Fox news: Providing a fair and balanced view? Balancing out all the other stations? Or Giving vulpines a bad name since 1996?
Why limit it to one media outlet?
So when the topic inevitably expands it expands into a legitimate comparison with other media rather than say, a comparison between sleep paralysis and alien abductions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty much think all American news is a joke, but that was probably expected. I think Fox does ok on its actual news shows, but the opinion shows are insane.
CNN is just weaksauce now.
MSNBC I see the same as Fox, actual news is ok, opinion shows are whack.
Network news is a complete waste, AFAIAC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have cable, so this is based mostly on the 15-20 channels I get over the airwaves.
Almost all new television has become unwatchable to me over the last 10-15 years. It started with every show having non-stop product placement especially for cell phones, but also plastic surgery, cars, cloths, and other consumer crap. If all that wasn't enough, the ads themselves became pure punishment. First it was the non-stop drug ads on CBS, but over the years, all the channels have become as bad. Then there was the writers strike, and by coincidence the subsequent rise of "reality TV". The final straw was the rash or crime dramas that make 80's slasher movies look like fairly tails.
The network news took a huge slide once Fox hit number 1. Rather then try to provide real news, they simply tried to be just like fox. But what do you really expect- they were owned by Westinghouse, GE, and other huge corporations (also arms manufactures). Their Snackey Smores March to War's and flag waving are predictable.
But there is some GREAT news out there.
Democracy Now is excellent.
Al Jazeera
BBC news (sometimes)
PBS can be good, although when the chips are down, and it really maters, they toe the line.
Various Indy media has its moments.
The best "Opinion" show these days is the Doha Debates. (I used to enjoy The McLaughlin Group, but they went downhill since getting to CBS) My dream is to get the presidential candidates in front of that moderator, and see who goes the longest before crying.
No. You did NOT just list Al Jazeera as a trustworthy news source. I may not trust American media, but those guys are no less biased.
Don't worry, I don't really "trust" any of them (except perhaps Democracy Now).
Can you give an example of why Al Jazerra is bad?
I see fox as attacking liberals more often than conservatives it is definetly has a more conservative slant to the news.
Fox news: Providing a fair and balanced view? Balancing out all the other stations? Or Giving vulpines a bad name since 1996?
Watch "SE"XBOX? then come back. Oh, and please find me that copy of Mass Effect she's talking about, it sounds so much more fun than the copy I have.
My point was that every newscorp is a lens that distorts the truth. Why discuss the filter of just one?
Because there's a magnifying glass with a few bubbles in it and then there are prismacolored refraction lenses that let you see only colors you're supposed to see while tripping on acid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News. His one, only and continuing purpose is to push free market ideology and 'conservative' positions in every case regardless of the facts, or safer position.
His organizations continually prove themselves to use whatever fast dishonest means needed to continue to fool whoever will listen to them.
I can think of no other network that has so many debunkers. There's news in there, but it's not journalism.
The most recent was the repeated "was he an OWS protester?" that kept getting repeated in every mention of the guy who shot the Whitehouse. It appears that he was just a loon, but it appeals to the confirmation bias of Fox's viewers/listeners.
Glenn Beck (not a Fox guy anymore, but still far right) talked about it as though it were fact. I've heard no retraction, but then they didn't actually say he WAS an Occupier. They just suggested it, then stopped
after it was determined he wasn't.
They went to court in 2003 and reasserted their right to lie and call it news.
I like al-Jazeera, too. I think they do a pretty good job, although I strenuously disagree with them about Libya.
I don't think I saw Russia Today mentioned, which is also pretty awesome. Also, I am in love with Alyona Minkovski.
I just wish that my internet connection was better--it takes forever to download anything on them.
As for any of the American news channels I see, yeah, they pretty much all stink.
EDIT: I mostly prefer to get my news from print, though.
Fox News has some usefulness.
My grandma watches it all morning for something to do. Staves off dementia.
|
If there so bad why are they #1?
You can call it any thing you want but when your rated #1 in cable news. It's not because you do a bad job.
As for opinion shows. There opinions and most are to the right of center, If thats bad why do they have some of the best ratings for cable news opinion programs?
Why do reality shows get better ratings than Firefly got? Why is McDonalds popular? There are many mysteries in this world.
I think it's the wimmens.
|
|
Speaking of Fox news, does anyone know why they decided to call it that. I mean, I know that fox can be used as a verb meaning "to fool" or "to trick", but I doubt the name was intended to actually say that.
Might have something to do with Murdoch buying 20th Century Fox and all of its subsidiaries.
Edit: But, you know, you could find that out with a one second Google search...
If there so bad why are they #1?
You can call it any thing you want but when your rated #1 in cable news. It's not because you do a bad job.
Sure it is -- the movie Jackass is all about that (as was the show).
It is easily explained in a Heinlein quote:
Decency is not news; it is buried in the obituaries — but it is a force stronger than crime.
No matter what you think of everybody else, nothing can excuse the wholesale lying Fox has accomplished. I don't think there's a single wing of their organization that remains unaffected by their agenda. To the point where it cannot be called "news." It's obviously entertainment.
Now, I agree that MSNBC is sort of the leftist version of this, but I also think it's clear that most of NBC's news organizations still manage to steer clear of their cable sister's influence. Likewise, CNN can sometimes jump the gun. But note that when they get something wrong, it is usually because they got it from Fox in the first place, or some other dubious outlet of information. And CNN does at least occasionally print corrections or retractions.
One of the funnier things about the crowds haunting CNN is that when an article seems to favor a conservative, all the liberals come out and start screaming that CNN leans right. When an article seems to favor a liberal, all the conservatives start screaming that CNN leans left. That might indicate that CNN is pretty much the only actual fair and balanced thing around, since it manages to piss everyone off. Though I do think CNN is not tough enough on some of the issues, and they often lob softballs to both sides in what might be a shallow attempt to seem fair.
(Note: CNN does get more conservatives yelling at it, but their work is thorough enough and is verifiable enough to cause a rational person to conclude that this might be because more conservatives are up to badness than are libs. After all, a conservative is more likely to say he hates immigrants, say he hates people of another religion, come up with a plan to tax the poor, etc., because that's what his base wants to hear.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think most of the 'bias' is a myth that has purposefully be perpetuated by Fox and broadcast radio (which is almost all own and run by the same guys). It's one of those, "If we scream it loud enough often enough it will become what people believe."
It's a purposefully manufactured meme that was intentionally spread over and over again by the same people for the same reason: Discredit everyone so we can drag them down to our level -- make them look the same so we all are crap.
No one cared when (and as) it is happening because, "well you don't have to like it but it's just this one small guy... not like he's nationally syndicated or like there's a massive group behind this." Except he was, and there was and it is still happening.
That's the part I hate the most about it -- the cynical purposeful and intentional dragging down of everyone for the sole purpose of making themselves look better by comparison.
Why not simply be better? Because it's the harder path.
And while they scream on they hope and wish that everyone forgets that they are the exact people they are supposedly screaming about.
Now, I agree that MSNBC is sort of the leftist version of this, but I also think it's clear that most of NBC's news organizations still manage to steer clear of their cable sister's influence.
Could you point out some of MSNBC's views that are
1) Half bat guano crazy insane as glen beck
2) outright lies, as opposed to a legitimate point of view, however wrong
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jeeze, Spalding. I agree with about 90 percent of that, but it could've been phrased more as a "I hope you'll consider what I'm saying and think about it next time you turn on Fox News," and less of a "I would gladly fling everybody on that network into a giant bag and sink that bag in a frozen river."
(Although that would be a giggle.)
A few months ago I got started on my leftist views with a mildly right-leaning, decent fellow who I was working with at the time, and he said, "Wow, you really believe in all that conspiracy stuff?"
& I replied: "I don't have to believe in conspiracies: I just have to believe in human greed, and the rest follows from that."
I'm in a mood what can I say?
Honestly I think the basic premise of OWS is right -- but that does not mean I think that the top 1% are evil villains.
I think it's simply a case of crossed wires, math being math and people not completely thinking before acting at the top.
I believe this is largely due to the unhealthy focus on profit margin growth, and unbridled capitalism in the past decades.
Capitalism like any economic system is much like the horse that pulls the cart -- you want a nice strong horse with stamina... but you don't want one that doesn't stop when you pull on the reins. Our current horse was allowed to run out of control and throw the people in the cart under the wheels in the name of making good time... unfortunately we now have to pick those people back up and nurse them back to good health.
Anything else gives lie to what the entire concept of 'compassionate capitalism'.
Now profits are needed, and growth isn't always bad... but unchecked growth also has a name: Cancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I agree that MSNBC is sort of the leftist version of this, but I also think it's clear that most of NBC's news organizations still manage to steer clear of their cable sister's influence.I think you are deluding yourself.
I like you, TOZ, but you'll need more than a dour looking avatar and a sour attitude to impress me.
I defer to my previous comment that if there appears to be any "liberal slant" to a recognized news source, it is because conservatives bring it on themselves by doing and saying rotten things.
I do not make reality. I just report it.
The Texas Board of Education can cry all it wants about re-writing textbooks so that conservatives can look nice too, sometimes, but if conservative pundits and politicians hadn't been such rat bastards for so long, they wouldn't have had anything to complain about. They are. They know it. They do their best to justify it. Then they cry about it when history calls them out.
But you know why everybody in my life thinks I'm a great guy? Because I'm not like that. Nobody will have to make excuses for me in my eulogy.
Now, I agree that MSNBC is sort of the leftist version of this, but I also think it's clear that most of NBC's news organizations still manage to steer clear of their cable sister's influence.Could you point out some of MSNBC's views that are
1) Half bat guano crazy insane as glen beck
2) outright lies, as opposed to a legitimate point of view, however wrong
I said they are sort of. I love Rachel, but she does sometimes leave some of the more inconvenient details out to prove her point, and she rarely does a retraction. I loved Keith, but as much as I enjoyed his rants, and often agreed with them, he also sometimes left things out, or took a few things out of context, though he was better at admitting when he was wrong.
I think their intentions were good. I think they sought truth and mostly used truth to make their points, unlike Fox, which is intentionally distorting and even lying, to cause division and delude folks to their cause. But in the end, angrily opining, rather than simple reporting, is still angrily opining.
I still think NBC, the mother news organization, is a good organization. But I fact check everybody, whenever possible. I consider that a wise practice.
|
|
Speaking of Fox news, does anyone know why they decided to call it that. I mean, I know that fox can be used as a verb meaning "to fool" or "to trick", but I doubt the name was intended to actually say that.Might have something to do with Murdoch buying 20th Century Fox and all of its subsidiaries.
Edit: But, you know, you could find that out with a one second Google search...
Okay, but just because Disney owns ESPN, they don't call their sports show Disney Sports. I would think that news channels would want to stay away from a name that also means tricky or dishonest.
After (at that point) 80 + years of Fox branding using the same block letter design, I'm pretty sure they thought people would think it was part of the same media group, and not think "bushy tailed, sneaky chicken thieves".
And Disney bought ESPN (along with ABC), a media company that already existed as a brand. If they had started from scratch (like Fox did with FNC), they may have well called it Disney Sports.
I see fox as attacking liberals more often than conservatives it is definetly has a more conservative slant to the news.CNN, MSNBC, etc. attack conservatives pretty much exclusively while praising liberals. But Fox is the one that gets called out for it?
I guess I see a big difference in how it happens.
I agree, MSNBC is mostly trash as well, so anything I say about Fox can apply to them as well.
Now, compare CNN and it's coverage in the 1980's with Fox today and I think you'll see a stark difference and I'm not just talking about production values and graphics. While there may have been liberal people on CNN and they may have influence their coverage, I don't think the level of distortion is as high as it is on Fox.
Fox regularly uses repeated phrases throughout all of their broadcasts. You'll see anchors, hosts and pundits all repeating the same phrases on a regular basis. Repetition is a recognized method for getting people to believe ideas, it has a foundation in psychological studies and methods. The more often you say something, the more likely people will believe it.
Fox news often uses itself as a source. Someone on an opinion show states something, 12 hours later, this is used as proof that the opinion is widespread on the news shows, even though you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream sources stating the same thing 2 days before.
Roger Ailes has been promoting the idea of a "liberal media" since the 1970's. He's used the concept in political campaigns and it's been picked up by other members of conservative media and repeated quite often. It's been repeated so often, that people often accept it as truth, even though there really isn't any actual statistical evidence to back it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I see a big difference in how it happens.
I agree, MSNBC is mostly trash as well, so anything I say about Fox can apply to them as well.
Now, compare CNN and it's coverage in the 1980's with Fox today and I think you'll see a stark difference and I'm not just talking about production values and graphics. While there may have been liberal people on CNN and they may have influence their coverage, I don't think the level of distortion is as high as it is on Fox.
Fox regularly uses repeated phrases throughout all of their broadcasts. You'll see anchors, hosts and pundits all repeating the same phrases on a regular basis. Repetition is a recognized method for getting people to believe ideas, it has a foundation in psychological studies and methods. The more often you say something, the more likely people will believe it.
Fox news often uses itself as a source. Someone on an opinion show states something, 12 hours later, this is used as proof that the opinion is widespread on the news shows, even though you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream sources stating the same thing 2 days before.
Roger Ailes has been promoting the idea of a "liberal media" since the 1970's. He's used the concept in political campaigns and it's been picked up by other members of conservative media and repeated quite often. It's been repeated so often, that people often accept it as truth, even though there really isn't any actual statistical evidence to back it up.
Sounds like this, but replace wikipedia with fox news and writers with news anchors
I'm pretty sure they thought people would think it was part of the same media group, and not think "bushy tailed, sneaky chicken thieves".
Weasel News?
|
|
I'm pretty sure they thought people would think it was part of the same media group, and not think "bushy tailed, sneaky chicken thieves".Weasel News?
Actually, that's my name for the entirety of the American media.
It's why I prefer German and French news services. Der Speigel and AFP are favorites. Brit news is too timid with their ridiculous libel laws (telling the truth can get you sued there!).
Brit news is too timid with their ridiculous libel laws (telling the truth can get you sued there!).
Britain's libel laws are completely insane, and everyone there knows it, and yet somehow they never get around to fixing them. It's unreal.
|
|
Brit news is too timid with their ridiculous libel laws (telling the truth can get you sued there!).Britain's libel laws are completely insane, and everyone there knows it, and yet somehow they never get around to fixing them. It's unreal.
Could be because most politicians are ex-lawyers and don't want to lose their income when they retire. But, yes, they are.
But as for insane things that everyone knows are wrong and never fixes, how is campaign donation reform doing in the US? ;-)
But as for insane things that everyone knows are wrong and never fixes, how is campaign donation reform doing in the US? ;-)
There are days when I'd rather have that than world peace.
Sounds like this, but replace wikipedia with fox news and writers with news anchorsI guess I see a big difference in how it happens.
I agree, MSNBC is mostly trash as well, so anything I say about Fox can apply to them as well.
Now, compare CNN and it's coverage in the 1980's with Fox today and I think you'll see a stark difference and I'm not just talking about production values and graphics. While there may have been liberal people on CNN and they may have influence their coverage, I don't think the level of distortion is as high as it is on Fox.
Fox regularly uses repeated phrases throughout all of their broadcasts. You'll see anchors, hosts and pundits all repeating the same phrases on a regular basis. Repetition is a recognized method for getting people to believe ideas, it has a foundation in psychological studies and methods. The more often you say something, the more likely people will believe it.
Fox news often uses itself as a source. Someone on an opinion show states something, 12 hours later, this is used as proof that the opinion is widespread on the news shows, even though you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream sources stating the same thing 2 days before.
Roger Ailes has been promoting the idea of a "liberal media" since the 1970's. He's used the concept in political campaigns and it's been picked up by other members of conservative media and repeated quite often. It's been repeated so often, that people often accept it as truth, even though there really isn't any actual statistical evidence to back it up.
that is the first thing I thought of when I saw that xkcd comic because it is true with things. The new black panthers, climategate are coming to mind with those kind of things.
One of John Stewart's standard routines is lampshading this particular habit.
Fox regularly uses repeated phrases throughout all of their broadcasts. You'll see anchors, hosts and pundits all repeating the same phrases on a regular basis.
Not entirely from Jon Stewart, but it's a fair example of Faux spin.
Then there's this one from Hannity. LOL!