Jae Onasi Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is. Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 13, 2007 Author Share Posted June 13, 2007 The study only covered the news stories, it did not cover opinions sections or book reviews. The study does prove that Conservatives were right all along there was and is a left wing bias in the Mainstream Media. When I get my book by Bernard Goldberg back from the person I loaned it to, I'm going to site some specific examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Odd, US News had been considered the more conservative of the News magazines at one point, and I would expect WSJ to be fairly conservative since anything involving that level of money usually is. Chicago Tribune is the more conservative paper and the Chicago Sun-Times is the liberal one. It's very interesting to see how they both handle major events, and sometimes what ends up as the headline and lead stories. The WSJ is overall conservative, but the news reporting part of the paper is considered liberal. Overall I find they cancel each other out and make for a fair paper, put that is my personal taste as I'm conservative on money and smaller government and more liberal on our freedoms. I see bias in the local paper and news everyday here. If you were to only watch the local media here you would believe George Bush's approval numbers were still around 60%. Fox News is more to the middle of the road here compare to George Bush home state media. I have nothing against that as the population is largely conservative here, but when they report more on the Texas Aggies than the Texas Longhorns, well to be polite, that when I gripe. 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. Our Definition of Bias - Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference. [/Quote] By the studies own definition they are saying that the information presented by all the news organizations may be honest and accurate, so why should I trust Fox News more than CNN which got a closer to the middle score than Fox News? If as you wrote Fox News is watching all the other media outlets waiting for them to make an mistake, then are they not under the same scrutiny and have to watch what they do or say just as closely as Fox News? The thing I get from the complete study (from 2005) is most of the Cable and Network News shows were closer than I believed to the center. I’d really like to see an updated study since the country has gone so against the war to see if these numbers inflate both ways. The Commentators and panel discussion are a large reason I consider Fox News bias. It is one thing to have a commentary once a day or twice a day, but Fox News does it on almost every show. You can not separate the News from these commentaries without competent counter views, then this is blatantly bias . If you trust them and they share your views then by all means watch them, but please respect my preference to watch Fox News, but also get my news from other sources. All News is bias no matter which side they are on because it is impossible produce or edit a show, magazine, web site or paper and get all the news that affects their views/readers within the limited time/space. When limiting the information to the time/space restraints or when choosing the story they run or don’t run, the producer/editor is allowing there personal and economic views to influence those decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 13, 2007 Author Share Posted June 13, 2007 A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels. When Fox News gives opinions they clearly label it as such. CNN had a rather bad reputation when Bill Clinton was in office as being Clinton News Network. Also Fox News tends to incorporate some humor at the end of shows like Special Report with Brit Hume. Other shows read email they get from viewers. MSNBC has on Hardball and then Tucker during the time when it is prime time for the news. Fox News however has on their actual news programs at least that's how it is on Eastern Standard Time. Then there was the fact MSNBC had to devote memorial day to talking about prisons in the US, an entire marathon of it. Whereas Fox News covered Memorial ceremonies and actually had the news. CNN did rather well with the Republican debate, not quite as well as Fox News (partially due to technical difficulties). MSNBC's Republican Debate I'm sorry it was just plain garbage, it was more about how to try to humiliate the front runners and paint the Republican Party to look like a party of lunatics. My point is that Fox News is constantly under a much higher level of scrutiny by people that would like nothing better than for them to make a mistake so they can try to discredit them. However the other mainstream media outlets do not call each other on mistakes or things like memogate. Therefore I consider Fox News to be a better news source due to the fact they are constantly scrutinized by people whom are trying to find any little thing they can to discredit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 A lot of the Fox News shows have a panel thing towards the end of the show, however there are people from both sides of the spectrum on the panels Like I wrote competent counter views would be helpful. Getting someone to the extreme left is not what I consider fair, but even that does not balance the issue when Ann Coulter is on the other side. Also someone that has the personality to go toe to toe with some of those sharks would be helpful. Inviting someone to participate and then not allowing them to speak over your yelling is by no means fair. Fox News could be called the Bush network by the same token. Until the Debates take real unrehearsed and unapproved questions from intelligent voters from both sides then it is all a faux. Until the candidates outline a plan to fix our problems and stop telling me who to blame for my problems then all the debates are a waste of my time no matter how well it is choreographed. I thought you wrote Fox News was calling the other networks on their mistakes. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 13, 2007 Author Share Posted June 13, 2007 Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Actually Fox News did have people comment on the MSNBC sponsored debate, however they couldn't play very much because MSNBC copyrighted it and forbid it from being reaired. So all they could do was maybe play brief excerpts and comment on it. What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions. 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. Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 13, 2007 Author Share Posted June 13, 2007 What? I want to hear from the candidate and then make my own decisions, not have some paid political hack tell me what my decision should be. Why do I need someone to tell me who won when I watched the debate? What I was trying to say about the presidential candidates debates is that they are not a true measure of the candidate’s skills. What the point of taking a test if you already know exactly what every question will be? If they don’t all make 100 then they shouldn’t be on the stage under those conditions. I'm saying Fox News couldn't air more that brief snippets of the 1st Republican Debate due to MSNBC's restrictions on the debate being reaired. After Fox News did the Debate, they reaired it at least 1 more time that night also I don't think they had the same restrictions MSNBC did. Plus CNN when they did the debate partnered with one of the online video places so it could be viewed by anyone at anytime. Question, are is you saying that the screen shots and the clips True_Avery posted are fake, because they both show that Fox News labeled Foley as a Democrat on the screen. They did call him a Republican or a least say the Democrats were after him, but the label identified him as a Democrat from Florida (I guess that is why they call it balanced since they were half right), this is not a made up charge, it is a fact. I saw this live on television as it happen and again last night thanks to True_Avery. I'm saying it's suspect because the font color at the bottom was the wrong color and disproportionate to the size that is seen on Fox News television broadcasts. If it is the case that this actually happened, it was a goof up by the tech people, which happens. Another thing is if something like this did happen Bill would have appologized for the mistake, cause he has done so for other goof ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 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. Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Heh... I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Blair's dreadfully apologetic speech laying into the mass media? I will agree with him that The Independent is a "viewspaper" and not a newspaper, at the very least. Fairly typical of the slime, I thought. I don't like the Independent. It's sort of like the BBC, only without the threat of being slapped down if it's too obvious in its bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 13, 2007 Author Share Posted June 13, 2007 Oh that reminds me someone emailed Bill O'Reilly the other night about how the BBC wasn't covering the situation of this Station planning on airing the video of Princess Dianna's dying moments even though Prince William and Prince Harry were both outraged. Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't. Additionally I'm going to drag some universities into the mix as well. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun13/0,4670,BritainIsrael,00.html Israeli/Lebanon Conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html I really need to drag out my speech on media bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Fox News covered it, but according to the email Bill O'Reilly got, the BBC wasn't. Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 14, 2007 Author Share Posted June 14, 2007 Oh, well if an email that O'Reilly got said so... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/070606_diana.shtml I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 I was saying according to the email he got, that doesn't mean necessarily the person was telling the truth, or the bbc story came out after O'Reilly got the email, cause I don't see any date on the story piece as to when it was issued. However accurate the "tip" was, a broadcaster, or whatever he is, should know to check the sources before standing on top of a soap box and proclaiming it to the world. But then again... we're all human 7 June 2007 6 June 2007 6 June 2007 6 June 2007 5 June 2007 28 May 2007 There are many others and the dates are simply "last updated on" dates - so the articles are likely older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 14, 2007 Author Share Posted June 14, 2007 Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got. My mistake then . But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 14, 2007 Author Share Posted June 14, 2007 My mistake then . But I still think he should have done a little bit of research and offered his own opinion and insight into the matter - unless he did, in which case I'm blathering on about nothing... again. Well it was just email he got, someone thanking him for covering the Diana situation, and that person was from the UK whom in their email to O'Reilly stated that the BBC wasn't covering it, could mean they meant on television programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 FOX News is clearly biased, clearly misinforms its viewers, and clearly can not be trusted. As for giving directions to where an alleged terrorist had lived ages ago... if they really did that, that's beyond reprehensible - it's more reminiscent of something a low-grade tabloid or on-line stalker would do. Not to mention that it's very likely not a 'mistake' or 'isolated incident' at all. Other incidents are the almost totally made-up covering of the Swedish city of Malmö, which, if we were to believe FOX News, was a Hell-hole of violence, death and robbery because of its high Muslim population. In reality, only ,2% of the population of the area covered by FOX was Islamic, and the violence was in no way restricted to Muslims. The channel also stated Obama was a Muslim and never bothered to retract the statement. Finally, to end my short list of examples, a poll made by World Public Opinion indicates that viewers of FOX News have significantly more misconceptions on several important issues, such as WMDs in Iraq, than viewers of other networks. Source. Source: FOX News Channel controversies Oh, and there's a Senate thread on this already. Search 'FOX News' and it should appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 14, 2007 Author Share Posted June 14, 2007 I'm well aware how much the liberal left hates Fox News. As far as your source, world opinion.org I've never even heard of them. Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about, top that off there was legislation to yank NPR's and PBS's federal funding because they were getting into supporting the Democrat Party when they are both supposed to remain politically neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Uh that was Bill O'Reilly's mail section, where he reads the e-mail he got.And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 15, 2007 Author Share Posted June 15, 2007 And since I am absolutely certain he does not read every email that he receives, it means that specific email was chosen to be read in what is apparently a direct effort to mislead viewers. He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself.Because the topic appears to be FOX News. The first post states that you see no reason to not trust them, and it goes from there. When you discuss invading Iraq, you don't also have to add a disclaimer saying 'oh, but I hate North Korea, Iran, and every other oppressive regime out there, too!'. If I discuss evolution, I don't add a sticker to my post saying I also support the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity, and atomic theory. I dislike all media bias - as a matter of fact I'm quite irritated, quite often at the left-wing bias of certain Norwegian news outlets - but this thread's apparently about FOX News, despite its title. Nor did I ever see the report they're talking about You do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Also, just because you find bias in other networks does not instantly mean that Fox is an exception. I notice, Garfield, that you love pointing out problems with other news networks but still hold onto the thought that Fox is "Fair and Balanced." There is no such thing as a Fair and Balanced news network. And people particularly like attacking Fox because it is a rather silly and over the top news network. I know liberals, democrats, -and- republicans who all think it is a joke, so don't assume that it is a war between the liberals/democrats and all the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted June 15, 2007 Author Share Posted June 15, 2007 Oh so you're saying that everyone else offers the real news and only Fox News and Conservative Radio shows spew propaganda? http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-can-you-trust.html By the way, why has Fox News outdone all the other news outlets if people think it's a joke? Seriously, why did Fox News due a much better Republican Primary debate than MSNBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 He usually tries to get mail that are on both sides of the argument in question, I really doubt that Bill was trying to mislead viewers. What's really interesting is that people only seem to be going after Fox News with the exception of myself. I've been the only one to demonstrate bias in the other networks. Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be trusted, that guy's misdirection on issues is very apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.