CNN vs. FOX

[Goosemaster]

As a commentator on NPR said this day, regardless of what you are watching, the massive influx of information is, for the moment, eroding our definition of journalism. Most of us are used to at least a modicum of analyis along with raw information, but the presentation is changing.

Because of up-to-the-minute information, ther is literally no time to conjure up adaquate conclusions as to where the story is going.

For example, look at the Martha Stweart Hearing. There was such a flurry of News Channels trying to report verdicts first, that they ended up in disaster. In years past, the verdict would have been word-of-mouth until the evening news. Then, Dan Rather or such a person would report the raw information with an accomanying analysis. What actually happened was a variatble 'family circus' blurting out every piece of information availble, whether right or wrong, and without analysis.


Because we report everything as it happens, most information reamins trivial until sometime later. Unfortunately news channels make them "end of the world" scenarios's for ratings,

Journalism is not what it used to be. W have so much information now, that the elaborate presentations put on every evening force people to consciously doubt everything they hear.




Finding the truth is almost impossible now because there is no truth..uhem...no time for truth to develop.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
As a commentator on NPR said this day, regardless of what you are watching, the massive influx of information is, for the moment, eroding our definition of journalism. Most of us are used to at least a modicum of analyis along with raw information, but the presentation is changing.

Because of up-to-the-minute information, ther is literally no time to conjure up adaquate conclusions as to where the story is going.

For example, look at the Martha Stweart Hearing. There was such a flurry of News Channels trying to report verdicts first, that they ended up in disaster. In years past, the verdict would have been word-of-mouth until the evening news. Then, Dan Rather or such a person would report the raw information with an accomanying analysis. What actually happened was a variatble 'family circus' blurting out every piece of information availble, whether right or wrong, and without analysis.


Because we report everything as it happens, most information reamins trivial until sometime later. Unfortunately news channels make them "end of the world" scenarios's for ratings,

Journalism is not what it used to be. W have so much information now, that the elaborate presentations put on every evening force people to consciously doubt everything they hear.




Finding the truth is almost impossible now because there is no truth..uhem...no time for truth to develop.

Excellent post!

:beer:

 

[jagr10]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
CNN is objective?!?!?! LMFAO!!!!!!!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
"Everybody" was not there for 6 months.

No sh!t Sherlock, that's why I asked!

Don't call me Sherlock!

And actually that's not what you asked. You asked :

How come you were only there for 3 months whenm everybody else is there at least 6 months and some a year?

Reading that leads one to believe that you think everyone but the previous poster was/is on at least a 6 month tour and that there is probably some abnormal reason that his was only 3. Of course it's early and reading is hard.

Wolverines!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
"Everybody" was not there for 6 months.

No sh!t Sherlock, that's why I asked!

Don't call me Sherlock!

And actually that's not what you asked. You asked :

How come you were only there for 3 months whenm everybody else is there at least 6 months and some a year?

Reading that leads one to believe that you think everyone but the previous poster was/is on at least a 6 month tour and that there is probably some abnormal reason that his was only 3. Of course it's early and reading is hard.

Wolverines!

Actually I was thinking that he might have been there as a civilian consulatant/contractor.

 

[Looney]

Finding the truth is almost impossible now because there is no truth..uhem...no time for truth to develop

I wouldn't agree with that. Infact i would think it's the opposite. If i'm presented with the up to the minute facts, then there's less chance that it's being sensationalize than if the editor had had hours or days to edit it. You think sensationalism is a recent phenomena? Far from it... it's always been around, it's just today people recognize it more easily. With the news as it's being presented today, i think we hear much more of the truths than we would if it were presented later in the day or week. Something that happens... a bomb goes off or there's a sniper killing people, you get the instant headline, and then you're presented with experts and specialists alongside the headline, explaining the situation, and giving their opinions. I'm sure there are still people making decisions as to how the news should be directed, who they should get to represent the experts and specialists, etc, but it's not as scripted as it would be if the editors/producers had been given a real whack at it.

The fact that you think that truth needs to be 'develop' just shows how untruthful it can be. I'd rather be presented with the facts as they happen, then later compare what i've seen/heard with the truths that are coming out of the editors and writers, then to rely completely on the editors and writers 'truths'.

 

[josphII]

and I don't think Fox's 'New York Post on TV' approach appeals to the most desirable consumers

not surprising that a person that equates fox news to the new york post has the audacity to write a column proclaiming that cnn is better than fox, despite the numbers

seriously though, cnn is very biased to the left. just look at the audience makeup for crossfire. and heck, hardball's host doesnt even try to hide his liberal allegence

 

[Thump553]

Fox News is to news reporting as MTV is to music. Actual news is only incidental to their main content-right wing political talk shows.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Fox News is to news reporting as MTV is to music. Actual news is only incidental to their main content-right wing political talk shows.

Exactly, they get higher ratings because they make they dramatic headlines and shout at and practically belittle every person they interview.

 

[Ferocious]

When all the news channels were reporting the Clarke story recently........Fox would have none of it....and were talking about the Laci Peterson thingy instead.

I bet they won the "ratings" then too.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Laurie Dhue

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Insane3D
PBS and BBC offer the best, well rounded coverage IMO.

Joke? The BBC is even more to the left of CNN.

Oh yeah...forgot to check my latest issue of the "Liberal Media Conspiracy Weekly".

So, their coverage is bogus because they, according to you, are left leaning? Funny how the BBC is one of the most respected outlets out there....must just be liberals voting?

Conservatives and their liberal media bias crap...

I'll say this. There is no such thing as an unbiased media source. Everyone has their own political agenda, even more so at news agencies. You cannot get unbiased news, it's all slanted to suit the political viewpoint of the given network. The only real way to get legitimate unbiased news is to actually see the given event with your own two eyes. I lived in Israel and I've seen the tremendous left-leaning slant of the BBC with my own two eyes when they reported on the situation there. It doesn't really matter to me who respects it, because I've seen their slant myself.

 

[TekChik]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
CNN is about the most biased new station you can get. Its universally biased. At least ABC, CBS, and NBC can vary with the locale. FOX News is usually very good. Case in point. The War in Iraq. CNN constantly covers the suicide attacks against our troops and that the Iraqis want the US out of there. Thats completely bogus. Most of thsoe attacks are from Iranian and Syrian nationals. We soldiers have organized hundreds of charities for the Iraqi people and the children. Food, clothing, medicine, and even shoes are donated to the Iraqi people by Coalition troops. FOX covers this, CNN does not. CNN constantly refers to President Bush as Mr. Bush. A complete breach of etiquette. You always refer to the President as Mr. President or President Bush. CNN followed protocol with President Clinton. FOX follows protocoll with Presidents Bush and Clinton.

On a side note, if you want to argue with me on what I said about Iraq, chew on this. I just got back from 3 months stationed on Kirkuk. Still want to argue?

I completely agree...having watched both networks all the time during the initial combat phase of the war with my boyfriend at the time who was a Reserve Airborne Ranger and Ranger Instructor.

As an aside, thank you so much for your service.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
As a commentator on NPR said this day, regardless of what you are watching, the massive influx of information is, for the moment, eroding our definition of journalism. Most of us are used to at least a modicum of analyis along with raw information, but the presentation is changing.

Because of up-to-the-minute information, ther is literally no time to conjure up adaquate conclusions as to where the story is going.

For example, look at the Martha Stweart Hearing. There was such a flurry of News Channels trying to report verdicts first, that they ended up in disaster. In years past, the verdict would have been word-of-mouth until the evening news. Then, Dan Rather or such a person would report the raw information with an accomanying analysis. What actually happened was a variatble 'family circus' blurting out every piece of information availble, whether right or wrong, and without analysis.


Because we report everything as it happens, most information reamins trivial until sometime later. Unfortunately news channels make them "end of the world" scenarios's for ratings,

Journalism is not what it used to be. W have so much information now, that the elaborate presentations put on every evening force people to consciously doubt everything they hear.




Finding the truth is almost impossible now because there is no truth..uhem...no time for truth to develop.

Excellent post!

:beer:

ah shucks :beer: you're making me blush

 

[DT4K]

Fox is conservative
CNN is liberal

Both are equally biased.

But Fox does a lot more political commentary. When someone like Sean Hannity is on talking about political issues, the conservative bias is right out in the open for everyone to see.
CNN's bias is more carefully disguised as "news reporting". It's much more sneaky and deceptive.

 

[Ime]

Everyone has a bias of some sort. Just like no two people will tell the same story the same way, no two news outlets will tell the same story the same way.

I find the best thing to do is to have several news sources. You get a better overall picture that way.

 

[Night201]

Originally posted by: kyparrish
Foxnews is definitely a little bit more to the right, that's for sure

That's because good ol' President Bush's nephew runs it or something (he has a major roll there).