Shut the FOX up!

[Oerwinde]

i generally think canada is socialist, but not necessarily communist.  a subtle, yet at the same time profound, difference.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We generally are mostly socialist, at least when it comes to health and welfare. The albertans are trying to cripple our socialist paradise with their crazy conservative ways though. Luckily, the NDP and the Liberals took away some of the Conservative power in BC in the last election. Shows how much Canadians actually pay attention to their politics. People in BC mostly voted for the Canadian Alliance, the most conservative mainstream party, simply because they weren't the Liberals. No one really knew what they stood for. As soon as they merged with the PCs and became the Conservative Party, they lost like half their voters in BC.

[Cantousent]

The BBC is just terrible. I don't mind bias, but the BBC has a major integrity problem right now. One example of many: the "sexed up" document affair.

 

As I've often said on this board, if the truth isn't enough to convince people, then the lie shouldn't suffice.

 

...And I agree with taks whole-heartedly on this one. I would never dream of censoring the news. I find it ironic that my so called "liberal" friends would rather use censorship than concentrate on presenting different views.

 

Fox is not your problem. The fact that so many people view the mainstream media with distrust is your problem. After all, Fox news doesn't get better rating just because their presentation is better. Some of their rating come from the fact that many Americans thought the existing channels were biased.

[Rasbedian]

Geh. All the news I need I get from www.wizards.com/dnd

[Meshugger]

I just happened tune in to FOX news to see what the fuzz is all about. My verdict is:

 

- "Fair and balanced"? Well, from a right-wing point of view, i suppose. (I.e. american flag, "War on terror" and so on...)

 

- Where's the journalism? Every news coverage is filled with the newsreporters making their own comments, making it hard to separate facts from opinions.

 

- Bill o'Reilly is an insult to a proffessional journalism. Telling people to shut up, putting words in the opponents mouth, putting in his own opinion when talking about facts and so on...

 

- What's with the "Some people say", how can you have a news channel with the commenter stating rumors? Where's the facts? the reports? anything?

 

- Take how they dealt with Clarke against the Bush administration, they were investigating his motives, political or not, and his persona. Almost nothing about the accusations itself he made, pure rumor-bin and spinning. Again, where's the investigative journalism?

 

This channel is trying to make entertainment out of news. This idea itself is very appaling. For what it's worth, i find it to be equally entertaining as the "Daily Show", which isn't exactly a good thing.

[Meshugger]

i actually read CNN (web) as well as Fox... their news reporting comes in on opposite sides of the fence, but middle mostly (neither is nearly as fanatic as the other side claims).  now, there is a HUGE difference in their analysis for sure, and fox is decidedly right of center and CNN left of center in that regard... however, as rupert murdoch put it (paraphrasing) "if i could find a liberal analyst that anyone would listen to, i'd hire him/her in a second!"

 

well, he has one, alan colmes, btw...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Murdoch is a wide supporter of the republican party and their agenda(which is no secret), especially Reagan and his politics. It can make one wonder if FOX news is really the epitone of unbiased, investigative journalism.

[Phosphor]

This channel is trying to make entertainment out of news. This idea itself is very appaling. For what it's worth, i find it to be equally entertaining as the "Daily Show", which isn't exactly a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

News programs are suffering in viewer audience, due mainly to news being available all day on the internet. People don't sit down and watch the 6 or 11 o'clock news as much anymore because they don't need to in order to get their news for the day.

The television news industry is trying to find ways of keeping a viewer audience, and news-as-entertainment is a method at or near the top of the list of ways to keep an audience. It may not be journalistically honourable, but when it comes to television ratings, notions like honour and integrity are pretty much tossed out the window.

[kirottu]

That news can never be truly truthful or objective is a sad reality. It can however try to be, and not just become a tool of discreet propaganda.

 

 

Reminds me of about a year ago we(5 of us) got in a bit of a row at a bar(because we were wearing drag and it was a hick place). The bouncers threw 3  of us out and then the police came and arrested two of the girls just for not shutting up. nothing else happened. well, except for the cops calling 3 more cars for backup for no apparent reason. we went home and the cops released the girls with a warning.

 

 

The day after I read in the paper "30 youths stormed and vandalized a local restaurant, police was called and managed to break it off"

 

WTF!!??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Popular journalism 101 "If you don

[Kaftan Barlast]

Today I was doing a little tv study regarding the coverage of Condolezza Rices hearing. What I found that all the major channels cut the hearing at vital points in this order

 

FOX- cut in the middle of Rice's defense statement

CNN- cut right before Boxer replied to Rice

BBC- cut in the middle of Boxers reply

 

 

So what does this mean? Its selective editing, basicly. The bottom two most likely cut due to time constraints where FOX cut right after Rice had delivered her best material.

 

so FOX viewers heard(this isnt exact quotes) "We didnt go to war over aluminum tubes. This was all about a larger picture of Saddam Hussein having clear ties to international terorism"

 

whereas CNN viewers also heard "I agree the foreign policy of the 80s where we supported some regimes was not a good thing"

 

and BBC viewers got to hear a little "Doctor Rice, youre contradicting yourself. You clearly stated the aluminium tubes were clear evidence of Iraqs possesion of WMDs"

 

 

Do you see how you can manipulate news even without altering or commenting the content?

[taks]

- Bill o'Reilly is an insult to a proffessional journalism. Telling people to shut up, putting words in the opponents mouth, putting in his own opinion when talking about facts and so on...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

do you have any clue what the term news analyst means? o'reilly is supposed to put in his opinion! that's his freaking job...

 

for freak's sake, how hard a concept is this to understand?

 

taks

[taks]

Murdoch is a wide supporter of the republican party and their agenda(which is no secret), especially Reagan and his politics. It can make one wonder if FOX news is really the epitone of unbiased, investigative journalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which would be a valid point if murdoch actually had anything to do with running fox news. all of fox's news is scrutinized by a panel of liberal and conservative journalists - an equal split, btw. they determine what content fox reports, not rupert. if you actually did any investigation, you'd know this... but you don't care, you've got your bias to rest on. the hypocritical part about this is that you're accusing them of the very failure in your own argument.

 

taks

 

btw: ted turner is a wide supporter of the democratic party and their agenda... does this mean you think CNN is biased liberally because of that fact? hmmmm, seems we have a double standard here.

[taks]

It may not be journalistically honourable, but when it comes to television ratings, notions like honour and integrity are pretty much tossed out the window.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that statement is BS, phosphor...

 

there's nothing dis-honorable in the idea. newspapers and tv outlets regularly try to find ways to "spice up" their reporting. also, realistically, if anybody here actually watched the news that fox reports, they'd see it's not that much different than CNN or HNN. fox just happens to have much more commentary and analysts than the other networks.

 

the hypocrisy is that those most critical of fox 1) never watch fox's news and 2) base most of their complaints on what others say about it. those that do manage to watch something see o'reilly, however, and then label the entire network based on his analysis. absolutely ridiculous.

 

taks

[Phosphor]

My point was the television ratings (regardless of broadcasted content) are of such importance that airing quality material often takes a back seat to pushing out something people will watch. News broadcasting is suffering in viewership these days, and news outlets are looking for ways to get people to watch and keep them watching; making it entertaining (in whatever manner, be it confrontational or not) is of high importance.

Yes, there are news casts that do not do this, but then there are those that do. Fox's confrontational and/or controversial analysts are a big draw, people like to watch them. Whether they skew facts or present a biased perspective is all part of it.

Spicing up the news has been with us as long as news has, there's no arguing that, so nothing really is new now, but but I personally find putting people on the air as news analysts purely for their "entertainment value" to be questionable, and in my opinion, not good news reporting. I don't like news analysts in general, I never have, regardless of their leaning. I prefer that sort of thing in political satire rather than in the news.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Isnt the biggest issue that FOXnews slogan is "Fair and unbiased news" when it really should be "Rightwing news for rightwing people"?

 

 

"

[Plooby]

Isnt the biggest issue that FOXnews slogan is "Fair and unbiased news" when it really should be "Rightwing news for rightwing people"?

 

 

"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And the problem with that is.... ? What does it matter? No one forces you or me to watch. Let's face it, there is a lot of crude on the TV. I find a lot of what you can see to be totally useless. Why should news shows be any differant?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The problem is that when they claim to be "Fair and unbiased", some poeple might actually believe them.

[213374U]

Well, I haven't really watched FOX news so I don't have anything to say about them in particular. This comment drew my attention, though:

fox just happens to have much more commentary and analysts than the other networks.

Heh. I don't know about you, but I don't need analysts to analyze news for me. That's what I got my brains for, you know. If I want to know what some analyst thinks about something in particular, it's not the news I'm going to watch. When commentary and analysts are an integral part of the news... it's not news anymore.

[mkreku]

Yeah, if it's an american doing the twisting of the news it's called "an analyst". If it's A DANGEROUS (probably terrorist, they all are) FOREIGNER doing it it's called propaganda.

[sawyl]

there's nothing dis-honorable in the idea. newspapers and tv outlets regularly try to find ways to "spice up" their reporting.

 

And since every major news outlet does it, that makes it honorable?

 

The problem is that when they claim to be "Fair and unbiased", some poeple might actually believe them.

 

That's right. News shows should, I think, be held to a higher standard of integrity than "American Idol."

 

the hypocrisy is that those most critical of fox 1) never watch fox's news and 2) base most of their complaints on what others say about it. those that do manage to watch something see o'reilly, however, and then label the entire network based on his analysis. absolutely ridiculous.

 

Hmm. Let's see. Isn't O'Reilly in a prime programming spot, when the majority of Americans watch T.V.? If the 7:00 spot on CNN was filled by a commie/lefty type, you can bet people would be complaining. Even Fox's regular "news" reporting is biased and selective, as noted by several people below.

 

PS: I have watched Fox.

 

they determine what content fox reports, not rupert.

 

Funny story. There's this guy, Roger Ailes. He runs Fox News. Wasn't he some sort of analyst for Reagan? Oh, and Roger is a staunch Republican too.

 

go figure... i tell you what, explain how CBS managed their little debacle while remaining "unbiased". tell me they didn't have an agenda, and do it with a straight face.

 

Dan Rather had an agenda, not CBS.

 

just because you the intelligencia don't agree with them does not mean fox is biased. i dare you to show bias in their news reporting ala NY Times.

 

oh, the lefty New York Jewish intelligencia.

 

and this foxblocker is obviously not censorship...it's humor. Haha, let's laugh, okay?

[Meshugger]

- Bill o'Reilly is an insult to a proffessional journalism. Telling people to shut up, putting words in the opponents mouth, putting in his own opinion when talking about facts and so on...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

do you have any clue what the term news analyst means? o'reilly is supposed to put in his opinion! that's his freaking job...

 

for freak's sake, how hard a concept is this to understand?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's still rude, blending opinion with facts and acts in a very unproffessional manner. Why should there be a news analyst in the first place?

[Meshugger]

Murdoch is a wide supporter of the republican party and their agenda(which is no secret), especially Reagan and his politics. It can make one wonder if FOX news is really the epitone of unbiased, investigative journalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which would be a valid point if murdoch actually had anything to do with running fox news. all of fox's news is scrutinized by a panel of liberal and conservative journalists - an equal split, btw. they determine what content fox reports, not rupert. if you actually did any investigation, you'd know this... but you don't care, you've got your bias to rest on. the hypocritical part about this is that you're accusing them of the very failure in your own argument.

 

taks

 

btw: ted turner is a wide supporter of the democratic party and their agenda... does this mean you think CNN is biased liberally because of that fact? hmmmm, seems we have a double standard here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks for proving my point. No news channel should be run by people with their own agenda.

[sawyl]

and about Mr. Rather jumping the gun...the Boston Globe had run a feature about Mr. Bush's alleged military service a few days before the "Rathergate" scandal broke. Unfortunately, the Globe's report was lost in the tide of hype surrounding Dan Rather. F.A.I.R. has an interesting recap of the whole shebang.

[random evil guy]

CNN strikes me as essentially centrist with a leftist angle. But then, I live in Canada, a place most Americans seem to think is comprised of socialist commies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is...

 

CNN i mean. CNNs tv analysts are mostly liberal, however, from what i've seen. they get pounded in the ratings, too.

 

i generally think canada is socialist, but not necessarily communist. a subtle, yet at the same time profound, difference.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

it's called social democracy; emerged from socialism late in the 19th century. a split from the marxist movement.

 

here; go nuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[random evil guy]

You could just not watch FOXnews, but the idea of foxblocker is to show FOX that people are willing to put up money NOT to watch their biased crap.

and to show the hypocrisy of the left... and their "crap" as you so eloquently put it, is not biased... try watching their news once in a while. as noted, their analysts are on the right in general, but not all.

 

fox, btw, has more democratic guests than republican. a factoid that few seem to care about.

 

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

are you sure about that? i thought it was the other way around.... i don't know, so i'm just asking.

 

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0701-05.htm

[Dakoth]

Spicing up the news has been with us as long as news has, there's no arguing that, so nothing really is new now, but but I personally find putting people on the air as news analysts purely for their "entertainment value" to be questionable, and in my opinion, not good news reporting

 

I agree Phosphor but as I live in a country that must warn through labeling that tabacco, and alcohol have adverse health effects I think I will see analysts for many years to come.

 

Isnt the biggest issue that FOXnews slogan is "Fair and unbiased news" when it really should be "Rightwing news for rightwing people"?

 

It maybe different in other countries but in America it is an unwritten understanding that every "news show" is fair and unbiased. That is the reason Taks takes exception to what some people have said, the leftwing cries foul while commiting the same foul.

 

Dan Rather had an agenda, not CBS.

 

I don't agree because lets face it if Dan Rather had a different agenda than CBS then he wouldn't work for them. Why when dealing with something a potentially damaging to either side did the higher ups not step in and check old Danny boy?

 

Thanks for proving my point. No news channel should be run by people with their own agenda.

 

Is there truly a person out there that could right a political devisive article and be completely unbiased? Even if they did would it be viewed that way by people who do have bias?

 

and about Mr. Rather jumping the gun...the Boston Globe had run a feature about Mr. Bush's alleged military service a few days before the "Rathergate" scandal broke. Unfortunately, the Globe's report was lost in the tide of hype surrounding Dan Rather. F.A.I.R. has an interesting recap of the whole shebang

.

 

Very important point and why is Rather getting more flack because lets face it TV tends to reach a greater audience which is why they need to be much more careful when running stories like that. Who knows had it been some one of less stature than Rather they probably wouldn't be working for CBS right now.

 

Edit: Felt I needed to add this in CBS, NBC, ABC are all television networks they can have agendas and be as biased as they want, their news and reporters on the other hand should not be. Unfortunately with the case of Rather we see the bias of the network come through in the bias of their reporter. The same as with any other news program and its reporters bar none.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

*Shrugs* Pretty much all my teachers swear by Fox news, I'm not impressed. Maybe I'll get one of those blockers for my history teacher's set...