Fox news is good. We need more of it

[Jabberwock King]

I thought someone was trolling when I saw this on the threads. The ingenuity of fools is quite astounding, don't you think?

 

[Jonluw]

Now, I can agree that having a news outlet with a right-wing political stance wouldn't really hurt, and might even be good for the democracy...

Really? Because I can't. It's not because I'm left wing (I'm not) but what would be good for everybody, not just democracy, is a news outlet that has no left or right wing leanings, but is neutral and factual, and isn't as focused on making a profit via scare-mongering, sensationalising and just downright lying.

I'd agree to that too.
What I'm saying is just that I don't mind there being a newspaper or something that's run by a person who votes right wing, at least just to shut up those who are whining about the current media outlets being left-wing biased (I don't really think they are, but oh well).
My point was just that their original premise that there is too much left-wing bias in the media and they want to cancel it out isn't so retarded. But then they use that premise to say they want Fox news here...

A completely neutral media would of course be the best option though.

 

[Pinkamena]

God damn it, I don't want this. The news outlets in norway are unbiased, and I want it to stay like that.

Now, are they unbiased, or do they just fit your own bias? I doubt you can really tell.

I can't be certain, but the news outlets in norway usually never take a stance at any side in a case. They just report the information.

 

[DexterNorgam]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

 

[Stein Inge]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

I don´t know what you´ve heard but child porn is illegal in norway as well...

Regarding the "limiting political speech" point you´re making: The point is that they´re not limiting your right to free political speech. They are saying that trying to condense a complex political message down to a 30 sec video is detrimental to both the message and to the viewer, who would then have to make an important choice based on incomplete information.

 

[Yvl9921]

I am not a fan of fox news in particular but its so funny to me to see all the hatred. ALL news lies... its just a matter of whose lies fit in better with your chosen beliefs.

It's really more that Fox News' lies are much more obviously malicious fabrications as opposed to, say, honest mistakes.

Which really makes them no different from any other network, Fox, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN they ALL lie. And I mean LIE, keep thinking that the one you prefer is somehow different and better, and it only makes honest mistakes... lol

I can't speak for other networks, but the worst I've seen from CNN (And dear god I watch a lot of CNN) is over-hyping things for ratings (which to be fair they've taken to some pretty far extremes). I have a good sense for these things and I fact check if I feel something's off (for important issues that would affect my opinion of something at least). Fox, on the other hand, will distribute downright fabrications. You know, like the Mass Effect nonsense. Or the time they claimed they were the only network that covered the Tea Party movement.

 

[DexterNorgam]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

I don´t know what you´ve heard but child porn is illegal in norway as well...

Regarding the "limiting political speech" point you´re making: The point is that they´re not limiting your right to free political speech. They are saying that trying to condense a complex political message down to a 30 sec video is detrimental to both the message and to the viewer, who would then have to make an important choice based on incomplete information.

That's a bit Nanny-state for me. I don't need the government to tell me that a political ad, or a talking head on any network might not be giving me the full scoop. Yea, I know its illegal in Norway too, I'm just talking about people making the argument that it shouldn't be.

 

[Jonluw]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

I don´t know what you´ve heard but child porn is illegal in norway as well...

Yeah, I'm the guy he was talking about, and I'll just point out that what I was arguing for wasn't that child porn in the most generic sense (i.e. pictures and video of children) should be legal. What I did say was that drawings of child porn should be legal; since, you know, they're drawings. They don't hurt anybody.
Just had to clear that up so it didn't seem like anyone's trying to use free-speech to defend people hurting others.

But never mind that. 'tis off-topic.

I do agree with the "no political advertising" concept. Mostly because of what you say: A political party can warp the impression it gives off pretty badly with tv-commercials.
That, and it gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

 

[DexterNorgam]

I am not a fan of fox news in particular but its so funny to me to see all the hatred. ALL news lies... its just a matter of whose lies fit in better with your chosen beliefs.

It's really more that Fox News' lies are much more obviously malicious fabrications as opposed to, say, honest mistakes.

Which really makes them no different from any other network, Fox, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN they ALL lie. And I mean LIE, keep thinking that the one you prefer is somehow different and better, and it only makes honest mistakes... lol

I can't speak for other networks, but the worst I've seen from CNN (And dear god I watch a lot of CNN) is over-hyping things for ratings (which to be fair they've taken to some pretty far extremes). I have a good sense for these things and I fact check if I feel something's off (for important issues that would affect my opinion of something at least). Fox, on the other hand, will distribute downright fabrications. You know, like the Mass Effect nonsense. Or the time they claimed they were the only network that covered the Tea Party movement.

CNN fact checked an SNL skit...

Seriously, you need to shake this notion that one is better than the other. They are both nothing more than kool-aid dispensers, red or blue. I reject both because I've always enjoyed Mountain Berry Punch the most.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

I don´t know what you´ve heard but child porn is illegal in norway as well...

Regarding the "limiting political speech" point you´re making: The point is that they´re not limiting your right to free political speech. They are saying that trying to condense a complex political message down to a 30 sec video is detrimental to both the message and to the viewer, who would then have to make an important choice based on incomplete information.

That's a bit Nanny-state for me. I don't need the government to tell me that a political ad, or a talking head on any network might not be giving me the full scoop. Yea, I know its illegal in Norway too, I'm just talking about people making the argument that it shouldn't be.

Well, you could always just keep in mind that this particular station took the effort to go to court and fight for their right to lie on the air (and pass it off as "news"), no less.

I mean, there is lying. And then there is lying when it is very, very damned obvious (and they pretty much self-admit it with their past).

OT: For the record, the only news I ever watch is Global and CTV for Canadian News. American News I almost primarily find out about on the internet, of all places.

 

[Yvl9921]

I am not a fan of fox news in particular but its so funny to me to see all the hatred. ALL news lies... its just a matter of whose lies fit in better with your chosen beliefs.

It's really more that Fox News' lies are much more obviously malicious fabrications as opposed to, say, honest mistakes.

Which really makes them no different from any other network, Fox, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN they ALL lie. And I mean LIE, keep thinking that the one you prefer is somehow different and better, and it only makes honest mistakes... lol

I can't speak for other networks, but the worst I've seen from CNN (And dear god I watch a lot of CNN) is over-hyping things for ratings (which to be fair they've taken to some pretty far extremes). I have a good sense for these things and I fact check if I feel something's off (for important issues that would affect my opinion of something at least). Fox, on the other hand, will distribute downright fabrications. You know, like the Mass Effect nonsense. Or the time they claimed they were the only network that covered the Tea Party movement.

CNN fact checked an SNL skit...

Seriously, you need to shake this notion that one is better than the other. They are both nothing more than kool-aid dispensers, red or blue. I reject both because I've always enjoyed Mountain Berry Punch the most.

Did they actually say "This is real!" Or were they all "Here are the innacuracies in this SNL skit"? The former would be pretty bad, the latter is just silly and not really worth judging a station over.

Because, really now, if you think that CNN is as bad as Fox... that's blatently false, and I won't waste time on someone that deluded. ShadowsofHope here pretty much nailed it.

 

[Stein Inge]

That's a bit Nanny-state for me. I don't need the government to tell me that a political ad, or a talking head on any network might not be giving me the full scoop. Yea, I know its illegal in Norway too, I'm just talking about people making the argument that it shouldn't be.

You might not need that but there are a lot of idiots out there with the license to vote.

Another point in favor for no political ads on TV:

It gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Watching TV without having to see political advertising? God that sounds heavenly. It would be awesome to actually watch something without having to see some TV channel showing its' bias, it's the main reason I don't watch FOX or MSNBC, it's so blatantly obvious that it's hard to watch any of them.

OT: Sure, go for it. It's good for democracy if you want everything to be actually fair and showing both sides of an argument. I'm not too well read on how the political parties are structured in Norway (I guess what I mean is, what the political parties are there), but I don't see the harm in this.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Fox News isn't as smart as they'd like to believe, but they're not as dumb as we think they are either.

It's important to have more than one opinion floating around. Both sides make mistakes and it's up to the other to point them out, but that doesn't mean we should listen to everything Fox says.

I feel like if Fox dropped that Hot-Air-Bag Glenn Beck, their stocks and viewers would skyrocket.

 

[Yvl9921]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

A political party can warp the impression it gives off pretty badly with tv-commercials.
That, and it gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

The US Two party system is not a result of the media in any way, but rather a structural flaw. The "Winner-take-all" voting rule is the culprit. Other countries where minor parties are viable distribute seats in their parliament based on how many votes they get in the election, even if they don't win.

 

[thiosk]

People gravitate towards whatever information sources appeal to them. If you are apt to believe in conspiracy theories, you're on a lot of loose-changey websites, to be sure, and will consider all other sources to be symptomatic garbage spoon feeding the sheeple with memory altering drugs.

 

[Jonluw]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

A political party can warp the impression it gives off pretty badly with tv-commercials.
That, and it gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

The US Two party system is not a result of the media in any way, but rather a structural flaw. The "Winner-take-all" voting rule is the culprit. Other countries where minor parties are viable distribute seats in their parliament based on how many votes they get in the election, even if they don't win.

May very well be. I haven't exactly studied the field. My point is just that allowing advertising like that tips the tables pretty heavily in the larger parties' favor. I might have exaggerated a bit when I said it's what keeps us from devolving into a two-party system.

 

[Stein Inge]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

A political party can warp the impression it gives off pretty badly with tv-commercials.
That, and it gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

The US Two party system is not a result of the media in any way, but rather a structural flaw. The "Winner-take-all" voting rule is the culprit. Other countries where minor parties are viable distribute seats in their parliament based on how many votes they get in the election, even if they don't win.

May very well be. I haven't exactly studied the field. My point is just that allowing advertising like that tips the tables pretty heavily in the larger parties' favor.

Just for the record: Someone needs to watch what they´re doing when they press the "quote" button. The "It´s ironic to me that I´ve heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument...." quote is not mine. It´s DexterNorgams.
Just saying...

EDIT: This goes double for me! Dammit....

 

[DexterNorgam]

I don´t really see the harm. I´m a norwegian and I can´t stand the bastards, but the only people who will watch the channel are the people who vote for them anyway.

Besides: Norway has very clear and strict rules regarding politics and media. One example is that political advertising in the media is ILLEGAL (Try wrapping your head around that one America), so a channel as obviously biased as FOX News would have to tread very carefully not to cross the line.

EDIT: Political advertising is only illegal on television. One of the reasons is that the use of the TV-ad format will "flatten" and "dumb down" the political message. (The norwegian words are "forflate" and "fordumme". If anyone can provide a better translation, please do so)

Its ironic to me that I've heard Norwegians use "free speech" as an argument for all sorts of ridiculous things like child porn, for example, and yet they limit political speech. In American law free speech was expressly for the purpose of protecting political speech. Regardless of what the bastards on the hill have done with it since, that is exactly the speech that freedom of speech was supposed to safeguard.

A political party can warp the impression it gives off pretty badly with tv-commercials.
That, and it gives the smaller parties a fighting chance. Means we don't get stuck with a two-party system like in the US.

The US Two party system is not a result of the media in any way, but rather a structural flaw. The "Winner-take-all" voting rule is the culprit. Other countries where minor parties are viable distribute seats in their parliament based on how many votes they get in the election, even if they don't win.

Absolutely correct. The media is not responsible for the two party problem.