How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Fox News   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Fox News

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


0 posted 03-10-2002 06:24 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Some of you know I've moved so I now am stuck with this 24 hour news channel -- I watch it and I admit it's entertaining on a certain level.

But sometimes it just makes me sick.

Its claim to be fair and accurate in programming is ridiculous (I shouldn't be angry at this as I've argued that words like 'objectivity', 'fairness', and 'accuracy' are often a smoke screen for a particular agenda. Nevertheless, I am. Go figure.). The right wing commentators are badgering thugs who almost never address the issues but constantly return every point to a litmus test for patriotism. The majority of Left Wing commentators seem inept and consistently look like they're drowning as if they hadn't really prepared for the Right Wing onslaught. If I were a conspiracy theorist . . . .

The overall atmosphere is one of a no-nonsense, get to the point, this is the way the world is approach and I suppose many find this appealing but the rejection of spin (a no-spin zone as O'Reilly puts it) is simply another name for spin.

Case in point, O'Reilly often says, "I'll give you the last word" is an outright lie. O'Reilly always gets the last word. His incredulous attitude to anything he disagrees with seeps through his pores and infects every question he asks. This is no attempt at understanding, it's an attempt to persuade the audience without having to back anything up.

Recently, he had a professor on who conducted a course on "Sex and Terrorism". He found this an unbelievable approach; yet, this is NOT a new idea. The connection between sex, violence, fear, and death has been empirically documented for many years. Where has he been?

And it was he (among others), not the professor, who pointed out that many of the terrorists may have been motivated by the promise of vigin women in paradise.  

On the Fox and friends show, a commentator argued that the recent articles on nuclear targeting should not have been published. He felt that the reporter should have self-censored himself. I think you can make an argument for this by the way (I disagree but the argument can be made), but how does one reconcile this with the Fox Banner "News you can trust." How do you trust a reporter who argues for self-censorship?

In a larger sense, Fox news seems to be a symptom of a greater American trend against critical thinking and for unjustified opinion making (you're entitled to your opinion, right?). Some of the letters are hilarious in their contradictory attitude.

Regarding the criticism of American policy by Europeans, the response is almost always, "Who cares what they think? We are the greatest country on the planet." or something like that.

But if you didn't care, why did you take the time to write those two sentences?

Brad  
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


1 posted 03-10-2002 07:02 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

At least Fox makes no real effort to hide its political leanings.  How do you respond to Goldberg's book?  O' Reilly is a performer much as Lindbaugh.  They have to be taken in that context.  The national mainstream media wants to insult the intelligence of the average person by claiming an unbiased focus of the news. Perhaps this is a possible explanation why so few people pay attention to any news source; left, right or allegedly neutral, as news is based upon entertainment value and not journalistic intregrity.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


2 posted 03-10-2002 07:04 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

as an afterthought, I wonder which type of news is more insidious.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


3 posted 03-10-2002 07:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

You had me with you, Brad, right up until the end (though I thought for sure you were talking about Montel or Rush at a few points). I don't watch much television, but I listen to talk radio whenever I'm in the car, and I hear this kind of "journalism" far too often. I vacillate between wishing I still had my cell phone, so I could call and correct their blatant flaws in logic, and being really glad I don't have a cell phone, so I can avoid wasting my time.

You lost me, however, when you generalized this as an American trend against critical thinking. A trend, I think, implies it was ever different?

Yellow journalism goes back a LONG way. The only thing I found shocking, and I'm taking your word for it since I don't really know, is that this is a "news" channel instead of your typical Jerry Springer crap. There will always be entertainment (sic) that caters to the lowest common denominator. It's just sad when it masquerades as legitimate news.

On a related note, I heard a prediction the other day suggesting network news is in its death throes. The cost of competing with the all-news cable networks is prohibitive, and although they still make a profit ($13 million a year for Nightline), they figure they could make a lot more with standard TV fare ($30 million for Letterman, in the same time slot).

The voices available seem to become fewer and fewer all the time.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


4 posted 03-10-2002 07:48 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tim,

I think my complaint with Fox is exactly the same as many with other news outlets. Rush, however, is on record as saying that he is an entertainer and I admit entertaining in short doses.

Ron,

Ha, it seems I've caught the nostalgia bug. Well, nobody's perfect.

More later if I can find the time.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


5 posted 03-10-2002 08:15 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

It is interesting you list right wing commentators vs. left wing commentators.  Do you have the same problem with the Capital Gang?  The McGlaughin Report?  Larry King?
Geraldo? They are commentators and they do not hide the fact they are expressing their views.  I personally think O'Reilly is as bad as Geraldo..  but at least he questioned the Red Cross, which I noticed with interest, CBS finally got around to doing tonight on Sixty-Minutes.  By the fact you watch O'Reilly proves he is successful. He hosts a talk show, not a news show.  If people want to read the Enquirer, then so be it.  If they want to watch cable shows, so be it.  I still feel far more comfortable with someone who does not try to hide their views rather than hide behind a charade of unbias.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


6 posted 03-11-2002 06:52 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I consider the American liberal/conservative divide a joke. So yeah, I do have a problem with those programs.

Hayek pointed this out a long time ago.

Saxoness
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 07-18-99
Posts 1176
Texas


7 posted 03-11-2002 07:41 PM       View Profile for Saxoness   Email Saxoness   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Saxoness

It's funny how I was just reading about this in one of my favorite News Magazines called the Citizen. This may or may not have anything to do with the points being discussed, but I'd thought I'd share a quote from the mag.

"Look, Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news.  All the networks tilt left....If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it." - CBS News President Andrew Heyward, as quoted by former correspondent Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News.  Investors Business Daily, Dec. 10, 2001

"Glory remains unaware of my neglected dwelling where alone
I sing my tearful song which has charms only for me."
                                

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


8 posted 03-11-2002 08:17 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Yes, Saxoness, I think your post does relate.
Brad, I won't even attempt to respond to your last comment.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 03-11-2002 11:00 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Of course you won't. You want to turn this into a liberal/conservative thing and I have the proof that they do the same thing. All's you have to do is watch Fox and listen to what they say.

News you can trust. Fair and balanced reporting. No spin zone.

But you've already admitted that it's a conservative channel.

How do you reconcile this?

Your conservative beef with the media has defeated itself by its own success.

Brad
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


10 posted 03-12-2002 12:10 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Rather quick to label me aren't you?  I didn't reply, because I found your reply condescending and not particularly insightful.  I 'm not quite sure what point you think was proven, but I am glad you feel it was.  How do I reconcile that Fox is a conservative news channel with the fact they claim they are unbiased?  I thought that was my point.  Broadcast news, no matter the source is biased; liberal or conservative. Was there some significance of attempting to bring Hayek into the discussion?  You are going to have to explain what the difference is with the print media. The Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal claim to be unbiased. They obviously have leanings.  It is not hard to attack O'Reilly.  Go to it...  kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.  Everyone I know recognizes that O'Reilly is conservative. The same people realize commentators on the left are liberal.  The danger is when the public is not aware of the bias and slant.  That is why I brought up the Goldberg book as cited by Saxoness.  It would not matter if the media was biased to the right or the left, the danger is as great. I might be well underestimating the intellect of the American people, but I think they can recognize O'Reilly for what he is.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


11 posted 03-12-2002 09:48 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't know how to read you any other way. Maybe you prefer to call yourself something else but the argument you're making is still a conservative one.

It's a conservative bias in that you feel we should point out a liberal bias in other media outlets, but I never brought other outlets into the conversation, you did. I was angry about something, I posted it here, and I tried to back up my frustration with a few examples.  Your point is that we must see Fox in the context of a liberal sea.

But I fail to see how that should lessen my frustration.

You ask me to bring in print journalism and apparently that I now have to defend their unbiased approach to news. Why? I never said they were unbiased. I'm not talking about them, you are. I think, as you do, that an unbiased approach is really no approach at all (Nagel's the view from nowhere) and if you want to call other media outlets biased, I agree. In fact, I can back it up if you want.

So, really, what's the point of discussing the Goldberg book?

Except to say something along the lines of, "See, they do it too." You may believe this or you may be apathetic about the whole thing, but either way it's conservative.

Literally.

Unless the whole conservative/liberal divide really is unsatisfactory in which case we're back to my earlier point that this dichotomy is a joke.  

You say my point is condescending but I don't see why. You seem uncomfortable being labeled with one of these two catch-all terms just as much as I do. I don't mind being labeled with other terms because I can at least agree or disagree with the description, but I laugh when people call me conservative (Yes, it has happened.), and I never quite know how to respond to being called a liberal ("Yes, of course. So are you," or "What does that have to do with anything I said?" or "No, I'm not that conservative.").    

It's a dichotomy that hurts political discussion in the United States by polarizing people when they really aren't that far apart.

It's a form of anesthesia for thought.

Brad

PS Fox news is the only English speaking channel I get right now.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


12 posted 03-18-2002 01:19 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So what do you have against the liberal conservative divide Brad?  What are you?  Un-American...

(scuze me... I hafta pick myself up offa the floor now Ize laffin so hard)

But seriously.. when was there ever such a thing as serious news in America?  Like Ron said...   regardless the media... it's always been about selling ink... air time... it all comes back to the money.. ergo.. the entertainment factor...much like the internet... were it not entertaining... who'd bother?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


13 posted 03-17-2005 01:32 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Well, I think it's plainly obvious that Fox News is NOT fair and balanced, and just about as biased as you can get on television news.

I almost feel as though because the particular conservatives that make up much of their main line-up are far to the right, and I can argue sometimes radically right, they have their own separate take on what a "liberal" is generally-speaking.

Gosh, where do I start here? I think Brit Hume is the best place.

Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting studied Brit Hume's Special Report between June and December 2003, and found out conservative guests outnumber liberal guests by approximately 5 to 1. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism, and found out 67% of Fox News viewers believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, compared to a distant 16% of NPR and PBS viewers. As far as the discovery of WMD stockpiles was concerned, 33% of Fox News viewers believed they were already found, compared to half of that from PBS/NPR viewers and listeners and 11% who use the newspaper as their primary newssource. Finally, 80% of Fox News viewers believe at least one of the misconceptions, and Fox News is three times more likely to provide these misconceptions than the nearest network.

That is serious, I'm telling you. That shows a stark contrast of ideology or opinion compared to all the other sources. And I find it reasonable to believe the more you watch the network, the more you believe those unique claims.

*

Everyone knows cable news runs fast and repetitive, so it comes to no suprise that 83% of its evening line-up features "talking heads" to address anti-liberal rhetoric. It's not about the news, it's all about talking about the news, and the stories Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. cover are all slanted to cater the ideology of the right and to mercilessly attack the left when it comes to political stories.

Fox News has a way too of making sure when liberals are guess on their programs that they are outnumbered. It's basically a mechanism to see to it their views fail to complete reaching the public eye; that if they start talking louder and expressing an opinion the hosts know in their mind to be right often, they silence the guest with the benefit of all their voices talking a once, thus swallowing the liberal guest's conversation in a sea of what feels like McCarthyism to me sometimes.

Patriotism floods the network too. With a digitized American flag constantly flying in the upper left corner of the screen, Fox News always places the United States in the positive light. The network's intention is to make the viewer feel patriotic for watching the network. The Fox News TV screen is filled with red, white and blue in both the text and backdrops. Thus, as parties out of power should always be expected to be the oppositional or intolerant party, when a liberal guest even has something as gentle as a disagreement of one of Bush's policies or such, the others hammer down on the guest and make them appear as unpatriotic, anti-American, pro-terrorist, etc. to their viewers.

You know that whole "fair and balanced" mantra? It's not even a motto, it's a defense mechanism that they charge like a drum machine. They seem to grasp at the psychological theory that if you keep repeating a lie like that, suddenly they'll become true. I watch an hour of Brit Hume's Special Report every week, and an hour of the O'Reilly Factor, just so I can see what they're up to then, and I have to say they're "bare and biased" rather than "fair and balanced".

*

Another thing I've noticed as of late is that after a liberal guest on "Hannity & Colmes" makes an argument that Hannity probably sees as strong, hannity follows it up, "Well, your party is pro-choice!"

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Besides the fact that this nation has pretty much always leaned pro-choice, and still remains more pro-choice, the pro-life and pro-choice labels really don't accurately describe one's complete opinion on abortion. Pro-choice doesn't make you cold hard pro-abortion, and pro-life doesn't make you cold hard anti-abortion.

(sad sigh and shakes head) There's just too much shouting and hate on the news networks. As much as I am disappointed in those who still support the war in Iraq, I don't go about shouting "Well, you Republicans are the pro-war party!". Because I know in my heart that it's not fair to use metonymys like that, and besides I want to resolve the conflicts without resorting to talking-head name-calling.

There's a lot more I can pull up about the bias of Fox News, but I think this is a good start and it's good enough for others to understand how as a liberal I couldn't disagree more with their "fair & balanced" slogan.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 03-17-2005 06:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Interesting that you would bring this up at this time, Noah, since just two days ago a poll taken and published in the Washington Post verified that there were three times as many negative news reportings against Bush than Kerry. You single out probably the only news agency that did not engage in the continual Bush bashing and say nothing about the rest...sounds like a little narrow-mindedness there. You want to comment on that poll? It made the national news and it wasn't a Republican-led poll. Anyone with any objectivity at all would have seen over the past years and especially before the election that the vast majority of the news agencies did their best to denegrate Bush at every opportunity....where are your comments and/or outrage about that?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


15 posted 03-17-2005 09:01 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Hey Balladeer, thanks for answering back! I knew that sort of reaction was coming! LOL!

Balladeer, I know exactly what you are talking about. O'Reilly mentioned it on Monday's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor" during his Talking Points segment.

Of course O'Reilly is someone who is most intolerant of virtually all liberal views and his general grudge of the left is clear, from comparing all sorts of progressive voices to Fidel Castro and the Ku Klux Klan, comparing Michael Moore and Hollywood celebrities to Nazi faithful, harrassing Jeremy Glick, calling the ACLU, NAACP and other organizations "terrorist" or "fascist" organizations, etc.

O'Reilly can say whatever he wants on his show. What I hear on his program makes it onto my own "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" many days, but he can go on and make those absurd allegations and they're not going to daunt me. But I believe both him and I know his program and the network he represents is not fair and balanced, especially noting the fact their CEO and chairman Roger Ailes was the former media strategist for three Republican presidents and former producer of Rush Limbaugh's now-defunct TV show, that his show generates a whole new type of spin, and he's only looking out for those who share his interests, and he should come clean on all that and just admit his program leans that direction.

With that said, I believe every media study is worthy to be looked over, but I have to tell you, I am quite skeptical about this Project for Excellence in Journalism study (affiliated with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism).

First of all, those who conducted the study admitted themselves there wasn't proof for the contention that reporting in general about Iraq was overwhelmingly negative.

Secondly, if you were using that study to defend Fox News, just look at the study. It reveals itself Fox News, through reports from 16 newspapers, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable news programs and nine Web sites in 2004, still conducted positive stories about the war in Iraq 38 percent of the time., with only 14 percent negative coverage. Compare that with CNN and MSNBC, which their positive-to-negative numbers (CNN: 20-23, MSNBC 16-17) are quite close together.

In fact, that finding even proves further that Fox news is slanted. Observe how the positive/negative numbers are pretty well balanced on CNN and MSNBC, while on Fox News the positive-negative coverage ratio is nearly 3 to 1.

Those at Fox News keep insisting there's a massive liberal bias in the newspapers as well, but I have to tell you, 31% negative to 23% positive is not far off, especially if you were to insist all the major newspapers tilt left or extreme left. That leaves me with the impression that either the whole "liberal press" thing is simply a myth, or the "liberal press" simply isn't serving their general interest, and I happen to believe in the former. I myself believe there certainly are liberal newspapers like the New York Times and the LA Times, but there are quite a lot of newspapers for more conservative interests, especially the Washington Times.

Finally, I wonder if that study bothered to include the massive negative ad campaign that the Bush re-election team launched on Kerry throughout the year.

The Campaign Media Analysis Group found that the Bush campaign, from the beginning of the presidential campaign to June 1, 2004, had run ads saying negative things about Kerry 49,050 times, amounting to 75 percent of Bush's campaign advertising. Kerry, in contrast, in that same time frame, ran negative ads against Bush 13,336 times, or just 27 percent of his total.

And that was before the Swift Boat ad crusade.

After the 2004 election, the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project found in their study that the Bush campaign and its allies ran more than 101,000 anti-Kerry "attack" or negative ads, more than the combined total of "positive" and "contrast" ads.

*

*

Actually, I am glad you brought that up as well, for I have another recent finding to share that I find interesting, regarding the so-called "liberal media bias".

A Media Matters for America analysis last week compared the coverage of controversial comments made by two Republicans and two Democrats:

Senator Robert Byrd: (D-WV)
Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley: (D)
Senator Lindsey Graham: (R-SC)
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R)


The study found that the controversial comments Byrd made regarding the filibuster and the comments O'Malley made in invoking the 9-11 terrorist attacks in discussing the Bush administration's proposed 2006 budget received far more press exposure than the comments Lindsey Graham made about South Carolina not yet getting over the abolition of slavery and Mitch Daniels' comments of invoking a "car-bombing" when criticizing Indiana Democrats.

The study revealed that Byrd's comment made it to most cable news programs and Associated Press articles among other sources between March 1-6, while Graham's only made it to the National Journal's CongressDaily, Inside Politics, Roll Call and The White House Bulletin between March 7-9.

Meanwhile, O'Malley's comment made it to a handful of cable news programs and major newspapers including the Washington Post, while Daniels' comment was only exposed across a few associated Press articles and newspapers in Kentucky and Indiana.

*

*

Now, this is just one comparison and it shouldn't speak for the position the media takes in general, but I think the bottom line here is that the media is obviously failing us both. In my opinion, I feel the corporate media generally-speaking leans more right, because there is not ONE progressive host on the major news networks or the cable news networks, but it's also pretty accurate to say it doesn't lean either way in many cases, it's all just simply washed-down and defective. It is failing to satisfy either of our needs, when 63% of our news is all recycled material, when our headlines are flooding with stories on Michael Jackson and such (A CNN poll revealed 89% would not be following the Michael Jackson trial, 81% in a Fox News poll said the same thing) that a unanimous majority don't want to see, and so many important subjects that a majority of Americans believe are important like the environment are rarely ever publicized.

THAT'S exactly why the "blog" has been accelerating as a source where dissatisfied Americans get their news now (even while most are unfamiliar what a blog is), young Americans turn to Comedy Central and Dennis Miller, etc, and why, meanwhile, the numbers who read the national newspapers have dwindled. There's many who are curious and want to try to locate international papers like myself.

*

*

I truly believe you are yearning ever so much to hear more positive news about the war in the Middle East just as I long to see at least one progressive host start a new show on one of the major networks and discuss things like peaceful diplomacy, sustainability, ecological wisdom, corporate accountability and instating a living wage for all Americans.

And I respect your desires. I confidently believe we both desire just that; a cultural media designed more in the form of a forum, where the megaphone is restricted to what I like to call "officialdom". We've got to be more independent again.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 03-17-2005 10:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Patriotism floods the network too. With a digitized American flag constantly flying in the upper left corner of the screen, Fox News always places the United States in the positive light.

Well, by all means, Noah, let's get Fox off the air! Imagine! Displaying patriotism! Placing the United States in a positive light! How dastardly is that??? What are they thinking??

he network's intention is to make the viewer feel patriotic for watching the network.

Interesting how you personally know their intention, not your opinion but you KNOW. So then if a church displays the cross, are they doing it so that you will feel religious in THEIR church? If their displaying the flag causes you to think of conspiracies or brings up defensive feeling in you, then I suggest you do a little self-examination of your motives. Can't you see that people exactly like you are responsible for getting Bush re-elected? People, even liberals, got tired of the bashing, tired of people nit-picking and twisting everything they could find in order to criticize...and Bush got re-elected. There was a large billboard alongside the road on the way to the Oscars (which was not shown on any of the network stations) which had pictures of Michael Moore, Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and others and the sign read "Four More Years - Thank you, Hollywood!"

I feel assured that if Dan Rather had been working for Fox and gotten the axe for the sleaziness he tried to pull - but against Kerry - you would be having a field day with it....yet I don't recall you having said anything about his tactics - even though he was fired by his own network for going so far over the line.

So keep it up - keep nit-picking, criticizing, badmouthing everything anti-liberal and we can be sure that the conservatives will remain in power for a very long time....voted in by people tired of the constant critical rhetoric, the ones who prefer to think of the United Sates in a positive light, the same one you criticize Fox for using.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 03-18-2005 01:05 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... Washington Post verified that there were three times as many negative news reportings against Bush than Kerry.

By itself, Mike, that observation doesn’t necessarily show bias. Would you be terribly surprised if they counted and discovered Bush had ten times as many negative news reportings as Saddam did? And probably ten thousand times as many negative news items as my neighbor down the street did?

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. 'Benjamin Disraeli' (1804-81)
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


18 posted 03-18-2005 03:13 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Well, by all means, Noah, let's get Fox off the air! Imagine! Displaying patriotism! Placing the United States in a positive light! How dastardly is that??? What are they thinking??

I believe you are missing the significance I was addressing there.

I believe it is a wonderful thing to love your country and what it has to offer.

The problem here is the patriotic theme runs through their entire line-up, which a bulk of it is right-wing commentary. And they allign all their major politically-themed stories against Democrats and liberals. Then, when they do that guest commentary thing I was mentioning earlier about where they always see to it there's more right-wing guests than left-wing guests and work to defame or reveal that guest and the party that guests represents in a minority or heretical light, it is done so in a way often to make them appear unpatriotic, unAmerican, pro-terrorist, etc.

THAT's the problem I have with the theme; it's being used in a political purpose.

I myself also believe that love shouldn't stop at the nation's border, I believe it is far more inspiring to be a world patriot.

I think it's a huge problem when this network is obviously anti-U.N, anti-France, and they also pay little or no attention to international headlines and provide a diverse understanding of what's happening in the world, especially when Fox News has been covering Iraq frequently.

Patriotism truly is a wonderful thing when moderated. But when you play games with it, it truly is the "measles of mankind".

*

"Interesting how you personally know their intention, not your opinion but you KNOW. So then if a church displays the cross, are they doing it so that you will feel religious in THEIR church? If their displaying the flag causes you to think of conspiracies or brings up defensive feeling in you, then I suggest you do a little self-examination of your motives. Can't you see that people exactly like you are responsible for getting Bush re-elected? People, even liberals, got tired of the bashing, tired of people nit-picking and twisting everything they could find in order to criticize...and Bush got re-elected. There was a large billboard alongside the road on the way to the Oscars (which was not shown on any of the network stations) which had pictures of Michael Moore, Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and others and the sign read "Four More Years - Thank you, Hollywood!"

*

LOL! I...got him re-elected? LOL! We didn't lose, Bush just won. His party was just more organized and better at pulling their base together. That's where I would absolutely agree that the Democrats are weaker than the Republicans; in organization. Still pulling out over 57 million voters, I have to say, is wonderful, and I know many who didn't vote for Kerry just because he was a weak candidate, and would have voted Democratic if they had a clear alternative, oppositional candidate.

Anyway, I doubt the ACLU represents the left at large than what Hannity and O'Reilly have been giving them credit for. I do not agree with the removal of that huge cross at the San Diego church. I do not agree with the re-naming of the Easter bunny just to make a statement aainst capitalism. I do not agree with Christmas trees and such being removed from public squares. And I certainly won't agree with the ACLU on those instances.

I believe that is a form of hypocrisy, and I don't understand or trust the current leadership there right now. The point I was making earlier was that while I recognize that as hypocrisy, for O'Reilly to call the ACLU a "terrorist organization" is incredible, it's an overstatement, and I just find it saddening how he can speak with such a condescending, McCarthyesque tone to everyone who just believes America would do better in reaching its fullest promise to the people, who have the right to disagree with the president's policies.

"I feel assured that if Dan Rather had been working for Fox and gotten the axe for the sleaziness he tried to pull - but against Kerry - you would be having a field day with it....yet I don't recall you having said anything about his tactics - even though he was fired by his own network for going so far over the line."

Hmmmmm, another attempted generalization by Fox news I assume...liberals watch 60 Minutes.

Balladeer, I have pretty much never watched 60 Minutes or CBS Nightly News. In fact, I haven't watched it at all since the war in Iraq began, and was pretty apathetic to all news before then.

From what I heard about him the day he stepped down as anchor, I believe he indeed took some courageous stands during Vietnam, during Watergate and even during Bush Srs. term. Courage and personality is probably what makes people like Dan Rather legendary in news.

But Rather is no hero to me. I can certainly agree he was a liberal, but not a progressive. And I really am not going to miss him either.

"So keep it up - keep nit-picking, criticizing, badmouthing everything anti-liberal and we can be sure that the conservatives will remain in power for a very long time....voted in by people tired of the constant critical rhetoric, the ones who prefer to think of the United Sates in a positive light, the same one you criticize Fox for using."

(shakes head)

Hasn't that always been the purpose of the party out of power; both to seek common ground with the party in power AND to play the role of the oppositional party and challenge or provide dissent to the issues they don't agree with?

I haven't lost faith in America, my friend. I haven't gone negative on America, my friend. I've only lost faith of the Bush Administration.

I'm sure if progressives were in power, you'd be challenging them just as I have been challenging Bush, and have your own what you referred to in an earlier thread as a "the sky is falling" mentality.

Certainly I'd criticize things you'd say and your attitude, but I would never see you as being negative on America.

Of course I'm negative on the war in Iraq. Because war is the most cynical option of all. I'm sure you'd be all negative if progressives were in power and they wanted to adopt a U.N approach in how we go about solving the problems in the world, in embracing the international community to come to a decision and such.

My faith and optimism in America shines on, my friend, make no mistake about it!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 03-18-2005 05:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Noah, I can assure you, in all sincerity, I would NEVER consider you negative on America. I admire your fervor and passion and I wish more people felt it....so you're a lousy judge of character - who cares?

Fight the good fight, Noah.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


20 posted 03-18-2005 09:52 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Just remember, Noah, that when O'Reilley called the ACLU a 'terrorist organization' was for one episode.  And that was when an ACLU lawyer who was helping an Al-Queda agent in court, agreed to pass on messages to his cohorts, which she did willingly.  Problem was, that was illegal, and against federal law.  So, when caught, she shouted out that it was the President's regime trying to stamp out democracy by slandering the ACLU.  Who cares that she willingly broke federal law by aiding and albeiting known terrorists by being the mule for messages?

She is a lawyer.  She should know the law.  She's with the ACLU.  She should understand the law and the Constitution.  She disregared both to help a known terrorist send messages to his fellow terrorists.  And she was not censored or called down by her fellow lawyers at the ACLU.  That organization really didn't seem to care about what she did.  And that's when O'Reilley said what he said about them, and on that aspect, I totally agree.  What she did is tantamount to treason, and she should be tried accordingly.  Her saying it's the Republicans and President Bush's administration trying to stifle free speech is absolutely ludicrous.  She's a traitor, and should be treated as one.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


21 posted 03-21-2005 09:33 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Fess up, Brad.  You only watch Fox News because it has the hottest women reporting the news.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


22 posted 03-21-2005 10:46 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, Jim, I don't get Fox anymore.

We have the BBC now.

Though Mishel Hussein is a cutie.

Uh, no relation to SH.
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


23 posted 03-22-2005 07:13 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

I bum around with my share of journalism majors, my older sister being one of them, and I've found this to be true---

ALL media is biased. All all all. People are biased in some form, and since media is produced by people, it's not hard to fathom.

It's nice, however, to see some RIGHT wing bias for once. One network--right... everyone else---left.

Hmm.

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


24 posted 03-25-2005 03:42 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Hey Lovebug, great to see you joining in here!

No, I certainly do not agree that Fox News is the only network slanted to the right.

Take MSNBC, for example.

Remember when Phil Donahue in 2002 returned to TV after an absence following 29 years of acclaimed daytime talk show personality, with his nightly debate-style program "Donahue"?

For many people, the show was a much-needed breath of fresh air on the cable networks, for antiwar voices were long kept off these cable news channels and were suddenly given a seat in the forbidden studios to take part in a national debate about the so-called war on terror. "Donahue" did just that.

And guess what? It was MSNBC's top-rated program while it survived.

Yet, MSNBC fired him because he was allowing antiwar voices and didn't want to have an antiwar face in their line-up.

Ratings had nothing to do with the program, which were very respectable. Not O'Reilly respectable, but they were still steadily growing until the show's final airing and at #1 for the network.

It's clear that Donahue being hired was all partisanally-driven.

First of all, according to Donahue, MSNBC became nervous and so they decided to laid down the rule that Fox News uses; have two conservative guests for every liberal on your program. And guess what? Donahue was counted as two liberals!

I mean, come on now. Those at MSNBC KNEW Donahue's viewpoints and perspectives from the past, they KNEW, or at least should have known what to expect in having Donahue on their programming line-up.

Donahue was great because he helped bring a certain element of democratization into television, getting the audience involved. Allowing them to use the airwaves that have belonged to everyone in the first place.

And I consider the departure of "Donahue" to be the single most disgraceful act in the history of cable news television. (O'Reilly's harassment of Jeremy Glick is second)

On top of that, MSNBC couldn't wait to hire Joe Scarborough shortly after his departure. I believe there's a very partisan edge to that network as well. And now they have Tucker Carlson coming to the network, who also has a right-wing bias.

*

On top of that, you got CBS, you got ABC, you got CNN, which all have featured more right-wing guests than left-wing guests by about a 2 to 1 margin.

The coverage of Inauguration Day, for example, featured 83 Republican and conservative guests on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, while only 20 progressive guests appeared on those programs, according to FAIR. During the State of the Union Address, Between 7 p.m. and 12 a.m., MSNBC featured eleven conservative guests and only two progressives, and four of the conservative guests were elected Republican senators (Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Santorum (R-PA), Hatch (R-UT) ) and no elected Democrats. Bush's communications director and former speechwriter were even guests, with the only progressive guests being Ron Reagan Jr. and Hilary Rosen.

I have to say, I tune into multiple news programs most nights to see how accurate the research is, and it's right on the button to me. Other than Ron Reagen Jr., there's not ONE progressive host on any of the networks, NOT ONE.

Keith Olbermann of "Countdown" I can agree slants more left, but I also find his massive coverage of steroids and baseball and Spongebob vs. Dobson an eyesore. In other words, he pretty much follows the script of the day.

Chris Matthews of "Hardball" is at least tolerable of progressives and I respect how he handles the debates, though I believe in terms of guests it tilts to the right.

And I respect Lou Dobbs for doing what no other mainstream program will; cover the exportation of American jobs overseas and such in his regular segment to his program. Otherwise, he follows the same corporate script too though.

And after all that, all I see is a massive partisan slant in our media.

*

What I find especially sad most of all is even when we have more channels than ever before, even when we have digital cable and satellite television now, yet, they're all swinging from the same corporate pendulum.

Wherever you channel-surf, everywhere they're advertising the bow-flex machine, Merck pharmaceuticals or what-not. And everything is being held up by the likes of General Electric, Disney and Viacom. The MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft. Bill and Melinda Gates hired Michael Savage right after Doanhue was cancelled. You do the math and you can see all the troubles of cross-promotion and partisan binding.

*

Fortunately I live in a community that takes great pride in community media. And I get "Democracy Now!" on Channel 23, a Multonmah Community Television station, which is the single best progressive news program.

Unfortunately, so many U.S communities are not as privileged to have access to these community-driven, alternative programming. And that's a serious problem, it's an emergency, when anyone doesn't have access to what they want to hear, whether out of curiousity or they can really relate to these voices more than they can from the megaphone of "officialdom".

I've been volunteering for KBOO Community Radio as well to promote some grassroots news to the public. They aren't funded by corporate interests, it's all by regular community citizens, and to see some unprecedented numbers of contributions come to the station this week during their annual pledge drive, that really means something. That really shows how dependent everyone is on this diversity, this alternative megaphone.

*

The bottom line is I think we need to return to the golden years of democracy in media like from the 1940's to the 1960's, when you could hear all kinds of local artists across any station. Our media should adopt that Donahue model, where anyone and everyone can have a say across both political spectrums. That sort of Margaret Mead stamp needs to be put back in place, that one that says "never doubt that a small group of citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that has." The corporate media I believe overlooks those who volunteer hours on the streets in their communities, and that sort of sense is in dire need of finding its way back to mainstream.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Fox News   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors