So guys, Fox News. Biased conservatism or "Fair & Balanced"? Personally, due to the amount of inconsistency, contradictions, and outright falsehoods, I view Fox as a unreliable source of any news. They have a marketable niche that appeals to the (supposedly misrepresented) right-wing conservatives. Take the H1N1 pandemic for example, the misinformation presented by Fox seems like a ploy to further their opposition of Health Care reform. (suace) I would suggest taking a look through Media Matters for America before posting your baseless arguments about "mainstream media." (Another technique used by Fox to gain sympathy and validity)
lets look at it from a different perspective shall we? Conservative: Fox Liberal: (Insert ANY news source except Fox or AP here) Mix: AP Don't complain about Fox being Conservative. This is no debate. They may often have incomplete stories, but trust me, most news companies do as well. As with the majority of the world, they are looking for what will give them the most money by appealing to more viewers, so practically none can be truly unbiased. As for the Associated Press, well its a jumble of everything so it has no specific side but is not unbiased either... Don't think I am a Fox lover, I am actually so conservative that I often disagree with Fox and any other conservative
Of course Fox is conservative. That doesn't take a genius to figure out, just look at all the negative coverage they give the current administration and congress, and compare it to their indignant defense of the previous administration. But then, they only get the biggest spotlight on their bias because they were the first to figure out that you can get more viewers and thus make more money by not even trying to remain unbiased. Then they expertly manipulate the opinions of their most frequent viewers by using terms like "liberal media" to villainize the other networks. They tell their viewers that everybody else is biased, and that they speak truths, and through repetition people believe it. The rest of the networks are barely starting to catch up, but they're definitely moving towards a more open bias as well. As long as the news is being done for profit, it will pander to an audience in order to maximize its advertising dollars. Basically the goal in the modern news business is no longer to deliver news, but to make money. Delivering news just happens to be how they make the money, but it isn't the actual goal. PBS is the only non-profit television news source that I'm aware of, and thus it is consistently the only name you will hear given as an unbiased TV news source. Its actually pretty good, I suggest checking it out. BBC is pretty good too, I hear, but if you're looking at CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/Fox News for unbiased coverage of anything, good luck with that. I get all my news from Yahoo, Fark, Wired, and the Daily Show, so I award a resounding meh to all serious TV news anyway.
I get most of my news from The New York Times, not because it's unbiased but because it's arguably the best newspaper in the world. Still, it's much easier for MSNBC to argue with Fox News during a live broadcast than it is for a journalist to argue with another newspaper's journalism. Hence, the Times for me. If Fox News wants to appeal to more people, it should jump on the bandwagon and pick up a liberal slant. There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. The Democrats are less loyal, but they outnumber the Repubs.
Fox News has the highest ratings of any news network. They don't have to appeal to anyone. In Gallop polls, scientifically conducted polls, and just polls Fox News is always regarded by the general public as the least biased and I tend to agree with that.
Fox News is no more a news outlet than The Daily Show. It's "entertainment" at it's most fear-mongering worst, and the only thing they report on is how the other side is getting the best of it's viewers. My favorite part is when a Republican does something shameful and is immediately branded with a D next to their name. Beyond even that, having sideshow attractions like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly (who can't even ask hard questions to members of his own party) don't lend any credit to them as any kind of a real news source. It baffles/frightens me that so many people take this station seriously.
I think you meant most biased there, but if not then I have to disagree. Oct 2009 PEW Poll This is a Fox News Poll from October as well. Listen to the types of questions they ask the public. A few examples from the poll: 3. Do you think Barack Obama's travel and speaking schedule makes him look more like he is a candidate on the campaign trail or more like he is the president of the United States? 4. Do you think President Obama apologizes too much to the rest of the world for past U.S. policies? 5. Do you think the Obama administration is proposing more government spending than American taxpayers can afford, or not? 6. Do you think the size of the national debt is so large it is hurting the future of the country? 7. Would you rather: [ROTATE OPTIONS 1 and 2] Cut spending now so future generations don't have to pay Keep spending at current levels and let future generations pay 20. When Barack Obama was a candidate campaigning for the presidency, he spoke of the urgent need to finish the fight in Afghanistan, which he called the central front on the war on terrorism. Do you think that, as president, Obama is doing what it takes to win in Afghanistan? Link to Full Fox New Poll The reason they have the highest ratings is the same reason Howard Stern did so well. Supporters watch but so do opponents. Democrats tune in just to see what kind of delusional "patriotism" comes out of Hannity's mouth or what level of paranoid meltdown Glenn Beck will have tonight. It's hard to turn away from a train wreck.
To be fair (and bearing in mind that of course I don't live in the US so I don't have the same day to day, natural appreciation of US news networks, but still, I like to look in to it), I don't see anything near the level of blatant misleading and propagandistic crap that I do with Fox, specifically nothing even close in the UK news media (with regard to your point about the majority of the world). Now, I'm under no illusions that this is some matter of principle within the UK news companies or anyone other than Fox or whatever, but simply because people over here just wouldn't swallow such blatant, hypocritical and barefaced (not to mention childishly ill thought out) propaganda shoved in their faces on a major news network. Or rather, they wouldn't accept it if something like Fox news appeared in the UK straight off as it is now. I'm quite willing to believe that a network could work up to that if it didn't start off so barefaced, though I still marvel at how much attention Fox news gets when a good deal of what I see from it takes all of 5 seconds to pick apart as shoddy, baseless and pitiful journalism, even if you agree roughly with that end of the political spectrum. There have to be standards right? Or if no act of misleading organisation of facts, leading questions, avoiding tough issues or even all out lying is ok in the pursuit of political righteousness, why are the terrorists such bad guys? Any and all means, right? Oh and Nitrous, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. But if not, then that looks to be a mighty fine lobotomy you got yourself there, could you recommend me the surgeon? Bias doesn't necessarily mean direct allegiance to a particular person, but an agenda fixated upon personal political opinions and motivations of those running the network instead of, ya know, just telling people what's happening like the news is supposed to do. I'm guessing this was brought to mind by the recent South Park episode, which I thought was a typically beautifully formed mockery of the laughable state of affairs.
It took an error to show me how hateful you are. It's weird being on the other side of it. I meant most. I do, however, firmly believe that the media in general acted more favorably toward Obama than McCain and that Fox News was the fairest of all the outlets in regards to the election. That by no means, however, excuses bias during the election by Fox News.
The labotomy comment was meant in good humour since I honestly did assume you were being sarcastic. Though looking back, maybe I could have chosen my words much better with that intention, my apologies. Still, I don't appreciate having the moral highground taken on me. As for the bias toward Obama, again I didn't have the day to day perspective but even I would agree that there was a distinct bias as you say in what I did see of it. If I'm honest, I have a problem with the way that the US media in general treats the idea of news, it's just that fox news is by far the worst example in my experience (again, albeit limited experience). Also, I should make clear that by no means is this intended as an overall slight at the US, the UK has plenty of it's own problems in my view, just that the topic at hand is one I see as an issue particularly in the US.
Well, it all depends on your political views. i am sure you are a republican, and since Fox News represents the mean average of republican views, it seems like the fairest. on the other hand, a hardcore democrat might think msnbc was the fairest. if you REALLY know politics, you know that c-span is the fairest, which is why very few people watch it.
I agree that this is pretty much the way it pans out in many cases, but don't you agree that, as my point above was, this in itself is the main problem with regards to fair news? If it takes similar political views to sway one to one network over another, that's the problem right there if you ask me. The nature of news should be to inform, not to preach, and the place for opinion is not the same as the place for information. It goes a long way to confusing the barrier between fact and opinion on important matters, in a format which penetrates very deep into all aspects of society. Again, coming back to the recent South Park episode Dances with Smurfs, it was a nice dig at the argument of 'I'm just asking questions' which I loved, but I felt that the most important aspect of its satire was the whole situation of the morning announcements. The idea that a simple news bulletin to inform students of goings on is the place to start discussions about political opinions is just laughable. But isn't the whole point that using the actual news for exactly the same thing is just as laughable? I'm not saying that political opinion and discussion, even all out rhetoric, doesn't have it's place, of course it does, it's indescribably important. But that place is not alongside, in front of, or even (as is often the case) directly clouding reported fact. As I said, this is incredibly detrimental in causing confusion between fact and opinion in the general populace, and whilst I don't consider this a direct excuse for lack of thinking on the individual's part (I don't accept the excuse of 'the news said' for not thinking through your own political views for yourself), I still think it an incredibly underhanded and undeniably harmful use of the news. Much as you can say that people shouldn't rely on the principle of 'the news should be true', many are undeniably going to, and exploiting this is imo an incredibly low tactic employed by those who are unscrupulous in trying to thrust their political views on others instead of being content to hold them and instead try to convince in the proper places and with proper conduct. Now, as is probably implied, I'd class myself for general purposes pretty damn far away from what can be called, for convenience, the political views of Fox News. But my actual objection to what I perceive as US media attitudes to news isn't to what political allegiance is being expressed, but that one is being expressed in such strong fashion at all, and particularly (again, with respect to all, but particularly with Fox News in this sense) the conduct and ways in which it is being expressed. Now it does so happen that, as I said, my own political opinions are in direct opposition to those being expressed by who I see as the worst offender, and if I'm honest the very human part of me does leap on that with an easy condemnation of those I disagree with politically. But I recognise that this is a connection my mind has drawn through emotion, not logic, and so is not a point which bears being argued on in the slightest. A political view in itself is not debased by the conduct to personal ends of those who hold it, and again I agree that there are similar problems on both sides of the political spectrum and resulting spectrum within the news. But damn, Fox News certainly aren't doing the right wing any surface moral favours with their associated conduct in many important cases.
If you're going to debate Fox news and no other news outlet then I think everyone here has got it wrong. All news is privately owned and out for a profit motive. Media today does a huge disservice to everyone.
Basically my point, the wider problems with media are much more pertinent than any one main offender, though I still hold with the fact that calling out any main offenders in issues such as these can help in making the point of the wider problem clearer, as long as 'worst offender' doesn't cannily turn in to 'only offender' making it a vendetta and not a cause. But hey, who'd make that leap except the media themselves eh? On that note, I'd agree that a key point is that they are all privately owned, and we live in capitalist societies with nothing other than a profit motivated way in which to have the news conveyed to us in a media sense (though, that said, I think it's pretty conclusive that, whilst a state run media has its benefits in this sense, the actual motivation behind it and deployment of it in practicality has pretty much always worked out a lot worse than where we find ourselves now). This is exactly why the personal responsibility to think, to receive and consider rather than just absorb is so important, but as I said, there are degrees of these things, and the free market doesn't have to be taken as an excuse to allow exploitation of a format in a way that is so unscrupulously beneficial to some and so detrimental to others, a format which is a very important tool within society to inform, in principle anyway. I'm all for capitalism in this sense, foibles and all, but the market can still be held to account for the good of the society in which it exists, I'm certainly not for going all the way to anarchy and having a market unrestrained by a social body. As is often the case, balance is key, and imo I perceive many aspects of the news media as upsetting that balance too far.
We can both agree that Fox News is a horrible channel but can we both agree that all news channels are horrible channels? From my standpoint of general distrust of all media outlets, I felt, personally, that Fox News treated issues with Obama much more fairly than other news outlets treated McCain. For instance, people went crazy when McCain said "that one." I didn't feel that was a big deal and I didn't feel it was racist as everyone claimed. However, Fox News ran a completely false story of Obama being raised in a Madrasa. Also an awful excuse of a story. For all the terrible things that were said on Fox and done by Fox I think the biggest point of contention would be that Bill O'Reilly appreciated Obama's 'guts' (as in a ballsy sense). Meanwhile, Palin was lynched. The woman wasn't articulate, she was jumped by the media and caught off guard, comments about her being able to see Russian were thrown halfway across the world but the meaningful comments were lost. I saw a lot of wrong but there was some good in the woman which was completely lost. Granted there wasn't much good but there was still good there and it should have been reported.
Agreed, very much so. Much as I agree from what I saw, again that non-US experience comes in with a relevant sidenote. I'll tell you now that ammunition against Fox News is more commonplace in UK media than is true of it's rivals, not to the point of characture but still. I guess it comes back again to your first point. Couldn't agree more, don't get me started on the racist card. It's the tool of those equally underhanded residents of the left wing camps. I'm not sure I consider myself left wing, tbh I'd be kind of lost if you asked me to pin it down, but I do support Obama. That said, I loathe the militant left with a passion. They get that Thatcher was wrong, that there is such a thing as society, but they just make the opposite mistake in not accounting for human nature, that society does exist but is inherently composed of individuals, and exactly how crucial that is. I strongly support a socialist ethic in many key senses, but i could never call myself a socialist. As for the loudmouths taking this stance in the media, their arguments are as ill considered as their conterparts in right wing opposition, but they have the audacity to parade around under some ideal of modern superiority in their ideals. Ideas of social justice for all somehow turn in to 'we're the good guys, we must be right' even past the point of accounting for society being composed of individuals in their philosophy. It irks me something rotten, and this holier than thou attitude comes out in sometimes less overt, but very much more snide and effectively just as underhanded ways in news media. To be honest, I never even saw the slightest good, though the logic follows that this is actually more telling of your argument than in opposition to it, again the filtered perspective at work. Hardly instills faith in any circle does it?
Gotta agree with that one. Palin and Prop 8 were the only reasons I bothered to vote in 2008. Palin was and is insane. When it was just McCain v. Obama, I didn't really give a ****, because McCain has always stood out to me as an honest and principled man, but the choice of Palin revealed the 2008 McCain to be a puppet willing to do anything to win. I can actually pinpoint the exact moment I decided McCain was selling out to win and I can't ****ing find it on the internet(30 minutes now of searching and watching interviews) so I may or may not have hallucinated it. He was on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart asked him something along the lines of "where did the old McCain go that was a maverick against the crazy Republican base?" And McCain, looking entirely defeated and ashamed, answered "I don't know." Anyway, as to my opinion on TV news, I refer back to my original post. Fox is the most blatantly biased, but the others are trying their hardest to catch up to regain viewers. Its like I said, their frequent attacks on the "liberal media" paint the picture to those who believe them that they are the honest ones, while everyone else is lying. Repetition leads to belief, and Fox is very good at staying consistent with one message in order to breed belief.