Do you watch it? What are your favorite shows, and do you think they're accurate?

9/4/2005 8:40:50 PM

do you think anyone cares anymore. we know what fox is.

9/4/2005 8:41:28 PM

Quote :

"we know what fox is. "

Who are "we", and what do "we" know about Fox?

9/4/2005 8:43:04 PM

we=people

9/4/2005 8:43:44 PM

Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

9/4/2005 8:44:00 PM

LOUD NOISES!

9/4/2005 8:48:07 PM

i watch it all day because it is fair and balanced.

9/4/2005 8:59:17 PM

9/4/2005 9:04:32 PM

what did o'reilly know and when did he know it?

9/4/2005 9:56:32 PM

most of tww won't approve of foxnews since it's not ran by liberals.

9/4/2005 10:02:04 PM

I watch Fox all the time.

9/4/2005 10:28:39 PM

I watch fox news over the internet for all the pretty colors.

9/4/2005 10:35:29 PM

If it weren't run so much like a tabloid show, I might give it more time.

9/4/2005 11:01:19 PM

Which network has Dennis Miller on it?

9/4/2005 11:55:11 PM

FAUX "NEWS" IS FUN TO WATCH

9/5/2005 12:15:04 AM

Quote :

"Do you watch it? What are your favorite shows, and do you think they're accurate?"

I don't watch FOX news, but then again, I don't watch much TV News in general. I suppose it’s good to have on in the background when I’m making breakfast though.

I think FOX news has a bias, but is still accurate: the bias is introduced in the selection of the stories, not in rewriting the facts. Any news source will have a bias, as the stories have to be prioritized. FOX News is no worse than NPR, the NY Times, or the BBC. The bias of the latter news sources coincide with a left-leaning political bent, which is precisely why liberals don't whine incessantly about NPR like they do with "FAUX NEWS."

That being said, FOX News serves a purpose. It provides a platform for conservative ideas, which would otherwise not be given as great a voice on television. Moreover, it makes it increasingly difficult for left-leaning media outlets to sit on stories that paint an unflattering picture of liberal causes.


[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 12:29 AM. Reason : edit]

9/5/2005 12:17:19 AM

Quote :

"I think FOX news has a bias, but is still accurate: the bias is introduced in the selection of the stories, not in rewriting the facts. "

heres a perfect of example of someone whos so stupid and diluded, he doesnt even know hes stupid and diluded.

fox injects bias into all of its reporting and all of the 'headlines'. facts easy change when you alter context and tone. a child can observe it. CNN does it too also, any non-retard hack can observe their bias too.

how does it feel to be retarded? make you could write an essay. id really be interested. yes. i really would. here go ahead;





[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ]

9/5/2005 12:20:16 AM

^ Thanks for the input.

9/5/2005 12:22:30 AM

good try. aim for longer.

9/5/2005 12:22:59 AM

Quote :

"Which network has Dennis Miller on it?"

Is that a rhetorical question?

9/5/2005 12:23:24 AM

What a brilliant rebuttal, Josh. I think you should join a debate team or something. Nice explanation, Keynes.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

9/5/2005 12:28:30 AM

diluded

9/5/2005 12:29:51 AM

oh no. im wrong; the thesis that bias doesnt alter facts is brilliant

9/5/2005 12:38:09 AM

Murdoch dictates what the reporters are allowed to say on his channel

[/thread]

9/5/2005 12:45:02 AM

he hands down the talking points that are read at gunpoint

9/5/2005 12:45:41 AM

Quote :

"Which network has Dennis Miller on it?"

Nobody now (was CNBC).

9/5/2005 12:50:55 AM

Quote :

"most of tww won't approve of foxnews since it's not ran by liberals."

Yeah, because we see all of those investigative reports of the WH on the other stations.

9/5/2005 10:05:49 AM

^ You’re right. Compared to other new sources, FOX News tends to be friendlier to the Bush administration. But if you’re upset about political bias on Fox, then at least be consistent, and mention the bias of NPR, the BBC, the NYT, etc. If you dislike conservative hot air (think Bill O’Reily) then at least be consistent and dislike liberal hot air (think Paul Krugman and Juan Cole of NPR). I know you will never do this, but still: try to make some attempt at consistency and principle.

FOX News and other conservative media outlets do not bother me for one primary reason. Before conservatives gained footholds in the media, the country’s major newspapers and news shows were overwhelmingly liberal. This often resulted in selective reporting, in which the multiple aspects of a story or entire stories in themselves were not reported. Sometimes this had very real cultural impacts—like with Watergate or the Rodney King affair. Now that media represents multiples political ideologies, it is difficult for such selective reporting to take place, or at least for it to have the effect that it once did.

Ultimately though, I realize that any news source—particularly any television news source—will be prone to bias. The news editors (or producers) have to condense a lot of information down into a short presentable format. This requires that facts and stories be prioritized, and political ideology affects how facts and stories are prioritized—regardless of whether it is Fox News or the BBC World Report.

An example: You have thirty seconds to run a story. You can run a story on how private contractors in Iraq lost $1 billion, or you can run a story on how a government agency squandered $1.2 billion over a three year period. Your political ideology is going to affect which story you chose. Or you have a choice between reporting on waste in military spending, or you can report on waste in social programs. Again, your political ideology will affect which story is told.

As much as liberals complain about FOX News, you would think their TV remotes are broken. What prevents them from simply acting like adults and turning the channel, I do not know.

9/5/2005 11:54:41 AM

NPR and the BBC are about as biased as a dead squirrel.

9/5/2005 11:57:48 AM

Fox is more likely to report a falsehood than NPR's Juan Cole and others.

9/5/2005 12:04:01 PM

one of my favorite past-times is to switch between FNC and CNN...

"The survivors of katrina are beginning to see a way out of their struggle"

*CLICK*

"After five days of incompetence, supplies are starting to trickle in to new orleans"

*CLICK*

"bla bla bla"

*CLICK*

"alb alb alb"

9/5/2005 12:35:29 PM

Quote :

"Fox is more likely to report a falsehood than NPR's Juan Cole and others. "

FUCKING BRAINWASHED LIBERAL. YOU SO OPEN MINDED, YOUR BRAIN FELL OUT.

9/5/2005 1:14:39 PM

Quote :

"Fox and the war in Iraq A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[8] (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war. "

[old], but still true as ever.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

9/5/2005 1:23:30 PM

Quote :

"Now that media represents multiples political ideologies, it is difficult for such selective reporting to take place, or at least for it to have the effect that it once did."

I think this is a pretty stupid theory. Seriously.

First of all, you're basically slandering the entire journalism profession as having no incentive or professional motivation other than political manipulation. That is, to say the least, arrogance.

But, more so:

FOX News now "represents" the right-wing, whereas the rest "represents" the left-wing? How can that be? If anything, news organizations have a reputation for being liberal because the journalists themselves are; indeed, so are journalism programs in academia (one of the nation's best is at UNC).

So are we to believe that, at FOX News, they have managed to tap into the thousands of rank-and-file conservative journalists just waiting for the day of emancipation, when they could go and work for a Big Media conglomerate?

Whereas at the other news organizations, they have some kind of ideological filter in their interviewing process--totally independent of qualifications--that has managed to cast out the rank-and-file conservative from their midst?

No. More likely is that FOX News is itself full of "liberals" in their rank-and-file, and the imperious executives smite from the channel what they don't like ideologically. Whereas the other organizations, also full of rank-and-file liberals, just let people report according to their professional standards, and it happens to come out "liberal."

The simple fact is that FOX News is problematic not just because it's biased, but because its journalism is of an exceedingly poor quality. It's quite obviously branded from the top-down and edited from on-high with a litmus test in mind.

It's just crap. Nothing about it is up to the standards of "real" conservative media. The news is flaccid, and the editorializing is generally shrill.

My basic concern is that their tolerance of top-down "journalism by niche marketing" will lead to more "niche market news channels," and drag down the industry's professional standards even more than they already have been. As it is, the saturation of news media by PR firms and "popular memes" (such as missing children) has dragged the news business into the gutter; the last thing we need is more imperious ideology.

On a final note: NPR is a good news channel because they do not engage in the "filler" tactics of mainstream media. They are tightly-focused on covering certain aspects of the news well, and they don't reiterate themselves endlessly like the mainstream networks.

9/5/2005 1:25:46 PM

The media is only as liberal as the 5 multi-billion dollar corporations allow them to be.

9/5/2005 1:27:36 PM

NPR does, however, have many more instances of liberal bias than conservative.

I've heard a number of NPR field reporters and correspondents editorialize. it doesn't happen a lot, but when it does happen, it is always liberal.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 1:29 PM. Reason : s]

9/5/2005 1:29:24 PM

Quote :

"University of Maryland"

9/5/2005 1:32:43 PM

Why are NPR listeners consistently better informed than FNC watchers?

9/5/2005 1:33:45 PM

^^^

The simple fact is this: even if NPR came out and admitted "hey, we have a liberal bias," I would still listen to them for the quality of their coverage. I read the Economist for the quality of their news and analysis, and they admit outright to being a "right-of-center" news magazine.

The operative question is how bias is applied. In the case of NPR, I think it's just part of the corporate culture. At the Economist, it is probably imposed editorially and culturally. I imagine the latter is true of, say, the New York Times as well.

But with FOX News, the bias is a marketing concept. Literally, the FOX News corporate strategy revolves around their "brand" as "conservative media" (or, put more cynically, Fair and Balanced). It's not a matter of professional editorial input or trade standards, it is a business directive from the CEO down.

The highest standard of the journalism trade is that one profits from the quality and accuracy of coverage, and the challenge for the business end is to figure out how to do that. It is not the role of the business end to direct the coverage itself. That's a flagrant conflict of interest, and it doesn't serve anyone.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 1:41 PM. Reason : foo]

9/5/2005 1:41:22 PM

^^^ editorialize in what sense? For example, giving their opinion about the state of the convention center is perfectly valid. Going on to say that bush is a douchebag is not. Simply giving an opinion does not mean bias.

9/5/2005 1:45:43 PM

Quote :

" First of all, you're basically slandering the entire journalism profession as having no incentive or professional motivation other than political manipulation. "

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that political bias in any news source is, for the most part, inevitable. Some news sources are better about it than others. Maybe some journalists are acting in bad faith, but that doesn’t mean the goal of all journalists is to push a political agenda.

Quote :

" So are we to believe that, at FOX News, they have managed to tap into the thousands of rank-and-file conservative journalists just waiting for the day of emancipation, when they could go and work for a Big Media conglomerate?"

Perhaps a more realistic story is that American conservatism, initially a grassroots movement, has been gaining ground on several fronts—one of which has happens to be the media. There are simply more conservatives in the press than there were 30 years ago, and Fox News is a manifestation of that. There was an increase in the demand for news with a conservative bent, and there was a gradual increase in the number of the journalists who would supply that service—hence, Fox News.

I’m sure there are a fair amount of liberals who work at FOX News. But I would wager that the staff at FOX News still tends to be more conservative than other networks. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “imperious executives” or marketing gimmicks.

Quote :

"FOX News now "represents" the right-wing, whereas the rest "represents" the left-wing?)."

Again, I didn’t say that. FOX News is one avowedly conservative news source—probably the most prominent one on television but there are still other conservative news sources, both in print and on TV. There are television news sources that cover much of political spectrum. I don’t think that was the case 15 or 20 years ago.

Quote :

"Whereas at the other news organizations, they have some kind of ideological filter in their interviewing process--totally independent of qualifications--that has managed to cast out the rank-and-file conservative from their midst?"

As you put it, it is in the culture.

Quote :

" My basic concern is that their tolerance of top-down "journalism by niche marketing" will lead to more "niche market news channels," and drag down the industry's professional standards even more than they already have been."

You think the quality of journalism has degraded. I think the opposite. Realistically, the quality of journalism today is better and more transparent than any time recently. The growth of conservative media is one of many reasons for this.

People love to hearken back to some golden age of journalistic integrity. Then Rupert Murdoch came along and pissed on it all. Please point me to a time in the last fifty years, in which the mainstream media’s portrayal of current events was better and more objective than today. Really, please do that for me.

It would be nice if FOX News had the commentary of say, the National Review, or the insight of the Economist. But then there would be a problem: no one would watch. Few people read these publications to begin with. FOX News puts conservatism into the mainstream. It may not be the most intellectual brand of conservatism, but the soft voices of NPR don't exactly flaunt their brainpower either.

So I’m sorry if you’ll have to put up with all us “red-stater” philistines, with our TiVo’s set to the “No Spin Zone.”

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 3:57 PM. Reason : edit]

9/5/2005 3:44:05 PM

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

9/5/2005 4:29:51 PM

^thx.

Quote :

"American conservatism"

Could you explain to me what that phrase means? I thought it meant American conservatism stood for smaller gov't and fiscal responsibility, none of which are at work within the Republican party today.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 5:20 PM. Reason : lodi]

9/5/2005 5:19:27 PM

While I wont actually read this thread, I am sure it has something to do with the liberals attacking fox news calling them conservatives, while not complaining about other news agencies that follow their own personal agendas. I know somewhere along the lines someone brought up Bill O'reilly, even though they themselves probably love George Soros. I can think of many stances where fox has brought to light some interesting facts that other news organizations have somehow "overlooked". For example, when the Sheehan story broke. The media did not report that Sheehan had previously met with the president and made the remarks she did. If not for fox, that information would have probably never reached the public.

^ If you honestly cannot see state's rights issues, federalism, and capitalism in the republican party today, then you are truly watching the wrong news programs.

9/5/2005 5:27:59 PM

Quote :

"even if NPR came out and admitted "hey, we have a liberal bias," I would still listen to them for the quality of their coverage."

absolutely. i even contribute to npr during their fundraisers.... that doesn't mean I can't recognize their bias. it bothers me when other more fanatic liberals refuse to do so as well

9/5/2005 8:38:20 PM

so i guess threatening a federal ban of gay marriage and overruling CA's medicinal marijuana is considered state's rights?

oh, and what was your response to fiscal responsibility?

9/5/2005 8:47:10 PM

pryderi, you are quoting and interpreting the survey's results incorrectly. The people had misperceptions in response to the specific questions asked about the iraq war.

if the questions had been different, so would the results.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 8:54 PM. Reason : s]

9/5/2005 8:54:06 PM

Quote :

"No, I’m not saying that."

Um, yes, you are saying that. Don't back-pedal; if you're going to make a point, stick to your guns:

Keynes:

Quote :

"Before conservatives gained footholds in the media, the country’s major newspapers and news shows were overwhelmingly liberal."

(emph. added)

So what did you mean by "overwhelmingly liberal?" What did you mean by this liberalism "often" resulting in "selective reporting?" That sounds like a lot more than inevitable, unintentional bias to me.

Do you have a thesis here or not? Are the news organizations greatly affected by political ideology or not? And if they are, you basically HAVE to conclude that somewhere, journalists are failing to exercise professionalism. Even if it DOES happen unintentionally, conscionable networks have ombudsmen and auditors to keep people honest; not to mention an editorial chain of command. Are they unprofessional, are they not doing their jobs to stop this "selective reporting" that happens "often?"

You're making a blanket statement that the system fails as a whole, without giving a clear reason why. Subtle political bias doesn't account for an "overwhelmingly liberal" press. The whole profession is based on checks and balances; and you're effectively saying that none of those work, in any meaningful sense.

Quote :

"There are simply more conservatives in the press than there were 30 years ago, and Fox News is a manifestation of that. There was an increase in the demand for news with a conservative bent, and there was a gradual increase in the number of the journalists who would supply that service—hence, Fox News."

That doesn't make any sense at all. If there are so many more conservatives in the press now than _thirty years ago_, where have they been prior to the advent and popularization of FOX News (which was quite recent)? Surely they must have been working for a living somewhere?

And how, pray tell, did FOX News go about hiring these "conservative journalists?" Do you mean to tell me that when FOX News interviews applicants, they apply an ideological litmus test?

"So, Joe Applicant, what are your views on abortion?"

And, as I asked before: am I to believe that the "liberal" news organizations have a similar "litmus test" whereby they filter out these conservative journalists in favor of liberal ones?

I can certainly understand how a primarily _editorial_ magazine like National Review or even the Economist can recruit and hire such applicants, but a _news organization_? I just don't see how that recruiting infrastructure can even exist within the news business. Especially when you take into account the need for field experience, training, etc.

And keep in mind, the journalistic organization IS an infrastructure: we're not just talking about the news reporters, but the editing staff and middle management. They would have to be conservative too to filter out this "bias" that somehow slips in and overruns the whole system, which, as you say, makes it "overwhelmingly liberal."

Quote :

"I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “imperious executives” or marketing gimmicks."

I think it is quite that simple, and quite that realistic, too. Consider the alternatives:

a) FOX News somehow hires from top to bottom a "conservative" staff to filter out "bias" (as you've called it). As you've noted, it's this "bias" that results in the "selective reporting" we hate.

or

b) FOX News simply censors/edits its content to fit the brand. That only requires a heavy hand from the upper management, particularly marketing.

Quote :

"As you put it, it is in the culture."

As I put it, for NPR. NPR is basically a government job. Certainly it is cultural for the editorial staff (the O'Reilly's and such).

But for the rank-and-file journalist-on-the-beat? For the infrastructure-level technicians and middle management who have to ensure the news gets on the air, without "bias?"

My point was and has been that the industry is just hiring left-leaners, and letting them work to their professional standards. Journalism simply is a left-leaning profession. And where FOX News is concerned, it's a job and the executives demand a conservative brand and image from their employees.

And, I think it shows in the quality of work they output.

Quote :

"FOX News puts conservatism into the mainstream. It may not be the most intellectual brand of conservatism, but the soft voices of NPR don't exactly flaunt their brainpower either."

Actually, they "exactly" do--I've yet to hear three straight hours of "random girl is missing" on NPR. By "mainstream media" standards, that is golden.

Plus we're compaing apples to oranges, here. NPR is run by listener donations and the government, not by advertising dollars.

What you don't see (or hear) on NPR is the "PR piece," which is basically a news segment done at a PR firm's request. I was aghast recently that CNN Headline News ran an entire segment on some "Cereal Cafe" business in California; it was basically an infomercial disguised as news. Consider also the various "human interest" and "celebrity spotting" type segments that run on mainstream news.

Given that: now FOX News has come along and said "not only are we going to fill the news with garbage, we're going to segment the news market farther along political lines so we can own our share." That is a real business decision, and it's a really smart one. I suspect Murdoch basically looked at Limbaugh and said "hey, I can do that."

Why else would Murdoch even put the money into starting the FOX News organization, unless he was confident that he could engineer a conservative news source to own that market segment?

By the way, I am curious as to what "No Spin Zone" has to do with this discussion--that is basically editorial content. My main concern is with the news reporting itself. And as to the editorial/analysis shows, I'd like to remind you that the boring stodgy intellectual WFB Jr (whom noone will watch, ever) was on Firing Line for 1,400 episodes prior to the arrival of Mr. O'Reilly and company.

[Edited on September 5, 2005 at 9:06 PM. Reason : foo]

9/5/2005 9:02:20 PM

gg keynes....you're more intelligent than this topic gives you credit


can someone explain to me how o'reilly is a right wing nut?

9/5/2005 9:16:05 PM

Well, he gets labeled "conservative" by liberal groups and "liberal" by conservative groups. You mainly hear the "conservative" label because liberal organizations are the ones in the open the majority of the time. I think he is more independent then he gets credit for.

9/5/2005 9:29:38 PM