Bill O'Reilly or FoxNews Fans

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why FoxNews is such a bone in the left's throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because anyone who watches them can tell that they a. dumb down coverage and b. have a rightist slant and then have the audacity to call themselves "fair and balanced".

[/ QUOTE ]

hetron I like Bruce's take. Question, if they didn't call themselves "fair and balanced" would that change your viewpoint? This seems like something to ignore rather than despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with Bruce's take. If you want to look at a right-of-center media outlet, look at the Wall Street Journal. Now, I don't agree with a lot of their editorials. However, the distinction between something like the WSJ and FoxNews is obvious. The Wall Street Journal tries to at least appear objective, and does not insult the reader's intelligence with low brow mudslinging about "liberals". FoxNews dumbs down their coverage specifically to appeal to the republican cheerleading types who listen to Limbaugh. They don't even pretend to be objective. The part about calling themselves "fair and balanced" is just adding insult to the injury.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the meaning of a "CNN-level lie"?

[/ QUOTE ]
CNN was caught flatout lying about the Saddam Regime prior to the war. CNN made a concerted effort to portay Saddam's regime in a more positive light. This is not in dispute and CNN admitted it. If I ever saw that Fox got caught in a story like this I would lose all credibility for Fox immediately. However, I dont believe Fox has ever been caught in such a scandal.

I dont think a stupid story from OReilly about some beef with some paper is really much of a condemnation of Fox. More likely it is just shoddy fact gathering. It reminds me of Joe Scarbarough (sp?) just getting busted for reporting on a completely ficticious story about Arnold. Does this mean that NBC is now to be condemned since J-o-e to the C is on an NBC show?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read FAIR and it is an absolute joke. I am not looking to defend fox as I dont care where my news comes from and I don't care if the newspaper/outlet slants left or right. I just want accurate facts and the whole picture. I have yet to find Fox manipulate the news. Additionally, I go to Fox to hear what the left has to say. If Fox is so slanted right, how come all the left mouthpieces get time on Fox?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me why FAIR is an absolute joke. I really want to hear this.

I'll get to the rest of your points later, after you respond to that one.

[Utah]

Mediamatters is simply not credible. There attacks on Fox are often opnion based and not fact based. The nail story was an obvious joke, although in bad taste.

What do you see as the 3 biggest factual lies Fox has told since the start of the war?

[Utah]

Same challenge - give me a list of the few biggest lies by Fox. Please dont point me to a liberal attack site. Give me something that was widely reported as a lie in the other major media outlets.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
give me a list of the few biggest lies by Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok heres one. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an immediate threat to the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Give me something that was widely reported as a lie in the other major media outlets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think even Fox admits it now

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why FoxNews is such a bone in the left's throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because anyone who watches them can tell that they a. dumb down coverage and b. have a rightist slant and then have the audacity to call themselves "fair and balanced".

[/ QUOTE ]

hetron I like Bruce's take. Question, if they didn't call themselves "fair and balanced" would that change your viewpoint? This seems like something to ignore rather than despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is the combination of the FAB slogan and the fact that it blatantly editorialises in news stories so much. At least that's what has stood out to me the few times I've watched it.

[nicky g]

"CNN was caught flatout lying about the Saddam Regime prior to the war. CNN made a concerted effort to portay Saddam's regime in a more positive light. This is not in dispute and CNN admitted it."

I beleive this is in dispute. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that CNN issued reports from Iraq that had been vetted by Baghdad, and that it defended itself by pointing out that a. it was not alone in doing this. b. it's choice was between doing this an not being able to broadcast from Iraq at all, which it felt would leave a large hole in its coverage iof an important issue; c. that it did not skew any of its reports to cast the regime in a favourable light but rather simply didn;t report on things that it would have been forced to change in reports from Iraq-based corrrespondents; and, most importantly, d. that the censorship only affected reports from correspondents actually in Iraq and was balanced by reporting and analysis that did include material Baghdad would object to from non-Baghdad based journalists, anchors, interviews with anti-regime figures etc. Now you can argue strongly that they made the wrong choice in deciding to keep a correspondent there whose reporting would not be completely free, but to describe the network as a whole as deliberately painting the Saddam regime in a positive light seems a pretty gross mischaracterisation to me.

On the NYT thing, I'm personally not a very big fan of the paper, and I'm not going to try and argue that it isn;t slanted towards the Democrats because like most newspapers it does have a clear editorial slant (whether it could be called "liberal" on foreign policy matters is debatable IMO). But the Jason Blair story, while damaging, was hardly something that the management encouraged or approved of, and as I understand it did not have a political element. He was a rogue individual; the paper in itself could not be said to have been deliberately lying or condoning lying. I'd say if anything the Judith Miller scandal was much more grave; interesting that it rarely gets mentioned by conservatives (I know you don;t regard yourself as a conservative).

I've posted on the BBC/Milligan/WMD thing before; suffice to say I think the allegation that the BBC deliberately lied or deceived its audience here is totally unfair.

[thatpfunk]

Please cite anything about CNN from A CREDIBLE SOURCE.

Also, YOU IGNORE A STUDY DONE BY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ABOUT EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM. THEY HAVE AN AGENDA TOO???

STOP READING AND SEEING ONLY WHAT YOU WANT. IT IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH ANY SIGN OF INTELLIGENCE THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

SORRY FOR THE CAPS BUT ALL THIS IS POSTED ABOVE AND YOU IGNORED IT SO I GUESS THEY ARE NEEDED.

[Utah]

Hi Nicky,

Even if what you say is true it means that CNN lied in its reporting. It cant be viewed any other way. CNN failed to disclose the brutality of the Saddam Regime. This CNN openly admits. I couldnt give a rats ass what its reasons were. I didnt say CNN painted Saddam in a favorable light. I said they portayed his in a more favorable light. That is a much different thing.

Here is a review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true)

On the NYT, there have been any issues with the facts on the editorial page (I recall an awful lie by Dowd) and there is credible allegations (imho) that there is no oversite of the facts on the editorial page.

[ QUOTE ]
I've posted on the BBC/Milligan/WMD thing before; suffice to say I think the allegation that the BBC deliberately lied or deceived its audience here is totally unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]
I remember reading your analysis and finding it quite credible. Yet there was a scandal at the BBC where there hasnt been one at Fox. Even if I believe that your analysis is 98% likely to be correct it would mean that Fox is slightly more credible to me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]