Poll: Fox news...
- Thread starter enzilewulf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am a Liberal Progressive and I know CNN is FOX lite... my interest is in the truth, thats what I want to hear. And it just so happens that right now the truth seems to be a "liberal" thing.lacktheknack said:
For example, FOX "news" recently said that McChrystal is a liberal and ran with it despite admiting the only information they are going with is that there are uncomfirmed reports that he didnt allow FOX "news" to be shown... yet they ran with it like it was undeniable truth. When the truth is that he JUST got fired for attacking the President and other Democrats, originally they were saying McChrystal shouldnt have been fired and that Obama was being too emotional (despite having specifically called him unemotional a couple of weeks ago) in firing McChrystal... Now they decided NOT to side with McChrystal and if they werent going to side with him he HAD to be a liberal.
Its ridiculous and they pull crap like that all the time, the only decent person on that entire channel is Shep Smith.
Never said Fox was the only one. I know they all are but FOX is just a little more crazier in my opinion.. they do more ranting than reporting.bl4ckh4wk64 said:
I think that's why people love Jon Stewart and sometimes actually treat him as a News Source. Him and Colbert. Not only do they call out other networks bullshit, but if they start lying about something or giving false information it's obvious. That's why I at least love their shows.Sovreign said:
As for FOX (can we call it Faux) News, I mean granted most if not all news is bias, but they just take it and make it in to an Art form. You can tell it from their demographic, you can tell it from what they say, you can even tell it from how they'll twist a story just to use it as an attack. It'd be a beautiful display of Marketing and Psychology if it wasn't so scary!
That's even without taking Beck in to account, I've never heard of someone who was so charismatic to his demographic that he can both motivate a crowd and spread false information about people and seem like a saint for it. ... well, nobody except Hitler. (They're like best friends those two, Beck can't go a week without mentioning him.)
I've said it here before, and I'll say it again. Fox News is biased, and obviously so. If you do not think so, I can almost guarantee that you vote Republican (or that you're not American). The fact is that the audience proves the bias.
It's also worthy of note that, say, by comparing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart with The O'Reilly Factor, more conservatives watch Stewart than liberals watch O'Reilly. And this pattern is not surprising for analysts of Viacom, the owner of the Comedy Channel, and Fox respectively. It also suggests clearly that Viacom is more centrist than left-wing. It's just that Fox is far to the right of centre, so anyone with a right perspective thinks that Viacom is left. (I can provide the statistics on this, if anyone is interested and requests. It'd be easy to retrieve.)
It's a directional problem, bias. You look at someone to the left of you, and you think that they are "left". But of course, objectively if you are both standing on a scale, that may not be true. They might be in the centre, with you on the right of that centre. The same can reply in the reverse, of course, but the thing is that there are further left sources than Viacom, whereas you'd have to march into the publications that call themselves - proudly - "conservative" to find ones that contain more of the quality than the Fox Channel.
If you think that a source is biased, it's probably on a different part of the spectrum from you. But this is not always true, especially for analysts who can reach beyond their own spectrum's perspective, as the facts in a news story (the bare bones) can easily be found and reported. If you only state the known and verified facts, then it's impossible to be "biased", or subjective, except if you choose a certain combination stories to report with the result that they promote certain interests.
For analysts, too, Fox is biased, as it sticks to a feature style of journalism that is too ready to deviate from facts and emphasise speculation which is often based in gossip and rumours. Since these rumours aren't often sourced, it's likely that they are generated and spread by politicians, activists and industry figures with special interests. So what is the objective quality of Fox, apart from as a publisher of The Simpsons? It's certainly not in the news.
I do suspect that microtransaction-based web news will fail magnificently, though. And a good thing, too. It's a stupid business idea.
It's also worthy of note that, say, by comparing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart with The O'Reilly Factor, more conservatives watch Stewart than liberals watch O'Reilly. And this pattern is not surprising for analysts of Viacom, the owner of the Comedy Channel, and Fox respectively. It also suggests clearly that Viacom is more centrist than left-wing. It's just that Fox is far to the right of centre, so anyone with a right perspective thinks that Viacom is left. (I can provide the statistics on this, if anyone is interested and requests. It'd be easy to retrieve.)
It's a directional problem, bias. You look at someone to the left of you, and you think that they are "left". But of course, objectively if you are both standing on a scale, that may not be true. They might be in the centre, with you on the right of that centre. The same can reply in the reverse, of course, but the thing is that there are further left sources than Viacom, whereas you'd have to march into the publications that call themselves - proudly - "conservative" to find ones that contain more of the quality than the Fox Channel.
If you think that a source is biased, it's probably on a different part of the spectrum from you. But this is not always true, especially for analysts who can reach beyond their own spectrum's perspective, as the facts in a news story (the bare bones) can easily be found and reported. If you only state the known and verified facts, then it's impossible to be "biased", or subjective, except if you choose a certain combination stories to report with the result that they promote certain interests.
For analysts, too, Fox is biased, as it sticks to a feature style of journalism that is too ready to deviate from facts and emphasise speculation which is often based in gossip and rumours. Since these rumours aren't often sourced, it's likely that they are generated and spread by politicians, activists and industry figures with special interests. So what is the objective quality of Fox, apart from as a publisher of The Simpsons? It's certainly not in the news.
Despite my Media Studies major almost being complete, I'm not so worried about this, since people will still want news from somewhere, and television doesn't fill that space enough. News writing will survive in all its forms, I'd say - it's just likely to shrink as a business.Fappy said:Sadly this is true. My Journalism major has been teaching me this for three years nowSleekgiant said:
The industry's future is a bleak one.
I do suspect that microtransaction-based web news will fail magnificently, though. And a good thing, too. It's a stupid business idea.
Fox news is Biased.
Nbc nightly news is Biased.
That's why I get all my unbiased news from Bill Maher and the Daily Show!
Nbc nightly news is Biased.
That's why I get all my unbiased news from Bill Maher and the Daily Show!
Yeah, being a Journalism major I hear about this topic far too often. We really just need someone to come along and create a business model that makes news gathering/reporting a profitable business with future technology. Easier said than done I knowSilva said:I've said it here before, and I'll say it again. Fox News is biased, and obviously so. If you do not think so, I can almost guarantee that you vote Republican (or that you're not American). The fact is that the audience proves the bias.
It's also worthy of note that, say, by comparing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart with The O'Reilly Factor, more conservatives watch Stewart than liberals watch O'Reilly. And this pattern is not surprising for analysts of Viacom, the owner of the Comedy Channel, and Fox respectively. It also suggests clearly that Viacom is more centrist than left-wing. It's just that Fox is far to the right of centre, so anyone with a right perspective thinks that Viacom is left. (I can provide the statistics on this, if anyone is interested and requests. It'd be easy to retrieve.)
It's a directional problem, bias. You look at someone to the left of you, and you think that they are "left". But of course, objectively if you are both standing on a scale, that may not be true. They might be in the centre, with you on the right of that centre. The same can reply in the reverse, of course, but the thing is that there are further left sources than Viacom, whereas you'd have to march into the publications that call themselves - proudly - "conservative" to find ones that contain more of the quality than the Fox Channel.
Despite my Media Studies major almost being complete, I'm not so worried about this, since people will still want news from somewhere, and television doesn't fill that space enough. News writing will survive in all its forms, I'd say - it's just likely to shrink as a business.Fappy said:Sadly this is true. My Journalism major has been teaching me this for three years nowSleekgiant said:
The industry's future is a bleak one.
I do suspect that microtransaction-based web news will fail magnificently, though. And a good thing, too. It's a stupid business idea.
I'm not from your country so thankfully I'm not subjected to FOX news. I do however watch them on YouTube from time to time. Every time I do I see overly conservative and religiously pious people looking down their nose at anyone who doesn't agree with them on topics such as religion, sexuality, and war. Not only that but I hear the dumbest accusations by people on the network like:
Atheists aren't capable of honouring the dead because they don't believe in an afterlife.
WTF?
They are bigots and what is sad is the network let's them get away with over the top hateful opinions like this.
If any news network had to be assassinated and destroyed I would choose FOX.
I will point out however that extreme left wing fanatics are just as bad. Being overly politically correct to the extent that WHITE MALES (the largest minority in the world) get treated badly simply because there isn't anything controversial about us.
Atheists aren't capable of honouring the dead because they don't believe in an afterlife.
WTF?
They are bigots and what is sad is the network let's them get away with over the top hateful opinions like this.
If any news network had to be assassinated and destroyed I would choose FOX.
I will point out however that extreme left wing fanatics are just as bad. Being overly politically correct to the extent that WHITE MALES (the largest minority in the world) get treated badly simply because there isn't anything controversial about us.
Hey! I dislike fox news and I vote republican(I just find the democratic principles on economy to be extremely condescending, and no, I'm not rich, my current economic situation stations me at poverty by the amount of money I make.)Silva said:
I'd like to point out every two or three weeks a poll like this pops up, and no one ever puts down "I don't give a shit" as an option. The media is screwed, the government is screwed, we're all screwed. Game over man, Game over!
Well, let me reword what I said: I don't mean that everyone who votes Republican likes Fox News - only the other way around. They attract almost entirely conservative audiences.jackknife402 said:
I'd say that not "giving a shit" is a sign of the very thing that we must fight against. Apathy. But I won't go on.
It's really hard to find a news site or show that doesn't have some sort of bias. The way they get viewers is by making the story interesting, and the way they make it interesting is by putting a political spin on it. Even sports news (I'm looking at you sportscenter) now has some bias; the reporters are in love with certain players and teams. If you don't want bias in your news, just read the headlines. You'll get what happened and not have to read whatever the reporter threw in there.
Fox News gets away with a lot of crap because it's not officially a news network, but so many people see it that way that it's completely irresponsible. It would be like half the nation thinking that the Onion is a real news network.
Fox News presents commentary as news. It is therefore a prime example of what is wrong with media.
While this is good for those who have little to no time for the news (and who are they, exactly?), I don't think that this is a good idea. What people need is a more critical (rather than cynical) approach to reading news, and the skills to pull this off in an objective manner. After all, only the main event is in the headline, not the sequence that created it.sln333 said:
Well said, sir.Good morning blues said:
Politicians are gonna fight eachother, it's like war, but with less dramatic results, ya know? If every arguement in the House or Parliment ended with one side dressing in the entrails of their fallen enemy, wouldn't things get done quicker? Less paperwork too.Silva said:
I was under the impression that CNN was left-center? I walked in on CNN tracing how assosiations with random people made obama a communist and therefore evil .. I walked right out, laughing the whole way! (what is the big deal about communism? I'm pretty sure the Cold War ended a while ago nyoro~?)lacktheknack said:
Yes, and with the factions of the intelligent having torn each other to shreds, the people who are too stupid to lie would become leaders.jackknife402 said:
Not exactly as ideal as one would like.
I think you mean "right-center" in this post.Demongeneral109 said: