The blessings of FOX

Remove all ads!

Come on guys! You are being really unfair to Laches and totally missing his point, which is:

1) This thread: Fox is a biased news source! To prove it, look at news source exhibit A about Fox!
2) Laches: But exhibit A is also biased.
3) Everyone else: Laches sucks! He has an unreasonable hatred of biased news sources!

Can we show just a bit of objectivity in the interests of keeping this thread alive?

To Laches: In a totally objective and non-hostile way, here's where you're wrong. Most people who watch liberally-biased news sources are just naive and really believe they are seeing "the Truth". Whereas I'd argue that a lot of people choose Fox deliberately *because* they'd rather see a biased news source, i.e. as I mentioned before, "I don't want to see anyone question America, it upsets me, and probably should be illegal under the Patriot act".

Not being American and not having a TV, since I'm an intellectual , I have virtually no direct experience with Fox itself. I acquired my distaste for it from hearing my American friends speak of it in glowing terms as "the only news source that doesn't question America!" or "the only patriotic news source!". People who choose their news stations this way scare me badly - no matter how much I liked them before the war.

 

All I know is that bias is next to impossible to eliminate, regardless of the media. I'm not really familiar with FOX, but I think it's safe to say that everyone knows their particular bias, even if they agree with it or not. So what FOX does is not harmful, IMHO, as everyone knows what they is is not unbiased.
The fact that some right wingers see it as the best does not mean that they do not recognize the other side of the story -- they merely disregard it.

 

Sprite pretty much nailed it. A lot of the people who watch Fox, watch it not because they're brainless and then are completely molded by these Repbulicans veiws but because they're tired of the liberalist slants of, "America is evil because they're going into Iraq and killing babies." Okay I might have exaggerated the last point, but that is the entire point of this. -- The media slants and exaggerates things. I myself began watching Fox during the very beginning of the Iraq invasion but I got REALLY sick of all the "America is evil" and all the celeberty and idiot protests by people who didn't know their facts. (Those who did know their facts I didn't mind protesting, those who didn't and just jumped and assumed without even trying to find out. . .)

Yes, Fox is slanted. Of course it's biased. We all know it. And yes, it may seem extremely more slanted than say CNN or MSNBC (which I can't stand) but that ANY of the news AT ALL is slanted disgusts me. Which was of course, Snook's point in the beginning. I was going to go into journalism. This year though I've become so disgusted with the complete LACK of journalistic integrity that I've come to despise the feild. As Snook pointed out, journalistic integrity means delivering JUST the facts as they are and letting the people make their own decisions. If you take a journalism class one of the things they'll hone on about is making your stuff JUST facts without letting your opinions influence it. That the media now believes that influenced works sell more, disgusts me. I really do believe that I'm not in a minority here and most of the people WOULD just like the facts, without any slant at all. (My thought is write letters to the editors all a bunch of newspapers and start a wave of response.)

Oh and that's another thing; don't get me wrong, I'm not siding liberally or conservatively; BUT each side (in America anyways) DOES display the facts and correct statistics (though sometimes you have to do some background research to make sure of that) they simply slant it and sometimes leave out other facts. So while the American presses haven't gone so far as to tell deliberate lies, they are toeing the lines. Still, at least it wasn't as bad as the Minister of Information in Iraq, eh? Now those were some blatant lies. hehehe, I thought he was funny: "There are no Americans in Baghdad. Those are not bombs you hear in the background. No, no, not at all. We are currently chasing the Americans in the desert and they will soon be routed..."

 

Sprite - I glad that you are so familiar with the "liberal" mindset in believing that everything it sees is the "truth." It must be nice not to pay any attention to what already has been posted here. This was an excellent discussion about the role of the media, more in a general sense using Fox only as a point of departure. Too bad that some have seen fit to make the attacks personal on those posting here. But then I guess all of us TV watching Americans just can't measure up to your intellectual standards. Too bad.

Edit: By the way, which biased news sources do you think that a "naive libreal" such as myself would watch?

[ September 03, 2003, 05:42: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Yeah, those were blatent lies alright. Nothing at all like Rumsfield saying that not only does Iraq has WMD's but that we know where they are. Or Blair saying they could be unleased in 45min. Good thing we don't have ministers of disinformation over here. We just "stretch" the truth but tell no blantent lies. Btw, I have some cheap land to sell if anyone wants to buy some.

 

Ah, interesting. The point is, there is nothing which sells better then porn. Porn is the ultimate selling thing. So I buy a information-channel to tell me exactly what I want to hear. The problem is, I refuse to believe there is only a choice between pravda and porn. Even if there are things, which are far out of reach, like stars and truth, there is no excuse for not trying to get there. I want the best aviable information to know what's going on and not a whore telling me what I like, with the excuse, nothing is perfect, but this at least sounds good.

In this cases, I do not like a Nitzsche-attitude, god is dead and everything which is left is lies.

 

Keep your hair on, Red. No one's attacking you personally. My examples are from people I know - all of my friends are extremely left-wing and I used to live in a commune, and every single friend I've ever tried to engage in a debate about the media believe that there are "right-wing biased" news sources like Fox and the National Post, and there are "truthful" news sources like Ms., Mother Jones, the Utne Reader, and Salon. The fact that these use little-to-no advertising is usually offered as "proof" that the journalists have not been bought out by right-wing interests.

On the other side, my right-wing acquaintances know damn well that Fox is biased and that's what they like about it - God forbid anything should challenge their moral complacency or patriotism. I find this pretty damn disgusting and that's why I prefer to be friends with naive idealists.

But since you have proferred yourself as an example, here's what you said to me earlier in this thread:

We can agree to disagree, of course, but I found this one of the most sweetly naive comments I've read here in a long time. Maybe ever.

 

Sprite - Glad to see you're not getting personal in your attacks, yeah, right. But I don't choose my friends based on any kind of political ideology. In fact, both my parents are card-carrying republicans (they watch Fox, but I'm still friends with them, I hope). I guess I can see why you can easily recogonize a naive statement when you see one.

Edit: As an afterthught, I felt I should defend my post in which I critized people who watch movies and read People magazine. I know these are popular but they are nevertheless escapist in nature. On the other hand, some are curious by nature and become news junkies. I don't think a lot of people choose to be news junkies because of political ideology, for the most part. But to get anywhere near "accurate information" one must draw on a number of sources on an issue or event and then apply critical thinking to all the sources avaliable to draw anything close to a real conclusion.

[ September 03, 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I know this is supposed to be a serious debate, but I just couldn't resist:

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2003/09/03/

 

I am going to take Sprite's comments in a little different twist.

I personally find the conservatives to be more intellectually honest. They acknowledge that Fox has a conservative slant and that is why they watch it and truly don't care what the liberal stations are doing.

The liberals on the other hand despise Fox and attack it at every opportunity, yet they do NOT acknowledge their own bias.

I also do not believe that this is only limited to news broadcasts. I have never understood how liberals are always willing to protect the first amendment (the right to free speech) only if they agree with what is being said. I consider it sad.

I recall two seperate incidents while I was in college. Senator Ted Kennedy came to the campus to give a speech. The young republican's club showed up and carried some not very flattering signs about the girl he supposedly killed. Other than that things went off without a hitch. A few weeks later a southern republican senator (his name is lost to my memory) showed up and just as he was about to talk a bunch of hooligans started shouting and screaming so nobody could hear what he was saying. Campus police showed up and tried to drag them out. It turned into an almost riot. The whole point of the two speakers was they were going to talk about similar issues and in our American Government class we were supposed to compare and contrast them. Needless to say the professors were pissed for nobody could do the assignment. The local television stations had a field day.

 

Well, the above example I think is like Fox a symptom of a bulldog-mentallity. Two tribes, two parties, on a crusade versus eachother. And the main focus is not issues but underwear. The point would be, to lock both sides in an editor-office. Then they can bite eachother, slap eachother, kick eachother, scream at eachother, but the outcome would be fusion of both sides, maybe even worth reading. And probably even worth the bruises.

 

A bit late but apropos nonetheless:

Bizarro 9/18

 

What an irony that the US, the country triumphing over the evil empire of the soviet union with their concept of a free and open society, and now that.

I pretty much agree with that, especially on the UN part. IMO Bush just went there to say: "See, I tried ... but ... they are evil". And as there are still millions in russia sniffing and grieving when they think about the good old days of the soviet empire there will form a quite similar cult in the US: "And we were right". Unlike Gallileo they weren't, but it's a feelgood attitude in the orwellian way mentioned by Ragusa in another thread:

 

Anyone who thinks that CNN is as liberal as Fox is conservative is an idiot. No offense.

The reason that these conservative media outlets sprang up is because conservatives are extremely insecure in their illogical beliefs and need to be reassured over and over and over that they are 'right'. That is why millions of idiots listen to Rush Limbaugh spew and distort the same talking points 3 hours a day, 5 times a week.

And lets get something straight here: people are not mad at Fox News because they are conservative. They hate Fox because they are pathological liars, deceivers, and hypocrites.

That Brit Hume thing about Iraq is a classic example.

A new example is comparisons of General Wesley Clark and Arnold S.. They pretty much spend about 10% of their on air time bashing Wesley Clark, "he is an untested commodity". I guess a 4-star general with an education from Oxford is an untested commodity. But what about the pickled-brained actor? "He is a breath of fresh air." It was pretty sad seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly with their tounges halfway up Arnold's crack.

And then we have O'Reilly's "The Spin Zone" and his neverending crusade against the "secularists," which is absolutely pathetic.

Anyone who watches "The Spin Zone" or "The Sean Hannity Show" knows O'Lie-ly and Hannity have a tendency to... ummm lie.

The last time I watched Hannity he said "the vast majority of democrats want to recall Gray Davis". Later in the show he accidentally let the real number slip: 40%. The guest caught him and Hannity, acting like the liar he is, never admitted his mistake.

Both O'Reilly and Hannity are OBSSESSED with Clinton. It is very, very hard for them to acknowledge the 8 years of prosperity under Clinton and the immediate downturn as soon as another Bush stepped into office.

I think what hurts them most is the fact that even though they branded him as the anti-christ he was a great President and father. Take George W. Bush's daughters: they are drunkards (like their father), used fake-IDs, and used the secert-service to get one of their boyfriends out of jail. Now look at Chelsea Clinton: never once in trouble with the law and graduates from Stanford in 3 years.

I bring this up because O'Reilly did a 15 minute segment on Chelsea Clinton when she went to a tennis game with a tight shirt on. FIFTEEN MINUTES. Is that really newsworthy? It just proves that 10 years after Clinton came into office that is the worst O'Reilly could come up with on Chelsea. Pathetic. And, to the best of my knowledge, George and Jeb Bush's failure to properly raise their children have not been addressed by O'Reilly.

I could go on and on.

[ September 29, 2003, 21:53: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

 

I like this quote because it illustrates the mindset of many here I think. Here is another quote from an article, off Slate, not about news coverage but the quote is on point I think:

The initial quote is the type of ad hominem that is at the center of the detrioration of political debate in my opinion. It's this attitude that is increasingly perpetuated both nationally in the media and more personally in our lives on this particular board.

I think there is a tremendous amount of partisianship here and that results in people loudly proclaiming the evil of those on the other side while ignoring the plank in their own eye if you will. This type of 'debate' has at least two problems I see initially, making it partisian:

a) It's partisan because it makes the statement and judgement based upon party affiliation, implying cause and effect. Someone is a Republican or Conservative = she is a liar.

b) These type of debates are not used towards a specific political point, but as a blanket statement about all forms of policy. Saying "Republicans or Conservatives are dinks" dismisses an entire group of people with a political viewpoint that is different from yours, putting you at danger of shutting your ears when they may have good ideas for which people can work in common

I'm trying to say we shouldn't have the connect (in anyone's mind) between Republican/Democrat = liar. Veracity is not driven by ideology. By saying "Democrats lie, too," I'm trying to say that those political characteristics are not related to, or driven by, party affiliation. Democrat or Republican is incindental to what is a broader, deeper sickness.

It's the difference between saying:
"Statistically black people commit more crimes" and saying "Blacks are criminals." When that difference is pointed out, should the response be "Oh, I guess you're just superior hovering above the fray, aren't you Mr. Smarty Pants?"

I don't think the word "partisan" is in and of itself a dirty word, but it can be when it blinds us with party jingoism (can you have jingoism for a party?) and makes us more worried about electoral pissing contests than working for our beliefs, whatever they might be.

Adding: I thought of an example of the type of attitude I'm talking about and feel is expressed herein: when you see posts from people utterly amazed that they could ever agree on a point with another member. The belief that they knew something about the other poster based on an internal intellectual label they placed.

 

Laches you'll be happy to know there is a postive correlation between the degree of education a person recieves and the degree of liberalism in that persons views if you were to do a regression analysis of liberalism against level of education.

Take from that what you will.

The detrioration of the political debate is a result of the over-simplification of the issues and deceptive reporting and commentary like we see on Fox News channel or 'a Laches post'.

Here is yet another example of dishonest reporting by Fox: by far the most important news item of the day is that 2 senior Bush administration officials leaked the idenity of an undercover CIA agent (the agent just happened to be the wife of a man critical of Bush's dishonest war). Yet for some strange reason, Fox's lead story is a cheerleader-style piece on 'the actor.' Isn't that strange?

 

First, could you define 'liberal' please? Check that - first, how about a source? Nevermind, how about this source:

http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins/tim98-11-4.html

Given your earlier characterization of 'idiots' I think it's safe to say that you believe there is a causal connection between more education and being liberal. I think it may also imply a connection to being uneducated and being an 'idiot' but I'll let you speak to that.

According to the research done on the 98 election, you seem to be crowing about 54%. So, the most educated favor the Democrats at 54% and that means..... what? If someone, say Rush Limbaugh, were to say there is a positive correlation between being uneducated and being 'liberal' and then went on to say that anyone agreeing with the liberal media are idiots, would we then be justified in believing liberals are uneducated and idiots? The statistics seem to back up both your point and the hypothetical Rush Limbaugh's point equally well.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite sayings: correlation does not equal causation.

Is my current response to your branding approximately half of America (the half that disagrees with you) just more of the awful deception leading to a deterioration of the debate? I know I have been simplifying things. Would it be more accurate and not oversimplifying things if I took your que and decided everyone who was in group x is an idiot?

That said, I don't really think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are particularly meaningful. Take your boy Ahrnold: he's pro-choice (pointy headed liberal), pro-early education programs (bleeding hearted liberal), favored the war (I think anyways - that fascist capitalist pig), he'd like to reduce taxes (that callous conservative dog), he's.... Serious politicians are the same - Giuliani (sp?) is quite a fun laundrylist if you're into the classification game.

EDIT - punctuation

[ September 30, 2003, 15:19: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Yes, it's funny how we can see our own faults in other people. Leave it to some to get away from the main topic at hand and start attacking the people who post in the community, because they happen to disagree with YOUR mindset.

Getting back to the real topic, the media outlets can be partisan if they wish. But any such connection with a faction of government should be stated up front. It is dishonest to claim to be "fair and balanced" and then proceed to project the news in a completely partisian fashion. The same is of course true for both sides.

 

Check your source first. A site with a picture of Bill Clinton's head on a donkey's body is not a trustworthy site. You look like a damn fool posting that. Think first, then post. Please tell me you realize that was a bad site to help prove your point.

And this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Conservatives have to 'prove' their points through lies and deception. As you just proved in your last post by posting some pundit's site.

Here is one of their headlines: "Author: Hillary Convinced Bill to Bomb Serbia." Here is another: "Repressing White Americans Through Rampant Immigration".

Wow, you must feel pretty stupid now. Huh?

[ September 30, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]