Can we stop pretending that Fox is news ?

[Vette73]

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



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

News Corp is just that a media group. In fact they call themselves a "media company", their words not mine.

GE = Aircraft engines, military contracts, Nuclear power, etc... so for them to give (NOT NBC news) makes sence.

Time Warner = Cable, internet, etc... so for them to give (NOT CNN news) makes sence.

Also the amounts they give dwarf what News Corp gave.

 

[nick1985]

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

Never gets old.

I liked the part "Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifle". Shows they know absoultey jack-fucking-shit about firearms. lol

 

[IGBT]

how come so many liberals fail to watch cnn/mess NBC and the rest. Why do liberals fail to read their own liberal rags? Here in SF they have to give them away because nobody wants to pay for em.

 

[Tristicus]

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

Because maybe they don't want to keep saying it over and over? HURR HURR HURR

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Someone seems to have conveniently left out Joe Scarborough ...

interesting you brought that up. The guy used to do primetime stuff right? Or near primetime. At least I'd be able to catch him. Now he's got early morning crap. Sorry. I'm on the west coast, so that means I get zero coverage of him.... Maybe I did when I pulled all nighters in college, but whatever. He's been downgraded to nothing.

As for Alan Colmes, he was a funny guy. If you watched Hannity & Colmes as much as I did in college and high school, it was funny to see him get shot down so easily by Hannity, especially in the earlier 2000s when Fox was rising. While he's a liberal by my books, the guy couldn't say crap without being pummeled by Hannity. But whatever, that show was entertainment. IF you took it as fair and balanced news, you're retarded.

 

[nick1985]

Someone seems to have conveniently left out Joe Scarborough ...

Who is that, some token "Republican"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkY5Is0WCs&feature=search


Seems that way

 

[Fern]

Dont watch much CNN, but MSNBC sure seems that way.

Lets see, off the top of my head...

Norah Oddonnel - lol
Keith Olbermann - lol
Chris Mathews - lol
Rachel Maddow - lol
Chuck Todd- lol
David Gregory - lol
Ed Shultz - lol
Mika Brezsinski - lol (Although she is the only decent looking person on their payroll)
Contessa Brewer - lol
Andrea Mitchell - lol


Yep, all unushamed Obama supporters.

Oblermann, Maddow, and Schulz make no attempts to hide who they are. The rest are straight up reporters who always lend credibility to right-wing talking points.. You just looked up a list of names. All were uncritical of many Bush era policies and fucking Andrea Mitchell is Greenspans squeeze.

You don't know shit son, stick to your Rasmussen polls.

Chris Matthews, the former Carter staffer, who hosts "hardball" is a "straight up reporters who always lend credibility to right-wing talking points"? You're saying Hardball is a straight up news show?

And the same for Rachel Maddow etc?

You are unfamiliar with MSNBC programming.

MSNBC has no nightly "staright up" news show. It's all political commentary beginning at 4pm est (perhaps earlier) when Matthews first airs and continues on through the night.

But some here need to drop the pretense that the MSM is 'objective', they aren't and I don't care what studies show; I watch all the d@mn programs. There are a few shows here and there that are straight up news, but the vast majority are political commentary and are up front about it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

Where have you been?

Fox doesn't deny a conservative slant. It's their freakin biz plan. The other news orgs are slanted liberal so they've purposely exploited the gap.

You have a problem with them hiring former politician/gov officials? Really, if you'd bother to notice all the others do that too, execpt they're likely to be former Dem officials.

Fox is as much, and in some cases more, of a news organization than the others. Fox actually has 2 straight up news shows (as opposed to political commentary) airing at 6pm (Brent Baer) and 7 pm (Shepard Smith). MSNBC has none in the evening/night.

There's really nothing to complain about, people just need to recognize/understand (and acknowledge) the difference between political commentary and striaght-up news.

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

Ehh, I wouldn't call much with Brent Baer straight up news. Shepard Smith is about as close to real news as you are going to find on Fox.

 

[Craig234]

how come so many liberals fail to watch cnn/mess NBC and the rest. Why do liberals fail to read their own liberal rags? Here in SF they have to give them away because nobody wants to pay for em.

You know, why does the right say false things in so many posts?

It'd be nice once in a while to have a discussion about something where the right is honest, and more substantive issues can be discussed, not 'wrong again'.

SF has two large free weeklies. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a business model and most major cities have the same type of paper.

How much of the costs of the paper do you think your 25 cents or whatever the price is covers? Think about it - all newspapers, at least nearly, rely on the advertising money.

In daily papers, there's been a national decline while you were in the cave. Formerly competitive markets for multiple papers have largely become one-paper cities.

The same was happening in San Francisco - and one of its two dailies was going to go bankrupt, but found a business model in a small, cheap format as a free daily.

In fact, all but one of the formerly independent papers in the Bay Area - 9 papers IIRC - were all bought up by one owner, who cut the staff and publishes simpler papers.

The only remaining independent daily in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Chronicle.

And it costs money, contrary to your post (75 cents a day IIRC, reflecting the cuts in advertising but still a fraction of the cost as I understand it).

 

[xj0hnx]

You know, why does the right say false things in so many posts?

It'd be nice once in a while to have a discussion about something where the right is honest, and more substantive issues can be discussed, not 'wrong again'.

Says the guy who blames republicans for everything, and thinks the democrats walk on water. That means nothing coming from you.

 

[Craig234]

Where have you been?

Fox doesn't deny a conservative slant. It's their freakin biz plan. The other news orgs are slanted liberal so they've purposely exploited the gap.

You have a problem with them hiring former politician/gov officials? Really, if you'd bother to notice all the others do that too, execpt they're likely to be former Dem officials.

Fox is as much, and in some cases more, of a news organization than the others. Fox actually has 2 straight up news shows (as opposed to political commentary) airing at 6pm (Brent Baer) and 7 pm (Shepard Smith). MSNBC has none in the evening/night.

There's really nothing to complain about, people just need to recognize/understand (and acknowledge) the difference between political commentary and striaght-up news.

Fern

Bull. You are parroting the lie that lets a propaganda organization claim to be 'one side of the two sides'.

They're *creating a market*. It's as if someone spent the millions tomorrow to spend years growing a market for the 'sky is orange' channel, because with enough years and money and cute blondes saying so and propagandists who tell you every day you're being lied to by the 'blue' media, you eventually get an audience who is very loyal to your product, since the others don't say the real color like you do. Now, suddenly, the color of the sky is an issue for debate, where it used to be blue.

On the one hand, I pick an extreme analogy to show the point. On the other, Fox has a lot more harmful propaganda than the sky being orange.

The idea is pretty much the same, though, that's what they do. Good for their profits, bad for the country.

The neat thing is, once you get the audience agreeing with your manufactured propaganda, they'll find examples of 'bias' saying it's wrong all over the place.

Good for their profits, bad for the country.

 

[GoPackGo]

OK, how can you defend them?

Honest Journalism has been dead for years.

 

[hal2kilo]

Where have you been?

Fox doesn't deny a conservative slant. It's their freakin biz plan. The other news orgs are slanted liberal so they've purposely exploited the gap.

You have a problem with them hiring former politician/gov officials? Really, if you'd bother to notice all the others do that too, execpt they're likely to be former Dem officials.

Fox is as much, and in some cases more, of a news organization than the others. Fox actually has 2 straight up news shows (as opposed to political commentary) airing at 6pm (Brent Baer) and 7 pm (Shepard Smith). MSNBC has none in the evening/night.

There's really nothing to complain about, people just need to recognize/understand (and acknowledge) the difference between political commentary and striaght-up news.

Fern

So when are they going to drop their "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So when are they going to drop their "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

When Obama delivers on hope and change.

 

[Double Trouble]

This thread is funny yet so full of fail. Most Americans consider themselves mainstream and slightly conservative, yet most of the media serving that population self identifies as largely liberal or democratic. Fox just stepped into the market void, a very smart financial decision.

As far as being a "news" or "entertainment/commentary" type organization, unlike some other channels (like MSNBC), they actually have real news shows along with their political commentary shows. Fox is no less a "news" channel than CNN, MSNBC and the like. They are just the other side of the political coin.

 

[werepossum]

I love when Bowfinger shows up, provides damning facts, and then gets conveniently ignored by the idiots he just shut down.

Yea I was about to point out PokerGuy's BS again but Bowfinger did it even better. :thumbsup:

Where in the world do you get the idea that Bowfinger's post supports the OP's point? Let us for a moment ignore the "mirror image" rhetoric (these are journalists, after all) and look at the actual numbers from the study. http://www.journalism.org/node/13437

Fox:
Obama +25 -40 =35
McCain +22 -40 =38
Negative 15 point spread for Obama, negative 18 point spread on McCain. Three point advantage to Obama.

MSNBC
Obama +43 -14 =43
McCain +10 -73 =17
Positive 29 point spread for Obama, negative 67 point spread on McCain. Ninety-six point advantage to Obama!

CNN
Obama +36 -39 =25
McCain +13 -61 =36
Negative 3 point spread for Obama, negative 48 point spread on McCain. Forty-five point advantage to Obama.

All media
Obama +36 -29 =35
McCain +14 -57 =29
Positive 7 point spread for Obama, negative 43 point spread on McCain. Fifty point advantage to Obama.

Fox News gave a slight advantage to Obama in an election where voters also gave a slight advantage to Obama, in fact by about the same margin (since a three percent swing in voters yields a six percent difference in votes.) CNN and the media as a whole gave a huge advantage to Obama in the same election. MSNBC managed to give Obama a continuous Lewinsky whilst also taking up group residence inside The Messiah's large intestine - a whopping 96 percent advantage in tone!

And you think Bowfinger has provided "damning facts" that Fox News is the station with the bias? You, sir, are either a shameless liar or else have the intellect of a banana slug.

So a conserative think tank says fox is fair and we should just believe it.

OK, by the way I got a bridge to sell ya. :awe:

Are you even REMOTELY capable of understanding how stupid and fundamentally dishonest this progression makes you appear? You began by agreeing that Bowfinger posted "damning facts" because the article about the study was written to suggest that Fox and MSNBC are roughly parallel (which in itself does not support the OP's assertion that Fox in particular isn't news, but only that Fox and MSNBC are outliers. As with most of life, evidence of an outlying datum is NOT evidence of that datum being wrong.) Then when I point out that the actual study shows Fox to be by far the most fair and balanced of the television news agencies for the 2008 election cycle, you suddenly reject Bowfinger's post as "a conserative think tank" and therefore irrelevant. Seems facts are only facts so long as they support your own liberal views. You could at least argue like Bowfinger that a 50 percent advantage for the Democrat is "fair and balanced"; revealing yourself to be dishonest and biased has to be preferable to revealing yourself to be dishonest and stupid.

Craig, a better analogy for Fox would be if all the news media had spent decades telling you, in increasingly strident tone, that the sky is actually orange even though you believe it to be blue. Then a news outlet comes along that says the sky is blue. Consumers immediately cry "Yes! I thought that all along!" and transfer their trust, for better or worse, to the news outlet that agrees with everything they personally observe. Note that this in and of itself does not determine the color of the sky, but it does explain Fox's skyrocketing appeal.

 

[nick1985]

Are you even REMOTELY capable of understanding how stupid and fundamentally dishonest this progression makes you appear? You began by agreeing that Bowfinger posted "damning facts" because the article about the study was written to suggest that Fox and MSNBC are roughly parallel (which in itself does not support the OP's assertion that Fox in particular isn't news, but only that Fox and MSNBC are outliers. As with most of life, evidence of an outlying datum is NOT evidence of that datum being wrong.) Then when I point out that the actual study shows Fox to be by far the most fair and balanced of the television news agencies for the 2008 election cycle, you suddenly reject Bowfinger's post as "a conserative think tank" and therefore irrelevant. Seems facts are only facts so long as they support your own liberal views. You could at least argue like Bowfinger that a 50 percent advantage for the Democrat is "fair and balanced"; revealing yourself to be dishonest and biased has to be preferable to revealing yourself to be dishonest and stupid.

lol

 

[RearAdmiral]

lol@tv news. You might as well get your political news direct from each major party.

 

[PeshakJang]

lol@tv news. You might as well get your political news direct from each major party.

I let the internets give me my news.

There is no bias on the internets.

 

[hal2kilo]

I let the internets give me my news.

There is no bias on the internets.

Lol, tapping on my sarcasm meter.

 

[RearAdmiral]

I let the internets give me my news.

There is no bias on the internets.

I am biased towards liking you.

 

[Bowfinger]

You're good at putting words into my mouth, not so much at forming a well-reasoned argument.

The article I linked IS the study;

Turns out we linked the same article. I just linked the first page while you linked a later page.

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.

I said no such thing. I repeated exactly what the study found, that Fox and MSNBC are roughly equally biased, in opposite directions.

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.

This is where your reasoning fails. You presume that negative stories should somehow directly correlate with election results. That is a non sequitur. News stories should be positive or negative according to what is actually happening with each candidate and his campaign. There will be a mix of both positive and negative developments.

Those developments are at most only loosely connected to ultimate election results. People vote for many reasons, and there are substantial entrenched groups on both ends of the political spectrum who will vote for their party no matter how badly their candidate blows it. Your argument presumes coverage and results have a direct correlation, and that's simply not true.

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.

And here you've just refuted your own presumption. You've shown how your argument fails the reason test.

That is simply an asinine position better suited to Helen Thomas than to a sane person.

Indeed, but that's the position YOU took. Physician, heal thyself.

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.

LOL. Even the vast majority of right wingers acknowledge Fox is substantially biased to the right. For you to suggest they are the least biased shows either you're deluded or you're too entrenched in defending your own failed reasoning. Either way, your argument fails.


The bottom line remains that in spite of various nutters screeching about all the studies proving how leftist the MSM is, the one and only study of media reporting presented so far in this thread says just the opposite. If anyone has credible studies showing contrary results, they should provide them instead of continuing the knee-jerk huffing and puffing about something they want to believe. Otherwise, "by any fair reasoning," the "evil liberal media" remains yet another mythical bogeyman the RNC propaganda machine uses to keep the sheeple properly outraged while they vote against their self-interests.

 

[hal2kilo]

When Obama delivers on hope and change.

Nice apples to oranges strawman. I've never heard Obama claim he was a journalist or news organization.

Typical FNE BS.

 

[nick1985]

Nice apples to oranges strawman. I've never heard Obama claim he was a journalist or news organization.

Typical FNE BS.

Negotiations will be broadcast on CSPAN! Transparency!