Two videos that further show that Fox is more propaganda than “fair and balanced.”
Fox Attacks: Black America
Fox Attacks: Obama
This is ridiculous rhetoric. How can anyone claim this is even news?
Does anyone actually believe this stuff? Or is it just a guilty pleasure of Republicans to watch this one-sided hack job?
[quote]Antonsucks wrote:
Two videos that further show that Fox is more propaganda than “fair and balanced.”
Fox Attacks: Black America
Fox Attacks: Obama
This is ridiculous rhetoric. How can anyone claim this is even news?
Does anyone actually believe this stuff? Or is it just a guilty pleasure of Republicans to watch this one-sided hack job?[/quote]
I stopped watching after the first ten segments were taken completely out of context.
Or you could just believe that Fox News is actually racist. I remember H&C had on two Black men discussing Obama’s church and that church’s seemingly racist leader (racist against whites that is). The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama.
Get this, Hannity and one of the Black guests were siding together against the other Black guest against the racist teachings of Rev. Wright. So who’s the racist here?
Are you fucking serious? You can watch that Obama video and believe Fox is ATTACKING him?
Let me guess. You’ve never watched Fox and Friends and actualy seen the entire segment(s) on Obama right?
Giveth thou a breaketh!
I’ve watched a lot of fox news.
Yep. It’s a joke.
But so is CNN, so…
Seriously, they showed Scooter not-guilty, Obama as Osama, and the molester as a democrat. Something fishy is going on there. O’Reilly is an angry joke, Hannity is a joke, the whole network (news wise) is a joke. It’s about the same as the New York post. They’re not racist, just conservative.
[quote]derek wrote:
Are you fucking serious? You can watch that Obama video and believe Fox is ATTACKING him?
Let me guess. You’ve never watched Fox and Friends and actualy seen the entire segment(s) on Obama right?
Giveth thou a breaketh! [/quote]
Umm… Fox spent about an hour an a half (which I WATCHED) talking about how Obama went to a Madras and learned fanatical Muslim teachings. All proven bullshit not two hours later.
I don’t really care what the clips was about; FOX spouted lies about Obama and his schooling. Period.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
derek wrote:
Are you fucking serious? You can watch that Obama video and believe Fox is ATTACKING him?
Let me guess. You’ve never watched Fox and Friends and actualy seen the entire segment(s) on Obama right?
Giveth thou a breaketh!
Umm… Fox spent about an hour an a half (which I WATCHED) talking about how Obama went to a Madras and learned fanatical Muslim teachings. All proven bullshit not two hours later.
I don’t really care what the clips was about; FOX spouted lies about Obama and his schooling. Period.[/quote]
Umm… Fox was not the original source of this story. It was Insight Magazine. Every time Fox reported the story, they cited the original report from Insight Magazine.
You also fail to mention that The New York Post cited the source in its comments about the story, as did Glenn Beck on CNN’s Headline News. You make it sound as if Fox News was the source of the story when, clearly, it was not. Several other news outlets did the same thing Fox News did, but you single out Fox when they simply repeated a report by another news agency. If anyone is a liar, it would be Insight Magazine.
[quote]derek wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
derek wrote:
Are you fucking serious? You can watch that Obama video and believe Fox is ATTACKING him?
Let me guess. You’ve never watched Fox and Friends and actualy seen the entire segment(s) on Obama right?
Giveth thou a breaketh!
Umm… Fox spent about an hour an a half (which I WATCHED) talking about how Obama went to a Madras and learned fanatical Muslim teachings. All proven bullshit not two hours later.
I don’t really care what the clips was about; FOX spouted lies about Obama and his schooling. Period.
Umm… Fox was not the original source of this story. It was Insight Magazine. Every time Fox reported the story, they cited the original report from Insight Magazine.
You also fail to mention that The New York Post cited the source in its comments about the story, as did Glenn Beck on CNN’s Headline News. You make it sound as if Fox News was the source of the story when, clearly, it was not. Several other news outlets did the same thing Fox News did, but you single out Fox when they simply repeated a report by another news agency. If anyone is a liar, it would be Insight Magazine.
[/quote]
They repeated it for over an hour. Don’t global news networks usually bother to check sources?
And like I said, CNN is full of shit too.
Just because they didn’t originate the rumor doesn’t mean they weren’t the biggest part of spreading it.
News is entertainment.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’ve watched a lot of fox news.
Yep. It’s a joke.
But so is CNN, so…
Seriously, they showed Scooter not-guilty, Obama as Osama, and the molester as a democrat. Something fishy is going on there. O’Reilly is an angry joke, Hannity is a joke, the whole network (news wise) is a joke. It’s about the same as the New York post. They’re not racist, just conservative.
[/quote]
Fox is biased. So is CNN, MSNBC etc.
Their coverage of the anti war protests was laughable. They lied about the numbers of protesters to make it seem more significant, ignored the commie flags and other weirdness and ignored the very sizable number of veterans thet “counter-protested.”
CBS did a whole big thing last night about the Iraq civil war and ignored the fact that Iraqis don’t think they are fighting a civil war.
The bias from both sides is amazing and getting worse.
Overseas media sources are no more trustworthy either.
I think some of you folks aren’t willing or aren’t able to differentiate between different types of “bias”.
FOX is blatant, willing to air anything to smear someone, such as Obama, as long as they can point to a source and excuse themselves of any responsibility for accuracy. The fact that there are other shitty news agencies as well does not excuse the behavior.
I only wish the public would demand clear information from their news agencies, instead of politically motivated slanted misrepresentations and entertainment.
Isn’t propaganda bad when other countries do it?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Their coverage of the anti war protests was laughable. They lied about the numbers of protesters to make it seem more significant, ignored the commie flags and other weirdness and ignored the very sizable number of veterans thet “counter-protested.”
[/quote]
Zap, at least there actually were citizens engaged in anti-war protests… and it wasn’t absolutely made up bullshit.
As for the “civil war”, the decision to use that term has been talked about in the news quite a bit. Some people think it is and some people think it isn’t… so it isn’t totally inappropriate, though it is arguable.
I don’t suppose you can see a difference in degree here? Totally unsupported bullshit vs not mentioning aspects that you wish were mentioned?
Either way, pointing at “other” transgressions is not an excuse. It doesn’t make it less of a problem.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Their coverage of the anti war protests was laughable. They lied about the numbers of protesters to make it seem more significant, ignored the commie flags and other weirdness and ignored the very sizable number of veterans thet “counter-protested.”
Zap, at least there actually were citizens engaged in anti-war protests… and it wasn’t absolutely made up bullshit.
As for the “civil war”, the decision to use that term has been talked about in the news quite a bit. Some people think it is and some people think it isn’t… so it isn’t totally inappropriate, though it is arguable.
I don’t suppose you can see a difference in degree here? Totally unsupported bullshit vs not mentioning aspects that you wish were mentioned?
Either way, pointing at “other” transgressions is not an excuse. It doesn’t make it less of a problem.[/quote]
Check out the title of this thread “Why IS Fox Such A Joke?” and the content of the post (two youtube links). That’s what I was responding to. It seemed pretty Fox specific and I treated it as such.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Their coverage of the anti war protests was laughable. They lied about the numbers of protesters to make it seem more significant, ignored the commie flags and other weirdness and ignored the very sizable number of veterans thet “counter-protested.”
Zap, at least there actually were citizens engaged in anti-war protests… and it wasn’t absolutely made up bullshit.
[/quote]
Reporting a select portion of the facts is often worse than ignoring the whole thing.
[quote]
As for the “civil war”, the decision to use that term has been talked about in the news quite a bit. Some people think it is and some people think it isn’t… so it isn’t totally inappropriate, though it is arguable.
I don’t suppose you can see a difference in degree here? Totally unsupported bullshit vs not mentioning aspects that you wish were mentioned?
Either way, pointing at “other” transgressions is not an excuse. It doesn’t make it less of a problem.[/quote]
Agreed. That is why I posted what I did. Fox News is biased, but so is every other news source. Yo have to look at them all and try to pick out the truth.
To write off everything CNN or Fox reports will give a slanted view on things just as beleiving everything they report would.
I have a theory on the question asked in the title.
The news - never immune from some level of interest or bias - used to at least hold itself to a standard of “speaking the truth”.
Sometime around the halcyon days of the 1960s, journalistic institutions thought it would be better if they cast objectivity aside with the mission to not “speak the truth”, but rather “speak truth to power”. Journalistic institutions were needed to help fight the culture wars, and so they enlisted in the cause.
As such, journalistic institutions ceased their goal of being neutral provider of information for the people and became political advocates.
FOX - whatever its bias, and be careful not to confuse objective reporting with news analysis, though too much of that blends together these days - has opted into the “speaking truth to power” mode. If that bothers you, remember it was done to provide a countering voice to the primary journalistic machine that has tilted left ever since the glorious 1960s. You might not like FOX, but it is seriously outnumbered.
Now, I am all for turning our backs on biased news institutions such as FOX, but if you agree with me, you have to be willing to turn your backs on all news reporting outlets that have a political agenda, not just the ones you happen not to like. Are FOX haters on board with that? Interestingly, few seem to be - they are fine with biased news reporting unless it happens to be right-of-center biased news reporting.
I don’t like FOX all that much - but then, I like it as much as I like all the other big news networks.
That aside, this does not apply to editorials. If you complain about a biased editorial, well, you are an idiot.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have a theory on the question asked in the title.
The news - never immune from some level of interest or bias - used to at least hold itself to a standard of “speaking the truth”.
Sometime around the halcyon days of the 1960s, journalistic institutions thought it would be better if they cast objectivity aside with the mission to not “speak the truth”, but rather “speak truth to power”. Journalistic institutions were needed to help fight the culture wars, and so they enlisted in the cause.
As such, journalistic institutions ceased their goal of being neutral provider of information for the people and became political advocates.
FOX - whatever its bias, and be careful not to confuse objective reporting with news analysis, though too much of that blends together these days - has opted into the “speaking truth to power” mode. If that bothers you, remember it was done to provide a countering voice to the primary journalistic machine that has tilted left ever since the glorious 1960s. You might not like FOX, but it is seriously outnumbered.
Now, I am all for turning our backs on biased news institutions such as FOX, but if you agree with me, you have to be willing to turn your backs on all news reporting outlets that have a political agenda, not just the ones you happen not to like. Are FOX haters on board with that? Interestingly, few seem to be - they are fine with biased news reporting unless it happens to be right-of-center biased news reporting.
I don’t like FOX all that much - but then, I like it as much as I like all the other big news networks.
That aside, this does not apply to editorials. If you complain about a biased editorial, well, you are an idiot.[/quote]
A) A majority of journalists are economically conservative.
B) FOX isn’t crap because it’s conservative. It’s crap because it’s sensationalist garbage, and it reports things in a very, very over the top, fear mongering way.
IE:
“Is there something in your fridge that could KILL your children? Tonite at ten!”
At Ten
“A small poisonous snake was found in the fridge of a young boy named ______. He was very scared. Everything turned out ok, however, and no one was bitten.”
(This is an actual example, which I watched probably a couple years ago).
See what I mean? The incident was totally isolated, but they made it to appear to be a real threat to bring in viewers. They do things like that ALL the time.
It’s annoying as hell.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A) A majority of journalists are economically conservative.[/quote]
Show me.
[quote]B) FOX isn’t crap because it’s conservative. It’s crap because it’s sensationalist garbage, and it reports things in a very, very over the top, fear mongering way.
IE:
“Is there something in your fridge that could KILL your children? Tonite at ten!”
At Ten
“A small poisonous snake was found in the fridge of a young boy named ______. He was very scared. Everything turned out ok, however, and no one was bitten.”
(This is an actual example, which I watched probably a couple years ago).
See what I mean? The incident was totally isolated, but they made it to appear to be a real threat to bring in viewers. They do things like that ALL the time.
It’s annoying as hell. [/quote]
How is this different than other networks?
FOX doesn’t have a monopoly on crappy sensationalism. Not by a mile. John Stossel did a piece on this very problem a while back - it wasn’t FOX"s problem alone.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
A) A majority of journalists are economically conservative.
Show me.
B) FOX isn’t crap because it’s conservative. It’s crap because it’s sensationalist garbage, and it reports things in a very, very over the top, fear mongering way.
IE:
“Is there something in your fridge that could KILL your children? Tonite at ten!”
At Ten
“A small poisonous snake was found in the fridge of a young boy named ______. He was very scared. Everything turned out ok, however, and no one was bitten.”
(This is an actual example, which I watched probably a couple years ago).
See what I mean? The incident was totally isolated, but they made it to appear to be a real threat to bring in viewers. They do things like that ALL the time.
It’s annoying as hell.
How is this different than other networks?
FOX doesn’t have a monopoly on crappy sensationalism. Not by a mile. John Stossel did a piece on this very problem a while back - it wasn’t FOX"s problem alone.[/quote]
I’ll try and dredge up the survey. I don’t have a nexus account anymore, so I don’t know if I’ll be able to find it. Overall though, most journalists considered themselves left on social issues, and leaning right on economic ones.
And I never claimed it was FOX’s problem alone. They just do it more often, and even more sensationalist than most. They’re like the New York Post of broadcast journalism (with more factual news). CNN can be just as bad most of the time, but FOX is HORRIBLE about it ALWAYS.
Other networks avoid the extreme sensationalism of CNN and FOX. MSNBC does an OK job, but these days almost everything on TV has turned into sensationalist garbage.
I saw this elsewhere and figured I’d throw it out here. Bolded near the bottom is an interesting tidbit. Have fun.
http://www.hillnews.com/mark-mellman/hounding-fox-news-coverage-2007-03-20.html
Hounding Fox News coverage
By Mark Mellman
March 20, 2007
Journalists strive to report the news, not to be the news. So Fox News should have been a bit embarrassed to headline a story that ended with the Nevada Democratic Party canceling Fox?s sponsorship of a pre-caucus debate.
Then again, Fox is not a typical news organization. There are first-rate journalists at Fox, committed to accuracy, objectivity and fairness. However, as a network, Fox?s prime commitment is to the triumph of conservative politics, not to a well-informed public. From hiring hosts to selecting stories to framing questions for discussion, Fox demonstrates its dedication to advancing the ideological interests of the right.
As former Fox reporter/anchor Jon Du Pre put it in the documentary ?Outfoxed,? ?We weren?t necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view ? we were there to reinforce a constituency.?
Conservatives retort that other media project a liberal bias, while Fox presents a needed counterweight. The liberal bias of network news is debatable; that Fox regularly reports false and inaccurate stories designed to drum up support for their candidates and causes is beyond serious dispute.
Can you imagine other networks allowing, let alone encouraging, their anchors to utter statements like ?John Kerry has Kim Jong Il on his side … North Korea loves John Kerry? as part of a newscast?
Conservatives counter, citing CBS?s report on President Bush?s National Guard service, based on documents that were likely forgeries. However, the test of institutional bias is not whether mistakes are made, but rather how the organization responds to those errors. CBS launched an investigation, led by a former Republican Attorney General, while dismissing one of America?s most respected journalists and four others.
What evidence, forged or otherwise, did Fox rely on in asserting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) attended a Muslim madrassah? If CNN could go to the school and give the lie to the report, why couldn?t Fox? What outside panel was empowered to investigate how Fox could have aired such an outrageously inaccurate report? Who was fired for the inflammatory falsehoods?
A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, ?Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions? about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. ?found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.? Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.
Instead of providing ?fair and balanced? reporting, Fox has created an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of management?s ideology.
An audience that decides for itself, based on ?fair and balanced? coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.
None of this argues for a boycott of Fox. While harboring no illusions, Democrats should try to communicate on Fox and through every other channel. I appear as a guest and will continue to, in the unlikely event they invite me again. However, if Fox wants the legitimacy afforded by official sponsorship of Democratic debates, it needs to become a relatively objective news organization, not a dispenser of partisan cant.
This is a joke. NBC gave Hillary Clinton what was basically a free primetime commercial last night. I didn’t watch all of it but I think it went for an hour with some dude lobbing softball questions at her.
Can you imagine NBC doing that for a Republican candidate?
They are all biased.
If someone was born and raised with the the Left and its drive-by media, then Fox WOULD appear as biased. I’m sure Hitler considered the BBC to be biased.