Is Fox News fair and balanced?

Is Fox News fair and balanced?

  • YES: Fox news is fair and balanced

    Votes: 41 14.4%
  • NO: Fox news is NOT fair and balanced:

    Votes: 232 81.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 11 3.9%

  • Total voters
    284
He has a point everyone has a bias somewhere. I don't know about the degree of bias they all have, but they do have a bias.

It's all a matter of degree. The so-called liberal bias in the media is based on the fact that liberals are generally better educated than conservatives are. Hence, there will be more in academia and white-collar jobs in general. The media is no exception. It isn't a great conspiracy to undermine the nation. It isn't even deliberate. All the major media hires conservative and even reactionary journalists like this goofball who literally wrote the book on the subject.

But the point that all the Fox News apologists continue to miss is that the bias in Fox News isn't mild and it has no other explainable reason than it is quite deliberate. All of Rupert Murdoch's acquisitions work exactly the same way so it should come as no surprise to anybody.

It also transcends mere bias as Berzerker pointed out earlier. What they do is engage in deliberate propaganda which is much worse. They have no journalistic ethics whatsoever.
 
The so-called liberal bias in the media is based on the fact that liberals are generally better educated than conservatives are.

Link/source? xcls
 
Link/source? xcls

Eh, traditionally only in postgraduates, though the Democrats have recently gained a majority on people with bachelor's degrees, but that goes with the recent trends of the party growth. ...and that's party identification, not political ideology.
 
Formaldehyde said:
It's all a matter of degree. The so-called liberal bias in the media is based on the fact that liberals are generally better educated than conservatives are. Hence, there will be more in academia and white-collar jobs in general. The media is no exception. It isn't a great conspiracy to undermine the nation. It isn't even deliberate. All the major media hires conservative and even reactionary journalists like this goofball who literally wrote the book on the subject.

I don't doubt it, its more an institutional bias than anything, you hire from Universities, your going to end up with proportionally more liberals than conservatives. If I oppose the right of the government to legislate on having balanced content, I should by rights oppose the right of the government to legislate on the basis of political orientation which I do.

Formaldehyde said:
But the point that all the Fox News apologists continue to miss is that the bias in Fox News isn't mild and it has no other explainable reason than it is quite deliberate. All of Rupert Murdoch's acquisitions work exactly the same way so it should come as no surprise to anybody.

Fox makes me froth more the BBC and that is hard to do (I'll grant BBC Asia is far superior to BBC World Wide with regards to impartial content - must be part and parcel of dealing with left and right wing dictatorships and pseudo-dictatorships).

Formaldehyde said:
It also transcends mere bias as Berzerker pointed out earlier. What they do is engage in deliberate propaganda which is much worse. They have no journalistic ethics whatsoever.

Ethnics in journalism are long dead - read Naomi Klein :p
 
Ethnics in journalism are long dead - read Naomi Klein :p

Ethnicity in journalism? I think that's alive and well, given, the composition of the traditional news team. ;)

As for ethics...yeah, it's been stabbed as many times as Caesar and is bleeding in the corner. Nobody's calling 9-1-1, though.
 
Antilogic said:
As for ethics...yeah, it's been stabbed as many times as Caesar and is bleeding in the corner. Nobody's calling 9-1-1, though.

Freaking ethnic ethic-less journalists :p
 
Freaking ethnic ethic-less journalists :p

My thoughts exactly. Visual diversity is good. Diversity of opinions that are muted on the set are also good. The same two opinions yelled at each other constantly in front of a camera are not good.
 
Link/source? xcls

I thought that was obvious and accepted by anybody, but here's one source:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf

Tobin found that 46 percent of his respondents gave their current party affiliation as Democratic, 33 percent as Independent, and 16 percent as Republican – a similar
distribution to that reported by Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte, though with somewhat
more Republicans, and nearly identical to the distribution among social scientists
reported by Lazarsfeld and Thielens in 1955. Unlike Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte,
however, who collapsed the distribution on their political identity question, Tobin found
that 48 percent of his respondents described themselves as liberal, 31 percent as
moderate, and 17 percent as conservative
– representing an increase by 9 percentage
points in liberal self-identification from the 1984 Carnegie sample (with the caveat that
all comparisons to the Carnegie studies are potentially problematic in that Ladd and
Lipset’s leftmost response categories were “left” and then “liberal” rather than different
degrees of liberalism per se.) Tobin also asked a number of voting questions. He found
that in the 2004 presidential elections, 72 percent of faculty who voted reported voting for Kerry and 25 percent for Bush. Not surprisingly, the social sciences and humanities were found to be strongholds of Democratic support, though Tobin reported that 72 percent of professors in science and mathematics fields cast their ballots for Kerry as well, as did half of those in business/management
.

I don't doubt it, its more an institutional bias than anything, you hire from Universities, your going to end up with proportionally more liberals than conservatives. If I oppose the right of the government to legislate on having balanced content, I should by rights oppose the right of the government to legislate on the basis of political orientation which I do.

And me too. Such bias is obvious, trivial, and is to be expected. What I dispute is that there is any sort of worldwide plot to ban conservative thought from institutes of higher learning. Whoever thinks so has obviously never heard of Stanford. :p

Fox makes me froth more the BBC and that is hard to do (I'll grant BBC Asia is far superior to BBC World Wide with regards to impartial content - must be part and parcel of dealing with left and right wing dictatorships and pseudo-dictatorships).

I have no problems with watching any BBC feed. I would suspect their stories are 'biased' in regard to the interest level of their intended audience, which is also to be expected. After all, if BBC decided to only source stories about my county, I seriously doubt too many people would be watching a month later, including myself.

I have no qualms about Fox News directing itself to the right wingers. What I object to is their methodology of using propaganda in place of journalistic integrity. They remind me more of a 1950s version of Voice Of America than anything else.

Ethnics in journalism are long dead - read Naomi Klein :p

I have no idea who she even is. Let me use the awesome power of google to help cure my vast ignorance...

Ah. The Shock Doctrine chick.
 
Formaldehyde said:
And me too. Such bias is obvious, trivial, and is to be expected. What I dispute is that there is any sort of worldwide plot to ban conservative thought from institutes of higher learning. Whoever thinks so has obviously never heard of Stanford.

If there are respectively a right wing and left wing conspiracy where's my paycheck?!

Formaldehyde said:
I have no problems with watching any BBC feed. I would suspect their stories are 'biased' in regard to the interest level of their intended audience, which is also to be expected. After all, if BBC decided to only source stories about my county, I seriously doubt too many people would be watching a month later, including myself.

BBC worldwide has a pretty bad British-liberal bias - probably more the product of Britain itself but its nevertheless pretty darn annoying. BBC Asia for whatever reason is significantly more impartial than BBC worldwide (I've done a series of compare and contrasts) and provides better coverage even on world events.

Formaldehyde said:
I have no qualms about Fox News directing itself to the right wingers. What I object to is their methodology of using propaganda in place of journalistic integrity. They remind me more of a 1950s version of Voice Of America than anything else.

I hardly watch the MSM here. I watch the ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Network: Government Owned) at night for local content and for family time and that's it.

Formaldehyde said:
Ah. The Shock Doctrine chick.

I have no qualms about Fox News Naomi Klein directing herselfitself to the right left wingers. What I object to is their her methodology of using propaganda in place of journalistic integrity. They remind me more of a 1950s version of Voice Of America Pravda than anything else. Only with an even more faulty understanding of history and a more shoddy Jewish-Capitalist-Bolshevik-Banking Conspiracy to back it up.
 
I have no qualms about Fox News Naomi Klein directing herselfitself to the right left wingers. What I object to is their her methodology of using propaganda in place of journalistic integrity. They remind me more of a 1950s version of Voice Of America Pravda than anything else. Only with an even more faulty understanding of history and a more shoddy Jewish-Capitalist-Bolshevik-Banking Conspiracy to back it up.

:lol: Exactly.

Death To America! Don't miss the DTA Cheerleaders at 2:15...


Link to video.
 
I have no qualms about Fox News Naomi Klein directing herselfitself to the right left wingers. What I object to is their her methodology of using propaganda in place of journalistic integrity. They remind me more of a 1950s version of Voice Of America Pravda than anything else. Only with an even more faulty understanding of history and a more shoddy Jewish-Capitalist-Bolshevik-Banking Conspiracy to back it up.

1. Only left-wingers read Naomi Klein (not saying that's bad, just accurate)

2. She doesn't have 20 million daily viewers.

3. She is actually right some of the time, rather than none of the time.

4. Have you ever seen Hannity's America or Glenn Beck? :lol:
 
1. Only left-wingers read Naomi Klein (not saying that's bad, just accurate)

2. She doesn't have 20 million daily viewers.

3. She is actually right some of the time, rather than none of the time.

4. Have you ever seen Hannity's America or Glenn Beck? :lol:
Glenn Beck the "end of the world" dude?
 
"What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality."
-- Fox news analyst Charles Krauthammer
 
Not for those who prefer their realities to be defined by their own prejudices...
 
The Big Hate. How responsible are Fox News talking heads, as well as other 'conservatives', for fomenting hatred?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.
 
Top Bottom