Doyle would have been shrieking. [ibid](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040501/MALLICK01/TPNational/Columnists) [the nyt article mentioned in one of the globe links above, requires registration](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/weekinreview/25krau.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=31a722d721d00a85&ex=1086321600) ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/84 "2004-06-02T12:48:09Z")
That was well done, **fubar tabarnac**. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/85 "2004-06-03T04:16:12Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > CBS, after all, kicked off the silly thing with their Survivor coverage on the Early Show, and [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/01/tv.datelines.critics.ap/index.html]here’s[/url a story in CNN about Dateline NBC. Network television overall seems to be getting worse and worse, but I don’t see why just having crappy non-news programming doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to put together a good news program. Well, it’s an indication of how seriously they take their job – or even of whether their job is to inform or spread cheap propaganda. When you crank out a documentary like the Moon Landing special – my favourite item of ignorance to date – and not only support it but air it repeatedly even when experts have picked the show apart, it is safe to suspect there may be something amiss at the network. If they take such liberties with a documentary, which is supposed to be factual representation and reliable analysis of known and established facts, what’s to stop them when it comes to partially-glimpsed and mutable (not to mention politically charged) current events? As we have seen, the answer is very little. Hence the practically comprehensive damage to FOX credibility. They are the limited-understanding idiot little children of the media world, big mouth and grubby hands working overtime to make life difficult for everyone else. Rather a lot of people acquire “information” (in the form of news or documentaries) from FOX after all, which may explain quite a few of the rampant kooky beliefs out there. But you are right, a lot of network television in general seems to be getting worse, and this may be related to audience demand for simple and attention-grabbing material. It’s interesting to compare domestic CNN and the international version: the latter we get out here retains redeeming aspects, whereas the domestic broadcasts I have caught in the US were pretty poor-- little better than a repetitive gossip channel blaring about the indiscretions of this senator, that scandal, etc. News analysis wasn’t very good, and I found the presentation skills quite poor across the board. Thankfully CNN has avoided reveling in the kind of bias such as FOX is famous for, we can give them that much credit. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/86 "2004-06-03T06:03:11Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Constantly refering to the "heroes’’ in Iraq certainly counts as propoganda in my book. Since you object to the “constant use of “hero””, you must have something in mind to replace it. Care to share with me what word or descriptor you would replace it with? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041/87 "2004-06-03T06:09:31Z")
Well, everyone else seems to cope fine with ‘soldier’. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-bad-about-fox-news/248041.md?page=4)