|
|
#23
05-13-2003, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fox News Outed
"FOX was named the best station for war coverage by at least one major city newspaper."
I doubt it, although its hardly below one of Murdoch's papers to do this. You're probably thinking of the "award" given Fox by Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, a self-proclaimed "conservative" media watchdog that lambasts any departure from the right-wing line. Bozell is a GOP activist-thug from way back and his nasty little outfit is funded by the usual goon squad of right-wing personal fortunes (the Mellons, Coors's, the Bradleys, the Olins). 
|
|
#26
05-13-2003, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fox, Al-Jazeera, and CNN
Sure, I agree that Fox News is biased. But the main thing point here is that Al-Jazeera is more biased, and apparently more deceptive as well.
Now of course ideally we'd all like to see completely unbiased news (I hope). But let's assign credit or blame in proportion. When bias spills over into not reporting important facts (such as Al-Jazeera's misleading the Arab street into thinking Baghdad was not about to fall), or when CNN deliberately withholds very important and newsworthy stories (about their detailed knowledge of torture practices and locations in Iraq during the last decade), these things are more culpable (search CNN Eason Jordan if you want links. Even PBS was outraged at the revelations by CNN's Eason Jordan). Certainly playing "Candy Man" and ridiculing ideas or parties or people is not pure reporting, and it's a low swipe. However it also is not pure deceit, whereas Al-Jazeera and CNN are both guilty of pure deceit through deliberate and very important ommissions. And I expect everyone would agree that in journalism, deliberate deceit or deliberately withholding vital information for ulterior motives is the worst kind of reporting and goes beyond mere bias.
|
|
#27
05-13-2003, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fox News Outed
Of course it's biased to say something is flaky. It's an opinion. I thought the administration was crazy to invade Iraw. It's my opinion. It would have no place in a newscast, the same was playing The Candy Man to describe a policy, during a newcast, has no place.
The relevance comment was facetious. Which major city newspaper(s) named Fox best for war coverage?
|
|
#29
05-13-2003, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FOX best war coverage
The article naming FOX the best war coverage appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a very old, employee owned, and award winning newspaper. It may have just been an article rather than an actual award.
What you are all missing is that FOX does news, and news ANALYSIS. It is perfectly valid and expected for an analyst to express his informed opinion during news analysis, and this is different from hard reporting. When a fact based analysis favors one side of an issue, the other side always claims bias, it's a political thing. Here is a link to an earlier post I wrote detailing some of FOXs various shows. I have it on nearly 24 hour a day. I fall asleep in front of it, until I get awakened by people screaming at each other. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] This morning I woke up to some lefty screaming "TELL ME HOW MANY AMERICANS SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS KILLED IN THE LAST 11 YEARS!" You hear some really interesting things when you listen to it in a half asleep state. FOXNews Hey, I finally figured out how to give these things my own label instead of that long mess. Just click URL, next to the Graemlins, and it will prompt you for a link and a title. I think you have to select "using UBBCode" from the list box.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
