FOX news makes it's living off of violent and outrageous statements

[Annie]

You can no more compare the BBC etc to Fox News than you can compare oranges to orangutans. There is no comparison. Fox is a private company - not a state funded organization. That's ridiculous.

??? Are you then agreeing that more unbiased information is available from a non-privately owned organization?

Would be nice to see whom you are responding to. You took that away.

 

[FlyingReganite]

Media Matters.

 

[JimH52]

I love Australia.

Have a nice trip and write occasionally.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, anyone notice Media Matter has laid of Rush Limbaugh which they attacked for years, and now has it's sights set Glen Beck and Fox News.

Media matters is a Progressive Commie owned propaganda site with one purpose.

TO shut down all dissenting voices, AT ANY COST. even if it means, lying..

Don't TAKE A THING mediamatters has to say as truth folks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

lol, anyone notice Media Matter has laid of Rush Limbaugh which they attacked for years, and now has it's sights set Glen Beck and Fox News.

Media matters is a Progressive Commie owned propaganda site with one purpose.

TO shut down all dissenting voices, AT ANY COST. even if it means, lying..

Don't TAKE A THING mediamatters has to say as truth folks.

Only the loony left thinks Media Matters is honest.

 

[germanguy]

They are, in fact, a News Broadcaster. Their schedule includes straight news presentation. It also includes a lot of comment programs. You should learn the difference between 'news' and 'comment', before you form opinions about what Fox is or is not.

Well, actually I do, but as you know, even the choice of what to present in the news and what not, is a comment in itself.
To be frank: when I have watched the BBC News, I feel informed, when I have watched FOX, I feel the contrary.

The thing is, that to my opinion, the comments and so-called discussions are the real pain-in-the-neck. What you get is people confirming each others view.

Well, I prefer public-funded TV, as the BBC or the German system.
But perhaps I am a liberal.

regards
ze germanguy

You can no more compare the BBC etc to Fox News than you can compare oranges to orangutans. There is no comparison. Fox is a private company - not a state funded organization. That's ridiculous.

Now we are getting to the point: FOX is private. So, they sell news. To do so, you can not be as boring as the BBC is.
My point is, that by viewing FOX I do not get a balanced view. I get a view that can be sold.

So, I do not criticize that FOX does this, what I criticize is, that it is seen as a reliable source of information.

Also, in a broader view, it is a pain in the neck, that everybody has this "Breaking News" stuff. We now have so many breaking news, that some day the real important news will disappear in a mist of breaking-news.

Again, FOX to me is therefore more biased, that i.e. the BBC.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[California Girl]

Well, actually I do, but as you know, even the choice of what to present in the news and what not, is a comment in itself.
To be frank: when I have watched the BBC News, I feel informed, when I have watched FOX, I feel the contrary.

The thing is, that to my opinion, the comments and so-called discussions are the real pain-in-the-neck. What you get is people confirming each others view.

Well, I prefer public-funded TV, as the BBC or the German system.
But perhaps I am a liberal.

regards
ze germanguy

You can no more compare the BBC etc to Fox News than you can compare oranges to orangutans. There is no comparison. Fox is a private company - not a state funded organization. That's ridiculous.

Now we are getting to the point: FOX is private. So, they sell news. To do so, you can not be as boring as the BBC is.
My point is, that by viewing FOX I do not get a balanced view. I get a view that can be sold.

So, I do not criticize that FOX does this, what I criticize is, that it is seen as a reliable source of information.

Also, in a broader view, it is a pain in the neck, that everybody has this "Breaking News" stuff. We now have so many breaking news, that some day the real important news will disappear in a mist of breaking-news.

Again, FOX to me is therefore more biased, that i.e. the BBC.

regards
ze germanguy

They are completely different types of organizations. One is a state owned straight news source, the other a privately owned, mixed news and comment organization. All the BBC runs is straight news. It has no opinion based programs. FNC has both. Interestingly, posters here say they like Shep Smith, Chris Wallace and Major Garrett on FNC. All three are actually news programs. They 'hate' Beck, O'Reilly, etc.... they run the comment programs. Anyone smart enough to work out the logic of why that is?

When Fox runs its 'news' shows, they are unbiased. Their commentators are not unbiased - they are representative of their target audience - mainly conservatives. BUT.... they also employ liberal commentators. So they are balanced - just the left have a rant about anyone who dares run anything contrary to their view. Hence, they fired Juan Williams - a independent liberal - because he dared to appear on Fox.

Don't talk to me about bias if you don't complain about MSNBC, NPR, etc.... because they are blatantly liberally biased.... Yet the right don't try to close them down or shut them up. It's the left that seek to silence free speech in America, not the right.

 

[daveman]

Evidently not...using your analogy, only Fox News has the most talented salesmen.

ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and PBS must have the worst, least talented salespeople, because even with an overwhelming majority, they can't fool people into believing they are not biased to the left.

You might have a point..

"I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."
— Walter Cronkite

Or then again..maybe not..

You guys can make yourselves believe anything, can't you?

 

[daveman]

Are you serious?

The largest share of Fox is owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch. A portion of the company was recently sold to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed who became the second largest shareholder. This was to prevent any future "hostile takeover".

Do you really need links? This is common knowledge. How can you not know?

Murdoch is an American citizen. So once again, your 'common knowledge' is wrong. Probably your sources.

Murdoch is a snake and became a naturalised American citizen so he could abuse our system by selling political influence through newscorp.

Sounds like Soros.

 

[daveman]

The Left has a sad. There's a media outlet they can't control, and unapproved thought is being disseminated to the proles.

So: