That's stupid, of course we would care. The reason we DON'T wet our pants over every little thing CNN or the Washington Post or the New York Times does is that we've looked at the totality of what they publish, and we've decided that, if they DO have a bias, it's is fairly small and does not have an impact on how they report the news. Fox News is not so lucky, they have a clear and obvious bias that is SIGNIFICANTLY reflected in their news coverage. This "everyone else does it too!" whine has an odd PC element to it, but unfortunately that isn't reality. The fact is that some news sources are more biased than others, and Fox News is at the "top" of that particular game. You want to complain about bias in the "liberal media", fine by me, but don't pretend that all bias is equal.
That's stupid, of course we would care. The reason we DON'T wet our pants over every little thing CNN or the Washington Post or the New York Times does is that we've looked at the totality of what they publish, and we've decided that, if they DO have a bias, it's is fairly small and does not have an impact on how they report the news. Fox News is not so lucky, they have a clear and obvious bias that is SIGNIFICANTLY reflected in their news coverage. This "everyone else does it too!" whine has an odd PC element to it, but unfortunately that isn't reality. The fact is that some news sources are more biased than others, and Fox News is at the "top" of that particular game. You want to complain about bias in the "liberal media", fine by me, but don't pretend that all bias is equal.
It could be worse, they could have typed up a fake memo like CBS News and Dan Rather did.
It is hard to be much more biased than to actually create false news to report, just before a presidential election.
CBS News and Dan Rather give the words "biased reporting" a bad name.
It is hard to be much more biased than to actually create false news to report, just before a presidential election.
CBS News and Dan Rather give the words "biased reporting" a bad name.
Yes, and as you'll note, they fessed up to it, admitted what they did and Dan Rather is no longer at CBS news...who from Fox has quit over a bias issue...hmm?
They didn't fess up they were caught deliberately and maliciously creating false news stories to attempt to influence a presidential election.
What do you call this? That's right, you call it "unbiased news reporting"
So Dan rather is gone, he was already schedule to retire the following feburary even before he typed up the memo, he should have been jailed and charged with treason.
As much as I respect your opinions here... if you think the NYT does not have the equivalent of a Fox news left-leaning bias... you've obviously been reading a different NYT.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Don't give that troll more credit than he's due :
"could not verify the documents were authentic or inauthentic"
CBS was guilty of using underverified documents, which should have been presented as such, if at all. This is a far cry from CBS fabricating the documents themselves, as there is no proof nor reasonable logic for them to do this. The rest of the story on Bush's national guard / Vietnam-era 'duty' is damning enough on it's own to be more than newsworthy with nothing added.
This is a FAR CRY from deliberately slanting everything on the network from top to bottom, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with 1 extra sieg heil day on leap years, all packaged as 'fair and balanced'.
Fox news is puerile, immature, shallow, brainless tripe, and it reflects the braindead, single-minded sub-100 iq garbage who watch it.
jrenz is just upset because Fox can only get by on lies, misrepresentation, and shills like O'Rielly and Hannity. Because you know, they count those bozos as 'news'. Take with a grain of salt the rankings people put out, because idiot talk shows count as 'news', and Fox has those by the pound.
Whereas the NYT is actually a long-standing VERY well-respected news organization that actually cares about their quality of work and at least have some semblance of journalistic integrity. They're losing out to news organizations like Fox, not because Fox is better or people 'trust' Fox more, but because that's the way our society is moving. If the NYT put out a news show you can bet it'd be the best news show on TV bar none.
Don't take umbrage at the jealous neo-con words. Just sour grapes is all.
Whereas the NYT is actually a long-standing VERY well-respected news organization that actually cares about their quality of work and at least have some semblance of journalistic integrity. They're losing out to news organizations like Fox, not because Fox is better or people 'trust' Fox more, but because that's the way our society is moving. If the NYT put out a news show you can bet it'd be the best news show on TV bar none.
Don't take umbrage at the jealous neo-con words. Just sour grapes is all.
New York Times reporter routinely faked articles.......
Creating the news, instead of reporting it, seems to be an epidemic at these "unbiased" news sites
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Goodnight
Creating the news, instead of reporting it, seems to be an epidemic at these "unbiased" news sites
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Goodnight
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Over the course of a few months, and this is some guy working from his home, investigated and removed from CBS.
He even lied about what his house looked like.
This was not a political smear it was someone lazy who got canned for making crap up to get promoted.
I agree, your fallacy of "liberal media" is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
I feel like I'm repeating this phrase a lot on here, but "it's not black and white". For example, while CBS used unverified (and incorrect) documents in a news story, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there was a "malicious" motive or an attempt to influence a presidential election. After all, had the documents been real, it WOULD have been a huge, valid news story and it makes more sense to me that they simply jumped the gun on what looked like a big story. But even if it WAS biased reporting, that doesn't mean everything CBS and the "MSM" at large has ever done is biased...I didn't call THIS particular case a great example of good journalism, I said that ON THE WHOLE, I think CBS, NYT, etc are good news sources. This does not mean there aren't mistakes or problems, it means that OVERALL they are pretty good...my worldview allows for situations that aren't all one way or all the other way...thus, one news story does not a pattern make.
As for "jailed and charged with treason", even if Rather DID intentionally lie to try and make sure Bush didn't get reelected, that's hardly treason...last time I checked, Bush getting reelected was a personal goal for President Bush, no American had ANY motivation or obligation to make sure it happened. You guys keep using the word "treason", but I don't think you know what it means...
Maybe Fox news just have higher standards for the news they report such as verifying documents, and actually requiring reporters to be in the same state as the event that they are reporting on.
Fox News is #1 because their version of the news is closer to reality in most people's opinions.
Every news site has a bias, that is unavoidable. The only source for unbiased news is to be there and see it for yourself. But then it becomes biased the moment your version of what happened is told to another.
Fox News is #1 because their version of the news is closer to reality in most people's opinions.
Every news site has a bias, that is unavoidable. The only source for unbiased news is to be there and see it for yourself. But then it becomes biased the moment your version of what happened is told to another.
Or I'm able to analyze news without letting my personal bias get in the way. I find it interesting that virtually everyone who "detects" left-wing bias in the media is a conservative, and the more conservative they are the more biased they think the media is...and the opposite seems to be true as well. So take this for what it's worth, but even back when I considered myself a Republican and supported President Bush (boy does it seem like a long time ago) I thought that the "media bias" claims were self-delusional rhetoric from people more interested in scoring political points than the truth.
Most people have no idea of what reality is, that's why they watch the news. Fox News is #1 because they discovered a large market for people who want the news to confirm their opinions rather than help form them. You admitted as much...the news SHOULDN'T reflect peoples' uninformed opinion of what reality looks like, Fox News has become successful catering to conservatives who DON'T want the news to challenge their preformed notions of the world...which is pretty much what you said. Which is great and all, but not the function the media should serve in a decent system.
[/quote]
Most people have no idea of what reality is, that's why they watch the news. Fox News is #1 because they discovered a large market for people who want the news to confirm their opinions rather than help form them. You admitted as much...the news SHOULDN'T reflect peoples' uninformed opinion of what reality looks like, Fox News has become successful catering to conservatives who DON'T want the news to challenge their preformed notions of the world...which is pretty much what you said. Which is great and all, but not the function the media should serve in a decent system.[/quote]
You're bias is showing, I simple said that a story has a bias the moment it is told.
I never said that Fox reflects viewers uninformed opinion, I believe that the average Fox viewer is much more informed of world and national events than the average CNN or CBS Evening news viewer.
All I am saying is that there is three versions of a news story, The right biased version, the left biased version and the cold hard truth. I just happen to believe that the right biased version is not as far off center as the left biased version.
You obviously believe that there is only one version of news, and that is the unbiased news journalists at CBS, CNN, NYT etc etc etc. If so that is fine, more power to you. But I don't believe it and millions of other americans don't believe it either.
Most people have no idea of what reality is, that's why they watch the news. Fox News is #1 because they discovered a large market for people who want the news to confirm their opinions rather than help form them. You admitted as much...the news SHOULDN'T reflect peoples' uninformed opinion of what reality looks like, Fox News has become successful catering to conservatives who DON'T want the news to challenge their preformed notions of the world...which is pretty much what you said. Which is great and all, but not the function the media should serve in a decent system.[/quote]
You're bias is showing, I simple said that a story has a bias the moment it is told.
I never said that Fox reflects viewers uninformed opinion, I believe that the average Fox viewer is much more informed of world and national events than the average CNN or CBS Evening news viewer.
All I am saying is that there is three versions of a news story, The right biased version, the left biased version and the cold hard truth. I just happen to believe that the right biased version is not as far off center as the left biased version.
You obviously believe that there is only one version of news, and that is the unbiased news journalists at CBS, CNN, NYT etc etc etc. If so that is fine, more power to you. But I don't believe it and millions of other americans don't believe it either.
Most people have no idea of what reality is, that's why they watch the news. Fox News is #1 because they discovered a large market for people who want the news to confirm their opinions rather than help form them. You admitted as much...the news SHOULDN'T reflect peoples' uninformed opinion of what reality looks like, Fox News has become successful catering to conservatives who DON'T want the news to challenge their preformed notions of the world...which is pretty much what you said. Which is great and all, but not the function the media should serve in a decent system.[/quote]
You're bias is showing, I simple said that a story has a bias the moment it is told.
I never said that Fox reflects viewers uninformed opinion, I believe that the average Fox viewer is much more informed of world and national events than the average CNN or CBS Evening news viewer.
All I am saying is that there is three versions of a news story, The right biased version, the left biased version and the cold hard truth. I just happen to believe that the right biased version is not as far off center as the left biased version.
You obviously believe that there is only one version of news, and that is the unbiased news journalists at CBS, CNN, NYT etc etc etc. If so that is fine, more power to you. But I don't believe it and millions of other americans don't believe it either.
[/quote]
That's my point, I DON'T believe I know what the truth of a situation is without trying to get all the facts first...and that seems to make me different from you and "millions of other Americans". Fox News is popular with that particular group because you guys think you know the "truth" before you really find out the details of what went on, and damn sure you don't want anyone raining on your parade. So you watch Fox News because they report the news in such a way as to confirm your initial opinion. I can certainly see the appeal, but I don't buy into that approach to the news myself.
In any case, I try and get news information from ALL sources, including Fox News, and parse it myself using what I already know about similar events and what passes my BS detector. Honestly I've found Fox News helpful in some cases and (more often) a bunch of fairly crudely slanted propaganda. Again, there is no absolutely biased or absolutely unbiased...it's all about degree. I view it one way, and you view it another...but it is worth noting that you think Dan Rather should have been charged with treason...
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
So why is everyone in such a tizzy that Fox might report on insurgent/taliban celebrations of a Dem win in the mid-terms? That would be news right? To ignore their response would be a passive bias wouldn't it?
The memo doesn't say to "go out and get the insurgents to feign elation" over the election. All it says to do is pay attention.
You'd be pretty naive to think that there aren't Taliban and Iraqi insurgents who were thrilled over the election results. They certainly weren't fans of the Republicans. They know that a large chunk of the Dem party wants an immediate pull out. Why wouldn't they be happy about that? Are the Dems embarrassed that the bad guys share the same goal of pulling the US out of Iraq as many of them do?
Oh wait... I remember... anything reported in the press that wrecks your rose colored view of how things should be is "biased". That and the Dems haven't had but a couple of days to enjoy that "New Congress" smell and to bring up things like this so early is just sour grapes.
The memo doesn't say to "go out and get the insurgents to feign elation" over the election. All it says to do is pay attention.
You'd be pretty naive to think that there aren't Taliban and Iraqi insurgents who were thrilled over the election results. They certainly weren't fans of the Republicans. They know that a large chunk of the Dem party wants an immediate pull out. Why wouldn't they be happy about that? Are the Dems embarrassed that the bad guys share the same goal of pulling the US out of Iraq as many of them do?
Oh wait... I remember... anything reported in the press that wrecks your rose colored view of how things should be is "biased". That and the Dems haven't had but a couple of days to enjoy that "New Congress" smell and to bring up things like this so early is just sour grapes.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So why is everyone in such a tizzy that Fox might report on insurgent/taliban celebrations of a Dem win in the mid-terms? That would be news right? To ignore their response would be a passive bias wouldn't it?
The memo doesn't say to "go out and get the insurgents to feign elation" over the election. All it says to do is pay attention.
You'd be pretty naive to think that there aren't Taliban and Iraqi insurgents who were thrilled over the election results. They certainly weren't fans of the Republicans. They know that a large chunk of the Dem party wants an immediate pull out. Why wouldn't they be happy about that? Are the Dems embarrassed that the bad guys share the same goal of pulling the US out of Iraq as many of them do?
Oh wait... I remember... anything reported in the press that wrecks your rose colored view of how things should be is "biased". That and the Dems haven't had but a couple of days to enjoy that "New Congress" smell and to bring up things like this so early is just sour grapes.
Funny that foxnews later that day after the "reporters" "hear" insurgents gleefully cheering for democrats and the resignation of rummy, how she knew this is what people were cheering about, who knows.
Olbermann on fauxnews document w/ the guy who did Outfoxed movie
the thing is their news is not impartial, as someone said there is not clear line where the new ends and the commentary begins.
to summarize rupurt Murduch, Fox news was created to serve an uncatered to audience, conservative, meaning that it was built to be a conservatively bias news channel.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Are we supposed to act surprised?
newsflash: they ALL do it! The entire key to absorbing information is to collect from as many sources as possible.. this multiple-source methodology will allow you to form a slightly more educated opinion on any given subject; but it's still fallable given the obvious truth that all news sources are biased in one way or another.
FOX, CNN, MSNBC, MSM, WashPost, WashTimes, NY Times, The Economist, Newsweek, Time... blah blah etc etc...
ALL of them are useless when used as a sole source of information; therefore, anyone who relies on Fox News alone for their information is a fool. Fox News is just one of the many sources at your disposal...
newsflash: they ALL do it! The entire key to absorbing information is to collect from as many sources as possible.. this multiple-source methodology will allow you to form a slightly more educated opinion on any given subject; but it's still fallable given the obvious truth that all news sources are biased in one way or another.
FOX, CNN, MSNBC, MSM, WashPost, WashTimes, NY Times, The Economist, Newsweek, Time... blah blah etc etc...
ALL of them are useless when used as a sole source of information; therefore, anyone who relies on Fox News alone for their information is a fool. Fox News is just one of the many sources at your disposal...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter