Is Fox News the Only One Left to Trust?

[Utah]

Major Scandals at CNN, CBS, NYT, BBC, LAT. NBC blatantly slanted. ABC - dont know much about but isnt it anchored by a Canadian (and South Park has taught me that Canadians cant be trusted).

Seriously, Fox News seems to be the only place to get accurate news and multiple viewpoints. They have both conservatives and liberals on the shows and you get a pretty balanced viewpoint of each sides position.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Major Scandals at CNN, CBS, NYT, BBC, LAT. NBC blatantly slanted. ABC - dont know much about but isnt it anchored by a Canadian (and South Park has taught me that Canadians cant be trusted).

Seriously, Fox News seems to be the only place to get accurate news and multiple viewpoints. They have both conservatives and liberals on the shows and you get a pretty balanced viewpoint of each sides position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the fact that Fox is hated by almost every other news organisation I will agree with you, in general. Fox has it's weakpoints i.e. beltway boys, but they do a good job overall. O'reilly needs some improvement, but still has his use. Sheppard Smith is flawless. Shep Smith really amazes me in his ability to mix humor with the news, yet still remain completely neutral. I couldn't do a better job.


I watched ABC during the Iraq invasion.... will never go back. Dan rather at CBS... so bad.

As for the BBC, I know they shut of the BBC on the Ark Royal because it was so bad, but what other scandals have come up?

[wacki]

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/33/70/TheRepublicans/60/279.jpg

[Boris]

NPR is pretty good.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
Fox News seems to be the only place to get accurate news and multiple viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why Fox News is crushing all of the major networks and cable new programs as far as ratings. I guess the American people aren't as foolish as many people think. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fox News seems to be the only place to get accurate news and multiple viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why Fox News is crushing all of the major networks and cable new programs as far as ratings. I guess the American people aren't as foolish as many people think. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just to bad the Canadians let in Al Jazeera and not Fox.

[waffle]

http://www.economist.com/images/20040911/20040911issuecovUS400.jpg

Only one viewpoint, but their articles display their reasoning clearly and they don't pretend to not editorialize.

[adios]

I think the Washington Post is decent in it's reporting from what I read. I don't always agree with the conclusions of the reporters but I think they do a decent job but could be convinced otherwise. I think the WSJ does a good of analysis and reporting as well. The editorial page is mostly conservative but I don't think the reporting is at all.

[Victor]

NPR is far less biased. It really can't be beat.

I would agree, though, that Fox does a better job than the networks.

[anatta]

I don't watch Fox News much, when I do, I am amazed at how good they are at appearing somewhat balanced for the average ill-informed viewer. For example, O'Reilly's take on the 2000 election, was Bush and Gore both well qualified to be president, but Hillary is a liar."

See how he took a strength of Gore, his experience in the Senate and as VP, and a weakness of Bush, (imagine O'Reilly saying something like, "both Cheney and Edwards have the experience to step into Presidency", when Edwards experience is comparable to Bush's in 2000 and you'll see what I mean).

So now the average Joe thinks, okay this is reasonable, so then he hits them with the "She wants to be Senator, but she is a liar, dishonest!". Hey, thinks Joe, this guys was fair, he thinks she's a liar, hmm, and isn't Gore a bit of a Serial Exaggerator too...hmm...he did say "I invented the internet!"...

All one has to do is watch Fox for 2 min. during Richard Clarke and 9-11 commission and you'll see what they are all about.

[Knockwurst]

Utah -- Just when you were becoming seemingly more sensible in your political points of view, you dash all hope against the craggy rocks of conservative delusion.

Let's not confuse lack of bias with accordance with one's political views. Just because you happen to agree with a particular point of view doesn't mean there is no bias.

Consider the fact that Fox requires reporters to state political party affiliation before being hired, that almost their entire staff from Tony Snow to Roger Ailes to Rupert Murdoch is either a former employee of a GOP candidate or the GOP party, a regular contributor to conservative rags or in Murdoch's case an avowed conservative Republican, that the angle on their reports invariably tows the GOP line. Just as one example, what happened to the story about the discovery of WMD that Fox and Brit Hume "broke," which you and others complained wasn't being picked up by other news outlets. Haven't heard much about that one recently. No follow-up, no retraction, no nothing. At least the Times wrote a somewhat self-critical assessment of its WMD coverage during the war.

Here's a link to other stories regarding Fox's "Fair and Balanced" coverage:

http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/newscorp-fox.html

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't watch Fox News much, when I do, I am amazed at how good they are at appearing somewhat balanced for the average ill-informed viewer. For example, O'Reilly's take on the 2000 election, was Bush and Gore both well qualified to be president, but Hillary is a liar."

See how he took a strength of Gore, his experience in the Senate and as VP, and a weakness of Bush, (imagine O'Reilly saying something like, "both Cheney and Edwards have the experience to step into Presidency", when Edwards experience is comparable to Bush's in 2000 and you'll see what I mean).

So now the average Joe thinks, okay this is reasonable, so then he hits them with the "She wants to be Senator, but she is a liar, dishonest!". Hey, thinks Joe, this guys was fair, he thinks she's a liar, hmm, and isn't Gore a bit of a Serial Exaggerator too...hmm...he did say "I invented the internet!"...

All one has to do is watch Fox for 2 min. during Richard Clarke and 9-11 commission and you'll see what they are all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this is the pot calling the kettle black. First of all Gore never said he invented the internet.
Linky (http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/#w2)

Second of all, O'reilly does a very good job of letting people come on his show and defend themself. Don't get me wrong, O'reilly needs improving and even acts like a child and yells at times, but atleast he gives everyone a chance to talk on his show. The same cannot be said of the BBC(who wouldn't let Ark Royal soldiers defend themselves), CBS, and several other news outlets. O'reilly may not be right all the time, but that isn't his job. He repeatedly says he is not a reporter, but a commentator, his job is to push buttons and to get people to think. He doesn't even have to talk fairly to run a good show if he lets anyone on. They defend themselves, so O'reilly doesn't have to. he just attacks and asks questions. And he attacks both sides with similar intensity. Also, he almost always gives the guest the last word.


Fox is not perfect, but they are better than most, and they let people on all sides of the spectrum get airtime.

Just curious what do you watch?

[Utah]

Hi Knockwurst,

My political views are always sensible. LOL. I regard logic more highly than a particular point of view. (e.g., I am not a Bush fan and I never have been. However, I dislike most Bush bashers because their arguments and logic are retard).

Lets forget bias for a moment and just start with trustworthiness. I want to trust the facts of the news I hear regardless of what slant is put on it. We have several cases of major news networks absolutely lying about basic facts. That is a WAY worse than any bias in presenting that news. I have yet to see a scandal at Fox. If there ever was, I would distrust Fox as well. However, there simply hasnt been any scandals.

Fox is simply held to a different standard. Where is the outrage directed at CBS? Imagine if Fox knowingly pushed forged documents to support the Swift Boat veterans in order to effect the election.

Now to bias. I like a complete view of issues, so I read National Review, Slate, CNN, Fox News, and NYT every day. I also channel surf Fox, CNN, and CNBC. Fox is the only one of those three that provides multiple viewpoints and it simply has the best debates. CNN does sometimes but not enough (and its disconcerting that the Rajun Cajun and Begala are allow to keep their jobs and work for Kerry).

What news or issues does fox suppress? What liberal do they keep from their shows? OReilly regularly takes the Bush administration to task and he has attacked the swifties on issues. The only guy that is completely partisan is Hannity and he is balanced by a liberal cohost and liberal guests every show.

Do you actually watch fox news?

btw - I have looked at FAIR many times. They are a partisan hack group that has no credibility.

[Utah]

I dont get it. I think you are reading way too much into that statement.

And, if I recall correctly Bush was a Governor of a very large state and a successful businessman before he ran.

[Utah]

Yes, I would agree. NPR seems pretty darn good. I think they are slanted a little left - but their reporting during the war was usually excellent and they presented both sides on an issue.

I dont listen to them enough though to form a more concrete opinion.

[Victor]

Yes, they do seem left leaning on most of their editorial shows such as Talk of the Nation, and Fresh Air (although they have many Republicans on these shows.) However, their news reports such as Morning Edition are straightforward and factual.

[superleeds]

In television, in politics, if you allow the lowest common demoninator to prevail, it will. Fox is crap as are they all and they are like that because ultimately we don't care.

There is genocide in Sudan, Over 1,000 American GI's have died because your president lied about the reasons to go to War but it doesn't matter cos The Apprentice is back.

[BadBoyBenny]

Reading both would probably give you a good balance.

[anatta]

I am well aware Gore never said he invented the internet, I was taking the role of the thinking of the average Joe, who does thinks Gore said this becuase of conservative lies and spin. For some reason, every democratic candidate is slicky willy, flip flopper, serial exaggerator, or just a liar like o reilly called Senator Clinton.

If you call saying "Shut up" several times, I guess O Reily does give his guest a chance to defend themselves, although I admit I dont watch the show, but I have seen enough of his act.

This whole thread is just stupid. Fox News is so clearly 1984 Orewellian Up is Down Right is Wrong, Fair and Balanced when so clearly they aren't, its just a joke to thinking people, but this is not Fox's target audience.

This is not to imply the conservatives on this board arent smart or havent made me think, I think they watch fox the same reason I read Eric Alterman or Salon, its just fun to hear your own propaganda, but Fox's Target audience is the idiot redneck ill informed dupe who thinks its really a news channel, and not a mouthpiece of the RNC.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Fox's Target audience is the idiot redneck ill informed dupe who thinks its really a news channel, and not a mouthpiece of the RNC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would any news organization make their target audience "idiot redneck ill informed dupe(s)"? It seems those people wouldn't even be interested in watching the news.

[cardcounter0]

Please name one business Bush ran sucessfully?
(success not defined as stuffing his own pockets full at the expense of those whose interests he was supposed to be protecting).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would any news organization make their target audience "idiot redneck ill informed dupe(s)"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because advertisers love 'em

[ QUOTE ]
It seems those people wouldn't even be interested in watching the news.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't know they are idiot redneck ill informed dupes, they think they know whats going on in the world and Fox confirms it for 'em

[anatta]

I think Fox is targeting the same people who have made Rush Limbaugh so successful. Idiot redneck dupes.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If you call saying "Shut up" several times, I guess O Reily does give his guest a chance to defend themselves, although I admit I dont watch the show, but I have seen enough of his act.

[/ QUOTE ]

O'reilly isn't perfect, and needs improvement, but he is better than many commentators at times. I've seen some of the articles written against him, alot of them distort the facts. He has very good days, and then he has bad days. I've watched countless episodes of his shows, and the only time I saw him unfairly yell over the other person was when he was against NYT's krugman and also against a Swift boat vet. He didn't have to yell, he could of easily torn both apart, but instead he let his emotions get ahold of him. It doesn't take much brainpower to see through that. It takes research and brainpower to see through Dan Rather.



[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread is just stupid. Fox News is so clearly 1984 Orewellian Up is Down Right is Wrong, Fair and Balanced when so clearly they aren't, its just a joke to thinking people, but this is not Fox's target audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

A joke to thinking people? My dad is a senior partner lawyer, my sister has a M.D. and a Ph.D., I am a RA2, and my brother graduated on the Dean's list from Notre Dame. We all watch FoxNews, are we not thinking people? Or are we just hillbilly unedumacated rednecks. That statement of yours is a statement of bigotry.




[ QUOTE ]
This is not to imply the conservatives on this board arent smart or havent made me think, I think they watch fox the same reason I read Eric Alterman or Salon, its just fun to hear your own propaganda, but Fox's Target audience is the idiot redneck ill informed dupe who thinks its really a news channel, and not a mouthpiece of the RNC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider myself a conservative, or a dupe. Also the majority of my family is voting for a Democratic Governor, so I don't think we are republicans. (With the exception of my dad)

Also, If this is true then how come O'reilly really rips apart the swift boat vets (some with reason, with others he seems to do it unfairly), and has at times, IMO, unfairly ripped apart Bush. O'reilly pisses off both sides, the left and the right alike. He still will let anyone on the show, which is good. Whether or not they can deal with his aggressiveness is a whole different matter.

I will say you might of hit one thing somewhat close to right. News may not be for the heavy thinkers.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

If you want to think buy:
Machiavelli, The Prince
Lee Harris, Civilization and it's enemies
Thomas Friedman, Lexus and Olive tree

[cardcounter0]

Murdoch is very cozy with the RED CHINESE. Why? Because they broadcast the party line while appearing to present a balanced view. In America, they use the same formula. Preach to the sheep what the sheep want to hear, and call it 'fair and balanced'. Examine the Murdoch Global Media Empire and do you think America is "special"? They use the same formula -- preach to the choir, and say what the people in power with their hands on the broadcast license want to hear.

[anatta]

Fine, Fox News is swell. O'reilly isn't a con artist. Fine people like him and Fox news. Hannity and Colmes isn't the Globetrotters vs. Generals, but reasoned debate. Hume, Cameron, Beltway Boys, these guys just tell it like it is.

To save time, for the other guy, Bush was a fine businessman. Pulled himself right up by his bootstraps.

Oh, on the Swift Boat vets, this was O'Reillys take, (again I saw it for 2 min., but that was enough). "Tonight, my no spin zone, hey do you think you are going to get the facts from Conservative Commentators? You think Laura Ingram is going to give you the facts? How about the LIBERAL MEDIA? You think the NEW YORK TIMES is going to tell both sides? They won't. I will. We will debate this and get all the facts out."

I think this is bulls@@t on several levels. The NYT is a news organization. Laura Ingram is like Micheal Moore, a "polemic" (Is that a word, I heard it once and it sounded cool). O'Reilly cleverly puts both on the same level, thus appearing "balanced". Liberal Media is a myth...at the very least it can be debated whether the media is conservative (an example of conservative media would be giving Bush a free pass on WMD as in the NYT...oh wait, they are liberal, why would they do this? Hmm...), but not when you frequently use the phrase "liberal media" as a plain fact. Finally, the Swift Boat Vets is a bunch of made up crap. Numerous newpapers have already debunked much of their claims, but this requires some thought and effort to figure out, so its probably not worth it.

But you see what a clever con artist O'Reilly is? I guess you don't see it like I do, but maybe I am just insane. Sorry if I what I said was bigoted before. I grew up in the South, and I have seen Conservative Rednecks, they are my family!