If Fox News had been around...

[Judge Hades]

I think we should form our own news service here on the Internet.  Maybe we can set up a interwoven blog set up and report events without the hyperbole of conservatism or liberalism.

 

I think we should call it Van Buren Weekly. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I was about to comment on the lack of a robot army, and I see "Skynet" in this forum!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I could see if I could get someone to create "bot" programs that will scour the Internet for news bits and e-mail be files automatically which I, using my analytical skills and years of training, to remove the biases the new articles have.

[Shadowstrider]

I find MSNBC the least biased towards one political wing or the other, personally. Joe Scarborough could be more right-wing than some FOX news anchors (I also find most of his arguements make no sense, and I am a republican). Another reason I think MSNBC is pretty balanced is righties think its liberal and lefties think its conservative, where as with CNN Lefties think its balanced and righties think its liberal, the opposite for FOX.

 

I can't stand to watch CNN or FOX, they're both clearly biased and irritating. Plus I actually heard one of their anchors use the terms "that dude" and "big 'un" in a non-joking manner on FOX.

[Meshugger]

I find MSNBC the least biased towards one political wing or the other, personally.  Joe Scarborough could be more right-wing than some FOX news anchors (I also find most of his arguements make no sense, and I am a republican).  Another reason I think MSNBC is pretty balanced is righties think its liberal and lefties think its conservative, where as with CNN Lefties think its balanced and righties think its liberal, the opposite for FOX.

 

I can't stand to watch CNN or FOX, they're both clearly biased and irritating.  Plus I actually heard one of their anchors use the terms "that dude" and "big 'un" in a non-joking manner on FOX.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hate any news-station with the ancors trying to promote their own agenda with statements as "Some people say...."

[Shadowstrider]

You hate all news channels, then.

[Meshugger]

You hate all news channels, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The scandinavian ones have avoided it this far. Channels that go by the same sensationalism formula as Fox and CNN are not news-channels, they're entertainment.

[Lucius]

And luckily many of those channels are only avaliable on cable, which I fortunately don't have access to. I'm pleased with my national TV network, although they really ought to show some newer movies.

[kumquatq3]

You hate all news channels, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The scandinavian ones have avoided it this far. Channels that go by the same sensationalism formula as Fox and CNN are not news-channels, they're entertainment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Your saying they don't have any noticeable political bias or even say a anti-american or anti-iraq war bias?

[Lucius]

In Denmark, there's two national news stations which everyone can see, cable or no. The reporters usually don't show a political bias per se, such an attitude on national TV would indeed be highly frowned upon, but sometimes their true colours are revealed. Most notably in the Palestine vs Israel case, I'd say that some of the regular reporters down there, in Gaza, have a slight bias towards Palestine.

But the anchors never sit around on the air making smug jabs, or venting their own bias, however subtle you might think they could do it. At least not compared to what I've seen and read on Fox News website.

[Calax]

This is why I watch the Daily Show, and read the onion.

[Meshugger]

You hate all news channels, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The scandinavian ones have avoided it this far. Channels that go by the same sensationalism formula as Fox and CNN are not news-channels, they're entertainment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Your saying they don't have any noticeable political bias or even say a anti-american or anti-iraq war bias?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

News-channels in Scandinavia don't need to jeopardize their journalistical integrity in order to get high ratings(= dull sensationalism, slander, entertainment) since they're financed by the goverment. While it's illegal for the goverment to intervene in the whole procedure (they just pay them), correspondets and ancors are hired for their objectivity.

 

Even if there was a slight oppurtunity that the new was influenced by the goverment, it would be very hard since most goverments are made out of coalitions of parties (left-center, right-center and so on...).

[Laozi]

The problem isn't that news organizations are liberal or conservative, its that they are corporately owned, it all just a series of distractions

[Gabrielle]

I don't watch that propaganda bullsh!t Fox, CNN or any of that other crap network news. All they do is tell lies, half truths just to get ratings.

[Oerwinde]

I was watching this documentary the CBC did about Fox News and how Bill O'Reilly has had like 3 canadian guests on his show, two of them prominent liberal activists and one of them a far right conservative talk radio host with 2 sexual assault convictions. Guess which one he treated with respect.

[Reveilled]

All news networks have a bias, that is unavoidable. Even if it isn't made explicitly clear, it is always there in the way things are reported, what it reported on, and who is spoken to. But when you get down to it, what really matters is whether that general bias is a function of the biases of the reporters, or whether the biases of the reporters is a function of the general bias. Simply put, what matters is whether that bias is deliberate on the part of the institution. Any news agency that doesn't try to be objective, be they left or right wing, isn't worth people's time, and shouldn't be considered a reputable news source. Unfortunately, that leaves one with very few reputable news sources.

[EnderAndrew]

I'd like to say that I LOATHE Fox News and don't consider them a credible news source. I hate everyone who appears on that damned station.

 

However I also thing that Cindy Sheehan is a nut case. Her son wasn't drafted or forced to do anything against his will. He volunteered for military service, and now she demands unique treatment. She demands that she alone get personal justification for her loss.

 

What makes her unique or special?

 

She blames Bush solely and not in fact the men who killed her son, nor does she place any responsibility on her son's decision to volunteer for military service.

 

I have a news flash for you. If you volunteer to join the military, you might be required to serve in a military capacity.

 

I am sorry that Cindy Sheehan lost a son. I don't want to ever truly understand what it is like to lose a child. However, I don't agree with her crusade in the least. It seems most that side with her are doing so as a means to further their dislike for Bush.

 

I maintain that if you want to blast Bush, then blast him for valid reasons, and not these weak arguements.

[Laozi]

In Denmark, there's two national news stations which everyone can see, cable or no. The reporters usually don't show a political bias per se, such an attitude on national TV would indeed be highly frowned upon, but sometimes their true colours are revealed. Most notably in the Palestine vs Israel case, I'd say that some of the regular reporters down there, in Gaza, have a slight bias towards Palestine.

But the anchors never sit around on the air making smug jabs, or venting their own bias, however subtle you might think they could do it. At least not compared to what I've seen and read on Fox News website.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We have something similiar in PBS and NPR(more so) as a mostly government funded news source(although its hard to tell as much as they ask for money)

But somehow the whole thing still gets labeled as liberally biased. I guess theres a bit of truth in it, since most people who work for them have gone to college, and *most* formally educated people tend to "swing' towards the left. Also alot of the people who work for them could make more money taking other jobs in their field, again something *most* conservatives in america wouldn't do.

 

As for Cindy Sheenan, she has every right to question if her son died fighting for a legitiment cause. Its unfortant that Fox news finds it so important to try to discredit her, but these are the tactics of today's spin machines. It does seem strange that they wouldn't just ignore her, but I guess they get better ratings this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*ofcourse by most I mean definitely mostly all :cool:

[EnderAndrew]

I'm predominately liberal, and I wouldn't call NPR a reputable news source either. Not only are they biased in their slant, they also don't believe in fact checking. I have heard more bogus stories on NPR than any other so-called news network.

 

There are two places I trust for news, BBC and CNN. That's it.