Is Fox news destroying the GOP?

Post Reply New Topic

I stopped watching them over four years ago, because I thought they favored one side over another too much.

My thought....

All mass media is owned by a handful of powerful interests.

I find it odd that Fox is the ONLY ONE that is "conservative" or "anti-Obama" when you look at the slant all of them take on the way news is presented.

I find it odd that Glenn Beck chose to leave Fox when he was popular and tolerated. My understanding, among other reasons, is that Fox was a dead weight to him...he had to be careful of what he chose to report on and how he presented things lest Fox have an issue with him.

So, how hard is it to maintain the false "left/right" dichotomy by assigning one of the mainstream media outlets to champion the "anti-Obama" cause?

America is being engineered for a second civil war. It seems, to me, that Fox might be more of a provocateur of the masses as if everyone in the mainstream was "pro-Obama" it would be obvious that the mass media is controlled by a small group with no real difference of opinion.

So what? You are not force to watch or to listen or to read the major news papers. And there are many alternative sources of news and opinion on the internet. We live in the world of the blog and Facebook.

ruveyn

Just because a news source isn't Anti-Obama doesn't make it slanted - it may just be reporting the facts as they are.
And Glenn Beck hardly left Fox under the best of circumstances. He was driving their sponsors away for all his insane conspiracy theories and bigotry. On top of that, he was becoming too much for even Rupert Murdoch to stand.
And what the hell is this crap about a new civil war?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Problem is Glenn Beck was proven to be correct again, or did you miss the massacre in Egypt or the radicals in Libya looking like they are going to gain power.

Furthermore, you failed to mention that left wing groups were actively threatening Fox News sponsors. It ended up backfiring though, and guess who they were shooting back at, none other than mediamatters.

But Orbitz shot back, describing Media Matters as “a political organization that has been funded pretty extensively to go after one network, and we aren’t going to engage in that fight,” Orbitz spokesman Brian Hoyt told The Hollywood Reporter:

Quote:

“We have a strict policy of tolerance and non-discrimination, and that means we don’t favor one political side over another. Tolerance is a two-way street,” he said. “We’re going to advertise on conservative TV stations, liberal TV stations and — if there are any out there — unbiased news broadcasts.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/orbitz-snubs ... hat-fight/

It looks more like the left was trying to silence free speech that they didn't agree with.

Guessing it had to do with Fox News uncovering how Soros is tied to a lot of media outlets.

It’s a strategy that Soros has been deploying extensively in media both in the United States and abroad. Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $48 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news – journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations.

And that number is an understatement. It is gleaned from tax forms, news stories and reporting. But Soros funds foundations that fund other foundations in turn, like the Tides Foundation, which then make their own donations. A complete accounting is almost impossible because a media component is part of so many Soros-funded operations.
This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

It turns out that Soros’ influence doesn’t just include connections to top mainstream news organizations such as NBC, ABC, The New York Times and Washington Post. It’s bought him connections to the underpinnings of the news business. The Columbia Journalism Review, which bills itself as “a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms,” lists several investigative reporting projects funded by one of Soros foundations.

The “News Frontier Database” includes seven different investigative reporting projects funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute. Along with ProPublica, there are the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting and New Orleans’ The Lens. The Columbia School of Journalism, which operates CJR, has received at least $600,000 from Soros, as well.

Imagine if conservative media punching bags David and Charles Koch had this many connections to journalists. Even if the Kochs could find journalists willing to support conservative media (doubtful), they would be skewered by the left.

For Soros, it’s news, but it nothing new. According to “Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire,” he has been fascinated by media from when he was a boy where early career interests included “history or journalism or some form of writing.” He served as “editor-in-chief, publisher, and news vendor of” his own paper, “The Lupa News” and wrote a wall newspaper in his native Hungary before leaving, wrote author Michael T. Kaufman, a 40-year New York Times veteran. The Communist Party “encouraged” such papers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1bobl8bon

Even though that is an opinion column, the facts if you care to dig them up, actually do match what Fox News is saying.

Another Pie-Shick


What were the "Left Wing Groups" threatening to do to the Fox "News" sponsors?


You have a right to request that sponsors not advertise in particular places.


Nowhere near as many as Rupert Murdoch does.



More ridiculous Jew-bashing.

Why are liberals so prude when it comes to Fox News? It's like they have an actual fear of hearing a broad spectrum of viewpoints articulated and debated against each other. For heaven's sakes, there's even that "Fox Blocker", which is sold to spare liberals the pain of merely passing the channel while they're looking for NBC. Then again, mantra is easier on the brain, so I can see NBC's appeal.

I caught a little bit yesterday while sitting in a waiting room.

"Broad spectrum of viewpoints articulated and debated against each other?"

More like "Look at what that villain Obama did now" and "What is our best hope for defeating Obama next year?"

"If we put up a conservative candidate, then Obama is just going to tarnish him as a radical. If we put up a moderate candidate, then people won't view him as being different from Obama" or some such nonsense.

Really?

Whatever...



Boycotts, running negative news stories concerning their company, etc., you know the usual.



I don't think Orbitz would have used the language they did if Mediamatters was asking nicely...



Rupert Murdoch is pretty open and honest about what news groups he owns, and doesn't try to pull the under the table shannigans that George Soros does.



What the hell does religion or ethnic background have to do with someone's behavior in the business and political world?!?! Someone can have a problem with someone based on their personal behavior and not hate an entire ethnic group and/or religious donomination you know.

your use of the word shannigans (shenanigans?) maybe offensive to the Irish.

How many times do I have to tell you to stop attacking inuyasha?.

You are more than free to do whatever you want with your last chance here but I dont think that insulting him is worth it.

There are other Fox News segments that have liberals whom are extremely pro-Obama saying how wonderful Obama is. So the fact they had some conservatives on talking about the primary candidates (which the Republican primary is a news issue right now) and letting two Republicans argue over who the best candidate would be, actually makes sense from a news standpoint for them to have a debate over the primary candidates.

We haven't gotten to the general election yet, and one side already has their nominee which is why the Democrats aren't getting much coverage.

As I said earlier, I think none of the major American news services much good, including MSNBC, FOX and NBC, are much of anything compared to Aljazeera or the BBC. They give the best coverage of the world beyond the USA, IMHO.

Though I am not a liberal (I am a strange type of progressive), I do like hearing a broad spectrum of viewpoints debated against each other. This is why I watch "Real Time with Bill Maher": He has scholars, progressives, preachers, neoconservatives, libertarians, moderates, liberals and others: From 2008 they have included such diverse people as Fareed Zakaria, Ayaan Xirsi Cali, Mike Huckabee and Ralph Nader to Andrew Breitbart, Terry Jones and Thomas Friedman. Obviously, Bill Maher is biased but he makes his strong atheistic, center to far leftist views obvious, unlike FOX News with such slogans as "Fair and Balanced" or "We report, you decide."

Actually, I have plenty to show that the BBC is as bad as MSNBC (when it comes to certain topics (particularly their anti-Israel bias)) and Aljazeera is even worse than MSNBC when it comes to bias.



Bill O'Reilly has had on Conservatives and Liberals on his show numerous times.

Hannity has had on Bob Beckel numerous times.

Then there is Juan Williams whom was wrongfully fired from NPR.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a standing invite for Bill Maher to come on a Fox News segment once in a while.

The BBC does better than most media outlets in the US on certain topics, however Fox News does give the other side a chance to voice their opinions which is a step up from every other US media outlet and probably makes it as good or better than the BBC in that respect.

The main problem is that people often try to compare Fox News' commentators with News Anchors on another network, I mean seriously if they have to compare commentators to their news anchors, you know there is a problem with those other networks.

What pandabear said.
And to say that Glenn Beck was right in a prediction has pretty much the same veracity as saying that Nostradamus was actually right in any of his predictions. Yes - - if you make all sorts of contortions in order to make events fit said predictions.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer