"The Meter Is Running" - The Daily Show Exposé On Fox News

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Sort of like CNN?

Sort of.

If you take the CNN staff, and hot-box them overnight in a room with the Detroit Pistons, you would get the equivalent of what Fox News is today.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Perhaps you should flip on CNN in the middle of the day when they're trying to find something to discuss. It's pathetic.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Sort of like CNN?

Sort of.

If you take the CNN staff, and hot-box them overnight in a room with the Detroit Pistons, you would get the equivalent of what Fox News is today.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Perhaps you should flip on CNN in the middle of the day when they're trying to find something to discuss. It's pathetic.

Fox News cured me of my pornography addiction. Text

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Dari
I don't know who Nancy Grace is and PBS doesn't have a news program that comes on immediately when something major happens.

Something major, like Britney Spears showing her tits?
...

...or a horse getting stuck in mud?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Sort of like CNN?

Sort of.

If you take the CNN staff, and hot-box them overnight in a room with the Detroit Pistons, you would get the equivalent of what Fox News is today.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Perhaps you should flip on CNN in the middle of the day when they're trying to find something to discuss. It's pathetic.

I think there is a lot about CNN that could use improvement, and in many areas of journalism they ARE just as bad as Fox News. For example, neither network comes even remotely close to good judgement when it comes to picking which stories to cover, pop culture bullshit wins over serious foreign events in nearly every case. Fox may have introduced the idea of replacing serious news with assholes like Bill O'Reilly, but CNN has been pretty quick to follow suit. Both networks are equally bad at this, and both are contributing significantly to the decline in quality of journalism in recent years.

But however much people might say it, CNN is NOT just as bad as Fox News. Because while both networks have journalism skills that must be making Ed Murrow spin in his grave, Fox News has an extra special trait that makes calling them bad journalists an insult to bad journalists. Fox News is completely and utterly in the tank for the Republican party. They aren't a little biased, they don't occasionally pepper conservative comments into allegedly unbiased news, and they don't try to influence their audience through subtle choices in which stories to cover, they are basically the PR arm of the Republican party masquerading as news.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I saw that earlier today.

The best part was right at the beginning when whatshisface was commenting on Bush's unusual speaking "style" or whatever, then said he would be remembered for giving some all time great speeches.

Yikes, whatever you say waterboy.

Don't really know what's going to happen with FNC. The worst of all outcomes for them would be Obama winning the presidency because I feel they will have to reign in the attack dogs somewhat.

If it's McCain well they can just keep doing what they do as official waterboys for the admin.

..and if Hillary wins, well we all know how that's going to turn out.

Fox's angry white man demographic hasn't gone away, it just doesn't speak as loudly as it did a couple years ago.

I don't think anybody takes them too seriously anymore. People just watch it for either entertainment or simply to nod their head, either up and down or sideways.

Wishful thinking.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Sort of like CNN?

Sort of.

If you take the CNN staff, and hot-box them overnight in a room with the Detroit Pistons, you would get the equivalent of what Fox News is today.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Perhaps you should flip on CNN in the middle of the day when they're trying to find something to discuss. It's pathetic.

I think there is a lot about CNN that could use improvement, and in many areas of journalism they ARE just as bad as Fox News. For example, neither network comes even remotely close to good judgement when it comes to picking which stories to cover, pop culture bullshit wins over serious foreign events in nearly every case. Fox may have introduced the idea of replacing serious news with assholes like Bill O'Reilly, but CNN has been pretty quick to follow suit. Both networks are equally bad at this, and both are contributing significantly to the decline in quality of journalism in recent years.

But however much people might say it, CNN is NOT just as bad as Fox News. Because while both networks have journalism skills that must be making Ed Murrow spin in his grave, Fox News has an extra special trait that makes calling them bad journalists an insult to bad journalists. Fox News is completely and utterly in the tank for the Republican party. They aren't a little biased, they don't occasionally pepper conservative comments into allegedly unbiased news, and they don't try to influence their audience through subtle choices in which stories to cover, they are basically the PR arm of the Republican party masquerading as news.

umm anyone on the right will say the same thing about CNN.

There is a reason we call it the Clinton News Network.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[
There is a reason we call it the Clinton News Network.

Yeah because you parrot everything Rush and Hanity say.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Sort of like CNN?

Sort of.

If you take the CNN staff, and hot-box them overnight in a room with the Detroit Pistons, you would get the equivalent of what Fox News is today.

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Perhaps you should flip on CNN in the middle of the day when they're trying to find something to discuss. It's pathetic.

I think there is a lot about CNN that could use improvement, and in many areas of journalism they ARE just as bad as Fox News. For example, neither network comes even remotely close to good judgement when it comes to picking which stories to cover, pop culture bullshit wins over serious foreign events in nearly every case. Fox may have introduced the idea of replacing serious news with assholes like Bill O'Reilly, but CNN has been pretty quick to follow suit. Both networks are equally bad at this, and both are contributing significantly to the decline in quality of journalism in recent years.

But however much people might say it, CNN is NOT just as bad as Fox News. Because while both networks have journalism skills that must be making Ed Murrow spin in his grave, Fox News has an extra special trait that makes calling them bad journalists an insult to bad journalists. Fox News is completely and utterly in the tank for the Republican party. They aren't a little biased, they don't occasionally pepper conservative comments into allegedly unbiased news, and they don't try to influence their audience through subtle choices in which stories to cover, they are basically the PR arm of the Republican party masquerading as news.

umm anyone on the right will say the same thing about CNN.

There is a reason we call it the Clinton News Network.

No kidding. But what "anyone on the right" says is not always an accurate representation of reality. In fact lately it seems to be quite the opposite.

Edit: I'm not saying that's true of all, or even most, conservatives. But lately the "common wisdom" on the right, especially with regards the media, has been anything but wise. Folks on both sides are really good at believing whatever they like, but some conservatives seem to have a special affinity for it.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[
There is a reason we call it the Clinton News Network.

Yeah because you parrot everything Rush and Hanity say.

Beat me to it

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[
There is a reason we call it the Clinton News Network.

Yeah because you parrot everything Rush and Hanity say.

:laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

Shut up!

 

[StageLeft]

Unfortunately, a lot of people get the majority of their news from Fox and don't realize what sh*t it is.

 

[Lemon law]

One can't think of Fox without thinking of Rupert Murdock who is no spring chicken at 77. The guy can't live forever and after that who knows, Fox could actually turn fair and balanced.

In Japanese horror film style, there are sons and daughters of Rupert, some divorces and famdamily bad blood, so its really hard to predict what will happen to the media empire when God does call Rupert in. It could break into little pieces or remain in tact, but still Rupert is what is now steering it to the "dark side".

Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

nope, won't happen. Whenever someone wants to point out bias on FNC, they seem to point to the op-ed shows as "proof"...Unfortunately, the daily show used pundits as their example of news anchors being biased.

Case in point:

the first few minutes of part 2 of the daily show's fox news segment shows a pundit farce, not a news show.

then, immediately after, they show an example with hannity - not a news anchor.

and then an example using Newt Gingrich. sorry, but once again, not a news anchor.

One might make the case that calling the network a "News Channel" might not be the proper nomenclature, but that is because some of the shows are op-ed shows. But if you want to limit political opining, then you'd need to do it across all networks.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
One can't think of Fox without thinking of Rupert Murdock who is no spring chicken at 77. The guy can't live forever and after that who knows, Fox could actually turn fair and balanced.

In Japanese horror film style, there are sons and daughters of Rupert, some divorces and famdamily bad blood, so its really hard to predict what will happen to the media empire when God does call Rupert in. It could break into little pieces or remain in tact, but still Rupert is what is now steering it to the "dark side".

Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

1. That would be government censorship.

2. FCC would not be able to take FNC off the air, because FNC isn't on the air, its cable.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

nope, won't happen. Whenever someone wants to point out bias on FNC, they seem to point to the op-ed shows as "proof"...Unfortunately, the daily show used pundits as their example of news anchors being biased.

Case in point:

the first few minutes of part 2 of the daily show's fox news segment shows a pundit farce, not a news show.

then, immediately after, they show an example with hannity - not a news anchor.

and then an example using Newt Gingrich. sorry, but once again, not a news anchor.

One might make the case that calling the network a "News Channel" might not be the proper nomenclature, but that is because some of the shows are op-ed shows. But if you want to limit political opining, then you'd need to do it across all networks.

I often see this refutation and I think it's bogus. Where is it written that pundits are supposed to be "unfair and biased"? Op-ed's are supposed to convince people but they should use reason to do so, not logical fallacies and empty rhetoric, and they should show the opposing viewpoint for what it is, not twist it into some strawman. Pundit's don't get off the hook for being fair and balanced simply because they aren't news anchors. You can be critical and express your opinion while also being fair to your opponent. That the talking heads on cable news choose not to doesn't make it right, but it's Fox that bears the "fair and balanced" slogan, and it doesn't have an asterisk that points to "only our news programs."

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Where is it written that pundits are supposed to be "unfair and biased"?

Name one political pundit on any cable network that is unbiased and fair.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
One can't think of Fox without thinking of Rupert Murdock who is no spring chicken at 77. The guy can't live forever and after that who knows, Fox could actually turn fair and balanced.

In Japanese horror film style, there are sons and daughters of Rupert, some divorces and famdamily bad blood, so its really hard to predict what will happen to the media empire when God does call Rupert in. It could break into little pieces or remain in tact, but still Rupert is what is now steering it to the "dark side".

Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

Damn dude, what is it with you and your demented fantasies of right wingers and their demise? You've got issues, clearly............

....and leave it to a freedom loving liberal to hope and pray for government enforced censorship.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fox news stuck a lance in a boil and all the infected puss is leaking out over the country. It is how boils heal. You have to lance the puss and let it ooze out so the infection can heal. Puss released leads to healing. The infection needs time to run its course. The right needs a place to vomit their bitterness so they can taste and smell what they've eaten. Repressed self hate is relieved by open vituperation. Only in that way do we see how ugly we are. When revulsion leads to sickness of the heart, healing can start.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
One can't think of Fox without thinking of Rupert Murdock who is no spring chicken at 77. The guy can't live forever and after that who knows, Fox could actually turn fair and balanced.

In Japanese horror film style, there are sons and daughters of Rupert, some divorces and famdamily bad blood, so its really hard to predict what will happen to the media empire when God does call Rupert in. It could break into little pieces or remain in tact, but still Rupert is what is now steering it to the "dark side".

Of course its also possible that a democrat will win the Presidency, and a more fair and balanced FCC will simply yank fox's license to operate. Print media is allowed bias, media that uses the public airwaves must operate in the public interests.

Damn dude, what is it with you and your demented fantasies of right wingers and their demise? You've got issues, clearly............

....and leave it to a freedom loving liberal to hope and pray for government enforced censorship.

it's a classic example of those on the left wanting more government involvement dealing with the affairs of the people. In their minds, the government knows more about what's best for you than you do

 

[shrumpage]

I really don't understand this obsession with Fox News Channel.

I realize it is the most watched cable news network, but that is small audience when compared to any of the broad cast news channels. Shows like The View have a bigger audience then "The Factor," yet bias on that show doesn't raise an eyebrow.

I watched part of "Out Foxed," I wasn't impressed. They could not separate political opinion pieces from news items - they lumped them all together calling it biased news reporting. The studies that have been done have shown that FNC has a slight conservitive bent, but is no more then a tilt to the right as other cable news tilt to the left:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

People are obsessed with a 1% (if that) of TV media, and go: "OMG ITS BIASED!!!!!" There are people on this board who would want government censorship of FNC, just because they don't like its political leanings. I find that more disturbing then Rosie's political views...

Disclaimer: I used to watch Fox News and O'Reilly about 5 years ago - i listen to NPR in the morning and evening for my news. Not because of political leanings, but i don't like watching TV.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I really don't understand this obsession with Fox News Channel.

I realize it is the most watched cable news network, but that is small audience when compared to any of the broad cast news channels. Shows like The View have a bigger audience then "The Factor," yet bias on that show doesn't raise an eyebrow.

I watched part of "Out Foxed," I wasn't impressed. They could not separate political opinion pieces from news items - they lumped them all together calling it biased news reporting. The studies that have been done have shown that FNC has a slight conservitive bent, but is no more then a tilt to the right as other cable news tilt to the left:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

People are obsessed with a 1% (if that) of TV media, and go: "OMG ITS BIASED!!!!!" There are people on this board who would want government censorship of FNC, just because they don't like its political leanings. I find that more disturbing then Rosie's political views...

Disclaimer: I used to watch Fox News and O'Reilly about 5 years ago - i listen to NPR in the morning and evening for my news. Not because of political leanings, but i don't like watching TV.

It's funny how often I see that study trotted out on here. It's probably because it is one of the only academic studies ever to allege any sort of liberal media bias whatsoever. Unfortunately, that study's methodology has been widely condemned by a huge variety of sources. Simply put, it isn't taken very seriously. (there are several other threads on this topic on these boards if you search for them)

In addition, it appears that you missed the central point of Outfoxed. The main idea was that on FOX it is very difficult to tell where the news stops and the opinion begins, and that's why FOX is so bad.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I really don't understand this obsession with Fox News Channel.

I realize it is the most watched cable news network, but that is small audience when compared to any of the broad cast news channels. Shows like The View have a bigger audience then "The Factor," yet bias on that show doesn't raise an eyebrow.

I watched part of "Out Foxed," I wasn't impressed. They could not separate political opinion pieces from news items - they lumped them all together calling it biased news reporting. The studies that have been done have shown that FNC has a slight conservitive bent, but is no more then a tilt to the right as other cable news tilt to the left:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

People are obsessed with a 1% (if that) of TV media, and go: "OMG ITS BIASED!!!!!" There are people on this board who would want government censorship of FNC, just because they don't like its political leanings. I find that more disturbing then Rosie's political views...

Disclaimer: I used to watch Fox News and O'Reilly about 5 years ago - i listen to NPR in the morning and evening for my news. Not because of political leanings, but i don't like watching TV.

It's funny how often I see that study trotted out on here. It's probably because it is one of the only academic studies ever to allege any sort of liberal media bias whatsoever. Unfortunately, that study's methodology has been widely condemned by a huge variety of sources. Simply put, it isn't taken very seriously. (there are several other threads on this topic on these boards if you search for them)

If you are aware of any recent studies of media biased please share them. That was the first one i came upon using google.

In addition, it appears that you missed the central point of Outfoxed. The main idea was that on FOX it is very difficult to tell where the news stops and the opinion begins, and that's why FOX is so bad.

A guess having shows stop and start on the hour is difficult for some people. Plus having a different host with a different guests could cause confusion. Oh and announcing what the next show is at the end of the current show may make it difficult to figure out the content of the next program. How is it different then any other news channel?

It is a news channel with op-ed programs. I don't look at the NY Times and take the editorial page as fact/news, even though it is in the same paper as news, and uses the same font....hmmmmmm...i guess it could be confusing for some.

When you present a segment claiming that the news is biased, and then proceed to show 90% op-ed pieces, while skipping news content - that is dishonest. If the problem is so prevalent at FNC, they would have should have no problem finding tons actual cases of news stories that are biased and using those as examples.

 

[Jeff7]

I do miss The Daily Show and Colbert Report.
Stuff like this is good at pointing out hypocrisy in office.

Hopefully they continue this when the new morons come into power in November.

I liked their story on Ted Kennedy supporting the majority of his constituents, who opposed an offshore wind turbine farm. 14% is apparently a majority now.

One of my professors said that the reason that Erie never gets its own wind farm installed is because of far-left liberals. Go figure.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I really don't understand this obsession with Fox News Channel.

I realize it is the most watched cable news network, but that is small audience when compared to any of the broad cast news channels. Shows like The View have a bigger audience then "The Factor," yet bias on that show doesn't raise an eyebrow.

I watched part of "Out Foxed," I wasn't impressed. They could not separate political opinion pieces from news items - they lumped them all together calling it biased news reporting. The studies that have been done have shown that FNC has a slight conservitive bent, but is no more then a tilt to the right as other cable news tilt to the left:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

People are obsessed with a 1% (if that) of TV media, and go: "OMG ITS BIASED!!!!!" There are people on this board who would want government censorship of FNC, just because they don't like its political leanings. I find that more disturbing then Rosie's political views...

Disclaimer: I used to watch Fox News and O'Reilly about 5 years ago - i listen to NPR in the morning and evening for my news. Not because of political leanings, but i don't like watching TV.

It's funny how often I see that study trotted out on here. It's probably because it is one of the only academic studies ever to allege any sort of liberal media bias whatsoever. Unfortunately, that study's methodology has been widely condemned by a huge variety of sources. Simply put, it isn't taken very seriously. (there are several other threads on this topic on these boards if you search for them)

If you are aware of any recent studies of media biased please share them. That was the first one i came upon using google.

In addition, it appears that you missed the central point of Outfoxed. The main idea was that on FOX it is very difficult to tell where the news stops and the opinion begins, and that's why FOX is so bad.

A guess having shows stop and start on the hour is difficult for some people. Plus having a different host with a different guests could cause confusion. Oh and announcing what the next show is at the end of the current show may make it difficult to figure out the content of the next program. How is it different then any other news channel?

It is a news channel with op-ed programs. I don't look at the NY Times and take the editorial page as fact/news, even though it is in the same paper as news, and uses the same font....hmmmmmm...i guess it could be confusing for some.

When you present a segment claiming that the news is biased, and then proceed to show 90% op-ed pieces, while skipping news content - that is dishonest. If the problem is so prevalent at FNC, they would have should have no problem finding tons actual cases of news stories that are biased and using those as examples.

If you use the search function, my name, and media bias I am certain you will come across several meta analysis and other studies that have passed peer review and offer a much more comprehensive (and respected) analysis of media bias.

Long story short: they found media bias to be nonexistant.

As for what you think people should be doing when they watch the news... well that's all well and good. What they actually do when they watch the news is something different. I am reminded of this study that showed how people who primarily viewed FOX news were significantly more likely to harbor severely wrong perceptions of events that were considered common knowledge. (skip to page 12-13 or so) While I agree that people have only themselves to blame for their own ignorance and stupidity, it seems likely that FOX is doing something considerably different then other news networks, and it is leading to their viewers being substantially misinformed.