foxnews

Post Reply New Topic

Bill O'reilly is such a jackass. I wonder if he is really that jackassy or just acts that way to gain attention. I'm waiting for the day where he is totally crucifying someone on his show as usual and has a heart attack or stroke on the spot. Oh well, a man can dream...

I've stopped wathing news on TV, I only use internet sites and sometimes radio as a news source.

I just can't take all the media brainwashing anymore...

Speaking about all this, did any one else (ie. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN) broadcast anything on the tea parties Wednesday?

Overall I think the success of Fox is pretty easy to understand. You have many network news channels peddling liberal bias, only one with conservative coverage bias. Both have their truths and their crap, but their largely those truths and crap are much the opposite in their presentation - liberals and conservatives of course have their hierarchy of what they consider a salient story much differently just because they have much different fundamentals on the construct of reality in general.

That said though the logistics aren't even close. Liberal biased channels - too many to count and practically all of the network channels, conservative biased - Fox News and I've seen mention of 'The 5', no idea what The 5's viewing area is but it can be anywhere near the size of the major networks. So, just on variety and competition it shouldn't even be a surprise that Fox is doing as well as it is.

Ahh, the power of the token <insert rival ideology here>... And no, Fox News isn't alone... MSNBC has Scarborough, for instance...

That's also what all of us as a nation get into for trying to reduce a complex political argument into a single dimension... all of the major outlets are guilty of that...


...

I pray in the name of the Lord that you're kidding... Yeah, they explore two ideologies, ultra-conservative and token liberal-lite... and this is coming from a guy who yells at CNN for being liberal... It's one thing to actually explore multiple ideologies, but what Fox News does when it comes to liberals is a sham... you ever notice how when actual liberals appear on Fox, they're usually yelled off the stage by folks like O'Reilly and Hannity?


Don't get me wrong, while I disagree with the ideology, they're free to say whatever they want... freedom of the press and all that... What I hate about that particular outlet is the hypocrisy... They will "fight the power" and (rightly) talk about how patriotic one is to not support the President whenever the democrats are in power (happened back in the late 90s too when Clinton was in office)... That in and of itself is perfectly fine... But when the same outlet then says that it's un-American to not support the President, and the only thing that's changed is the party in power


Obama is also much harder to make fun of... He actually speaks English...
Okay, that was a bad joke... but you get the idea... Yeah, everyone slips up now and then, and I've seen a few Daily Show clips with Jon heavily ripping on Obama for such, but ripping on Bush's particular word choice at times was so commonplace the joke itself became stale...

I already highlighted my issue with them above. All the news outlets are hypocrites to some extent, but they take it to a whole new level... And no, they're not alone. CNN has now proven itself the mirror image of Fox News... now they're spewing the old Fox News "Love it or leave it" ideology because their particular sponsor party is in power...

Well you must be a stoned slacker... that's what O'reilly thinks of the Daily Show's viewer base...

I'm with Techstep on this one, most mainstream news has had a blatant left-wing bias for years, and the people behind Fox News were simply smart enough to see that there was probably a huge market for a news source with an opposite slant, and have profited handsomely from their foresight. I wouldn't say that Fox is any more or less biased than any other of the "major" news outlets, but for whatever reason seems to inspire absolutely irrational rage from people that were used to having all the news slant their way. I'd guess it has something to do with the way that right vs left wing demographics fall, with lefties tending to be younger and more vocal, where the Fox audience is more likely to be older and more mellowed out about their politics.

Last edited by Dox47 on 18 Apr 2009, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've never seen FOX news honestly. I use Al Jazeera online English, the BBC, and the Yomiuri Shimbun as my main sources of news. Television news is far to slick and busy, how is one supposed to pay attention to what the anchor is saying, while watching that little news ticker at the bottom?
I will say though, that I have a huge crush on that lady from MSNBC, Rachel Maddow. She's positively adorable.

I didn't say perfectly balanced, I said balanced.


Too conservative for your taste doesn't make them "ultra-conservative".

I don't think you're being fair in assesing their fairness.


I've never seen them yell anyone off stage, no.


I don't see the inconsistency here. They think that certain actions and opinions are patriotic, and they support a president who agrees with them and oppose one who doesn't. So?


Have you seen the man's ears?

In the press conference where Obama was talking about piracy, he called it "privacy", yet none of the fox news guys even bothered to mention it.

Don't tell me that *any* president can't be made fun of.


Exactly. This is how mainstream media treated Bush, but not how fox treats Obama.


Why would I care what O'reilly's opinion of the Daily Show is?

I was referring to the injection of wittiness and humor into news reporting to make it more interesting.

I won't dispute that... I have biases like everyone else on this planet... I just don't get all hypocritical and say I don't... That's the big difference, there... I don't have as much of a problem with any perceived lack of fairness I may have... it's the hypocrisy first and foremost...


Three words: cut his mic... effective method to remove the other person from the situation...


So launching a protest against a war because I think it did nothing to make us safer and cost more American lives than 9/11 did is somehow unpatriotic and against all American values, but protesting a President's economic policy is somehow the core definition of patriotism? Which way is it? Either both forms of protest are patriotic, or neither are... I would like to lean on the side of "both"... I have no problems with the current "tea party" protests... I just have a problem with them being endorsed by an agency that has a track record of speaking negatively of other protesting in the past because it "harms the security of our nation"...


I won't dispute that... of course any president can be made fun of... but some are easier targets than others... And it isn't just Bush... Jon Stewart had a field day with Clinton during the Lewinsky trials... That's part of what gave the Daily Show much of it's early popularity soon after Jon Stewart took over...

Yes, I agree most news stations have slant HOWEVER FOX is the only news station I know of that has been cited on multiple occasions by watchdog groups as heavily biased to the point of being a talk show instead of news.

Citations
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

and even tho its wikipedia, it condenses all of the above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... troversies

Everyone has biases, and everyone who admits that they are biased believes that they are less biased than other people.

However, the consensus seems to be that Fox really is worse than others in overtly pushing an agenda. Even some right-wing hardliners I know go for CNN over Fox- one purportedly to "watch the enemy" but also several who openly admit that Fox is simply too biased to be taken seriously as a news source.


Yeah... basically whichever party is in power uses the "He's the President, so you should support him even if you don't agree with his policies" line while the out-party will refuse to accept the in-party's legitimacy. Also, legislative filibusters are heroic opposition and preservation of minority rights against despotism of the majority by whichever party is weaker at the time, but are disloyal obstructionism, bordering on treason, to the party that holds a slim majority. Do you remember a few years back when the Republicans were tossing around the idea of doing away with Senate filibusters?


Suppression? No, you can find, somewhere, a source that will suit your own biases, no matter what those are.

I actually don't own a television. My news comes from the internet, primarily bbc.com.

I pretty much instantly discount the opinions of someone who says that most media has a left-wing bias. There is only one channel, MSNBC, that has *recently* adopted a left-wing bias.

The majority of news media has a bias *towards the truth*. If the truth lends itself to the "left-wing" (which those on the right consider centrists to be), then maybe that's just because the right-wing bias is chock full of BS. Only recently have I noticed a left-wing bias with Maddow and Olbermann, before that, it's a fairy tale.

News media is interested in MONEY, not some ideological compulsion.

Fox news is more propaganda source than news frequence.

Its anchors are sycophants towards right-wing conservatives but yells at liberals.

Its news are sometimes forged (WMD;s in Iraq, Reagan's shrine, etc).

With "fair and balanced", Fox News means that it balance news from ideological perspective, not that they are factual. Bill O'Reilly has level of debate of fourteen-year old. Hannity and Colmes is built upon making Hannity appear as masculine and Colmes as weak.

Left-wing equivalent to Fox News would lament USA as imperialist state which murders and destroys everything, propagate for abortions and constantly attack right-wingers.

CNN probably have borderline liberal slant, but truth is reality is probably closer to democratic party than insane republican party.

There is definitely a bias in the news gathering propagating organizations, but I would not call it left wing or even liberal. I would characterize it as Statist. That Statist view is that the State or Government is absolutely necessary to benign development in society. That all the "good" things come from individual actions guided and nurtured by the State. It is a Hegelian attitude. The State is the source of Social Good (not as Adam Smith proposed, Self Interest working its magic). The Statists believe we need the very Visible Hand of the State to keep things going well.

I come from a different place. I regard the State as a necessary evil because there are enough people who simply cannot keep their hands off other people's lives, time and property. I think I have come to agree with the basics of Hobbes. That State is a kludge that has been adopted to prevent the basic dynamics of the Prisoner's Dilemma from leading to ruination.

If any on you have seen the original version of the motion picture -The Day the Earth Stood Still- you will understand me when I say we need Gort rather badly to keep from degenerating into an endless civil war.

ruveyn

Which, of course, poses the obvious question, since Gort has not been in evidence"How come there is peace anywhere anytime?"

Fatigue. People have to rest, regroup, re-arm and heal their wounds between wars.

There is no steady state peace. We are hominid version 5.0, born to fight.

And even when we are not throwing rocks at each other, we call each other insulting names and are mean to strangers.

ruveyn

Aah well. And I thought I was a pessimist.