Who won the US media war?

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Now WTF are you talking about? The link you gave me was to Worldnetdaily. Unless you have a link to the Fox report, I have to take your word for it that it was presented as fact.

Every report I've seen come out of there about WMD states NOTHING is proven yet.

'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

• The chemical plant is described as a "100-acre complex," surrounded by an electrical fence. The plant was also apparently camouflaged to avoid aerial photos being taken.
  
  It is not yet known what chemicals were being produced at the plant.

If you read the thread that I linked, you'll see that this blurb showed up on FOX news before any other cable or TV network in the US, and turned out to be nothing more than a rumour. From the article, "Coalition forces discovered Monday a "huge" suspected chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, a senior Pentagon official confirmed to Fox News."

If that's not them purporting an unconfirmed story as fact, I'm not sure what is...

 

[Ornery]

suspected chemical weapons...

Looks like simple FACTS to me. Again, WTF is your problem?

 

[konichiwa]

Ah, hail to selective reading. No other news outlet reported this, besides WND and Jerusalem Post (both bastions of fair reporting, of course), there has been nothing on it since, Fox has made no effort to correct themselves or affirm or disaffirm their claim. This goes to show that Fox is biased in the same way that al-Jazeera is biased; both would have touted this story (for their respective sides) before it had been confirmed and before it was found to be truthful or not.

Maybe you jumped in the conversation a bit late which is why your misunderstanding is coming off as belligerence :Q

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

suspected . . .

alleged . . .

Just another way of saying . . . "we've got one fact and no details . . . but here's a story anyway".

 

[Ornery]

Don't be so GD retarded! Did they find a plant that was guarded and camouflaged? Did they say "suspected" in their report or not? They reported this stuff as it happened. If you want to compare AJ to FOX, be my guest, but that's a reflection ob YOU, not Fox!

 

[konichiwa]

Read up in the thread, the comparison has been going for some time now, I'm just giving an example. And the example works in this case, as you have yet to prove otherwise, only curse and get in a hizzy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is inaccurate to compare AJ to FOX. FOX only cheers for the US while AJ cheers for every nation except the US.

 

[Ornery]

"...the comparison has been going for some time now, I'm just giving an example. And the example works in this case, as you have yet to prove otherwise."

I'm fully aware of the comparison, which wasn't even worthy of comment. LilBlinbBlahIce was spasing about Fox not showing blood and guts. Nor do our other networks. Guess that makes AJ more credible. Oh, and on par with Fox too. You just keep on believing that. Gives you a WHOLE lot of credibility too!

 

[konichiwa]

<< It is inaccurate to compare AJ to FOX. FOX only cheers for the US while AJ cheers for every nation except the US. >>

That's the comparison. They both cheer for their respective countries, in the same way and the same fashion.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Don't be so GD retarded! . . . . If you want to compare AJ to FOX, be my guest, but that's a reflection ob YOU, not Fox!

Take your own advice, you're the "Fox man".

There aren't many thinking Americans who defend FOX like you do . . . AJ to FOX is a very valid comparison. What you can't grasp is that they are BOTH aimed perfectly at their target audience. Fox aimed straight for your blindly-patriotic heart and captured it; AJ aims at the moderate Arab.

EDIT: Oh yeah, FOX won in the US; AJ won in the Arab world.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I guess the take home is that media focus is skewed towards their ideological bent. The typical American outlet knows the typical American might care about Iraqi suffering but definitely cares about troop losses and military success. They played to the audience b/c if they did not . . . the audience would go elsewhere. PBS and BBC show a greater diversity and depth of material but their audiences also have an attention span.

AJ had the benefit of offices/reporters in Baghdad, Basra, etc. It's much easier to show gore when you are on locale. Of course, embeds could have shown decimated/dismembered/disemboweled Iraqi troops but I bet the Pentagon put a cap on that action . . . even if they didn't it is highly unlikely US media would show it. It has little to do with compassion for the audience b/c violence typically leads domestic broadcasts.

I don't know who won the media war but the American public definitely lost.

 

[Zebo]

What I find interesting is people saying X is biased but Y is'nt based totally on opinion but would'nt think of telling a dentist he does'nt know sh1t or a nuke engineer the containment wall in too thin. I am not a jounalist therefore I must rely on professional jounalists who peer-review themselves (pulizer, columbia award etc) to determine who is reliable or I'm just being ignorant. Fox has won none while NPR has won over 60. Jerry Spinger is popluar like fox, but that does'nt mean it a good show. They both appeal to your least common denomiators which include sensationalism, eye candy and outragousness. You know it/

 

[Zebo]

One thing I really hate about FOX is thier anchors who use inflections in thier voice to add an aire or credibility.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Fox has won none while NPR has won over 60. Jerry Spinger is popluar like fox, but that does'nt mean it a good show. They both appeal to your least common denomiators which include sensationalism, eye candy and outragousness. You know it/

That much I agree with.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What he said . . .

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Fox has won none while NPR has won over 60. Jerry Spinger is popluar like fox, but that does'nt mean it a good show. They both appeal to your least common denomiators which include sensationalism, eye candy and outragousness. You know it/

That much I agree with.

Come on now . . . you are forgetting Geraldo Rivera winner of the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy journalism award (his third - of course BEFORE joining FOX) . . .

Bill O'Reilly won something . . . (uh, Boston College)

and they have had some other "real" journalists like Catherine Crier . . .

but not much "else".


I'd like to catch this Kansas City TV program - Catchy Title

7. "AL-Jazeera TV: The Arab World?s CNN or Fox News?" 3:15 ? 4:45 p.m.


(See Ornery, OTHER people are comparing FOX to AJ)

 

[Ornery]

When the Iraqi Information Minister made an ass of himself, were Fox anchors laughing their asses off at him? Hell yeah! Were you? When Iraqis were riding the head of Hussein's statue around the square, were Fox anchors laughing and cheering? Hell yeah! Were you? Sucks if you didn't like it. Whose side were you cheering for?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< It is inaccurate to compare AJ to FOX. FOX only cheers for the US while AJ cheers for every nation except the US. >>

That's the comparison. They both cheer for their respective countries, in the same way and the same fashion.

Some seem to be missing the point. For an Arab press organzation AJ is actually quite fair and balanced. Fox News for an American press organzation does slant a little to the American point of view though it also does try to have both sides presented.

The point? If AJ is the balanced view that the Arabs are getting then they are getting a much more biased view of world events than the US.

 

[NightTrain]

I think it's funny that after so many years nothing but leftist bias on every channel, one station has catered to the right and blown up in the ratings. The fact that it has the left's collective panties in such a bunch is just a bonus

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
When the Iraqi Information Minister made an ass of himself, were Fox anchors laughing their asses off at him? Hell yeah! Were you? When Iraqis were riding the head of Hussein's statue around the square, were Fox anchors laughing and cheering? Hell yeah! Were you? Sucks if you didn't like it. Whose side were you cheering for?

non sequitur, Foxman.

 

[Ornery]

You didn't think the Iraqi Information Minister was funny? You didn't chuckle at Iraqis riding Hussein's head around the square? You don't know whose side you wanted to prevail? The answers to these questions with Fox were obvious. Why do do they pain you to answer?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
You didn't think the Iraqi Information Minister was funny? You didn't chuckle at Iraqis riding Hussein's head around the square? You don't know whose side you wanted to prevail? The answers to these questions with Fox were obvious. Why do do they pain you to answer?

Why don't you stay on-topic?

Do you have nothing but ridicule as your "answer" when logic fails you?

I have answered all of your "questions" in my posts . . . If you don't really know "whose side I wanted to prevail" you won't listen to my response now.

 

[Ornery]

The ONLY reason you screwoffs bitch about Fox being biased, is because they don't drone the news like robots. You've yet to answer the first two questions...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
The ONLY reason you screwoffs bitch about Fox being biased, is because they don't drone the news like robots. You've yet to answer the first two questions...

You have yet to post a coherent on-topic message without a personal attack or ridicule.

Your questions have nothing to do with "defending" FOX' extreme sensationalism or replying to this topic . . . Fox is the American equivalent of Al Jazeera and an embarassment to real journalism. However, I am not denying that it can be "entertaining".

 

[Ornery]

Oh brother! It's "extreme sensationalism" because they laugh out loud at Baghdad Bob? It's "extreme sensationalism" because they cheer out loud at the toppling of Hussein's statue? It's "extreme sensationalism" because they don't look like they're sucking a lemon while reporting on the war's success?