GarfieldJL Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Split from 'Endings For a (Potential) Darfur Diplomatic Simulation' thread. --Jae No news from them should be trusted. I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted. Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting: 1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times. 2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS). 3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson. Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel. Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 Why does every thread turn into which media branch distorts the fact the least (or most)? CBS made a mistake. They also got rid of the persons responsible for the mistake. Why can’t they be trusted now? The producer and Mike Wallace are gone. I’d hardly call that ample, but if you feel one mistake is enough to make CBS untrustworthy for entirety I’ll give a few reported by Fox News fair and balanced reporting: That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges. 1. 2005 Fox News identifies a known terrorist home; the only problem was the terrorist had not owned the home for over three years. They even posted direction to the home on the website. The family was harassed and demanded a public apology. Instead of doing it on Fox News, Fox issued a statement through the LA Times. Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home. 2. Fox labels Mark Foley as a Democrat during a report. Not once, but three different times. I believe they should of known the Republican Rep. from Florida who severed in the house from 1995 until he was forced to resign in 2006. Seem they were trying to keep the family values on the Republican side and steer the mid-term elections that way or at least minimize the damage. (Sounds a little like CBS). I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican... 3. Ran tape of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan while talking about indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson. You mean this John Conyers? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/griffin.conyers/ And this William J. Jefferson? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196517,00.html http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/william_j_jefferson/index.html http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jefferson9jun09,1,5387002.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true Personally I watch Fox News about the same amount of time that I watch CNN and more than I watch NBC. They all make mistakes and there is nothing fair and balanced about Fox News. It is strongly slanted to the right and when someone from the left is on they do everything in their power to intimidate that person. My views are more to the center and I’d like a news program that reported the all the facts fairly without showing preference to either side. That is not the definition of Fox News, but Fox New is entertaining and I compare it more to a sitcom than an actual News Channel. There is a difference between making mistakes and incompetitence and/or slander. As far as humor, Fox News usually tries to incorporate some humor in their news broadcasts so that people have something to laugh about after hearing an hour's worth of depressing stories. Taking a commentary from any one source is not safe. It is a ways better to verify the story from more than one news agency. Then make your own decision, so personally I do not trust any of them at face value. My main problem is Fox News tells me enough to get my blood boiling, but when I check the facts they’ve only told me the worst part of the story and nothing about the other side. What they said was true, it just wasn’t the entire truth. I usually use more than one source online, TV is generally harder because of the fact that most cable television news programs get their news stories from the New York Times which is the most liberal paper in the country. So in television ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS all will have similar stories because they used the same source. I'm not sure if CNN uses the New York Times, and I don't think Fox News does either. Back to topic, there is no way in my mind that there will be a diplomatic solution. It's going to have to be a military one, however the US is too busy with Afghanistan and Iraq + potentially Iran to deal with Darfur at the moment. Otherwise Bush would have probably launched an invasion by now to end the situation in Darfur, typical cowboy diplomacy. To set the facts straight, the United states has no interest in econmically in Sudan we've had a trade embargo on Sudan for quite a while. If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 How many times has the weather been not as reported? We should press charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 That went beyond making a mistake, that went into slandering a sitting President of the United States, President Bush could have pressed charges. Against who could Bush press charges? Against the people CBS fired, CBS or the person that defrauded them into believing his forged documents? How is it slander on CBS part? They were deceived and ran a story without gather all the facts under the belief by a longtime producer and report that the story was true. Once the truth was found out, they fired the same longtime and loyal employees. Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home. It was the no longer the truth when you draw the people a map to the so-called terrorist house. I still hope there is a belief in this country that we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Source Fox News did not fire the reporter. This is not a simple mistake as police had to set up special protection for the family. Conyers Your link about Conyers still does not dimiss Fox News mistake. According to Fox News Foley Changed Party Screen shot on Page If there is a vote to intervene in Darfur, the United States would have no reason to vote no. Why should the US vote no if we are not sending troops as peacekeepers? No, Bush should skip his usual 2 month vacation in Crawford this summer and use the time and what remaining power and integrity the office of the Presidency affords him and the power the US has remaining in the world to achieve a collation to resolve this issue. You are right there will not be a diplomatic solution without troops, but with proper leadership we could get those troops without using American soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I doubt democrats.com is a reputible source when it comes to Fox News.... No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Can you provide a source for that cause I never actually saw that, though technically it was the truth though if true it should have been mentioned that the terrorist no longer owned the home. It was not true. The "terrorist" had not been in the home for years, and Fox gave DIRECTIONS to the house that was taken down by the police some time later. If Fox News wasn't sure or you don't know, that happens to be illigal. http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/08/fox_pundits_mis.html http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/26/17626381.php?show_comments=1 You mean this John Conyers? I don't remember calling him a Democrat, and I watched Fox News report it, saying Foley was a Republican... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffOhr9zo6o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTGVFn5sYW8 Fox Attacks Black America: Keith Olbermann shows O'Reilly mistake on Nazi history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AyF7_oN9kk I have more, but I can see right now that you are too far gone as a kool aid drinker to have any of this seep in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 No doubt and I never said it was, but the screen shot is true and that is all I wanted to show you. I saw it live on the air so I know Fox did this. You can also find it at about 50 places on the internet without the screen shot. http://www.democrats.com/node/10241 Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue. Furthermore True_Avery was kind enough to provide this, if you listen through the audio you'll find Ann Coulter talking about the Democrats bringing up Mark Foley. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbkz5AdlgtI Then MSNBC and Fox News don't exactly get along, I mean a really vicious bloodfeud situation. If some guns were thrown into the mix there'd probably be a shootout before the day was out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 http://www.democrats.com/node/10241 Uh Fox News uses a different color and font size on the little ticker that scrolls along the bottom of the page. The screenshot given in your link has a yellow font color, Fox News uses blue. It looks yellow in the actual clips that True_Avery just posted. Maybe Fox News changed font color since last year. When talking they either referred to him as a republican or a congressman, all I am talking about is how the labeled him on the picture which was as a Democrat. I'm not saying Fox News is terrible (like I said before I watch it too), but they are just as imperfect as the rest of us. The media tries their best to get the story fast and get it correct. Those two things are just incompatible sometimes and they all make mistakes. Fox News is not immune to this and neither is any other news agency. Personally I like looking at all sources of news including TV, radio and print and then making a decision. When it comes to politics neither side is wrong all the time, but they are not right all the time either. If Fox News is your preferred source then there is nothing wrong with that. It is about whom you are the most comfortable with and trust the most. I just hope you understand no person or organization is perfect and we all make mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 There was two things actually about the font, the font was too large in proportion to the screen, and the font was the wrong color. However in one of the things submitted Ann Coulter spells out the fact Mark Foley was a Republican. I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, they do make mistakes, however some of the mistakes people say they make are actually made up. As shown with Ann Coulter's statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I have yet to see someone give a valid reason not to trust Fox News, I've seen and provided ample evidence against CBS when I've said they can't be trusted. Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%. But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL. They obviously only appeal to Republicans. Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Look, man I really don't trust no news organizations, 100%. But Fox News bias, is obvious, GarfieldJL. They obviously only appeal to Republicans. Everybody should notice that when they watch that news channel. The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, A slight conservative leaning! What hell are they talking about? They have fallen over to the conservative side, fully. however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left. Of course, they wasn't politically biased to the left. About this left-wing media business. I don't trust no media, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Split from the Darfur thread since it had totally derailed that thread. This is THE hot place for all your News Organization Bias discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 No media agency is unbiased, because you'll never find a person completely absent of preconcieved notions. Part of this is simply due to connections to certain business/political/religious interrests and the subconscious effects of cultural conditioning; Slashdot.org news tends to be biased towards high tech interrests, as it is run by bloggers. All the major television networks seem (to me) to have a distinct bias towards the internet, as web news is quickly becoming a viable alternative to traditional newspaper and television media. Of course, this mostly effects individual reporters/media staff. For example, could Nancy Pelosi's daughter(who actually is a reporter) be a truly unbiased spectator on political events? In short, everything that you or I hear from ANY information outlet must be taken with a grain of salt, because everyone, no matter how fair-and-balanced they may claim to be, has an axe to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The one to really be careful of is the BBC news. Why? Because their bias is so insidious that if you aren't looking you can miss it. As Totenkopf said, no-one is trustworthy in the world of news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire. In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view. It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Bahahha. This thread makes me laugh. "This can't be true!" "Why not?" "The font's different!" Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The only unbiased news source I have ever seen was Crossfire. In it, 2 Democrats and two Republicans screamed at each other. Hearing two different biased stories allows you to see the world in a better light, combining the two biases together into one unbiased view. It got cancelled by CNN, due to lower ratings. I guess people like biased news after all. People generally like to hear what they want to hear. Elsewise, why did Sean Hannity get his own show, apart from the one with Alan Colmes, on Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Read a range of newspapers and watch a large variety of news channels, I'd say is your best way of getting reasonably unbiased view of what is going on in the world, regardless of what political alignment you cling to . I actually happen to have a copy of The Guardian right next to me now... and for some reason Boris Johnson has written a column in it. That and The New Statesman and The Independent suit my political ideals but I also force myself through The Times and The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum . Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The Torygraph to make sure I'm not blind to the other end of the spectrum . Plus, I think the cultural and philosophical columns in The Telegraph are well done - even if I don't agree with half of what it says. Provided the columns in question aren't by Bryony Brainless, I'd agree with that, if not the appellation Torygraph. In line with the Conservative party, perhaps, but not Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 The UCLA survey showed they did have a slight conservative leaning, however they were in the top 5 closest to center. They were also 1 of 2 media sources out of 20 that were not politically biased to the Left. One survey does not mean anything, has anybody else taken another sample and gotten the same results? What was the sample size and are you sure it was not taken at the last Republican National Convention? I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Fox News, but there is no way that I can watch that program and not find it slanted strongly to the right. If Fox News is down the middle then Rush Limbaugh is a liberal. Fox New fills a niche for those that want there news tilted more to the right and people must want that for Fox News to stay on the air. Are you talking about this UCLA study? http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 If so it only says that “Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.” It is not talking about Fox News entire body of work, but only this program. “The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.” According to the 2005 study these shows where more balanced than the Brit Hume program. Then study goes on to say “The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center…” That says to me t“Special Report with Brit Hume is closer to center, but is not saying the same for the rest of Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Anyway, I use CNN and the Daily Show. C SPAN maybe! I look at the Washington Journal: A news program where viewers call in and give their opinions on the day's news topics, the reporter at the desk talk's about. It airs 6am CT/7pm ET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 The UCLA study did not include opinion segments which are clearly labeled in Fox News broadcasts as such. They only covered what was reported news wise. Commentators like Chris Mathews from MSNBC's Hardball, O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes from Hannity and Colmes on Fox News all were not included in the study because they are commentators. The reason I find Fox News to be generally more trustworthy is actually quite simple. The "mainstream" media is pretty much entirely slanted to the political left. Going to just list American Journalism sources not going to bother listing what was actually surveyed just going to provide a summary so people get the jest, I've included the link to the study in this post. http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm Left Wing Bias: MSNBC NBC ABC CBS NPR CNN -- Some of their programming is extremely close to center. New York Times Washington Post Drudge Report -- Was close to center too Wall Street Journal LA Times USA Today US News and World Report Newsweek Right Wing Bias Fox News -- Was rather close to center Washington Times Because of this disparity, and the apparent dislike to outright hatred towards Fox News due to its success, the mainstream media would like nothing better than to bash Fox News. True Avery was kind enough to provide some evidence that proves this. Did they go after Dan Rather concerning memogate oddly enough MSNBC and NBC both remained totally silent. So Fox News has a bunch of people waiting to pounce on any mistake they make, as shown by True Avery. However the only media outlet that I know of in the cable media that went after CBS concerning Memogate was Fox News. The other news agencies didn't even report it, I watched NBC still somewhat at the time and it was never covered on their News program in the evenings, seriously a News Anchor from a major media outlet slandering a sitting President using forged documents is very serious news. However the other news agencies weren't covering it, they were content to bash Bush on various things but not blow the whistle on one of their own trying to slander a sitting President. However MSNBC is eager to go after Fox News, assuming the political party mixup actually happened on their graphics, over a stupid typo by someone in the tech department especially when in those programs the people talking about Foley say he's a Republican isn't anything more than a stupid mistake, yes they should have caught it, but there was no malicious intent. In summary Fox News constantly finds itself being held to a higher standard due to all the scrutiny they get from other media outlets whom are trying to find anything they can to discredit Fox News. The other media outlets do not practice the same scrutiny on each other. The only media outlet that seems to scrutinize them is Fox News. That's why I consider Fox News more trustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.