They give you Both sides of the stories.. not just one.
Impressed that for once I'm starting a political post?
[ September 02, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: unicornwhisperer ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Yay! Go Fox News! Fair and balanced! to liberals Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
O_o
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
¿qué?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Seriously though, I remember watching two reports on the same event by CNN and Fox. The Fox report showed Iraqis protesting and celebrating and made a note the celebrations were small. CNN just noted the protesting. I think it was Saddam's capture but I'm not sure. There are definitely some stories where I only get one side if I don't watch Fox or look for conservative columnists.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
There is a DVD out called "Outfoxed" which may beg to differ. Perhaps you might watch that?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
unicornwhisper now has a baby, making her husband automaticly exempt from the draft, Ryuko. So she isn't worried about Marlohzan getting killed in Iraq in the way she useta be worried at the beginning of the AfghanWar.
[ September 02, 2004, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a reason anyone should be worried about the draft, aspectre?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just wondering how much the people at FOX are paying her.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
*wonders if she'll ever be able to be a registered voter*
Stupid immigration offices.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:unicornwhisper now has a baby, making her husband automaticly exempt from the draft, Ryuko.
Um, no. Having a child does not exempt one from the draft automatically.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Being older than 27 does, though.
You've got, what, 19 years to go, aspectre?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So we've had two people questioning the motives of the poster.
I guess it's easier than attacking the substance of her post, even in this case where a host of people have already done their research for them.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In this case, I respect the intelligence of the poster enough to believe that she was trolling, rather than trying to make a substantive point; if she had intended the latter, I'm confident that the frequent posts we've had on the topic of FOX News and bias in the media would have prompted her to word her initial post differently, or at least substantiate her ridiculous claim more solidly.
Since she did not, I did not react as if she had made a serious argument; I respect her too much to think that she REALLY believes that FOX News is fair and balanced.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
The only way to receive fair and balanced information is to witness it first-hand yourself.
In light of the impossibility of that, it's best to compare numerous sources. Fox does make a good foil to the other sources at times. While they do have a conservative bent, they do pay a bit more than lip service to the fair and balanced deal. Might not be much more than lip service, but let's face it, none of the news channels are doing this purely as a public service.
And none of them ever promise "We don't editorialize."
Heck, here of late, it's when they editorialize that they get their best ratings. Hence all of the "talking head" shows.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Fox does make a good foil to the other sources at times."
Note: being a foil to a source you believe is biased does not make you unbiased.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And more registered independents watch Fox News than any other station. Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Why get your news from television anyway? 9/11 was the last political event it was an appropriate medium for.
The topic post was trolling? I thought it was just a joke...
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Jonny... Not so Bravo?
And no one is paying me. I'm just stating my opinion and a possible fact. As new pointed out it shows not 1 side but both sides of stories.
[ September 02, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: unicornwhisperer ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: Um, no. Having a child does not exempt one from the draft automatically.
fortunately, having Rumsfield as the sec defence does.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You were serious? Really?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
So where are the best places online for relatively unbiased election information? I don't have the time to sift through tons of information to glean the few things that are "unbiased". And I do know that there really isn't anything that is unbiased. I think its impossible not to have some bias since everything we read or hear is filtered through our life experiences and knowledge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is no place for unbiased election information.
Your website may occasionally present both sides, but far more consistently it slants heavily to the left.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it's becuase of the RNC recently, and a flurry of ads.
They are well footnoted, and get both sides; the front page is currently favorable to the Dems, but it's not a partisan site, as far as I know.
-Bok
EDIT: Looking at the site, definitely check out the archives; there are a fair amount that hit Kerry too.
[ September 03, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"far more consistently it slants heavily to the left"
That's only because the Republicans have been lying more often, more recently.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
I think "Family Talk Radio" has good election info and introduces both sides. As far as I know. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I've checked the site twice, yesterday and a long time ago, and both times almost all of the stories were anti-Bush.
Tom, you liberals lie plenty and you know it. Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Since when has Tom been a liberal?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As someone who not only doesn't get cable, but doesn't get a single channel of broadcast I find this discussion most amusing. *mutters somethign inaudible about news channels in general just being after viewers, viewpoints aside*
Hobbes
[ September 04, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"both times almost all of the stories were anti-Bush"
They're not stories. They're lists of blatant lies and/or misinformation. Bush lies and/or misinforms more, and more often, than Kerry does, and therefore is listed more often.
If Bush were capable of opening his mouth without actually inserting something completely fictional, he wouldn't appear on the front page so often, methinks.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I think you give Kerry too much credit. If he was the incumbent and Bush the challenging senator you would catch Kerry in more lies than Bush.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I fall in the "why watch TV for news?" camp. The mind control rays only work if you turn on the receiver.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:For All You Registered Voters
....in Michigan, get out there and vote against the constitutional ban against gay marriage/civil unions/partner benefits/etc....
[ September 04, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think you give Kerry too much credit. If he was the incumbent and Bush the challenging senator you would catch Kerry in more lies than Bush."
This may be true. To test it, let's toss Bush out of office and see if he lies any less often.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I love consistency. When the media harps for years over Clinton receiving oral sex, it's liberal media. When the media pays lip service to Bush's (or however many steps removed to ensure plausable deniability) lies, it's liberal media. The repetition of that whine ensuring that the only slant news journalism can take is to the right so to avoid being branded "liberal media."
Gah.
I'm still trying to figure out if Unicornwhisperer is trying to be funny...
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
If this has been a topic about the media, I am sorry for repeating it but this thread made me think about a discussion I had with some buds a while ago. Since when has there been an expectation that the media be "unbiased" or "objective?" And is it this reason that we have a mostly non-critical media out there? Anyone who thinks the mainstream media is "liberal" seems to forget their history. The kind of weak scandals of the Clinton White House (Travelgate, Whitewater, blow job) garnered far more press than real doozies in the current administration (Cheney and Haliburton, secret energy commission, etc.) but while they get some word play, Bush and his people generally get a pass with not much digging.
The discussion came out of an episode of the Daily Show, where John Stewart got upset at the fact that people can say just about anything and the media will repeat it as a sound bite but will do little to no checking on those statements validity, from both sides. It takes shows like the Daily Show that have the ball to show contradictory footage of people in power who say one thing and do another or say one thing than say something contradictory later (called "flip flopping" today but not the sole property of John Kerry).
But why do we expect the news to be "unbiased?" I don't want unbiased news...I want hard hitting, deep probing and potentially dangerous news. I thought the freedom of the press was there so that people could not only seek out but expose corruption and waste and misuse of power by those elected by the people. The Op-Ed was once the most powerful form of commentary where those in power had to check and re-check what they said and did else someone would point out inaccuracies. Not any more. Bush can say "Kerry ate Vietnamese babies" and the media would repeat that. Instead of taking the time to see if that were true, they just watch it like a tennis match and wait to see what Kerry says in response. Then they print that response and look back at Bush and so on.
We get a poor replay of the days events taken from the point of view of a boy with attention deficit disorder where boobs and bloodshed will win the day over thoughtful, investigative journalism. NPR, usually a bit better researched than most, made fun of themselves for having such a softball story talking about the plays the RNC delegates went to see in NYC.
So why the expectation of "unbiased" or "fair and balanced." I don't want that. I want the bias of someone who looks critically at those in power so that they don't get comfortable there. It is the job of the media to be the watchdogs of democracy and the Republicans are now enjoying control of most major seats of power in this country. ANY criticism is deemed 'liberal media bias' but the fact is they control EVERYTHING at the Federal level...Executive, Judicial and Legislative and most States governorships. Even typically liberal states like New York and California are being run by Republicans. I would want the media to be just as curious, just as determined and just as annoying to whichever party is in power. If a party can't handle the heat, they should step down. But to turn it into paid propaganda wings of the parties is a bad thing and I think we are there now. While Fox is clearly in the pockets of the Right, the remaining ones are at worst also bought or at best simply toothless and uninspired. This goes for newspapers and local news as well, which are more worried about the daily murder or predictable weather fiascos ("Wow! It is surely hot...for, er, the end of summer...er...").
Anyone know where the "unbiased" media thing started to take off?
fil
Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
Rather than get too deep into this conversation I'd just like to state that anyone who has to repeat something over and over again is probably repeating a lie or half truth. I can't turn on fox news without hearing 'fair and balanced' or 'most trusted'.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
unicornwhisperer:
So are you implying that only registered voters watch the news?
[ September 06, 2004, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Being Canadian, my experience with Fox News is limited. But considering how shamelessly they slandered my city this summer with one of their mindlessly shallow and partisan "investigative reports", I can't help but find them sensationalist and only interested in cultivating the appearance of impartiality. According to Fox news, Vancouver is apparently a cesspool of drugs and crime so toxic it is of great material harm to the United States. Nevermind that Vancouver is repeatedly on top of various lists of the best cities in the world in which to live. Trust Fox News to explode that myth, and reveal it to be the demonic pit of vice and evil it truly is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's television news. It's an industry ruled by image and attention-grabbing. It's sensationalistic? Of course it is! If you're upset by it, it's your own fault for expecting truth to be spoonfed to you instead of doing the research yourself.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
About Fox News- If it's supposed to be so conservative then why does its sister, the Fox Network show more lewd, immoral and downright stupid shows than almost any other network?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're confusing partisanship with ideology. The two are nearly exclusive.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's hypocritical because they are making a great deal of money off of questionable programing while claiming to be so conservative... It's rather irratating...
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Syn, I feel your pain. But I just want to point out that Fox claims to be balanced. It is their critics that label them as conservative.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Good point Beren.
Da Goat I'm not implying that only registered voters watch the news. I was just recommending a channel to watch if they needed some info on the election. At this point I'm not even registered yet, (I recently moved) but my paperwork is in. (crosses fingers that she gets her voters registration soon)
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Absolutely right Tom, it's ideologically driven rather than partisan. Doesn't make it any less slimy. Also, Kat, I'm aware how TV news works, and most of the time it will elicit little more than a sigh, however, when my city is being slandered, I think it isn't unreasonable to be a little more offended than usual.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Absolutely right Tom, it's ideologically driven rather than partisan."
Nope. It's partisan rather than ideological. This is why, for example, Fox News panders to the religious right while its parent company hosts the sleaziest and most immoral network TV out there. If it were the other way around -- if it were ideological rather than partisan -- we wouldn't have the same problem.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
to liberals ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
At this point I'm not even registered yet, (I recently moved) but my paperwork is in. (crosses fingers that she gets her voters registration soon)