Fox News, Fair and Balanced?

[maxcok]

I knew as soon as I say this topic it would not start out fair and balanced. I was right.

"Fair and balanced". Oh the sweet irony. :lmao:

I am not stupid.

Based on my past encounters with you, and reading your posts, and the fact that you can't distinguish who a poster is responding to, even when that other poster has been repeatedly quoted,* I'd say that's open to debate.

Fox News watchers are just that. News watchers.

There's a world of difference between news and propaganda. If you don't understand the difference, you are at best extremely gullible, if not plain ______. See above.

It doesn't make me a better or worse person. I don't think you are a better person in anyway just because you choose to watch something else.

No, but it unquestionably makes me a better informed person.

I do wonder why or even how someone could talk trash about a show they if they don't watch it?

It's not necessary to watch hour after hour of propaganda disguised as news while your brain is reduced to mush, when the bias and the agenda becomes abundantly clear in the first five minutes.

I've been watching MSNBC and CNN recently to see what all the fuss is by Fox News haters.

This is a good first step.

I honestly find that they are all the same if only in opposition.

Well, keep watching. Try to comprehend, suspend your disbelief, and transcend your bias, and just maybe you'll become more discriminating in your thinking and ultimately better informed. And that comparison is not only a false equivalency, it couldn't be more wrong. Saying that proves your inability to discriminate between useful information and editorial bias.

I saw the beginning of a show somewhere last night by "Rachel" someone (I think her name was Rachel), and it was impossible to even watch her speak without cringing. Really ugly reporting style.

She's not a reporter, she's a commentator. Though her program contains plenty of hard news, it is equal parts analysis and entertainment. The fact that you don't know the difference between news, entertainment and commentary is further illustration of how clueless you are. The fact that you cannot even be bothered before posting to easily confirm with a five second Google search the correct name and network of one of the most influential and well-known commentators on television indicates how passive and lazy you are in your quest to be informed.

I can follow-up on any story I want simply by using the internet. . . Seriously.

Seriously?

Not for me, but if you dig it, have at it. I am not going to pick you apart for it. Who f'ing cares?

People who bother to think care very much that the misinformation and propaganda fed to the most ignorant, uneducated, lowest common denominator audience has the power to shape public policy and affect all our lives in the most profound and negative ways. Because ultimately and unfortunately those ignoramuses are allowed to vote.

Democrats and Republicans all play the same games.

Another classic false equivalency, which hereby disqualifies you from serious debate.

Until people can get over their party affiliations, blame gaming, and develop the ability to leave their ego at the door, our country is going to be continued to be further divided and dragged down. We should all just speak for ourselves. Not a "party."

First and foremost, a propaganda machine masquerading as a news network should not "speak for a party". Anyone who does not recognize that that is exactly what is broadcast on Fox "News" is either hopelessly ideologically biased or just plain stupid. Furthermore, we should all think for ourselves, or just plain think for that matter. The electorate is too ignorant, too dumbed down and too easily manipulated to do that, which is exactly what Fox "News" capitalizes on and why it is so insidious. The network feeds the division and fires up the rhetoric with misinformation and manufactured outrage, and those voices are what "drag down" the country. Empty headed viewers like you are a vital part of the equation, as you are the fertile ground for dangerous and destructive ideas to take root. You exemplify the syndrome, and thinking people can see the disturbing and tragic results.


* By the way, still waiting for an apology for you erroneously raking me over the coals for that, but not holding my breath.

 

[KTF40]

Not quite. Can you explain why Joe Scarborough has a 3 hour morning show on MSNBC and why Pat Buchanan is a Daily presence????They're not exactly lefties.

But you realize, that's it. That's the only two conservative voices on the MSNBC payroll. A grand total of 2! Plus, while I like Scarborough's show, his co-host is a liberal, and typically the majority of the other panelists/guests on the show are liberals (how ever there are times when it is even split). Yeah, MSNBC will often bring in another Republican strategist to debate a Democratic strategist, but I'm not sure if any of those people are on the MSNBC payroll because all but maybe one guy (who I can't think of his name now) don't appear with any regularity.

Compare that to the number of liberals on Fox's payroll that include Bob Beckel, Penny Lee, Juan Williams, Alicia Menendez, Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Joe Trippi, Kirsten Powers, Ellis Henican, Geraldine Ferraro (for election stuff), etc. (There's also Dr. Marc Lamont Hill who I would include but I heard he was fired yet still appears on the network so I don't know if he's on their payroll or not.) Fox clearly has a ton more liberal voices on their network than MSNBC has conservative voices on their network.

Now you could argue that a lot of the actual reporters/anchors on Fox have a conservative bias like Megyn Kelley, Bret Bair, Shepard Smith, etc. But, the same thing could be said for MSNBC with Contessa Brewer, Norah O'Donnell, Chris Jansing, etc. So, it's an even split there.

And then when you include that the number of liberal opinionmaker shows on MSNBC outnumber those on Fox (Ed Show, Hardball, Countdown, Maddow, Last Word against Fox which has Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and maybe Van Susteran), it seems like another relative even split bordering on MSNBC slightly more biased.

Both networks are heavily biased towards their own political leanings. I'd say they are pretty much evenly biased, but when MSNBC's election coverage of 2010 consisted of nothing but liberal commentators I kind of lean towards MSNBC being more biased because that kind of journalism for such a major event really just spits in the face of unbiased journalism.

 

[maxcok]

Thoughtful objectivity is now labeled as "liberal", and right-wing bias is called "fair and balanced".

The center is now defined as the far left.

Paging George Orwell . . .



Read this about Fox CEO Roger Ailes, and especially the Howard Kurtz interviews linked at the bottom of the post where the Chief speaks in his own words, consider that the network just donated $1,000.000 to elect Republican governors and another $1,000,000 to elect Republicans to congress through Chamber of Commerce sponsored political action, not including what they no doubt donated in secret through 501's under the new relaxed campaign finance rules (thank you Roberts Supreme Court), look at all the international right-wing media owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and then tell me there is not a clear, intentional institutional bias operating at the network. Provided you can take a "fair and balanced" view of the facts, that is.

 

[KTF40]

Thoughtful objectivity is now labeled as "liberal", and right-wing bias is called "fair and balanced".

The center is now defined as the far left.

Paging George Orwell . . .



Read this about Fox CEO Roger Ailes, and especially the Howard Kurtz interviews linked at the bottom of the post where the Chief speaks in his own words, consider that the network just donated $1,000.000 to elect Republican governors and another $1,000,000 to elect Republicans to congress through Chamber of Commerce sponsored political action, not including what they no doubt donated in secret through 501's under the new relaxed campaign finance rules (thank you Roberts Supreme Court), look at all the international right-wing media owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and then tell me there is not a clear, intentional institutional bias operating at the network. Provided you can take a "fair and balanced" view of the facts, that is.

Is this directed towards me? I'm fully aware of this. And what's your point? That Fox has a bias? Fox wants to elect Republicans? No shit. What a revelation that is. I even told you as much in my post.

 

[maxcok]

Do you think that's a proper role for a "news" outlet?

Can you demonstrate any comparable institutionalized partisan bias at any other network?


: searches for "spin'", "deflect" and "failure to address substance of post" emoticons :

 

[XXLJohn1955]

Do you think that's a proper role for a "news" outlet?

Can you demonstrate any comparable institutionalized partisan bias at any other network?


: searches for "spin'", "deflect" and "failure to address substance of post" emoticons :

You point is obviously going over the heads of Fox News and Fox News Party supporters. Fox News' parent, News Corp., isn't a news organization it's a propaganda machine.

 

[KTF40]

Can you demonstrate any comparable institutional bias at any other network?

*searches for "spin'", "deflect" and "failure to address substance of post" emoticons*

You should also search for the "captain obvious" emoticon since that seems to be the only value you add to this discussion.


EDIT: Since you edited your post, I guess I'll have to respond to this. I think when you're TV line-up from 6pm-11pm includes hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell, I'd say that demonstrates the same amount of institutional bias as Fox because it seems pretty clear that MSNBC's management wants their viewers to get their news and opinion with a liberal slant, and therefore be more likely to vote for the Democratic Party.

Plus, if you were to take the word of a senior executive at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann "runs MSNBC" and we already know he has a liberal bias. MSNBC Exec: "Keith Runs MSNBC"

EDIT: I should actually edit this again and say from 4-11PM because Dylan Ratigan comes on at 4 and Matthews at 5.

 

[XXLJohn1955]

You should also search for the "captain obvious" emoticon since that seems to be the only value you add to this discussion.


EDIT: Since you edited your post, I guess I'll have to respond to this. I think when you're TV line-up from 6pm-11pm includes hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell, I'd say that demonstrates the same amount of institutional bias as Fox because it seems pretty clear that MSNBC's management wants their viewers to get their news and opinion with a liberal slant, and therefore be more likely to vote for the Democratic Party.

Plus, if you were to take the word of a senior executive at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann "runs MSNBC" and we already know he has a liberal bias. MSNBC Exec: "Keith Runs MSNBC"

You state the obvious and miss the point. The (significant) difference with News Corp. is that it is self-described as "fair and balanced" when it's just a propaganda machine for the radical right. MSNBC evening lineup doesn't pretend to be anything but a mouthpiece for progressives.

 

[KTF40]

Do you think that's a proper role for a "news" outlet?

I don't really have a strong opinion either way similar to the way I didn't really care when I found out that Olbermann contributes to Democratic candidates. It doesn't really matter to me because I'm more concerned with the actual content that news networks put on air. I think it's good to be aware that this network or that news personality donates to whatever political party/candidate but I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

 

[maxcok]

You state the obvious and miss the point. The (significant) difference with News Corp. is that it is self-described as "fair and balanced" when it's just a propaganda machine for the radical right. MSNBC evening lineup doesn't pretend to be anything but a mouthpiece for progressives.

Precisely, and kudos to them for being the only media outlet to aggressively counter the dishonest and deceptive right-wing propaganda spewed on Fox and dozens of so-called "conservative" radio talk shows.

The "fair and balanced" slogan is the epitome of "Newspeak" for those literate enough to have read the classic and indispensable '1984', hence the George Orwell reference.

KTF40, please see my post to curiousme where I addressed the distinction between "reporters" vs. "commentators, analysts and entertainers" if you are unclear on the distinction.

 

[KTF40]

You state the obvious and miss the point. The (significant) difference with News Corp. is that it is self-described as "fair and balanced" when it's just a propaganda machine for the radical right. MSNBC evening lineup doesn't pretend to be anything but a mouthpiece for progressives.

Hannity doesn't pretend to be a conservative? Beck doesn't pretend to be a conservative/libertarian? And you do realize there are people on Fox that admit the network leans to the right?

I think Fox's slogan is false advertising, but if you actually watch the network, you'd know not everyone believes the slogan.

 

[KTF40]

KTF40, please see my post to curiousme where I addressed the distinction between "reporters" vs. "commentators, analysts and entertainers" if you are unclear on the distinction.

I'm fully aware of the distinction, but thanks again :captain obvious: emoticon

 

[XXLJohn1955]

Hannity doesn't pretend to be a conservative? Beck doesn't pretend to be a conservative/libertarian? And you do realize there are people on Fox that admit the network leans to the right?

I think Fox's slogan is false advertising, but if you actually watch the network, you'd know not everyone believes the slogan.

Fortunately, you recognize that News Corp. is full-o-crap; unfortunately, (I would argue) the majority of News Corp.'s consumers do not.

 

[KTF40]

Fortunately, you recognize that News Corp. is full-o-crap; unfortunately, (I would argue) the majority of News Corp.'s consumers do not.

Well I don't think it's "full-o-crap". And I'd also disagree that the majority of Fox's viewers don't realize the network has a conservative bias. I think for the most part their viewers are fully aware of the bias and are more inclined to watch the network because of the bias. Just my opinion though based upon people I know who watch Fox.

 

[XXLJohn1955]

Well I don't think it's "full-o-crap". And I'd also disagree that the majority of Fox's viewers don't realize the network has a conservative bias. I think for the most part their viewers are fully aware of the bias and are more inclined to watch the network because of the bias. Just my opinion though based upon people I know who watch Fox.

I'll buy that. But, is the bias -- the leading and manipulation any different from what people on your side of the aisle have been whining about the "liberal elite" for years? I don't think so.

 

[KTF40]

I'll buy that. But, is the bias -- the leading and manipulation any different from what people on your side of the aisle have been whining about the "liberal elite" for years? I don't think so.

Agreed.

 

[maxcok]

I don't really have a strong opinion either way similar to the way I didn't really care when I found out that Olbermann contributes to Democratic candidates. It doesn't really matter to me because I'm more concerned with the actual content that news networks put on air. I think it's good to be aware that this network or that news personality donates to whatever political party/candidate but I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

If you "didn't really care" why did you bring it up? You're so fucking transparent.

Let's put this in context, shall we? Olberman was not reprimanded for making political contributions, he was reprimanded for not disclosing his contributions per network policy, and I believe they totalled in the low thousands. I could cite a number of anchors on Fox who contributed substantially to Republican candiates, while actively promoting them on air, but I won't bother. This is a specious argument and a lame deflection on your part per usual. Straw clutching, in fact.

None of that compares in any way to the blatant hypocrisy and appalling lack of journalistic integrity displayed by the self-styled "fair and balanced" Fox "news" network, who under the direction of the historically slimey and clearly partisan CEO Roger Ailes contributed $2,000,000 to Republican candidates in order to buy favor and influence, while pursuiing and promoting an obvious right-wing corporatist agenda through its "news" coverage. That, by the way, is the topic of the thread, in case you forgot.

If you don't think all this "makes that much of a difference" in how the "news" (read propaganda) is presented on Fox, you are either blinded by ideology and willfully ignorant or just plain mentally retarded. In either case, you and anyone else who buy into that propaganda are nothing more than right-wiing tools.

Again:

Do you think that's a proper role for a "news" outlet?

Can you demonstrate any comparable institutionalized partisan bias at any other network?


: searches for "spin'", "deflect" and "failure to address substance of post" emoticons :

 

[KTF40]

If you "didn't really care" why did you bring it up? You're so fucking transparent.

If you're talking about the Fox donations, You brought it up. Remember Captain Obvious?
http://www.lpsg.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3138321

If you're talking about Olbermann, it's just an example to demonstrate how I don't generally care much about the issue.

Let's put this in context, shall we? Olberman was not reprimanded for making political contributions, he was reprimanded for not disclosing his contributions per network policy, and I believe they totalled in the low thousands. I could cite a number of anchors on Fox who contributed substantially to Republican candiates, while actively promoting them on air, but I won't bother. This is a specious argument and a lame deflection on your part per usual. Straw clutching, in fact.

It's not an argument. As I've already said, It's just to provide an example how I don't generally care if news agencies/personalities donate to political parties because I'm more focused on the actual content that they put on air. But I see you completely missed that point. Oh well, better luck next time Captain Obvious.

None of that compares in any way to the blatant hypocrisy and appalling lack of journalistic integrity displayed by the self-styled "fair and balanced" Fox "news" network, who under the direction of the historically slimey and clearly partisan CEO Roger Ailes contributed $2,000,000 to Republican candidates in order to buy favor and influence, while pursuiing and promoting an obvious right-wing corporatist agenda through its "news" coverage. That, by the way, is the topic of the thread, in case you forgot.

Thanks for the info Captain Obvious.

If you don't think all this "makes that much of a difference" in how the "news" (read propaganda) is presented on Fox, you are either blinded by ideology and willfully ignorant or just plain mentally retarded.

It really doesn't make a difference. Fox donating to Republicans has absolutely no effect upon their presentation of the news because they already were presenting the news in a conservatively biased fashion (or to help you understand a "right wing agenda"). So what, now they donate to Republicans and are even more biased or something? Wow, really great fuckin argument you got there.

In either case, you and anyone else who buy into that propaganda are nothing more than right-wiing tools.

Kinda like how anyone who actually takes what you say seriously is a tool.

 

[tgirlsrgreat]

so, which network do you think has the most uncut guys on it??

just asking?...:banghead2:

 

[JTalbain]

But you realize, that's it. That's the only two conservative voices on the MSNBC payroll. A grand total of 2! Plus, while I like Scarborough's show, his co-host is a liberal, and typically the majority of the other panelists/guests on the show are liberals (how ever there are times when it is even split). Yeah, MSNBC will often bring in another Republican strategist to debate a Democratic strategist, but I'm not sure if any of those people are on the MSNBC payroll because all but maybe one guy (who I can't think of his name now) don't appear with any regularity.

However, they're bringing in the opposition for open discussion. There are many videos of those from Fox News outright refusing to come guest star on a program run by a different corporation, because they no other corporations will NOT allow them to state their incredibly biased opinions unchallenged. The moment any biased opinion is exposed to open debate, it loses its clout.

There's a lot to be said for having dissenting opinions discuss news on the same show. It helps reveal actual fact and eliminate groupthink. Message to Fox News: You know that your news shows suck when someone can get better, more meaningful information from an episode of "The View".