wow foxnews is biased, look at headlines right now

[cornell2005]

they have a link to an article that is titled "bush blooms late in face-off." inside the article they mention that this, of course, is the opinion of the Bush campaign. later in the article, towards the middle, they run through the polls about the last debate, every one of which Kerry "won." How can they run a an article title so misleading? Then on the right side they have a video of "an exclusive interview with Bush reacting to the last debate." just an observation.. btw my motivations for posting this are not partisan

[CarlSpackler]

To say Fox News has a right wing bias is like saying Michael Moore has a little bit of a weight problem. Frankly, I think Fox News has a brilliant business model – slant their news and views to the right, and consistently attack other news organizations for slanting their bias to the left. This is why they’re crushing the competition. A lot of right wing people only want to hear/read news, which conforms to their views. This is why Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., get huge radio ratings, and liberal radio can barely get off the ground.

I have consistently frequented Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and cbsnews.com nearly every day on the internet for a couple years now, to view the bias and conformity of these sites. The degree of Fox’s bias is exponential compared to these other sites. It includes everything from choosing their lead stories, ignoring stories every other new outlet reports on, and the wording and phrasing they use on there headlines. One of the worst instances of bias was during the initial invasion of Iraq, when the US had its worst day casualty wise, and every news source led with this, because it was the most important story. Fox had the verdict of the lady who hit and killed the bum stuck in her windshield as its lead. I believe MSNBC has a slight left wing bias, but compared to Fox you wouldn’t even notice. Based on my experience, I would say the CNN offers the most unbiased news of all these outfits, and that’s where I go first if I want the most facts.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., get huge radio ratings, and liberal radio can barely get off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it couldnt possibly be because people just dont want to listen to liberals. I mean why would they, they can just turn ABC or CBS for that.

[PITTM]

i was thinking about this exact issue today. i watched fox news for about 30 minutes and it was literally nonstop talk about how bush had destroyed kerry and kerry was a flip flopper. i turn to cnn and they were talking about each party's strategy down the homestretch. i dont understand why this would make cnn a bunch of crazy liberals while it is perfectly reasonable that fox is so biased. i wish there was a way to reason with conservatives on this one...

rj

[Daliman]

The aren't the #1 cable news network because they have better news, attack other news outlets, or have better stories. It's simply because they ARE right wing. If you are a republican, you want to watch people who have and present similar viewpoints. Democrats would do the same, although of course most right wingers think most media is liberal anyways.

It's really pretty simple; If you took 100 people who were going to watch a cable news show, presented them with fox, msnbc, and cnn, if it's a 50/50 split Rep/Dem, most Republicans watch Fox, and most Dems are split between CNN and MSNBC. There is also, however, some democrats watching Fox;
A. Because they want to see what the other side is thinking.
B. They want to get pissed off.(like women who watch Lifetime movies...)
C. They hear Fox is #1 Cable News show, and decide to watch it for that.
D. Fox is actually pretty good, except for the rightness.

I personally have zero problem with Fox being right-wing. More power to them. Excellent business model. I DO have a problem with them saying they are fair and balanced, and constantly denying their bias.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
they have a link to an article that is titled "bush blooms late in face-off." inside the article they mention that this, of course, is the opinion of the Bush campaign. later in the article, towards the middle, they run through the polls about the last debate, every one of which Kerry "won." How can they run a an article title so misleading? Then on the right side they have a video of "an exclusive interview with Bush reacting to the last debate." just an observation.. btw my motivations for posting this are not partisan

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to Fox, the titles headline isn't that way off. The third debate was Bush's best performance. So he did Bloom late in faceoff. Kristol analyzed in depth the content of both Bush's and Kerry's repsonses, and I agree Bush had better content in this debate. Also, the article did say all the polls had Kerry as a win. So I don't think it was that biased.

I would of picked a different title for the article. But I didn't think it was that big of a deal. They should of said "Bush blooms late in Faceoff, Polls show Kerry win". If you have that much of a problem with it, e-mail them and complain.

[Stu Pidasso]

Heres a pretty onesided article that was on cnn.com. Complete with the obligatory happy candidate picture.

TAMPA, Florida (Reuters) -- Democrat John Kerry's campaign was declared a no-gloat zone on Friday after the White House challenger's debate against President George W. Bush but aides said winds of change had begun to blow through the race.

The Massachusetts senator declined to claim victory himself even though supporters in Tampa greeted him with chants of "You won!" and quick polls by television networks right after the debate showed more Americans gave him the edge.

"Oh, no, no, no," Kerry said. "Let me make it clear to everybody. We have to win every day from now until November 2." (Special report: America Votes 2004, the debates)

His staff and advisers used superlatives like powerful, concise, steady and strong to describe his showing in the nationally televised showdown with Bush on Iraq and homeland security.

"What pleased me about the debate last night was that we had an opportunity finally to be able to stand up in front of Americans as two people -- no 30-second advertisements, no distortions -- and talk about the truth to the American people," Kerry said.

Staying on the attack, he ridiculed Bush for "trying to debate himself" on Iraq.

"He keeps trying to say 'well we don't want somebody who wants to leave, we don't want to wilt or waver,"' Kerry said. "Well, Mr. President, nobody's talking about leaving, nobody's talking about wilting and wavering, we're talking about winning and getting the job done right. Let's have the real debate."


Beyond the spin and the hype, there was a palpable feeling of relief that Kerry had passed the commander-in-chief test during his forceful clashes with Bush over who could best protect America, the rationale for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and how to lead the country in an age of terrorism.

"I saw one man, one commander in chief who stood tall and strong," said Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida. Even Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who campaigned with Bush on Friday, praised Kerry's performance as perhaps his "brightest moment."

Senior Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said the candidate would turn the same aggressive focus from Bush's "wrong choices" on Iraq to domestic issues like health care and education.

"We are basically taking the argument about choices we've made in foreign policy and extending that out to a range of other issues," he said. "The setup we're going to be using falls within the framework that there's a change a comin' with Senator Kerry, there's more of the same with George Bush."

The 90-minute debate on Thursday night at the University of Miami campus gave voters their first chance to directly compare the candidates.

Both camps said in advance they expected it to be key in a tight White House race that polls have shown is leaning toward Bush.

"America saw a commander in chief," vice presidential nominee John Edwards told Kerry in a late-night telephone call. "You were strong."

"It puts the wind at our backs a little," one aide said. "He's fired up."

Trying to dial back some of the enthusiasm, McCurry cautioned that the debate would not change "the fundamental horse race" immediately, but "opens up a conversation."

While the Kerry campaign described Bush -- who sighed and scowled at times when the Democrat was speaking -- as rambling, distracted and disengaged, the Bush camp called him "pensive and focused."

"The president looked like there was nowhere else in the world that he did not want to be but this debate," McCurry said.

"With his facial expressions there was clear evidence that he was not comfortable in the debate, he made it obvious he was not prepared to engage with Senator Kerry on the fundamentally important issues."


Comments?

Stu

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]

No it couldnt possibly be because people just dont want to listen to liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

In just a few months, Air America is in 35 markets, satelite radio, and on the Sundance Channel. Its here to stay. It took Rush some time before he became the force he is. In a few years, liberal radio could be a force as well.

As the poster says. Fox's bias is "exponentially" greater than any supposed bias of the other networks. Its amazes me that someone as smart as you cannot see this.

[Stu Pidasso]

The new title is

"The Day After"

Stu

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No it couldnt possibly be because people just dont want to listen to liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

In just a few months, Air America is in 35 markets, satelite radio, and on the Sundance Channel. Its here to stay. It took Rush some time before he became the force he is. In a few years, liberal radio could be a force as well.

As the poster says. Fox's bias is "exponentially" greater than any supposed bias of the other networks. Its amazes me that someone as smart as you cannot see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, they are way worse than Dan *cough* delusional *cough* Rather.

Just curious where do you get your news?