How is Fox News still going?

[dyskordian]

Also, news media - Fox included - can't actually lie, or they would have a ton of lawsuits up their ass. That's why the media invented 'spin.' Everything said is technically the truth. They just make a big deal out of everything.

Not true.

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

"Here?s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC?s position against news distortion is only a ?policy,? not a ?law, rule, or regulation.?

So, Fox and the other gladiatorical cable news channels were given the okay to legally lie right around the time of the Iraq War?s birth ? when media lies coincidentally hit a peak in both frequency and severity."


So they sued for and won the right to lie and call it news. The other stations are just as bad since this is a legal precedent.

ALL NEWS AGENCIES CAN, WILL, AND DO LIE.

 

[Strazdas]

Fox news is the most watched tv network in US. thats probably why they dont shut down.

 

[Smithburg]

Me personally I generally watch stuff like BBC because they dont pick a side.

LAUGH

OUT

LOUD

WUT???????????????????????????????

OT: They are popular because they reinforce stupid views. Views people hold because they watch Fox News. A never ending circle.

What? They just report stuff, they don't give you an opinion on it, at least not of what I've seen

 

[Smithburg]

OP- you realize that all news organizations lie and mislead. BBC does it. Der Spiegel does it. Pravda does it. CNN does it. And on. The only difference between Fox and MSNBC in terms of lying is that not as many people watch MSNBC.

I know, Im not saying that it is any different for other places, my question is, how do they not get in trouble for these things? They get called on it, but don't have to do retractions or anything like that. As a news source you'd think they would be watched more closely for errors.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Me personally I generally watch stuff like BBC because they dont pick a side.

LAUGH

OUT

LOUD

WUT???????????????????????????????

OT: They are popular because they reinforce stupid views. Views people hold because they watch Fox News. A never ending circle.

What? They just report stuff, they don't give you an opinion on it, at least not of what I've seen

That's actually the problem right there. "What I've seen."

Bias exists in what you're saying, but it exists far more in what you're not saying. What you don't say speaks just as loud as what you do say. Say, for example, if they decided to not run with a story because it wont move people enough or that it's not a big enough deal. It wont generate enough people looking at it, so it wont generate enough advertisement revenue. That's their bias, but it can exist in far more painful ways than that. Political ways, in stories they don't report for their own personal reasons.

Now, I'm not here on a crusade to fight against the BBC. I don't care about the BBC because I don't get my news from the BBC. But you have to accept that you're dealing with human beings. Human beings that have biases, beliefs, and passions. They're not perfectly without emotion, ergo you're not going to get news without emotion.

You can pretend all you want that any news outlet is without bias. But you're wrong, because you're dealing with human beings which are inherently flawed and cannot be perfect.

 

[smithy_2045]

Because there's a considerable market for the racist, homophobic, ignorant bullshit that they peddle.

 

[SycoMantis91]

Because people rely on the news for their facts. They don't bother to fact-check everything they see. Most citizens have a "well, the news said it, so it's gotta be true" mentality. And anything false they report, they know the naysayers will just get overshadowed by all the people that have just been waiting for something to point it when they dont like said subject and say "that!"

 

[oktalist]

Spoken like a true non-watcher of Fox News. If you did, you'd know they're the highest rated cable network (not just news network). In case their viewers forget, they're keen to remind you every ten minutes. That would keep them on the air regardless of accuracy.

They're also keen to remind you about how the media is dominated by liberals. It interests me how people can simultaneously believe two mutually contradictory statements.

Looks like someone was playing Kadamari Domashi. This makes no sense, because the Moon has such a radically different surface than Earth.
Earth: 32% iron, 30% oxygen, 15% silicon, 14% magnesium, 3% sulfur, 2% nickel, 1.5% calcium, 1% aluminum, and trace amounts of other elements.
Moon: 43% oxygen, 21% silicon, 14% iron, 8% calcium, 7% aluminum, 6% magnesium, and trace amounts of other elements.

The amount of iron is to low and oxygen to high. If this Mystery Planet X formed in the same orbit as Earth, it would have about the same amount of iron and oxygen as Earth. Oh wait, the Moon was around before oxygen became so abundant on Earth. So its even worse than at first glance.

How the heck did this ever get onto the subject of theism vs. atheism?

Besides, working out the origins of the moon is science, not atheism.

Those proportions of elemental composition of the Earth are averaged across the entire planet. Different regions would have different compositions, so you would expect different compositions depending on where the impact occurred.

The amount of oxygen in the whole Earth (magma, rock, biomass, ocean & atmosphere) has not changed much. It has merely moved, from the rock and ocean, into the atmosphere. So I would indeed expect there to have been more oxygen in the solid parts of the Earth in the past.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

How do any of these sites keep going? Santorum just called Obama the n word and NO ONE is talking about it outside of the blogosphere. Just 'Romney's camp calling it a lock.' and 'Romney confident in Wisconsin primary.'

At least with foxnews I know what I'm getting. Besides their primary demographic is white dudes aged 55 and above.

 

[Flac00]

Alright, let me ask this, what would you have in place of Fox News?

I'm asking this because it's good to have a differing point of view other than something like MSNBC and CNN.

EDIT: I'm not supporting Fox News and I'm not a fan of that source, but I'm curious.

An actually "fair and balanced" conservative channel. Fox ignores all reality and facts, MSNBC does not.

MSNBC is a race baiting liberal news network. MSNBC "facts" isn't fact. Of all the news network they are rank in rating last. I'm surprise they still on the air.

MSNBC is biased in opinion shows, Fox is biased constantly. The difference is that MSNBC is a news channel with a bias, Fox is a bias channel with news. Neither option is good, but the way MSNBC does it is preferable.

Also, "race baiting"? What is that supposed to mean. You mean that suddenly bringing up issues that obviously have to do with the fact that we still have a country with a large amount of racist people means that it is "race baiting". I would like to see some examples you have of this because otherwise it sounds pretty hollow.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Because they are the only side to give the conservtive side of the story.....and I like watching Bill O'Rielly. Dont get me wrong, he shoots his mouth off sometimes, but other than that...

 

[dyre]

I've yet to see a news organization that isn't full of shit. Though, Fox news is a lot less subtle about it, so it's a little surprising they're still around. I guess viewers like to listen to loud people, even if they're loudly ignorant.

I generally assume the truth is somewhere in between BBC and Al Jazeera.

 

[Da Orky Man]

The actual journalism segments of the channel are completely fine because it's pretty hard to screw up reporting facts, though CNN seems to have lost the ability to do so without looking ridiculous (LOOK AT OUR TOUCH SCREEN WALL!!! NEWS OF THE FUTUUUUUUURE!!!).

The opinion/talk show parts are the parts people have issue with, and for good reason. But Fox News is nothing special in the news media world.

This really, most of the time it's a perfectly legit news source, reporting truthfully about important news stories, with maybe a slight right wing slant, but you'll find bias on any news channel, intentional or not.

Fox News has been running 24/7 for decades, and we have maybe a couple dozen clips where they lose the plot and go off on some stupidly biased rant. A handful of times out of decades of perfectly acceptable and accurate news reports.

Yes, don't believe everything you hear on the news, but that includes the people that call out Fox News as the antichrist and portray it as the next Disney villain, because they most likely have their own motives and agendas to push, and we can get so engrossed with throwing rocks at the monster in front of us that we don't realise there's an equally corrupt monster behind us handing us the rocks.

This guy's right on it. Most of Fox News isn't too bad. A right-wing slant maybe, but compared to Europe, all of America has a right-wing stance. It's the opinion guys, like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck who are the ones we ratnt about with good reason.

Not that they're actually much good. As many have posted on this thread, polls generally show that Fox News is just not very good at informing it's viewers.

 

[O maestre]

Me personally I generally watch stuff like BBC because they dont pick a side.

LAUGH

OUT

LOUD

WUT???????????????????????????????

OT: They are popular because they reinforce stupid views. Views people hold because they watch Fox News. A never ending circle.

i probably shouldn't poke but i must ask when has the BBC been shown to be biased, keep in mind that i can only watch the BBC world edition. Compared to CNN and Sky news the BBC seems to strive to be as neutral as possible.

i really need to ask for an example.

and slightly off topic but what is considered and un-biased news network, is there even such a thing?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

What are those ignorant conservitives going to watch?

I know a lot of people who like their programming that isn't the news, most of which I don't prefer.
Oh yeah, and this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glee_(TV_series)
Appeals to 75% of the girls I know.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Me personally I generally watch stuff like BBC because they dont pick a side.

LAUGH

OUT

LOUD

WUT???????????????????????????????

OT: They are popular because they reinforce stupid views. Views people hold because they watch Fox News. A never ending circle.

i probably shouldn't poke but i must ask when has the BBC been shown to be biased, keep in mind that i can only watch the BBC world edition. Compared to CNN and Sky news the BBC seems to strive to be as neutral as possible.

i really need to ask for an example.

and slightly off topic but what is considered and un-biased news network, is there even such a thing?

Need an example? 2 words, Glen Beck.
But yeah, No news is unbiased.

 

[O maestre]

Me personally I generally watch stuff like BBC because they dont pick a side.

LAUGH

OUT

LOUD

WUT???????????????????????????????

OT: They are popular because they reinforce stupid views. Views people hold because they watch Fox News. A never ending circle.

i probably shouldn't poke but i must ask when has the BBC been shown to be biased, keep in mind that i can only watch the BBC world edition. Compared to CNN and Sky news the BBC seems to strive to be as neutral as possible.

i really need to ask for an example.

and slightly off topic but what is considered and un-biased news network, is there even such a thing?

Need an example? 2 words, Glen Beck.
But yeah, No news is unbiased.

hmm What does Glenn Beck have to do with the BBC?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Same reasons the Daily Mail is one of the world's biggest news sites.

Lowest common denominator, and by its very definition, it's common, and reinforces the less pleasant thoughts and feelings people have, that 'everyone else is doing better than me and it's unfair'.

I still can't for the life of me decide whether Murdoch runs Fox News to spread his own opinion, or withholds his own opinions to allow Fox and his papers and TV stations to make more money. I'm sure I heard once from an insider that Murdoch would go lefter than Lenin if he thought it'd make a few more dollars however.

I do find it tiresome when people call the BBC biased, I watch Question Time regularly, and the news, and they tend to give everyone a fairly tough time whatever 'side' they are on.

I think the reason they're condemned as being liberal left commies, is that Obama is seen as centre right by most people outside the US, so of course 'balanced' is going to look lefty.

I think what Fox could really do with is some more charismatic hosts and anchors, the blonde one, Megyn is it? She seems to be almost robotic in her stylesyntheric flesh stretched over steel, there's one I can't name who looks just like the T-1000, O Reilly just seems to play the angry old neighbour in a crappy sitcom and Hannity is the smug football coach in a cheap sports movie.

The whole approach to any debate seems to be either get 3 people from the right to yell over the one from the left, or just cut the left guy's mic when he starts cheating by using facts.

Speaking of smug, tho, I've brought up in my other topic how much Bill Maher annoys me, even tho I agree with a lot of his comments, because he's just so damn smug about everything and has one of the most sycophantic audiences I've ever seen. He doesn't even seem to try to be funny any more, just says stuff then smirks thru a loud of whooping and cheering.