Guest viewing is limited

For the FOX News lovers on here:

jweave23

Registered User
I thought this was funny:

Invalid Link Removed

If you download and read the PDF file with the claims against FOX News, they go into some detail regarding the rather obvious bias. The O'Reilly clip is good too. Why do I post this? Why not, it will give VG, PC1, and the rest of the gents something to keep themselves occupied ;) :rasp: :rant: :run: :trout:

Also another great link on the topic: Invalid Link Removed

and yes, it's quite obvious these links are biased towards the left...well duh! ;) :D
 
Your not saying that move on.org is a reliable source of information and is fair and balanced are you? lol They compaired Bush to Hitler.
Are they really pursuing this? That's just as ridiculous as FOX suing Frankin. Everything moveontotheleft.org is saying the mainstream press is guilty of just in favor of a left wing agenda. Look at half the stuff Dan rather, Peter Jennings, and the other guy says. It's abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbs, cnbc against FOX. With news papers it's the Wall Street Journal and the Washington times against well all of the papers. Conservative talk radio is so successful because there is such a predominantly liberal bias in the print and news media. There many conservative hosts against NPR (which is still on the air because the tax payer subsides it) and Al Frankin (who isn't doing very well with ratings).

Invalid Link Removed
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Your not saying that move on.org is a reliable source of information and is fair and balanced are you? lol They compaired Bush to Hitler.
Click to expand...

Note this:

jweave23 said:
and yes, it's quite obvious these links are biased towards the left...well duh! ;) :D
Click to expand...

Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bullshit tagline of "fair and balanced". They use this as their motto, a major news agency and member of the press, and it's simply not true in any way. Reliable? Well if you can discredit the direct evidence they provide in this instance then I guess they are unreliable :rolleyes:
 
jweave23 said:
Note this:
Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bullshit tagline of "fair and balanced". They use this as their motto, a major news agency and member of the press, and it's simply not true in any way. Reliable? Well if you can discredit the direct evidence they provide in this instance then I guess they are unreliable :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually they are fair and balanced compared to the mainstream press. Liberals don't like it though because FOX labels everyone with their ideology when they're on, not just the conservatives. They don't go to a blatantly leftist group like NOW for 'America's Reaction' to this or that decision on abortion for instance, and then invite some seriously untelegenic and inarticulate "conservative" on for an oppossing viewpoint. They don't report a school shooting and conveniently leave out the fact that a citizen with a gun, not a cop, stopped the killer. Conservatives are labeled conservatives, liberals liberal, and everyone is given a fair shake.

The problem is the mainstream press and those who think it's fair have been so insulated for so long they actually do think they're moderate. They've cut off the right wing of the political spectrum and relabeled themselves as middle of the road and they actually believe it. They're completely and blissfully unaware that anywhere besides the eastern and western seaboards exist. They have no knowledge of the unbelievably vast amount of conservative scholarship that's out there that forms the basis of the real right wing or traditional conservatives, like Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Menken, Santayana, Lew Rockwell, Joseph Sobran, Hayek, Garet Garrett, etc. I know because I used to be one of those liberals. I was put into a position where I had to actually defend my views consistently in college and I ended up doing a complete U turn and going further to the right than most people know exists. Interesting trip to say the least, especially when I saw the visciousness, intolerrance and unbelievably violent reactions of one time friends when they realized how I was changing, even at first when those changes were slight.
 
They use this as their motto, a major news agency and member of the press, and it's simply not true in any way. Reliable? Well if you can discredit the direct evidence they provide in this instance then I guess they are unreliable
Click to expand...
The rest of the media claims to be fair and balanced as well though it's not the slogan of their station. Take the paper of record for the united states. The New York times is supposed to be fair and balanced but it's not. It slants the news to the left and is increasingly blurring the line between it's editorial page and it's news room. The Times is the template for the rest of the media to follow. On 60 minutes Dan rather did his best impression of Monica Lewinski when he was interviewing Bill Clinton. He asked him absolutely no tough questions and was as giddy as a school girl to be around Bubba. It's funny I can recall them interviewing any former republican president like that. They gave a full hour to Richard Clark. It's funny but I can't recall them giving anyone critical of the Clinton administration a full hour or one segment other than to try to debunk what they were saying. The 60 minutes had on the John/ John ticket and their wives. Did they ever have Bush/ Cheney and their wives like they covered Kerry/ Edwards? Hell no. That's just one news program. I could come up with stories for most media outlets. Read Biased by Goldberg or Coloring the News which is a really good book.
Does FOX have a conservative slant? Sure but you can't say they are inaccurate or pure bullshit. If your upset about that why aren't you upset about every other news agency having a slant to the left?
What I noticed one of the things FOX does do is give coverage to stories that the rest of the press would ignore. Hanity is on with Combes so you can't really say there is only one point of view there. O'Reilly has a short temper when someone will dodge questions or will refuse to answer or make an asinine point. He replayed a interview with Michael Moore a few weeks ago and he wasn't very hostile towards him at all. I have seen him interview democrats and had a civil discussion.What specially have they put on that's unreliable?
 
Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bullshit tagline of "fair and balanced".
Click to expand...
You can't compare fox news to moveon.org. Moveon.org is a bunch of socialist and about as far leftwing as you can get. It's a political organization not a news agency. You are acting as if moveon doesn't have an agenda and their complaint about FOX is a valid one. So FOX news is complete bullshit but moveonovertocommunism.org isn't? If anything you have shown what a bunch of sycophants moveon.org really is. If I gave money to an organization like that I would be pissed that they were wasting my donation and their time on something so asinine. I guess when your a professional activist and you don't have a real job it tends to warp the mind.
 
Look at the list of the people interviewed in that take out piece on FOX. They are guilty of what they are accusing FOX of. They sure as hell didn't do a fair and balanced job of making a documentary. Hypocrisy is a word liberals don't know the definition of. Do as I say not as I do.
 
the news part is definitly fair, accurate, and balanced on fox.
The talk shows are definitly on the right however.

Thats what sets fox apart.
Other networks, BOTH the news and the talk shows are bias.
 
CDB said:
Actually they are fair and balanced compared to the mainstream press. Liberals don't like it though because FOX labels everyone with their ideology when they're on, not just the conservatives. They don't go to a blatantly leftist group like NOW for 'America's Reaction' to this or that decision on abortion for instance, and then invite some seriously untelegenic and inarticulate "conservative" on for an oppossing viewpoint. They don't report a school shooting and conveniently leave out the fact that a citizen with a gun, not a cop, stopped the killer. Conservatives are labeled conservatives, liberals liberal, and everyone is given a fair shake.

The problem is the mainstream press and those who think it's fair have been so insulated for so long they actually do think they're moderate. They've cut off the right wing of the political spectrum and relabeled themselves as middle of the road and they actually believe it. They're completely and blissfully unaware that anywhere besides the eastern and western seaboards exist. They have no knowledge of the unbelievably vast amount of conservative scholarship that's out there that forms the basis of the real right wing or traditional conservatives, like Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Menken, Santayana, Lew Rockwell, Joseph Sobran, Hayek, Garet Garrett, etc. I know because I used to be one of those liberals. I was put into a position where I had to actually defend my views consistently in college and I ended up doing a complete U turn and going further to the right than most people know exists. Interesting trip to say the least, especially when I saw the visciousness, intolerrance and unbelievably violent reactions of one time friends when they realized how I was changing, even at first when those changes were slight.
Click to expand...

Well apparently many disagree with you regarding FOX, including myself. If you have read the statement filed on that link, it seems rather hard to argue those facts. I actually used to watch FOX most of the time, I generally like their talent and programming, but the spin just got too much for me. When it becomes quite apparent to people like me, who very casually follow politics, I consider them ridiculous. I would love to see someone present, in a concise and quantitative manner with sources as was done here, that either 1. FOX is not bias and should use the slogan "fair and balanced" or 2. other agencies are equally as bad

As for scholarship and the inner workings of right and left....I agree, most don't know what is out there (either side), but that's simply because most average citizens don't have the time to get in that deep. I work at a law school (albeit a 4th teir, lol), so believe me I see academics every day who seem to forget the average, or even what would be considered highly informed average citizen, simply do not take the in depth interest they do.

I relate it to this: it's all about expectations. My area of expertise is IT. If I engage in a conversation with someone reagrding IT who is not in the industry, I have to adjust my arguments due to their experiances and probable lack of in-depth knowledge regarding IT and appeal to their judgement based on what the average Joe knows, not what the average IT guys know. Anyway, I disagree completely with you on FOX.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
The rest of the media claims to be fair and balanced as well though it's not the slogan of their station. Take the paper of record for the united states. The New York times is supposed to be fair and balanced but it's not. It slants the news to the left and is increasingly blurring the line between it's editorial page and it's news room. The Times is the template for the rest of the media to follow. On 60 minutes Dan rather did his best impression of Monica Lewinski when he was interviewing Bill Clinton. He asked him absolutely no tough questions and was as giddy as a school girl to be around Bubba. It's funny I can recall them interviewing any former republican president like that. They gave a full hour to Richard Clark. It's funny but I can't recall them giving anyone critical of the Clinton administration a full hour or one segment other than to try to debunk what they were saying. The 60 minutes had on the John/ John ticket and their wives. Did they ever have Bush/ Cheney and their wives like they covered Kerry/ Edwards? Hell no. That's just one news program. I could come up with stories for most media outlets. Read Biased by Goldberg or Coloring the News which is a really good book.
Does FOX have a conservative slant? Sure but you can't say they are inaccurate or pure bullshit. If your upset about that why aren't you upset about every other news agency having a slant to the left?
What I noticed one of the things FOX does do is give coverage to stories that the rest of the press would ignore. Hanity is on with Combes so you can't really say there is only one point of view there. O'Reilly has a short temper when someone will dodge questions or will refuse to answer or make an asinine point. He replayed a interview with Michael Moore a few weeks ago and he wasn't very hostile towards him at all. I have seen him interview democrats and had a civil discussion.What specially have they put on that's unreliable?
Click to expand...

I gave a link that presented a clear and detailed argument as to why FOX News should rethink using the slogan "fair and balanced", I have not seen the same from anyone else regarding another news agency, and your examples are quite lackluster in comparison...although everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. When you put yourself out there with a tagline like "fair and balanced", expect to be called out on it if you're as obviously slanted as FOX is.

I'm not saying FOX is inaccurate or BS, but their tagline is when used in context to describe their news reporting practices, big difference. No news agencies cannot afford to be inaccurate or false, the point here is the spin and direction management gives towards their channel.

We're always going to have partisanship and a slight reflection of this in the media, I tend to believe that this incredibly hard to avoid considering human nature and the tendancy of most people to be subjective, but I do have a problem with it getting "out of hand" or a company being misrepresentative, which is IMO what FOX has done. Obviously we disgaree, lol.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
You can't compare fox news to moveon.org. Moveon.org is a bunch of socialist and about as far leftwing as you can get. It's a political organization not a news agency. You are acting as if moveon doesn't have an agenda and their complaint about FOX is a valid one. So FOX news is complete bullshit but moveonovertocommunism.org isn't? If anything you have shown what a bunch of sycophants moveon.org really is. If I gave money to an organization like that I would be pissed that they were wasting my donation and their time on something so asinine. I guess when your a professional activist and you don't have a real job it tends to warp the mind.
Click to expand...

I have not compared moveon.org to FOX, you just did. I simply linked to a complaint they have files against FOX, which I agree with. I conceded they are very left, I thought this was blatantly obvious going into it, and would not pretend it otherwise. Moveon is a PAC, not a major national news agency, they are apples and oranges in my book.

Moveon.org DOES have an agenda, this again is quite obvious....your point is what? If you can argue the facts presented in the complaint and render them useless, fine...otherwise their agenda does not invalidate their complaint.
 
Deoudes59 said:
the news part is definitly fair, accurate, and balanced on fox.
The talk shows are definitly on the right however.

Thats what sets fox apart.
Other networks, BOTH the news and the talk shows are bias.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I accidentally happend to watch the fox morning 'news' show a couple of months ago. For me, I don't think that shows like that bring anything credible to the network.
 
Fox has all the MILF hotties to announce the news!

I think fox is pretty balanced compared to the New York Times, they at least label their guests well and get intelligent people from both sides. I have trouble reading the NYT any more.

If they had Michael Savage doing their programming then sure, they would be biased but it is not the case. Be sure to remember when you talk about news coverage, it does not include O'Rielly, etc (those are not news shows, they are talk shows).

Liberals tend to think fox is biased, conservatives think the NYT/LA times/etc are biased, it is just the way it is.
 
jweave23 said:
I have not compared moveon.org to FOX, you just did. I simply linked to a complaint they have files against FOX, which I agree with. I conceded they are very left, I thought this was blatantly obvious going into it, and would not pretend it otherwise. Moveon is a PAC, not a major national news agency, they are apples and oranges in my book.

Moveon.org DOES have an agenda, this again is quite obvious....your point is what? If you can argue the facts presented in the complaint and render them useless, fine...otherwise their agenda does not invalidate their complaint.
Click to expand...

Does FOX pander to the right or center - hell yeah.
Does CNN pander to the left of center - you bet.

The reasons for this are purely business. Look at the company, the networks they provide, the other media outlets that are owned by thier parent companies, etc...

CNN belongs to a multinational conglumerate (AOL-Time Warner) where more than 3/4 of their revenue stream comes from overseas subscription sales of cable networks, ad sales, and other media revenues that are pushed by the channel. The people at CNN aren't stupid, they know where the money comes from, and given that most european countries are socialistic, they will focus their attention toward their target market. Just to give an idea, I worked on an accounting system that billed subscription sales (what they charge the cable/satelite company to just provide the channel) for Latin America alone was roughly $25 million a month. And that is a small as hell market, AND is a drop in the bucket when you figure how much add revenue is generated from the shows.

You have to realize that news is just a business, like everything else and the days of honest, fair and balanced reporting, don't mean a fucking thing to the financial statement of the company. The only thing that matters is increasing the numbers of Viewer Per Viewing Household, which in turn drives up the cost of what you can sell advertising for. I worked on another accounting system for a couple of years that tracked ad sales for TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network. In the tv world their are 4 main seasons and each season's inventory of ad space was called a rate card. TBS and TNT's rate cards were usually in the neighborhood of $200 Million a peice (just for the american market).


When you read the news, usually you have to look at both sides of the issue and realize that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
I could endlessly argue against the froth-mouthed conservatives on here, but I'll cut to the chase and go away, because it will be easier on all of us:


O'reilly is an ass head and stupid people watch fox news while smart people listen to NPR:

Invalid Link Removed


Don't be an ass head. Listen to NPR. Screw it, the Daily Show is a better source of news than the fox network.

And while Rush "OxyContin" Limbawl is still beating everyone, Franken is beating O'Reilly's show in the ratings:

Invalid Link Removed
 
Jeff said:
Does FOX pander to the right or center - hell yeah.
Does CNN pander to the left of center - you bet.

The reasons for this are purely business. Look at the company, the networks they provide, the other media outlets that are owned by thier parent companies, etc...

CNN belongs to a multinational conglumerate (AOL-Time Warner) where more than 3/4 of their revenue stream comes from overseas subscription sales of cable networks, ad sales, and other media revenues that are pushed by the channel. The people at CNN aren't stupid, they know where the money comes from, and given that most european countries are socialistic, they will focus their attention toward their target market. ........
Click to expand...


That might be an oversimplification since CNN has got regional offices and their news is somewhat tailored to have a local slant.
 
jbookie said:
Don't be an ass head. Listen to NPR. Screw it, the Daily Show is a better source of news than the fox network.

And while Rush "OxyContin" Limbawl is still beating everyone, Franken is beating O'Reilly's show in the ratings:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

LOL, talk about biased reporting

That article really misrepresents their results.

1) It is of the two subjects RADIO shows, O'Reilly is primarily known for his T.V. show, but portrays O'Reilly as less popular in general, discounting his TV show.

2) It only looks at NYC, not exactly middle America. I'd bet if it was done in say, Texas the results would be very different. They are pretending a VERY small segment of the population is representative of the entire US population, which it clearly is not. A Random sample would need to be done to achieve a true result.

3) It only looked at listeners "aged 25 to 54," once again not representative of the entire population.

Bottom line, you can't look at a homogonous section of the population (0.0001%) that does not represent the population as a whole and extrapolate that data to represent the population in its entirety.

The fact that Limbaugh is smoking Franken in what should be Franken's target market is interesting, especially since the conservative end of the spectrum is highly over-saturated, unlike Franken's end. If there was only one loud-mouth on the conservative end of the spectrum, the numbers would be even more interesting.
 
And while Rush "OxyContin" Limbawl is still beating everyone, Franken is beating O'Reilly's show in the ratings:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Actually that story wasn't accurate or true. Frankin isn't beating anyone and his radio show isn't doing very well.

O'reilly is an ass head and stupid people watch fox news while smart people listen to NPR:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Fair obviously has an agenda and by the looks of it a major hard on for fox. Anytime you see the word activism on a web site it generally means far left. O' Reilly is more of a talk show not a nightly news broadcast so I don't know why people get sp upset about him. Also NPR wouldn't be on the air without tax payer subsidies.
 
Jeff said:
Does FOX pander to the right or center - hell yeah.
Does CNN pander to the left of center - you bet.

When you read the news, usually you have to look at both sides of the issue and realize that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this actually :)
 
I have not compared moveon.org to FOX, you just did. I simply linked to a complaint they have files against FOX, which I agree with. I conceded they are very left, I thought this was blatantly obvious going into it, and would not pretend it otherwise. Moveon is a PAC, not a major national news agency, they are apples and oranges in my book.

Moveon.org DOES have an agenda, this again is quite obvious....your point is what? If you can argue the facts presented in the complaint and render them useless, fine...otherwise their agenda does not invalidate their complaint.
Click to expand...
My point is you are taking the world of an extreme left wing group who doesn't exactly have a good track record for honestly and truth telling with out looking into FOX's side of the story. They are a political group. They and spin misrepresent things. That's what political groups do. Yet, you automatically take what they are saying is truth.
 
It's unfortunate for the left that Frankin isn't doing well, but let's face facts:

love him or hate him, Rush is simply a better broadcaster than Frankin, who is a good comedic and satire writer, but a shitty broadcaster.
 
I gave a link that presented a clear and detailed argument as to why FOX News should rethink using the slogan "fair and balanced", I have not seen the same from anyone else regarding another news agency, and your examples are quite lackluster in comparison...although everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. When you put yourself out there with a tagline like "fair and balanced", expect to be called out on it if you're as obviously slanted as FOX is.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying FOX is inaccurate or BS, but their tagline is when used in context to describe their news reporting practices, big difference. No news agencies cannot afford to be inaccurate or false, the point here is the spin and direction management gives towards their channel.
Click to expand...

Dan Rather going down on Bill Clinton like a circus seal isn't a good example? Do you think he or 60 minutes would ever do a interview like that after president Bush Leaves office? No. How about Don Hewitt the head of 60 minutes saying that they way he cut the story with Bill and Hillary in 1992 got him the nomination at the democratic national convention? Do you think if president Bush was accused of raping someone they would kill the story like they did with Juanita Broadrick? How about Robert Byrd (a former KKK member) saying they N word on national television several times and the press or any activist groups did or said nothing about it? Yet Trent Lot says maybe the country would be a better place if Strom Thurmond was president and the media pressure on him was so intense it forced him to resign as senate majority leader. It's ok for Byrd to say the N word because he's a democrat and everyone knows that democrats care. Bob Packwood was accused of doing some of the same things Clinton did. NOW and the press went crazy forcing him to resign but it's ok for Bill Clinton. Take Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents in his pants. This is a serious story regardless of what side your on. Dan Rather covered the story as if the evil republicans leaked the story and pretty much ignored the substance of the story which is a important one. Bill Clinton was caught on tape admitting they we were offered Osoma Bin Laden. He lied again saying the story wasn't true when he is on tape verifying it. Yet not one story about this on the major networks. Dan Rather didn't ask him about it. The fact is aside from FOX the rest of the press is just as slanted if not more so to the left. What do you think the press would do if that was Bush instead of Clinton? There would be wall to wall coverage of it with people like Michael Moore screaming about it. Are all these lack luster in comparison? Read Bias and Coloring the News.
If moveon.org wants to waste it's time and other peoples money that's fine with me. I'll say again the only they have proved is what smoking a lot of pot, not showering, and being a paid activist does to the mind. It was stupid when FOX sued Al Frankin and it's stupid in this context.
 
jweave23 said:
Well apparently many disagree with you regarding FOX, including myself. If you have read the statement filed on that link, it seems rather hard to argue those facts. I actually used to watch FOX most of the time, I generally like their talent and programming, but the spin just got too much for me. When it becomes quite apparent to people like me, who very casually follow politics, I consider them ridiculous. I would love to see someone present, in a concise and quantitative manner with sources as was done here, that either 1. FOX is not bias and should use the slogan "fair and balanced" or 2. other agencies are equally as bad.
Click to expand...
Not too hard, Bernard Goldberg wrote two books on the subject, maybe three at this time. Jon Lott has a book out specifically about media bias concerning gun control and left wing positions on that issue called The Bias Against Guns. As well. These three books are evidence enough at least that the other stations are as bad as FOX regarding slants on hard news stories.

As for scholarship and the inner workings of right and left....I agree, most don't know what is out there (either side), but that's simply because most average citizens don't have the time to get in that deep.
Click to expand...
My general experience is that right wingers are almost always more familiar with the oppossing viewpoints. This goes for almost all right wingers I've met except neocons like Jonah Goldberg and that crew. This is not the same in my experience as left wingers, who seem to think the entirety of right wing literature is comprised of a Hitler/Mousalini library. This my experience with generall above average people, and that's all, just my experience.

I relate it to this: it's all about expectations. My area of expertise is IT. If I engage in a conversation with someone reagrding IT who is not in the industry, I have to adjust my arguments due to their experiances and probable lack of in-depth knowledge regarding IT and appeal to their judgement based on what the average Joe knows, not what the average IT guys know. Anyway, I disagree completely with you on FOX.
Click to expand...
If you haven't, check those books I mentioned out. Also here's an article about some of the negative effects of gun control, never reported in major media outlets despite it's obvious relevance and gruesomeness: Invalid Link Removed. I'd also reccomend looking up stories on the Witchita Murders, which while some of the most brutal in recent memory have never been widely reported because of the politically correct media slant to the left.
 
media outlets mainly care about their bottom line and to this effect they product differentiate to conquer different parts of the market.

of americans, 36% are conservative, 38% moderate, 18% liberal. 8% = ?

of FOX's 1.3 mil prime-time viewers, 52% are conservative, 30% moderate and 13% liberal. the other 5% i guess could not be classified.

NPR's audience is 31% conservative, 33% moderate, 30% liberal. CNN is close to the national averages so they are probably the least slanted of the main stream media outlets.

of national reporters and editors, 7% are conservative and 34% are liberal. they deny a liberal bias of course. all these numbers are from a news week article i read a few weeks ago.

why does the average reporter/editor tend to be more liberal than the average american?

-5
 
Number 5 said:
media outlets mainly care about their bottom line and to this effect they product differentiate to conquer different parts of the market.

of americans, 36% are conservative, 38% moderate, 18% liberal. 8% = ?

of FOX's 1.3 mil prime-time viewers, 52% are conservative, 30% moderate and 13% liberal. the other 5% i guess could not be classified.

NPR's audience is 31% conservative, 33% moderate, 30% liberal. CNN is close to the national averages so they are probably the least slanted of the main stream media outlets.

of national reporters and editors, 7% are conservative and 34% are liberal. they deny a liberal bias of course. all these numbers are from a news week article i read a few weeks ago.

why does the average reporter/editor tend to be more liberal than the average american?

-5
Click to expand...

It is worse among college professors:

"The latest data appear in the Aug. 29 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. A solid majority of those teaching at both public and private universities described themselves as being either liberal or far left. Less than a third considered themselves middle of the road and just 15 percent said they were conservative"

Invalid Link Removed
 
of national reporters and editors, 7% are conservative and 34% are liberal. they deny a liberal bias of course. all these numbers are from a news week article i read a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that 59 % percent of the reported and editors who identify them selves as moderate really are not. There are really liberal but see them selves as moderate. This is because they think the United States is really composed of 3 states.... New York city, CA, and Washington. Everyone who runs in the same circles as they do have the same opinion. They operate in an echo chamber and are never challenged. So they think I am for abortion, gun control, socialized medicine, affirmative action, expanding government social programs, Letting the UN tell the united States what to do, and high taxes. Everyone they talk to has the same view points so they label themselves moderate when in reality they are not. There was the story of when Regan won the election a well know reported said "how can that be I don't know anyone who voted for Regan."
 
It is worse among college professors:

"The latest data appear in the Aug. 29 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. A solid majority of those teaching at both public and private universities described themselves as being either liberal or far left. Less than a third considered themselves middle of the road and just 15 percent said they were conservative"

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Tell me about it. I took a journalism class and my teacher said that Bill Clinton put her kids through college. A sociology class was so slanted that a good percentage of the class thought capitalism was evil when it concluded.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Tell me about it. I took a journalism class and my teacher said that Bill Clinton put her kids through college. A sociology class was so slanted that a good percentage of the class thought capitalism was evil when it concluded.
Click to expand...
Same here for my history classes in school. Students left thinking the Great Depression was the resultof over production of nonperishable goods by "greedy capitalists." When I asked annoying questions, like why didn't Canada's economy also bite the dust, why didn't retail markets go through the floor like capital goods markets, why did the depression happen so soon after the founding of the fed which was supposed to stop such things, and why did such panic/depression cycles seem to follow the establshment of central/state banks and money inflation, the prof had no answers. No one saw any signifigance in that.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
The problem with that is that 59 % percent of the reported and editors who identify them selves as moderate really are not.
Click to expand...

the news week article i read did not discuss the methodology for grouping people into liberals, moderates and conservatives, but i do not believe it was necessarily based on self-reported affiliation.

still, the average reporter is twice as likely to be a liberal as the average american, and only 1/3 as likely to be a conservative. so does the job of reporter/editor attract liberals, or do they become liberals because of the job?

-5
 
Number 5 said:
the news week article i read did not discuss the methodology for grouping people into liberals, moderates and conservatives, but i do not believe it was necessarily based on self-reported affiliation.

still, the average reporter is twice as likely to be a liberal as the average american, and only 1/3 as likely to be a conservative. so does the job of reporter/editor attract liberals, or do they become liberals because of the job?

-5
Click to expand...

Or is it the corperate culture that pushes people to be more liberal?
 
Jeff said:
Or is it the corperate culture that pushes people to be more liberal?
Click to expand...

probably not. investment bankers, MBA students, etc. tend to be more republican than average americans.

-5
 
i think, in regards to the chicken/egg question, that it is both. liberals are attracted to journalism, AND journalism is so clique'ish that it tends to reinforce liberals' biases. when you are surrounded by fellow travelers, it's much easier "to believe."

liberals, as sowell would say, tend to believe in external locus of control (in general) and in a sort of perfectable man vs. conservatives who tend to view locus of control as more internal, and man as inherently flawed.

people who think that THEY can change the status quo, and make difference, not through production of product (if that is not redundant) such as the widget, but instead through "investigative reporting" are more likely to be liberals, and attracted to journalism.

journalism schools/classes are very activism based. journalism is seen as a way to effect change, not as a way to reflect events.

again, this would tend to disproportionately attract liberals.

i think bernie goldberg touches on a lot of this in his books "bias" and "arrogance" both of which i recommend.
 
Number 5 said:
media outlets mainly care about their bottom line and to this effect they product differentiate to conquer different parts of the market.

of americans, 36% are conservative, 38% moderate, 18% liberal. 8% = ?

of FOX's 1.3 mil prime-time viewers, 52% are conservative, 30% moderate and 13% liberal. the other 5% i guess could not be classified.

NPR's audience is 31% conservative, 33% moderate, 30% liberal. CNN is close to the national averages so they are probably the least slanted of the main stream media outlets.

of national reporters and editors, 7% are conservative and 34% are liberal. they deny a liberal bias of course. all these numbers are from a news week article i read a few weeks ago.

why does the average reporter/editor tend to be more liberal than the average american?

-5
Click to expand...

That is the exact point of what I was saying. They all pander to a market.
:drunk:

jweave23 said:
Well apparently many disagree with you regarding FOX, including myself. If you have read the statement filed on that link, it seems rather hard to argue those facts. I actually used to watch FOX most of the time, I generally like their talent and programming, but the spin just got too much for me. When it becomes quite apparent to people like me, who very casually follow politics, I consider them ridiculous. I would love to see someone present, in a concise and quantitative manner with sources as was done here, that either 1. FOX is not bias and should use the slogan "fair and balanced" or 2. other agencies are equally as bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't get a chance to look at the link, but are they trying to apply 'false advertising' to a media outlets slogan? Man, think of the new sueing opportunities - "Must watch TV" my ass! :)

Oddly enough, an uber lib 'Ted Turner' has the right idea on what to do to fix the situation on todays slashdot
Invalid Link Removed
Washington Monthly has an article from Ted Turner where he talks about the problems with the media conglomerates and calls for them to be busted
Click to expand...

The problem comes in when 'legitamate' new shows push an agenda, ie Richard Clark, as a the only legitamate view point. Since CBS owns the publishing company, of cource they want to sell as many books as possible and will give the guy a forum to say anything he wants without a rebuttal.
 
Number 5 said:
probably not. investment bankers, MBA students, etc. tend to be more republican than average americans.

-5
Click to expand...

You've never worked at Turner, completely and utterly liberal.. Journalist majors are the most liberal out there, they are the ones who become the editors and the people who 'filter' the news for the rest of us.
 
jjjd said:
i think, in regards to the chicken/egg question, that it is both. liberals are attracted to journalism, AND journalism is so clique'ish that it tends to reinforce liberals' biases. when you are surrounded by fellow travelers, it's much easier "to believe."

liberals, as sowell would say, tend to believe in external locus of control (in general) and in a sort of perfectable man vs. conservatives who tend to view locus of control as more internal, and man as inherently flawed.

people who think that THEY can change the status quo, and make difference, not through production of product (if that is not redundant) such as the widget, but instead through "investigative reporting" are more likely to be liberals, and attracted to journalism.

journalism schools/classes are very activism based. journalism is seen as a way to effect change, not as a way to reflect events.

again, this would tend to disproportionately attract liberals.

i think bernie goldberg touches on a lot of this in his books "bias" and "arrogance" both of which i recommend.
Click to expand...


Good points indeed. I've got an amazon gift card, if you had to pick one which would you recommend?
 
i've only skimmed through arrogance, but i've read bias. twice.

i KNOW bias is very good. i'd go with bias. you can always get arrogance later.

arrogance is probably more "up to date" but bias is near classic status.
 
Part of the problem is that the majority of colleges and teachers are all liberal. They end of indoctrinating the students. Many 18 year old kids can't see the propaganda that many of them teach. Journalism should be pretty simple. It should be just the facts. Instead of the facts go against my ideology so I am going to burry it in the last paragraph and distort it.
 
This is one of the best books on media bias I have read.
Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism
by William McGowan

Invalid Link Removed
 
the news week article i read did not discuss the methodology for grouping people into liberals, moderates and conservatives, but i do not believe it was necessarily based on self-reported affiliation.
Click to expand...
I believe if it's the one I am thinking about they asked journalist which political ideology they believe best fits them. With the choices of Liberal, conservative, or moderate. As I said earlier they would be much higher rate for liberals but the journalist are so out of toutch that they believe they are moderate when in reality they are to the left of Lennon. What they should have done is asked them a series of questions about were they stand on issues instead of letting the journalist classify them selves. It would prob. look like this 80 % liberal 10-15% more moderate to the left and 5-10% conservative.
 
You've never worked at Turner, completely and utterly liberal.. Journalist majors are the most liberal out there, they are the ones who become the editors and the people who 'filter' the news for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Ted gave or pledged to give a large some of money to the UN. Maybe that's why CNN has ignored the UN oil for food scandal.
He also called a bunch of Christians "Jesus freaks" on ash Wednesday. Could you image what would have happened if he called a bunch of Muslims towel heads or called some one a Jew or something. Wait.................... nothing would happen because he owns the news station and is also a liberal so he gets a pass. Hillary called someone a "Jew bastard" and got a pass. I guess I should phrase it if a conservative said the same thing.
 
VG, that's a good point. a leftists impression of what conservative or moderate IS, is going to be skewed. if you are surrounded by leftists, and are one yourself, then the middle looks like the right, and the right looks like the far right

this is true from both ends of the spectrum. for example, many on the right refer to clinton (bill) as a leftist. he most definitely was not far left, or liberal. as many claim. he was left moderate. he supported DOMA, Capital Punishment, and welfare reform.

kucinich? now, THAT's a leftist
 
turner has an amazing bias and arrogant bigotry towards christianity. you are right, if he said about islam, what he said about christianity, he would be vilified.

iirc, it was a big part of his breakup with fonda. when she went christian, he got really pissed awnd said some messed up things
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Ted gave or pledged to give a large some of money to the UN. Maybe that's why CNN has ignored the UN oil for food scandal.
He also called a bunch of Christians "Jesus freaks" on ash Wednesday. Could you image what would have happened if he called a bunch of Muslims towel heads or called some one a Jew or something. Wait.................... nothing would happen because he owns the news station and is also a liberal so he gets a pass. Hillary called someone a "Jew bastard" and got a pass. I guess I should phrase it if a conservative said the same thing.
Click to expand...

CNN ignored anything bad in iraq because they had too, they are the only western news organization that had an office in Bhagdad and it was part of the agreement.
 
Originally Posted by Jeff
Does FOX pander to the right or center - hell yeah.
Does CNN pander to the left of center - you bet.

When you read the news, usually you have to look at both sides of the issue and realize that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

jweave23 said:
I completely agree with this actually :)
Click to expand...

Yo Weave!

We have found common ground on a pollitical matter !!

Someone mark this day on the calendar !!

[Hallalujiah chorus booms in]

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top