Baracknophobia

[Gunny]

If Bush is a screw up, then his news will be of his screw ups. So if Fox doesn't call him out on his screw ups, then they are reporting biased news.

I'll laugh at Obama's mistakes along with everyone else. You've just been so used to having a fuck up president getting bad press for the better part of a decade that you think the whole media is out to get conservatives and that there is a liberal conspiracy behind everything you read in the NYT.

Incorrect. Journalists are supposed to report the facts, not editorialize. A long lost tenet of journalism, but a tenet nonetheless.

Some of you should actually take a course in journalism. I spent 4 years in it in school back in my liberal hippy days. You're led to the conclusion the reporting agency wants you to come to by the hand from the first word. That's ANY news reporting agency that exists. It also happens to be one of the main reasons I did not pursue journalism as a career. It's all agenda-driven and IMO dishonest, and in my youthful idealistic days I could not reconcile making a living that way with my personal belief that people should be told the facts without leading them to a predetermined conclusion.

In that regard, you can say ALL journalism is dishonest, and that's fine. But Fox has no exclusive monopoly on it. When I compare what they report to what CNN reports, by and large, it's pretty-much the same.

If I want the actual facts on an issue, I will read articles on the topic from as many different sources as I can and pick out the common denominators. They are usually the actual facts.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Incorrect. Journalists are supposed to report the facts, not editorialize. A long lost tenet of journalism, but a tenet nonetheless.
QUOTE]

Journalist are supposed to find out the facts before they can report them. Fox does not ask or bring up criticisms of the bush admin. like the other news networks do. I, as a follower of the news, would rather know the whole truth regardless of how dark, then to be fed a sugar coated version. If Obama gets elected, you will find me on this board saying about CNN what I say about Fox if they treat Obama like Fox treats bush.

 

[editec]

Even the most ethical journalist faces the problem of how to decide what to report.

No matter how hard one tries to be unbiased, deciding what it relevant to the story is often going to bias the news.

Of course now, most "journalism" isn't worth the paper it's written on...not even if it's posted online!

 

[Chris]

Watch the documentary "OutFoxed." Fox News reporters are sent emails each day to tell them what Republican talking points to push.

 

[jreeves]

Sorry if I struck a nerve. You should at least laugh at yourself once in a while. If you are actually posting the "obama is a XXXXX" crap, and are completely serious, then you need a break from the internet for your own health.

Nope you didn't strike a nerve. I think it's funny that you can't defend Obama's policies. For instance, his windfall oil profits taxes, his constant hypocrises more than most politicians, his scandalous associations, his proposals for new taxes on middle class America, his talking to ahmedijad with no pre-conditions....maybe you could start with addressing those serious issues or do you want to deflect attention away from Obama's positions even further?

 

[jreeves]

"By "defend" you mean just report the facts without any accusatory language?"

more like by having the president's chief adviser pose as a goddam reporter.

shxT

You mean political contributor right? You mean like James Carville on CNN right? Carville was President Clinton's Karl Rove....But it's Fox that's evil for getting both sides of the argument.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Nope you didn't strike a nerve. I think it's funny that you can't defend Obama's policies. For instance, his windfall oil profits taxes, his constant hypocrises more than most politicians, his scandalous associations, his proposals for new taxes on middle class America, his talking to ahmedijad with no pre-conditions....maybe you could start with addressing those serious issues or do you want to deflect attention away from Obama's positions even further?

haha. I'll discuss Obama's positions with those who want to do more than find every stories referencing Obama and some under the table money scam reported in the 4th person by Joe Schmo on his blog.

 

[CharlestonChad]

You mean political contributor right? You mean like James Carville on CNN right? Carville was President Clinton's Karl Rove....But it's Fox that's evil for getting both sides of the argument.

"Republicans now have their own network on Fox, so guys who don't like to answer questions, like Trent Lott, have a place to go to hit softballs."-Carville

 

[jreeves]

"Republicans now have their own network on Fox, so guys who don't like to answer questions, like Trent Lott, have a place to go to hit softballs."-Carville

just to think Carville regularly appears on CNN.....

 

[jreeves]

haha. I'll discuss Obama's positions with those who want to do more than find every stories referencing Obama and some under the table money scam reported in the 4th person by Joe Schmo on his blog.

Fine, how about raising taxes on Middle Class America by raising capital gains taxes....or are you going to continue to deflect?....this is funny.

 

[Reality]

Lefties are so used to the news media being so acutely biased in their favor, that when the little TV does not act as a meme for them and support their agenda thoroughly, the libs have a little sissy fit. Truth hurts. Now hold your breath and stop your feet, just like the mental child libs are.

.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm]Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest

Perhaps surprisingly, coverage of the candidates on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Brit Hume” was very similar to that of the broadcast networks. FOX’s coverage of Hillary Clinton was evenly balanced – 50% positive and 50% negative comments, compared to 51% positive and 49% negative on the “big three” networks. The tone of FOX’s coverage of Romney and Obama was also within one percentage point of the broadcast networks.

Instead, FOX stands out for having the heaviest and most issue-oriented election coverage. The first half-hour of “Special Report” has devoted 7 hours 52 minutes to election news since mid-December, an average of over 11 minutes per night, nearly half the newscast after commercial breaks. By contrast, the broadcast networks have averaged 5 hrs 8 min, or seven minutes a night.

FOX was also twice as substantive as the broadcast networks. Almost one-third of all stories on FOX (30%) dealt with policy issues, nearly double the proportion (16%) on the networks. FOX also carried less coverage of the horse race and candidate tactics than any of broadcast networks.

Unfortunately, their primetime programming, which naturally gets the most viewers, is terribly skewed. O'Rielly, who turns off people's mics and talks over anyone he doesn't agree with, and Hannity beating up on Colmes by design. When no one is watching, they are very balanced.

Anyone that gets their news from the flickering box isn't getting news at all.

I had to edit the url's in the orig post because I'm not cool enough to post urls yet.

 

[jreeves]

Unfortunately, their primetime programming, which naturally gets the most viewers, is terribly skewed. O'Rielly, who turns off people's mics and talks over anyone he doesn't agree with, and Hannity beating up on Colmes by design. When no one is watching, they are very balanced.

Anyone that gets their news from the flickering box isn't getting news at all.

I had to edit the url's in the orig post because I'm not cool enough to post urls yet.

I will admit Fox has a conservative agenda, whereas every other major news network has a liberal agenda.