For the FOX News lovers on here:

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    For the FOX News lovers on here:


    I thought this was funny:

    http://www.moveon.org/fox/

    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

    Also another great link on the topic: http://www.outfoxed.org/

    and yes, it's quite obvious these links are biased towards the left...well duh!

  2. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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).

    http://www.ratherbiased.com/
  3. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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.
    Note this:

    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    and yes, it's quite obvious these links are biased towards the left...well duh!
    Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bull**** 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
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    Note this:
    Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bull**** 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
    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.
  5. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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
    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 bull****. 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?
  6. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    Of course it's biased towards the left, that goes without saying. The difference with FOX News is the pure bull**** tagline of "fair and balanced".
    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 bull**** 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.
  7. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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.
  8. USA HOCKEY
    CEDeoudes59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,928
    Rep Power
    3202
    Level
    48
    Lv. Percent
    7.9%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
    My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
    hair loss from steroids dot com
  9. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Deoudes59
    Thats what sets fox apart. Other networks, BOTH the news and the talk shows are bias.
    And the anchor women on FOX are hotter.
  10. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    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.
    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.
  11. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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 bull****. 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?
    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.
  12. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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 bull**** 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.
    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.
  13. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    And the anchor women on FOX are hotter.
    Now that I definitely agree with!!
  14. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    78.96%

    Quote Originally Posted by Deoudes59
    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.
    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.
  15. Board Supporter
    cr4ytonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    405
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    88.22%

    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.
  16. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    78.96%

    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    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.
    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 ****ing 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.
  17. New Member
    jboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    58
    Rep Power
    160
    Level
    8
    Lv. Percent
    0.2%

    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:

    http://www.fair.org/extra/0312/fox-pipa.html


    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:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5724045
  18. Senior Member
    MarcusG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,223
    Rep Power
    754
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    24.06%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    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. ........

    That might be an oversimplification since CNN has got regional offices and their news is somewhat tailored to have a local slant.
  19. Board Supporter
    cr4ytonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    405
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    88.22%

    Quote Originally Posted by jbookie
    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:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5724045
    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.
  20. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

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

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5724045
    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:

    http://www.fair.org/extra/0312/fox-pipa.html
    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.
  21. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote 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.
    I completely agree with this actually
  22. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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.
    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.
  23. Registered User
    jweave23's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  237 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    Rep Power
    1453
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    30.32%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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 ****ty broadcaster.
  24. Professional Member
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    2268
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    92.92%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    You should all read the book Bias by B. Goldberg.
  25. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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.
    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.
  26. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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: http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html. 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.
  27. Elite Member
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,703
    Rep Power
    513135
    Level
    59
    Lv. Percent
    86.26%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    Now that I definitely agree with!!
    I dunno, Sophia Choy is pretty fine as well.
  28. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    237
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    97.67%

    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
  29. Board Supporter
    cr4ytonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    405
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    88.22%

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    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
    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"

    http://nationalreview.com/nrof_bartl...lett091503.asp
  30. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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.
    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."
  31. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    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"

    http://nationalreview.com/nrof_bart...tlett091503.asp
    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.
  32. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    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.
    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.
  33. USA HOCKEY
    CEDeoudes59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,928
    Rep Power
    3202
    Level
    48
    Lv. Percent
    7.9%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Vanilla Gorilla, you know your politics.
    My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
    hair loss from steroids dot com
  34. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    586
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    14.62%

    Vanilla Gorilla, you know your politics.
    Thanks. I have my moments.lol
  35. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    237
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    97.67%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The problem with that is that 59 % percent of the reported and editors who identify them selves as moderate really are not.
    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
  36. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    78.96%

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    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
    Or is it the corperate culture that pushes people to be more liberal?
  37. New Member
    Number 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    237
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    97.67%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Or is it the corperate culture that pushes people to be more liberal?
    probably not. investment bankers, MBA students, etc. tend to be more republican than average americans.

    -5
  38. Advanced Member
    jjjd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    703
    Rep Power
    998
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    67.91%

    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.
  39. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    78.96%

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    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
    That is the exact point of what I was saying. They all pander to a market.


    Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    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.
    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
    http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/2...id=149&tid=103
    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
    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.
  40. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    461
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    78.96%

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    probably not. investment bankers, MBA students, etc. tend to be more republican than average americans.

    -5
    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.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. For The Tim Ferriss Lovers
    By SFRANGER in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 05:09 PM
  2. Wtf, is this guy for real!? (fox news)
    By Alek in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 10:24 AM
  3. What the hell is going on here?
    By th0m in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-03-2005, 01:34 PM
  4. Fox News Reporter on BB.com Forums
    By ke0ki in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-21-2004, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in