Can we stop pretending that Fox is news ?

[Red Dawn]

The sad thing about Fox Viewers is that they know Fox Lies to them. They just don't care because it props up their Ideology.

Well that's a first, someone on the Left admitting the Faux viewers aren't stupid, just deceitful.

 

[Generator]

Just watch the channels now. MSNBC has a man with the last combat troops to leave the Iraq War.

Fox has a story about fake war medals. Spend some money fox.

 

[Red Dawn]

I though comedians were our best export

If not that then it's something else frivolous as your country is about as frivolous as they get. One things for sure, you have no fucking business discussing American politics when you consider how fucked up yours is.

 

[sandorski]

Well that's a first, someone on the Left admitting the Faux viewers aren't stupid, just deceitful.

Nah, they're Stupid alright, just willingly so.

 

[xj0hnx]

You can honestly say that Fox is not ridiculously biased??

Not any more or less than any of the other of the cable news networks.

 

[werepossum]

First, you're looking at a different article though I assume it's based on the same study. The article I linked explains the methodology used to reach its conclusions.

Second, and more importantly, your entire analysis is predicated on the notion that each campaign had an equal number of positive and negative events, so that objective reporting would have an equal mix of positive and negative stories. That's not the way the real world works. The McCain campaign had all sorts of issues, undoubtedly a factor in his loss.

The article I linked IS the study; it contains the actual numbers the authors of the article used to equate a 3 percentage advantage for Obama as being a legitimate "mirror image" of a 96 percentage advantage for Obama. While I have no problem with the concept that McCain should perhaps have had slightly less positive coverage, you and the OP are making the argument that in showing only 3 percentage advantage for Obama, Fox News reveals itself to be not only biased, but the most biased of all the networks. In other words, you are arguing that in an election won by a six point spread (a three percent swing of voters from even) the "proper" response would be to have a 50 percentage advantage for Obama, and further that a mere 3 percentage advantage for Obama is somehow even more biased than a 96 percentage advantage for Obama. And since these numbers are similar for every election, even in an election where the Democrat loses overwhelmingly, your "unbiased" position would require a similar 50 percentage advantage for the Democrat every time. That is simply an asinine position better suited to Helen Thomas than to a sane person. That a similar 50 percentage advantage for the Democrat is common practice does not mean that there is a lack of bias, it merely means that there is an institutional bias in our media. By any fair reasoning Fox is the least biased in coverage, with the fact that all other networks are biased in the opposite direction making Fox the outlier.

 

[Red Dawn]

Not any more or less than any of the other of the cable news networks.

OK, how can you defend them?

 

[Kirby]

lol, this thread is like arguing over which retard shits its pants less.

 

[werepossum]

lol, this thread is like arguing over which retard shits its pants less.

LOL Well, if you have to pick a retard, this is a pretty important argument . . .

 

[xj0hnx]

OK, how can you defend them?

I don't think I have defended Fox, unless pointing out hypocrisy is defending. I find it strange that people that don't watch Fox news seem to have so much to say about it.

 

[Dominato3r]

If not that then it's something else frivolous as your country is about as frivolous as they get. One things for sure, you have no fucking business discussing American politics when you consider how fucked up yours is.

haha, oh, haha

 

[WHAMPOM]

It's been obvious for some time now that Fox has a clear conservative slant to their news coverage, but they always maintained the pretence of being "Fair and balanced". Now it seems they're doing away with even the pretence:



http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/news-corporation-gives-$1m-to-gop-dpgonc-km-20100817_9226384

It is of course a free country, so they can donate to whoever they like, and air whatever propaganda they like, I just wish they'd be honest about their intent. They're not trying to be fair and balanced, they're deliberately biased in favor of the GOP. They even have 3 of the top GOP presidential candidates working for them (Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich).

Also the actual media should stop pretending that Fox is a news organisation, and start calling it what it is. By lending it credibility they're doing us all a great disservice.

Conservatives require constant feedback to keep their dogma in line or they might commit the sin of thinking for themselves. Kind of like the guy with the need for a blaring radio so he cannot hear himself think.

 

[manimal]

New black panthers, Acorn outrage, terrorist fist bumping, the 9/11 mosque...



The list could go on and on. While MSNBC isnt wearing a white dress to the weeding they at least attempt to go to the altar.

Recently Olberman, Maddow and Scarborough all had very harsh criticisms of Obama.

While I do agree that MSNBC has catered their programming to the liberal side they for the most part remain in the realm of facts. Now they have made their mistakes and taken their lumps for it but it in no way justifies their or FAux new's behavior. Fox has taken their liberal use of facts-ha ha get it liberal- and have created false stories and have pushed very biased and studied approaches to incite anger and outrage to push ratings.

Has Fox ever ran the story about Jerry brown and the district attorney's investigation into the Acorn allegations? If you have a link to an apology to Acorn after it became clearly evident that upon review of the raw footage of the acorn tapes no illegal behavior was found? Seriously? The fact that he was dressed up like a pimp only outside of the bldg and wore a tie and button up shirt while actually speaking to the representatives. How about the fact that the person interviewing the two kids took as much information down and immediately filed a report with the police and with the border security and child protective services office of the state of California? Has that ever been solidly reported?

Please show me those links... How about apologizing to the millions or poor people who lost their advocacy and their help in getting things like half way housing and protection from abusive husbands/families?

If you retards dont know who Frank Lunz is you should get to know him. His has his hand so far up your large intestine that is he shakes his pinky your left eye twitches and you start shouting BAILOUT!!!!

I read and get my news from over 20 sources in the course of a week. How many places do you? BTW breitbarts blog or any other blog is not considered news.

I actually watch a few hours of Fox news a week with my few hours of MSNBC and CNN to see where the stories are going. Compare what you see after a week....

I also encourage you to watch a little BBC news once in a while.

 

[Svnla]

.<snip>.........If you retards dont know....<snip>..

You were doing ok until the name calling. So someone who has a different view than you = retard/moron or as another poster put it "wingnut"?

 

[cubby1223]

New black panthers, Acorn outrage, terrorist fist bumping, the 9/11 mosque...

Don't forget Rachel Maddow's crusade to prove our government is secretly controlled by a Christian sex cult.

 

[UberNeuman]

oh, someone thought fox had a news channel?

 

[Craig234]

You said:
then provided links that claim a plurality of reporters have a liberal bias. A plurality or even a majority are not "everyone throughout an organization" and will not be no matter how many links or how many google terms you provide.

The personal political views of professional reporters don't need to matter much. If someone prefers one party, it doesn't mean they can't write a fair story.

The political views that are dominant in influencing a news agency are the owners's preferences. Even then, they can pick whether their ideology of choice is the agency's.

Usually, they don't. It's a business, and most have 'journalistic standards' rather than deciding to be a propaganda machine. Fox does something else.

It was created to provide an alternative to news organizations telling the truth to the large group of Americans who don't want to hear it, and instead to push propaganda.

Indeed, they're sort of 'making their own market', just as brands create 'brand loyalty', they push propaganda that, when people accept it, makes them 'loyal customers'.

It's worked great for them, not so well for their viewers and the country. It was created from the beginning to be a propaganda agency to make money.

That's their priority - the harm caused by propagandizing a large part of the country with bad policies and misinformation, they are reckless about.

It's like any other bad demagogue who enriches himself by duping followers except that they are big.

They play off the idea of saying they're 'one side' at worst, and 'fair and balanced' in terribly false advertising. They're neither. They're a product for a warped audience.

Demagogues have long come to power as pied pipers who lead people down bad roads in opposition to others.

The more radically wrong Fox gets, the more loyal their viewers. It's a cult big enough that they don't look like one.

The right-wing media formula has sometimes been called 'angry white men stories' - there's something addicting for people to keep having those views repeated.

That's why there's always a villain, some evil liberal to need to be opposed, people get mad and have a perverse enjoyment from the experience.

It's one thing to have propaganda create people who are determined one car or beer are better, the one that will get them that cute girl.

It's quite another for an organization for its profit to create a large part of society who is misinformed and manipulated.

It's allowed under 'free speech', but it should be understood it's wrong and it's the big enemy of free speech, the thing that threatens it.

It's analogous to when someone who wants power as a fascist who will destroy free speech, uses free speech to get that power. It's allowed, but a threat to free speech.

Free speech is as good or as bad as the participants. Fox is a failure of society - a failure of responsibility by its leadership, and a failure of good sense by its audience.

Most scenarios for Democracy to fall include a charismatic leader or movement who pull people in using 'free speech'. Fox is that 'enemy within'.

Luckily they haven't done even more harm - their agenda isn't to 'overthrow America'. It's just to convince people that they're a unique product and the 'honest' network.

Meanwhile, anyone who points out their errors, Fox people call 'biased'. What a waste of time to try to talk to them about it.

Because they're big and wrong, of course an honest commentator is going to run into their viewers, and either agree or disagree. What's this 'neutral' when discussing a Fox lie? You agree with the lie, or you disagree with it. 'For Fox viewers, that's 'honest and agree' or 'liberal biased media disagreeing'. No wonder America's most famous newscaster in the 'middle of America' was called by Fox viewers a radical liberal when he said Foxis propaganda. That's how cults work.

 

[Craig234]

Don't forget Rachel Maddow's crusade to prove our government is secretly controlled by a Christian sex cult.

Except she's not. She's reported on a number of politicians who are affiliated with a radical group, seeming to illegally get subsidized housing.

Oh, ya, and her reporting is accurate.

Not some propaganda using monsters, but accurate reporting.

Accurately reporting bad behavior that gets you ratings and profit isn't wrong. Twisting it, inventing it, and so on are another thing.

 

[nick1985]

The list could go on and on. While MSNBC isnt wearing a white dress to the weeding they at least attempt to go to the altar.

If you think MSNBC is any better than Fox, then MSNBC did its job brainwashing you.

 

[Siddhartha]

Has any other news organizations financially supported candidates or political parties?

 

[dmcowen674]

Can we stop pretending that Fox is news ?

Two recent decisions by the Supreme Court said straight out that Fox is not News but an Entertainment organization.

The other decision was allowing all Corporations to donate as much money as they feel like to candidates that they are aligned with.

 

[her209]

Why did Fox stop or lessened its usage of President Obama's full name, Barrack Hussein Obama?

 

[Lanyap]

Has any other news organizations financially supported candidates or political parties?

Other corporations that own news organizations also provided support through their PACs, just not this much more to one side than the other.

August 17, 2010
Fox News takes heat for News Corporation's GOP donation
Posted: August 17th, 2010 05:03 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Fox News' objectivity was called into question by the DNC on Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
(CNN) - The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

"'Fair and Balanced' has been rendered utterly meaningless," Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, said in a statement. "Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away.

"No Republican who appears on Fox can be seen as answering to an independent press and all should appear with a disclaimer for who they truly are – the favored candidate of the corporate-friendly network. No Fox News political coverage can be seen as impartial and all of it should have a disclaimer for what it truly is – partisan propaganda."


News Corporation spokesman Jack Horner defended the donation.

"News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA's pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy," Horner said in a statement to CNN.

Bloomberg was the first to report the contribution, based on the RGA's Internal Revenue Service filings. A review of the News Corporation IRS filings by CNN shows that a subsidiary of the company called News America Inc. made additional donations to both Democrats and Republicans in the 2010 election cycle, including $50,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association and $65,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee. Those committees, as well as their Democratic counterparts, are 527 groups, meaning they are not subject to campaign finance contribution limits.

While News Corporation has used its political action committee to shower Democrats with campaign contributions, the total of those donations is dwarfed by the $1 million check it cut to the RGA.

Data collected by CQ Moneyline shows that News Corporation, through its political action committee, has contributed over $105,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle, while donating $74,700 to Republicans during the same time period. News Corporation's PAC has also donated $7,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $14,500 to GOP-related PACs. News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has also given a total of $45,000 to other Democratic and Republican committees.

On the Democratic side, that includes $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As for Republicans, News Corporation donated $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

A corporation's PAC is subject to a maximum spending limit of $5,000 per candidate per year and $15,000 per political party per year.

News Corporation is not alone among media corporations who donated to political parties and candidates, ultimately raising the issue of whether media companies and politics should mix.

"This is one piece of the puzzle that the public should consider when they are viewing coverage of politics," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

General Electric, which owns NBC, has also made substantial political contributions in the 2010 election cycle. For example, GE donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle compared to $410,100 to Republicans. The company has also given $75,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $74,500 to Republican-affiliated leadership PACs.

Meanwhile, GE has donated $237,000 to the Democratic Governors Association and $205,000 to the Republican Governors Association.

The PAC of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN has given $70,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle compared with $41,500 to Republicans. Time Warner also donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The political action committee for Viacom, the parent company of CBS, has contributed $108,700 to Democratic candidates this election cycle and $64,000 to Republicans, according to CQ Moneyline. The PAC has also contributed $22,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $21,500 Republican-affiliated leadership PACs. Viacom also donated $4,000 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party last April.

And Disney, the parent company of ABC, has given $110,500 to Democratic candidates and $95,000 to Republicans through its PAC. It has also donated $16,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $20,000 to Republican-affiliated committees. Disney has also given $11,000 to Democratic Party PACs and $20,000 to Republican Party PACs.

"The question is 'Are these companies credible when they say they are simply supporting the Democratic process,'" Krumholz said. "I think that is largely ignored by the public as an adequate explanation for these big checks."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...akes-heat-for-news-corporations-gop-donation/

 

[Craig234]

Jon Stewart got it right: 'This is a travesty, Fox paying a million dollars to the GOP. The GOP should pay millions to Fox.'

 

[xj0hnx]

If you think MSNBC is any better than Fox, then MSNBC did its job brainwashing you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vqrmp0Cww