Biased in what sense? I already said I feel Fox reports both sides but puts a heavy conservative spin on it, or makes the conservative angle seem favorable....most other mainstream media from my perspective puts a slight left/liberal slant on their reporting...so you have one station with a heavy emphasis on right wing stories, or virtually all other broadcast television media with slight leftist tendencies and reporters...I myself think one heavy right slant adequately balances out the plethora of slightly left media from CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR...etc.
Biased in what sense? I already said I feel Fox reports both sides but puts a heavy conservative spin on it, or makes the conservative angle seem favorable....most other mainstream media from my perspective puts a slight left/liberal slant on their reporting...so you have one station with a heavy emphasis on right wing stories, or virtually all other broadcast television media with slight leftist tendencies and reporters...I myself think one heavy right slant adequately balances out the plethora of slightly left media from CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR...etc.
good point bozack, but the thing is that Fox doesn't just put a "spin" on the news. They flat out misinterpret it sometimes, and the fact that their slogan is "fair and balanced" is just ludicrous.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
examples?
Honestly I watch a good deal of news, whether it be Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC (Mostly I flip between NBC for local and then CNN and Fox for most everything else) and I always see the same stories reported with basically the same issues highlighted, interpretation one could argue is highly subjective depending on the subject matter...you might feel they misinterpret a story simply because you disagree with their POV wheras there are many times I see things reported on CNN and NBC which I think could have been done in a far more objective manner...but then again CNN and NBC are not as blatant as Fox with their leanings..
I think Fox's use of the slogan "Fair and Balanced" is appropriate when one only considers the fact they are showing you both sides of the story, they just happen to favor one over the other.
Again I think it is funny as here we have 99.999% of broadcast media with a slight liberal lean (most journalists are self admitted liberals as well) and one station which is "heavily" right in their reporting...and everyone bitches about the one station, I still think it is a "fair balance" to cop a fox slogan seeing as how the deck is stacked against them.
On a side note I just tried listening to a little of Air America online and my god is it painfull, actually worse than Hannity and I thought that was impossible. Franken's monotone voice and his horrible "voices" made me want to gouge out my eardrums with a rusty spoon.
i think the big difference between fox and most other news organizations is that they really do blur the line between when they are reporting and when they are editorializing. its one thing if they know when they are doing it, but if the audience isnt given a big red flag then it starts getting sticky. i see that they "give both sides" but when i see them refer to kerry constantly as "president bush's opponent" and clinton as "ex-president clinton" while reagan still is "president reagan" it raises some questions to me as to their intent.
watching outfoxed was sort of creepy. just the brash way they didnt seem to care about not pushing a party line.
about o'reilly: i have read a number of people that were guests that said they cut up the interview they did with him, etc. ill try and find the most recent article...
damn. im having trouble. oreilly pops up too much everywhere for me to find it right now. i have to go out. but ill try and post it when i get back.
You must live in a dream world if you think the liberal media doesnt spin things. Just yesterday I read CNN try to spin Bush saying the ads put out by the swiftboats was wrong was not him actually denoucing it. They try to spin his press secretaries words around and make it look like he wants 527 ads gone but wont denouce the swiftboat for veterans ads.
Your best bet is to watch several news organizations and take each with a grain of solt.
Besides if you dont like Foxnews then switch the channel.
actually I am rather scared that there are people like you who put so much "faith" and trust in one source, your whole argument is based on a highly biased "documentary/editorial" which sole intent was discrediting one station....why should I pay to watch something that I know from the outset is not at all objective, or better yet isn't even trying to be...at least watching fox news for me is free along with CNN and the other major media outlets..
also, love your use of "hopless partisan hack" ....hello, pot kettle?...might want to start checking out the man in the mirror.
If you are comparing to say NBC, CBS or any of the local/national broadcasts then yes I can see your point, but if you throw CNN in there as a vaild comparison then I fail to see much of a difference between Blitzer, Cooper and the like when compared to O'Reilly's formats, O'Reilly is more openly opinionated but both stations offer "commentary" to go along with the headline stories, basically dumbing them down (if that can even be done) with "Springer's final thought" type analysis.
Why should the station have to wave a red flag? we expect consumers to do their own research on products, financial planning and virtually everything else in life, Last I checked people had to pay for basic cable to get Fox news...unless you want to start regulating broadcasts then I don't think they should be under any pressure to report in any fashion, instead people should decide for themselves what they want to take in or reject...obviously Fox news caters to a pretty good demographic as the ratings seem rather favorable....is fox to blame or are they just savvy for noticing a market?
And also your example of word play reminds me of the more subtle things network news does as well....it is a fact of life that you will never get a totally objective news report unless we have robots giving it.
With O'Reilly, I would really desire to know just how credible those "sources" are, one would think if they were worth their weight in salt then it would be major news, but honestly outside of here I haven't heard nor seen much on the subject.
- Jul 17, 2003
- 28,810
- 40,369
- 136
Assumption is the mother of all fvckups. Where did I state that this piece is my sole source? Watch the movie, or as O'Reilly would say, 'shut up.'
If you had seen Outfoxed, then you would know the vast majority of the material shown comes from FOX itself. FOX's dirty methods discredit itself. Watch the movie; you're still coming across as self-righteously ignorant.
Better yet, why should you crap in a thread dealing with something you choose to remain ignorant of? Here again we see the traditional neocon slant: if it isn't in line with my views, it can't be objective. *sigh* Watch the movie.
Please refer to my original post. I hold both right and left views on politics, and claim no party as my own. I argue the issues and leave the silly game of political face to kids like you. Hey I know, GO WATCH THE MOVIE.
(until I'm convinced you have, further posts by you in this thread will be ignored and you'll most likely continue to make yourself look like an ass).
Why don't you read "Talkers" magazine, the industry magazine for talk radio.
Arbitron conducts the ratings.
I think you have some Fox News syndrome there saying that AAR is falling apart. They were doing bad in the first few months of starting out. The man who was running the show (now thrown out) used their three year supply of $25 million in three months and some of the brodcasters weren't being paid. They are viable now, and they are turning a profit and in the two ratings they have recieved so far (Portland, OR and NYC) they are #1 in Portland for talk, #2 in NYC, behind Rush. This is after only a few months of existing, whereas Limbaugh took five years to get where he is.
O'Reilly has been crying that they are falling apart and aren't going to last, which is just not true.
BTW, Fox News LOST $125 MILLION in its first two years, so they fared worse.
I have found this discussion to be unusually amusing for some reason.
It is my belief that to conclusively establish media bias (on a macro scale) is more or less unfeasible. For how can this be done, with accuracy, when there is no set scale, or perspective, that it can be rightfully weighed against? Is there really such a thing as a moderate media entity that never sides with one political perspective over that of another? It is my belief that all forms of media have bias established in them. How can it not? Unless all the individuals responsible for writing, editing, and airing the article are utopian idealist truth seekers, who have no private opinion on the issue being discussed (*at all* which is hardly ever the case).
I have seen a lot of choice wording and editing while watching Fox News, enough so to say that I too feel confident in saying that it leans toward the right on the political spectrum. I can also say, however, that I have seen similar things with the stories being ran by CNN, NBC, etc?.
Most of the material we watch on the news is not there by coincidence. Besides live broadcasts, all of it has been edited numerous times and revised by people who have agendas to promote (be it their own, or the networks).
Since I feel that it is safe to say that Fox News often tends to merge in the opposite direction of other media networks out there. Does this necessarily constitute them as being Conservative, or just less Liberal than their opponents?
It?s not viable to really answer that question. Since, again, there isn?t really a definitive answer to this besides ones based on personal perspective.
The harder you lean towards the left the more likely you are to believe that Fox is nothing more than a Conservative rag. The more Conservative you are the more likely you are to see it as being moderate and all other media groups as having liberal bias.
What I find most amusing about this discussion is how the many of the self professed advocates of free speech also happen to be the ones most vocal about silencing their opposition. It is these people who are out signing petitions to get Fox News banned from television. It seems to be these individuals that are lobbying for book stores to blacklist Paul O?Neil?s new book. On and on the list continues.
I could list off Conservative attempts, but that would kill the internet. I don't remember the last time that they openly expressed their devotion towards unrestricted free speech? (- the libertarians)
err...without me openly laughing that is.
Are any of these people really advocates of free speech here, or do they only favor perspectives that coincide with their personal viewpoints?
Personally, I've always been an advocate of people being able to say anything they want. It is the greatest feature that America has. I fully embellish the concept of a free media that is unhindered in voicing its opinion (whatever it be, whenever it be). It is only through this ability that all perspectives of America?s society can have a say. None of them deserve to be silenced, for whatever reason, and to promote such an ideology, especially while flaunting the first amendment, is nothing more than hypocrisy in its purest form.
(of course this is just my opinion, and is no less tainted, or swayed, than anyone else?s on here)
*but I can acknwoledge that*
It is my belief that to conclusively establish media bias (on a macro scale) is more or less unfeasible. For how can this be done, with accuracy, when there is no set scale, or perspective, that it can be rightfully weighed against? Is there really such a thing as a moderate media entity that never sides with one political perspective over that of another? It is my belief that all forms of media have bias established in them. How can it not? Unless all the individuals responsible for writing, editing, and airing the article are utopian idealist truth seekers, who have no private opinion on the issue being discussed (*at all* which is hardly ever the case).
I have seen a lot of choice wording and editing while watching Fox News, enough so to say that I too feel confident in saying that it leans toward the right on the political spectrum. I can also say, however, that I have seen similar things with the stories being ran by CNN, NBC, etc?.
Most of the material we watch on the news is not there by coincidence. Besides live broadcasts, all of it has been edited numerous times and revised by people who have agendas to promote (be it their own, or the networks).
Since I feel that it is safe to say that Fox News often tends to merge in the opposite direction of other media networks out there. Does this necessarily constitute them as being Conservative, or just less Liberal than their opponents?
It?s not viable to really answer that question. Since, again, there isn?t really a definitive answer to this besides ones based on personal perspective.
The harder you lean towards the left the more likely you are to believe that Fox is nothing more than a Conservative rag. The more Conservative you are the more likely you are to see it as being moderate and all other media groups as having liberal bias.
What I find most amusing about this discussion is how the many of the self professed advocates of free speech also happen to be the ones most vocal about silencing their opposition. It is these people who are out signing petitions to get Fox News banned from television. It seems to be these individuals that are lobbying for book stores to blacklist Paul O?Neil?s new book. On and on the list continues.
I could list off Conservative attempts, but that would kill the internet. I don't remember the last time that they openly expressed their devotion towards unrestricted free speech? (- the libertarians)
err...without me openly laughing that is.
Are any of these people really advocates of free speech here, or do they only favor perspectives that coincide with their personal viewpoints?
Personally, I've always been an advocate of people being able to say anything they want. It is the greatest feature that America has. I fully embellish the concept of a free media that is unhindered in voicing its opinion (whatever it be, whenever it be). It is only through this ability that all perspectives of America?s society can have a say. None of them deserve to be silenced, for whatever reason, and to promote such an ideology, especially while flaunting the first amendment, is nothing more than hypocrisy in its purest form.
(of course this is just my opinion, and is no less tainted, or swayed, than anyone else?s on here)
*but I can acknwoledge that*
viivo
Diamond Member
- May 4, 2002
- 3,344
- 32
- 91
You can't blame the people who parrot his nonsense. O'Reilly is just angry that "Stewart Smalley" as he loves to call him, is beating his radio show in a few markets, plus he knows he's preaching to the converted when he spouts his outrageous lies.
But about the film in question, it seemed rather amateurish. The editing looked as if they didn't have enough evidence to back up their point -- I saw it as rather desperate, especially the O'Reilly "Shut up!" montage. I question their motives for making it; like above, only the converted will do what they can to see it, the cons/Fox supporters will do what they can to bury it without seeing it, and I doubt those in the middle even know it exists. Besides, most already know what Fox News is about, so it's pointless as making a documentary entitled "Hitler: Bad guy, little moustache."
This is the type of partisan trolling that really perturbs me about this forum.
Some speak as if everything on Outfoxed is spot on ...and that it too isn't grossly slanted towards a specific perspective.
This is analogous with people who bash on Michael Moore, but swear by Rush Limbaugh.
Such a stance is ludicrous......and frankly laughable
The world doesn't work in binary...there are shades of gray that need to be considered.
It is sad that there are people in here trying to promote their opinions, along with those of outfoxed, as being ultimate.
It is simply an opinion, and just like mine, everyone has one.
Some speak as if everything on Outfoxed is spot on ...and that it too isn't grossly slanted towards a specific perspective.
This is analogous with people who bash on Michael Moore, but swear by Rush Limbaugh.
Such a stance is ludicrous......and frankly laughable
The world doesn't work in binary...there are shades of gray that need to be considered.
It is sad that there are people in here trying to promote their opinions, along with those of outfoxed, as being ultimate.
It is simply an opinion, and just like mine, everyone has one.
viivo
Diamond Member
- May 4, 2002
- 3,344
- 32
- 91
Are you pontificating, or responding to someone in particular? Quoting the person is less confusing if the latter.
That is how this forum works, unfortunately. I'm still surprised people expect to find rational, objective people on a politics sub-forum of a PC Hardware message board. It's mostly teenagers and college students posting, so opinions are very strong in either direction.
Just ranting (in general)?..I was responding to someone specific, until I realized that the person they were responding to (which prompted my response) was being no less pompous and irrational.
The college student mindset would seem to be an accurate evaluation of the mischievousness I have been seeing around here.
Wasn't this movie/skit also partially funded by Moveon.org?
If I remember correctly it was somehow affiliated.
Either way...I guess it's safe to say that the polar opposite of the SBVFT bias has been established.
- Jul 17, 2003
- 28,810
- 40,369
- 136
In case some of you trolls haven't gotten it yet, this thread was created for discussion of Outfoxed. Spare me the party-to-party analysis and blanket generalizations. If you haven't seen it, by default you have nothing to contribute so take your thread crapping elsewhere.
In other words, you didn't really set out to discuss anything (since discussion usually involves people of differing opinions).
You wanted a congratulatory circle jerk.
oh I am sorry, so only Fox bashing and "Outfoxed" pole smoking is allowed in here...my bad.
EDIT for Patboy...
CNN tonight, watching Lou Dobbs, piece on stock market started discussing how an outsourcing company in India on their first day out started off very very well, then went on to say that some businesses over there had to shut down for some reason (linked to the market) and Dobbs said to the correspondant "Woah wonder how dell will feel about that? won't they be worried?" to which the correspondant replied "But think of all the savings, the one day of shutdown is worth it don't you think?" and Dobbs replied "No, not at all and neither do Americans across the country"....
now while that is mild, to me it is seemingly interjected to make a point and one which assists the lefts cause, also I find it funny that he speaks on behalf of "America" the same america that bitches about outsourcing and walmart but also buys stuff for the cheapest they can...
viivo
Diamond Member
- May 4, 2002
- 3,344
- 32
- 91
I don't believe it was funded by MoveOn, though the filmmakers may be members, or have other affiliations. I doubt also that MoveOn would shell out for a documentary about a 24 hour news station - it's not something that would help their cause.
That's just an opinion based on what I've seen, however. I don't have evidence one way or the other.
- Jul 17, 2003
- 28,810
- 40,369
- 136
You guys are really something. You expect to be taken seriously on a subject that you haven't even had any exposure to. I recall many of you conservatives getting frothy over the movie The Passion, when some offered their perceptions on it without having yet seen the movie. It seems this behavior is fine however, if the situation is reversed. Interesting.
I wanted an exchange of ideas and opinions from those who are familiar with the subject. Feel free to watch it, and argument the material and merits of the piece. If you're looking for a partisan circle, please direct your attention to any number of threads by Rip.
Grow up.
Again you display the very behavior many have a problem with, that anything against neocon dogma is somehow bashing the right. Oh look, even a homosexual ad hominem! You guys are quite the debaters I see. I'll say it one more time: go watch the movie, after which feel free to come in here and argue till you're blue in the face. I'd be interested in seeing if you can actually confront the facts and numbers involved without resorting to the normal neocon BS.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter