If NPR has such a leftist bias, then why do I keep hearing editorials from the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institutes on All Things Considered? It’s just not in Fox News’ league, bias wise.
(giggle, snort!)
Um, yeah. American right-wingers, the very model of religious tolerance, as long as the religion is conservative Christianity. :rolleyes:
You have GOT to be kidding.
If I see Mr. “The spin stops here” Bill completely dimiss a guest with a wave of the hand and an “Oh, Whatever”, I think I’ll puke.
The thing is though that the guest suually starts to laugh, because he knows how ridiculous Bill is acting. The guest can say somethign and back it up with proof, and Bill will just say “Well, whatever”.
You could tell me he ripped purda off some poor virgin’s head and, while it would be wrong, it still wouldn’t be anything remotely like the pervasive right-wing religious intolerance and general evilness, to steal a word, of certain Christians in this country.
Which programs specifically?
Well, the O’Reilly show isn’t really what I was referring to here, and I have my issues with the guy too. But check out the shows hosted by Brit Hume, Tony Snow and even Hannity and Colmes and you’ll find that they feature liberals and conservatives both, and lively discussion.
I get my news from a lot of sources, and can see the biases in all. Often, it’s a subtle thing, like what stories get covered at all. Even a twenty-four hour news network can’t be as comprehensive as a newspaper, so a lot of coverage is brief or nonexistent.
NPR, for instance, seems to think that gay and lesbian issues are of vital and consuming importance to the nation, since their news coverage focuses on this community so well. This is an example of bias. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the coverage is flawed in any way.
It does mean, however, that less time is available to cover other issues that might be important, like subtle points of military procurement that had big impacts on the Joint Strike Fighter program.
C’mon, people, be a little critical, here. We’re all supposedly intelligent and informed people, able to make sound judgements. But some of you are acting like sheep, and are just meekly defending your NPR shepherd.
Dropzonereligious intolerance is what it is. It can be found on the right or left. Most times I encounter it in my life, it isn’t from right wingers, it’s from weird lefties like Ted Turner.
One other thing I want to say is that I think the attitude of “Well, there’s no such thing as objectivity anyway” is dangerous. There’s a difference between the bias that creeps into a story now and then, and a propaganda machine posing as a news organization. The mission of journalism should be to present facts. Trivial examples of bias in mainstream media don’t change that.
Most news organizations in the U.S. have to balance the mission of reporting facts with a need to gain and keep viewer/readership, or the PR concerns of a parent company or sponsors, but if their first priority isn’t old-school, serious, responsible journalism, it doesn’t have credibility. That’s what I like about NPR - they don’t owe Clear Channel Communications, General Electric, AOL Time Warner, or anybody like that, they only answer to their listeners. It’s true that even this may present a temptation for them to bias their news coverage, but I think one of the things that gets NPR donations is their reputation for integrity. Bias, interest, influence, populism… these are the forces that hurt them in the long run, not objectivity and truth.
Mr. Moto, on preview I see that you misspelled Colmes. 
Gaspode, do you think other media aren’t biased? If so, you should know better, especially with your background. Recognise the bias, compare and contrast with other news sources (recognising their biases), and decide what the truth actually is.
qts, did you miss this?
I knew this thread was at risk of becomming a trainwreck, but please [Kevin Bacon in ‘Animal House’ Everybody remain calm]. Being a former newsie and big media consumer, I want to discuss why it’s so poorly done. Which guests and what commentators say and do belong in the pit, and God knows, there are enough pit threads about Fox.
As I’ve said before, it’s not the slant, it’s that the slant is so damned obvious. They’re about as subtle as Leni Riefenstahl or Michael Moore. Even if I were a hard-core republican, as I said in the OP, I’d be embarrased at what they do. It’s almost “With friends like this, we don’t need enemies.” They’re so damned easy to pick apart, I’d be happy to be a democrat in the US. Fish in barrels come to mind.
But just as I can pick up ‘Weekly World News’ for giggles, I can look at Fox News and be as amazed. They’re about as trustworthy as Jerry Springer.
So, trying to keep partinsanship out of this, and looking at it, as if it were a movie, that I want to rip apart (think ‘Gigli’); WTF is up with them? Do they even take themselves seriously? Is it the logical extension of talk radio, being brushed up and re-sold for tv?
Dogslunch, welcome to the board. Now that you’ve read O’Reilly’s latest book, I’m asking you to please read Al Franken’s latest book. Draw your own conclusions after doing so, but I thought it was very informative.
As to Fox, I saw a bit of it at Christmas while at my parents home. They were doing a report series on “Christianity under attack” in the U.S., as I recall because of 1st amendment issues relating to christian symbolism. I’m not trying to start a GD thread here, but it was a pretty biased report that was right in line with O’Reilly’s constant harping on the “secularization of America.” (Something I’m so very much in favor of)
I have expressed my hatred for both sides of politics in other threads. I have no partricular interest in this discussion…but…
Earlier in the year when “the war” was going on in Iraq, ABC radio had a nightly analysis of the media’s representation of events. One night the discusssion centred on FOX’s presentation of some event. The media analysts began to discuss the nature of FOX’s coverage and decided “It’s not journalism as we know it. It’s - I’ll tell you what you want to hear.” From then on they never bothered talking about the slant that FOX gave to anything.
I would really like to hear from someone who shares the view with DogsLunch that “deposed former president” betrays a slant.
Especially someone who thinks it is LESS slanted than calling someone a dictator.
Deposed (removed from power)
Former (no longer there)
President (the president of Iraq, as recognized by the world)
versus
Dictator (tyrant, widely synonomous with “despot”, if not technically, then certainly connotationally)
The simple truth is that nothing is simple. The more you know about any subject, the blurrier the issues get and the more difficult it is to reach any solid conclusions.
The chief problem with FNC is that – more than any other “mainstream” news source, they prefer to report things in ways that seem to make the issues simpler and less ambiguous than they really are. All of the flag-waving they indulge in implies that probing beneath the surface and asking troublesome questions is somehow morally reprehensible.
It’s not that FNC is biased to the right (which they are) that is the problem. The problem is that their reporting is dumbed down. Many of their commentators (O’Reilly and Sean Hannity in particular) like to pretend that they’re engaged in intelligent debate, when what they actually do is toss up the brick walls of dogmatism and blind partisanship to counter any real arguments presented by their more liberal guests.
I had my TV locked on Fox News when the fighting started in Iraq. It was new (to me, anyway), it was different, and (as I later realized) it told me what I wanted to hear. After a while, though, I became sickened with the moral posturing and glossing over of complicated issues, and turned to other sources for my news.
And thus is defined ‘infotainment’.
Good man, and another sinner saved!!
[sub]DogsLunch wrote:[/sub]
I’m surprised no one has disagreed with this statement yet. Fox is far to the right and the other network news outlets are moderate at best. Only a person with far right views could perceive the mainstream news as liberal. For liberal news you would turn to something like Democracy Now! or FAIR.
I wish I had a copy of Douglas Keller’s Television and the Crisis of Democracy in front of me because it has some very revealing quotes from conservative politicians on the subject of alleged left-wing media bias.
You’re right Live Better, the mainstream networks aren’t liberal. In the Franken book I mentioned before, he points out that in a survey of the various networks during the 2000 election, negative articles about Gore were more prevalent than negative articles about Bush. Granted that’s only one survey but it does suggest that the “liberal media” are a myth.
Besides. The networks are all owned by large corporations (with the exception of PBS anyway), and large corporations, I believe tend to be more economically conservative.
Indeed.
Whoa, this thread took off when I look away. Sorry everyone.
One great example is the way they carried water for the Clintons through all their various scandals, portraying them as innocent and their detractors as “mean-spirited”. You called Fox News the Bush News Agency, but during the Clinton years it was easy to see Democrat talking points disseminated by NPR, CNN (Clinton News Network), et al.
And I would say it is Newspeak. By that standard Adolph Hitler is a “deceased former chancellor” and John Wilkes Booth was an “actor”. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Fidel Castro is a dictator. There is nothing biased in reporting fact, but there is in obfuscating it.
Your name doesn’t happen to be Tony??
Now I could try saying louds of things about the subject and my opinions to hide the fact that all I really wanted was to ask your name, but seeing that I don’t feel motivated to do so I won’t.
Fox News is about as blatantly biased to the right as NPR is to the left.
Fox provides an easy test to tell who is a liberal and who is not. If someone says that Fox is extremely biased, but NPR is centrist, he or she is a liberal.
It is an interesting exercise to apply the standards to all the media you see.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with Mr. Moto… when most people say “I hate Fox News!”, nine times out of ten they’re REALLY saying “I hate Bill O’Reilly!”
Here’s a suggestion: Don’t watch O’Reilly. I imagine he’s eventually gonna find himself lumped into the same slot as Pat Buchanan.