Free all the hatred for Fox News

[FJO]

How many liberals will vote to shut them down? Poll to follow!

'Very little broadcast on Fox is news; it is mostly editorial comment disguised as news. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report present the news more honestly and effectively than does Roger Aile's Commentators; Colbert and Stewart do so with satirical elegance, Fox and Friends, et al, are mean spirited and take themselves seriously.

So Willow, did Sarah get canned?

Colbert and the punk who is ashamed to use his own name, Leibowitz, do nothing but yell, shout, scream and swear, which automatically and by definition, makes them liberals. The
Comedy Chanel is truly the news source of not only the uninformed, but those desperately wish to remain so.

 

[MarcATL]

How many liberals will vote to shut them down? Poll to follow!

'Very little broadcast on Fox is news; it is mostly editorial comment disguised as news. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report present the news more honestly and effectively than does Roger Aile's Commentators; Colbert and Stewart do so with satirical elegance, Fox and Friends, et al, are mean spirited and take themselves seriously.

So Willow, did Sarah get canned?

Colbert and the punk who is ashamed to use his own name, Leibowitz, do nothing but yell, shout, scream and swear, which automatically and by definition, makes them liberals. The
Comedy Chanel is truly the news source of not only the uninformed, but those desperately wish to remain so.

With that type of talk, you seem like someone who would be more than ready for another conservative television network.

What say you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/277553-let-conservatism-run-rampant-on-television-as-well.html

 

[theDoctorisIn]

MediaMatters, just like it's countless conservative counterparts, rarely "lies" about anything.

But they just as rarely tell the whole truth.

Failure to tell the whole truth out of limitations of column space or time restraints is one thing. Failure to tell the whole truth to give the illusion of fact that is nowhere near the truth is something quite again.

While I have caught Fox News in factual errors, I have not caught them in any intentional misstatement intended to mislead the public or promote a lie. Fox News is pretty good to admit and correct their errors when called on them too. MediaMatters not so much.

I do believe FoxNews goes to some lengths to be honorable about their slogan: "We report fair and balanced. You decide." MediaMatters makes no such effort. Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.

Their news reporting is as good as anybody else's and better than some.

You can't compare the "News" part of FOX to MediaMatters because MediaMatters isn't a "News" site. It's a commentary site.

You could compare FOX's commentary shows to MediaMatters - that would work. Or you can compare MediaMatters to it's near-exact Right wing version, Newsbusters.org.

 

[Pogo]

How many liberals will vote to shut them down? Poll to follow!

'Very little broadcast on Fox is news; it is mostly editorial comment disguised as news. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report present the news more honestly and effectively than does Roger Aile's Commentators; Colbert and Stewart do so with satirical elegance, Fox and Friends, et al, are mean spirited and take themselves seriously.

So Willow, did Sarah get canned?

Colbert and the punk who is ashamed to use his own name, Leibowitz, do nothing but yell, shout, scream and swear, which automatically and by definition, makes them liberals. The
Comedy Chanel is truly the news source of not only the uninformed, but those desperately wish to remain so.

I gather you've never watched either one. If you had, you would have known that (a) these are comedy shows, and (b) their viewers come out better informed than those of Fox Noise. You can see this documented in all those studies I linked in the other thread.

Had you ever actually watched these shows, you'd also know that "shouting, screaming and swearing" isn't part of either one. Could be you're confusing them with Bill O'Reilly.

Finally, taking an alternate simplified name is extremely common in broadcasting (and show business in general), especially if one's given name is out of the ordinary. I've done it for my entire career in broadcasting, not from any sense of "shame", but so that I wouldn't have to spend half my time spelling it out and correcting pronunciations, and so that the casual listener could easily remember a less challenging name. After all, what one's name is is not supposed to be the point.

Getting hung up on what someone's given last name is and entertaining fantasies of screaming that doesn't exist belies the nature of your partisanship: it's based on emotion rather than rationality.

 

[Pogo]

MediaMatters, just like it's countless conservative counterparts, rarely "lies" about anything.

But they just as rarely tell the whole truth.

Failure to tell the whole truth out of limitations of column space or time restraints is one thing. Failure to tell the whole truth to give the illusion of fact that is nowhere near the truth is something quite again.

While I have caught Fox News in factual errors, I have not caught them in any intentional misstatement intended to mislead the public or promote a lie.

Then you haven't been looking. I can load you up with examples. I'm out of town right now but say the word and I'll get to it maybe tomorrow. You already know I can do it.

Fox News is pretty good to admit and correct their errors when called on them too. MediaMatters not so much.

Once again, you're poisoning the well with no evidence at all. Are you saying that the video of Dana Perino is edited? Or what? If I linked the exact same video from walmart.com, would it suddenly become credible? Sorry but this hangup on what the URL is just makes no sense. We're not using the MM commentary to make any point (we don't need to; we make our own); we're using the video clip they have linked, because it's convenient to do so. You're trying to pretend the source is MediaMatters, but in truth the source is Fox News.

I do believe FoxNews goes to some lengths to be honorable about their slogan: "We report fair and balanced. You decide." MediaMatters makes no such effort. Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.

Their news reporting is as good as anybody else's and better than some.

First point about "fair and balanced": Fox uses several different methods to slant the news, most of them indirect if not subtle, using above all the power of suggestion. A chyron crawl saying "Is Obama the antichrist?" doesn't technically declare anything; it's there to plant a suggestion. Running video of one event to make a different event look like more (or less) than it is is another method; again, no overt statement needs to be made. And of course the editor's choice of what constitutes "news" is yet another method. I'll bring examples of all of these to the table. And more.

The quip "MediaMatters makes no such effort" remains an unsubstantiated rumour that you keep trotting out with no clothes on, but TheDoctorIsIn made a good point about comparisons just above.

Second point: Too many people equate O'Reilly and Hannity as the face and voice of Fox News when in fact they host one hour nightly in weeknight programs that are promoted as commentary and not as straight news reporting.
True, they represent two hours out of 24. But they do represent the two biggest hours of prime time, so equating them as the face and voice of the channel is not only the inevitable result of where they sit in the daypart, but the fact that they are in those slots tells us that that is what Fox News wants their face and voice to be.

And true, they're commentary programs. You know that and I know that because we come from media. The average unsophisticated viewer makes no such distinction, nor does either one go to any effort to point it out. On the contrary, the whole time they're ranting, the viewer sees a logo in the corner that reads "Fox News". On top of that their topics are political current events. So once again, through the power of suggestion, FNC is saying in subtle and indirect ways that what you're looking at is "news". That's misleading if not dishonest.

Keep in mind about all this suggestive bent that runs rampant through the broadcast day: Roger Ailes comes from politics. He consulted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush and played a major role in those candidates' campaigns of 1984 and '88. He knows the power of suggestion (read: politician BS talk) as well as anyone does. He's a political marketeer. So it would be strange if Fox Noise did not take the tactics it does.

Finally your last line about their "news reporting". We could almost forget that Fox actually has any news reporting since it's played down so much, but if we'd like to make the technical distinction between news and commentary, yes they do good work for the little they do. I happen to think Shep Smith is one of the best anchors on any channel. But that's the minor, "real news" part of Fox "News", and aside from the editors' choices of what makes the news cut and what doesn't, that's not what we're talking about when we speak of the bias of Fox News (< capitalized when I mean the proper name of the business, minuscule when I mean the actual concept of news). In short, when we opine on "Fox News", we're talking about the hair-on-fire part. Which is the part they emphasize by putting it in prime time.

Part 2 when I get time. Love ya Foxy