You can't differentiate that simply, it says "FOX NEWS" all over the screen when any pundit is talking, and it's sure as hell on the 'Fox News channel', not on the 'Fox Commentary Channel', I know you'd like to divorce the two because it would make the network easier to defend, but you can't, everything shown on there is a part of Fox News.usmarine wrote:
THATS COMMENTARY OPINION SHOW, NOT NEWS FFS.
Fox News is name of the channel. They have specific shows that are dedicated to commentary, just look at the name of the show.<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
You can't differentiate that simply, it says "FOX NEWS" all over the screen when any pundit is talking, and it's sure as hell on the 'Fox News channel', not on the 'Fox Commentary Channel', I know you'd like to divorce the two because it would make the network easier to defend, but you can't, everything shown on there is a part of Fox News.usmarine wrote:
THATS COMMENTARY OPINION SHOW, NOT NEWS FFS.
Fox News is indeed the name of the network, but when people say the news delivered by Fox News is hopelessly biased and then cite Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, I can't help but question if they know the difference between Fox News' news shows and commentary shows.<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
- Every news network has what you could call analysis or commentary as part of it programming. Please don't tell me that you've defined the topic as to mean "Fox News", only the segments on the Fox News Network where actual news is relayed to you, which still imo carries a bias anyway. I know you'd like to define things that way, but you can't: Wolf Blitzer is a part of CNN, Bill O'Reilly is a part of Fox News, he certainly doesn't help give them credibility or balance.
Factoid: Wolf Blitzer graduated from my high school.
Oh ok, so it has no bearing because it silences any oposition to FOX's right wing views, or because their silenced if they say something that FOX viewers might not like, or because the hosts are dicks and cant argue their own point so have to shut up the other person?usmarine wrote:
You ever watch hanity and colmes? That is left and right. And keep using that shutting off the mic example, like that has any bearing on anything.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
So u dont find it alittle interesting that the only opinions given on FOX are right wing? that any left wing views or "liberal pussies" as you would say are told to shut up, cut off or just not put on the show? but hey after all they are "fair and balanced"usmarine wrote:
And that has to do with news how? How does that affect the reporting of "Bus flips over on highway." ????????????? It doesn't. They report the actual news like everyone else. You just do not like their opinions. well boo hoo,
It has no bearing because it happened on an opinion entertainment show. That is the whole point of the show dude. fireworks and ratings. You see, when you think bill o or larry king is the news and are what the network stands for, then I think you have it all wrong. That is primetime look at me yell crap.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Oh ok, so it has no bearing because it silences any oposition to FOX's right wing views, or because their silenced if they say something that FOX viewers might not like, or because the hosts are dicks and cant argue their own point so have to shut up the other person?usmarine wrote:
You ever watch hanity and colmes? That is left and right. And keep using that shutting off the mic example, like that has any bearing on anything.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
So u dont find it alittle interesting that the only opinions given on FOX are right wing? that any left wing views or "liberal pussies" as you would say are told to shut up, cut off or just not put on the show? but hey after all they are "fair and balanced"
Just go over to MSNBC at 8pm and see the other side of the coin. Left views galore. Yet I hear no bitching about that. Perhaps you are not being fair and balanced.
I get my left views from Alan Colmes.usmarine wrote:
Just go over to MSNBC at 8pm and see the other side of the coin. Left views galore. Yet I hear no bitching about that. Perhaps you are not being fair and balanced.
Gah, i realise they are opinion shows! god dammit. but wouldnt it be nice to see someone elses opinion? a couple people from each side having a decent debate... not the host yelling and abusing his quests until he cuts them off.usmarine wrote:
It has no bearing because it happened on an opinion entertainment show. That is the whole point of the show dude. fireworks and ratings. You see, when you think bill o or larry king is the news and are what the network stands for, then I think you have it all wrong. That is primetime look at me yell crap.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Oh ok, so it has no bearing because it silences any oposition to FOX's right wing views, or because their silenced if they say something that FOX viewers might not like, or because the hosts are dicks and cant argue their own point so have to shut up the other person?usmarine wrote:
You ever watch hanity and colmes? That is left and right. And keep using that shutting off the mic example, like that has any bearing on anything.
Just go over to MSNBC at 8pm and see the other side of the coin. Left views galore. Yet I hear no bitching about that. Perhaps you are not being fair and balanced.
Its alittle sad when a opinion show on a "news network" that prides itself on being "fair and balanced" is only concered with as you said "fireworks and ratings". if they are more concerned about "fireworks and ratings" they are off track anyway.
so would i have to complain about every single news program in the world for u to think im fair and balanced?
dont even try to deny the fact that FOX is massively bias... alot more than any other network i have seen. (well not counting ITN )
they own the market. after all the end game is always money. so I would say they are on track in that department.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
if they are more concerned about "fireworks and ratings" they are off track anyway.
thats why people/corporations owning/controling news networks are stupid... the point of a news network shouldnt be massive profit.usmarine wrote:
they own the market. after all the end game is always money. so I would say they are on track in that department.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
if they are more concerned about "fireworks and ratings" they are off track anyway.
it should be to inform people, give balanced opinions here and there but to let the public know what is happening etc.
They may be on track when it comes to money, but i think somewhere along the line they took a wrong turn.
Umm, if that was the case newspapers would have died a long time ago, along with tabloids. And who would control the media? The government? That would put an even worse spin on the news.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
thats why people/corporations owning/controling news networks are stupid... the point of a news network shouldnt be massive profit.usmarine wrote:
they own the market. after all the end game is always money. so I would say they are on track in that department.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
if they are more concerned about "fireworks and ratings" they are off track anyway.
it should be to inform people, give balanced opinions here and there but to let the public know what is happening etc.
They may be on track when it comes to money, but i think somewhere along the line they took a wrong turn.
All news sources have bias, it's just that Fox along with most of talk radio have a right lean to them. They stick out to most people because today everyone is getting spoon fed left leaning news and opinions since they were in grade school. I think it's refreshing to know that other people share my opinion and thoughts on news and events, even though it's not "mainstream".
yes i realise wat i said will probably never happen... lol its a fantasy world... but really thats how it should be. but wat i really mean is that they shouldnt just be doing it to make lots of money... enough money to support the show/paper etc but the aim shouldnt be money{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Umm, if that was the case newspapers would have died a long time ago, along with tabloids. And who would control the media? The government? That would put an even worse spin on the news.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
thats why people/corporations owning/controling news networks are stupid... the point of a news network shouldnt be massive profit.usmarine wrote:
they own the market. after all the end game is always money. so I would say they are on track in that department.
it should be to inform people, give balanced opinions here and there but to let the public know what is happening etc.
They may be on track when it comes to money, but i think somewhere along the line they took a wrong turn.
All news sources have bias, it's just that Fox along with most of talk radio have a right lean to them. They stick out to most people because today everyone is getting spoon fed left leaning news and opinions since they were in grade school. I think it's refreshing to know that other people share my opinion and thoughts on news and events, even though it's not "mainstream".
That makes no sense what-so-ever.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
yes i realise wat i said will probably never happen... lol its a fantasy world... but really thats how it should be. but wat i really mean is that they shouldnt just be doing it to make lots of money... enough money to support the show/paper etc but the aim shouldnt be money{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Umm, if that was the case newspapers would have died a long time ago, along with tabloids. And who would control the media? The government? That would put an even worse spin on the news.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
thats why people/corporations owning/controling news networks are stupid... the point of a news network shouldnt be massive profit.
it should be to inform people, give balanced opinions here and there but to let the public know what is happening etc.
They may be on track when it comes to money, but i think somewhere along the line they took a wrong turn.
All news sources have bias, it's just that Fox along with most of talk radio have a right lean to them. They stick out to most people because today everyone is getting spoon fed left leaning news and opinions since they were in grade school. I think it's refreshing to know that other people share my opinion and thoughts on news and events, even though it's not "mainstream".
Yeah.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
lol its a fantasy world...
*My opinion*
I think that most left-leaning people live in this fantasy world. A world where everyone worked for free, or didn't have to work at all. A world where all people just "got along" regardless of race, creed, nationality, religion, or skin color. A world where everyone rode bikes and were as green as possible. And most of these people are young.
I would love to live in this world.
But, yes there's the but, that's not how the world works. People work for something of value, money. People are greedy and envious of other people's achievements. People get angry. People hate other people for different views on many different levels. People want to control other people by any means. People want other people to agree with them no matter the cost. Some people are lazy. That's just the way it works, there's no way to change it.
So you think that the purpose of news media is to make money?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
That makes no sense what-so-ever.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
yes i realise wat i said will probably never happen... lol its a fantasy world... but really thats how it should be. but wat i really mean is that they shouldnt just be doing it to make lots of money... enough money to support the show/paper etc but the aim shouldnt be money{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Umm, if that was the case newspapers would have died a long time ago, along with tabloids. And who would control the media? The government? That would put an even worse spin on the news.
All news sources have bias, it's just that Fox along with most of talk radio have a right lean to them. They stick out to most people because today everyone is getting spoon fed left leaning news and opinions since they were in grade school. I think it's refreshing to know that other people share my opinion and thoughts on news and events, even though it's not "mainstream".
because wat i said is that the aim should not be to make money, but to inform the people. preferably without bias.
well i can tell u that i am probably under ur category of "left-leaning" and definitely under the category of "people".{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
*My opinion*
I think that most left-leaning people live in this fantasy world. A world where everyone worked for free, or didn't have to work at all. A world where all people just "got along" regardless of race, creed, nationality, religion, or skin color. A world where everyone rode bikes and were as green as possible. And most of these people are young.
I would love to live in this world.
But, yes there's the but, that's not how the world works. People work for something of value, money. People are greedy and envious of other people's achievements. People get angry. People hate other people for different views on many different levels. People want to control other people by any means. People want other people to agree with them no matter the cost. Some people are lazy. That's just the way it works, there's no way to change it.
i can assue u, i have no illusions about wat the world is.
as u said (more long windedly) people are generally selfish, but people can also choose not to be... why couldnt the news media work on the basis of being informative not rich? obviously the rest of the media is out to make money, but if news companies are taking under-the-table offers from companies or governments, how could they possibly remain objective? if they did not make these back door deals and didnt side with one party etc then news would be wat it should be... informative, un-biased (as much as possible) and objective.
and about ur fantasy world. of course this will never happen, but improving our world is worth trying, better than just saying "the worlds shit theres nothing we can do"
We aren't talking about the bias of other news channels. We're talking about the bias of Fox. They will point out special dispensations being made for the Muslim minority to subtly insinuate some kind of trojan horse takeover and then go ahead and point out some trivial imposition on a Christian (on a national network no less, local might be understandable) as if that Christian doesn't have guaranteed rights under the US constitution. That isn't balanced, frankly. You can bet they'd report a Muslim prayer room being granted by a public institution as bad and a Christian prayer room being granted as 'progressive'.FEOS wrote:
Because the other news channels don't "not report" things, do they? Unequal treatment of people within this country is only newsworthy if it's a non-Christian or a minority? The fact that Fox reports things that others don't is some kind of grand conservative brain-washing conspiracy and not just reporting FACTS that point out the hypocrisy of many programs and policies?
If you live in a cave your whole life and someone shines a flashlight in your face, you cringe.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-10 00:34:59)
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?SenorToenails wrote:
O'Reilly = commentary.<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Commentary != news.
O'Reilly is not a reflection of the news that Fox reports. He is a reflection of commentary.
What's the name of the channel again?Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?
Oh right. Fox News.
Conservative bias is also much easier to swallow.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
conservative bias is much easier to spot.
Last edited by Pierre (2008-04-10 01:12:44)
FEOS wrote:
Most liberals do.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I remember in one of my sociology classes the prof was saying that the liberal bias was a myth.
If your interested in US media (which extends to most other western coutries too) Here's part 1 of a talk on the topic of Corporate media. Someone brought up the point that FOX news says what it says because it's aim is to sell advertising, not to inform the populace is absolutely right. Most advertisers on tv news channels are huge corporations and are inherently against most left wing opinions, hence they never show up in the mass media. They won't exactly advertise their products in the middle of a report about how awful they are. The owners of the station are far more interested in the advertisers than the viewers and this is true for ALL corporate news stations. The corporate news by it's very nature will try to exclude the liberal left.
Fixed.PureFodder wrote:
If your interested in US media (which extends to most other western coutries too) Here's part 1 of a talk on the topic of Corporate media. Someone brought up the point that FOXall news says what it says because it's aim is to sell advertising, not to inform the populace is absolutely right. Most advertisers on tv news channels are huge corporations and are inherently against most left wing opinions, hence they never show up in the mass media. They won't exactly advertise their products in the middle of a report about how awful they are. The owners of the station are far more interested in the advertisers than the viewers and this is true for ALL corporate news stations. The corporate news by it's very nature will try to exclude the liberal leftmake as much money as possible.FEOS wrote:
Most liberals do.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I remember in one of my sociology classes the prof was saying that the liberal bias was a myth.
That's why MSNBC has O'Reilly's counterpart in Keith Olberman? Yet somehow they still sell advertising. And Chris Matthews. And Wolf Blitzer on CNN. And Christian Amanpour. And the chick on MSNBC who called Bush a "chimp" during her newscast. All fairly obviously left-leaning...most on op-ed type shows, but a couple actually line reporters who have obvious bias in their reporting. Yet somehow they still sell advertising to the evil corporations...which they are all a part of, anyway.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Chris Mathews
The point is (and these are some pretty extreme examples I'll admit) that the liberal viewpoint is so excluded from the media that people don't even know what the left wing viewpoints even are. Calling Bush a chimp isn't an example of being liberal, it's an example of being a dick. Listen to people like Robert Fisk and John Pilger talk about corporate news and especially the US (and the BBC too) and you might find out some things about the US media.
Wolf BlitzerWiki wrote:
Matthews said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... I voted for George W. Bush in 2000."[2] Matthews has been accused of having panels of guests that skew to the right by liberal media watchdogs [3] and of supporting Republicans in his own questions and comments
Not exactly great examples of the liberal news. To get any real sense of a liberal or conservative bias you actually have to look at the news media product. This was done in Manufacturing Consent, and it found the US news to be massively subservient to power (ie. business owners and the governement). There is a plentyful pile of cases showing just how far away from being liberal the mass media are. Remember that Democracts are miles away from being liberal. Watch the videos or better yet read Manufacturing Consent. Do the 'liberal' news stations regularly assert that every post war US president should be sent to the Hauge, tried for war crimes and shot? Do they denounce corporations and being inherently totalitarian and something that should be removed from society? Do they report that the US is seen as the most agressive nation on the planet and the largest threat to the continuation of the species by most of the world?wiki wrote:
"Territory of Lies is a slick piece of damage control that would make his [Blitzer's] former employers at AIPAC (not to mention Israel's Defense Ministry) proud."
The point is (and these are some pretty extreme examples I'll admit) that the liberal viewpoint is so excluded from the media that people don't even know what the left wing viewpoints even are. Calling Bush a chimp isn't an example of being liberal, it's an example of being a dick. Listen to people like Robert Fisk and John Pilger talk about corporate news and especially the US (and the BBC too) and you might find out some things about the US media.
FOX/FAUX has all the hot anchors though, serius watch it for a week..almost 90% of the female anchors are "doable", while CNN has hags mostly..I dont watch msnbc anymore so no comment.
the only good thing about cnn is larry king..the rest is crap, lou dobb's is a snore
wow.....just wow.Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?
It's a good point usmarine in terms of semiotics. Some inbred hick watching that with his beer in one hand and his pig's foot in the other is going to see the show, see "FOX News" in the corner of the screen and think this is the news. To be honest it all looks and feels the same, the sets don't even look that different. The BBC equivalent 'Hardtalk' at least has a different set, hardly any graphics on the screen and distinctive beginning and end title sequences to bookmark the segment and make it distinguishable from regular news programming.usmarine wrote:
wow.....just wow.Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?
you guys really reach don't you? its called product placement.Braddock wrote:
It's a good point usmarine in terms of semiotics. Some inbred hick watching that with his beer in one hand and his pig's foot in the other is going to see the show, see "FOX News" in the corner of the screen and think this is the news. To be honest it all looks and feels the same, the sets don't even look that different. The BBC equivalent 'Hardtalk' at least has a different set, hardly any graphics on the screen and distinctive beginning and end title sequences to bookmark the segment and make it distinguishable from regular news programming.usmarine wrote:
wow.....just wow.Pierre wrote:
If Bill O'Reilly isn't the news, then why does it mention in the left corner 'Fox news'?