Is FoxNews generally accurate?

[Psychoblues]

I'm a big MSNBC and CBS news nut. I occasionally stroll over to CNN or Headline News by CNN. I also like ABC on Sunday morning with George Stephanopolous. I find FoxNews either partisan or misinformed on most topics and offensive to balance in the general sense.

Is there a truly "balanced" news network? As an American I feel compelled to listen to both sides or all sides of an issue. Certainly no network can adequately provide "all" sides but do you really think FoxNews is worthy of the name of a "NewsChannel" at all?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[Gabriella84]

The Fox Network is the only alleged "news channel" that openly admits to being biased and partisan. Their appeal is to conservative Republicans, the people who listen to conservative talk radio.
Fox does a good job of presenting their views to the people who choose to watch them.

 

[dilloduck]

they all go for the ratings

 

[Psychoblues]

Well then, Gabriella84, I guess Sir Evil missed the point of my question? I truly am in a quandry here. I want a credible, complete and competent news source. I believe there was a time when there were several. What's happened?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[Annie]

I'm a big MSNBC and CBS news nut. I occasionally stroll over to CNN or Headline News by CNN. I also like ABC on Sunday morning with George Stephanopolous. I find FoxNews either partisan or misinformed on most topics and offensive to balance in the general sense.

Is there a truly "balanced" news network? As an American I feel compelled to listen to both sides or all sides of an issue. Certainly no network can adequately provide "all" sides but do you really think FoxNews is worthy of the name of a "NewsChannel" at all?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

No.

 

[Psychoblues]

"No". You trying to be cute or is the matter of news trustworthyness so compromised that the news media is no longer relevant?

I guess we can now operate off self motivations and assume they are correct, if that's what you mean?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[krisy]

psycho,I belive Fox reports as accuratley and pretty much the same stuff as most of the other networks. When there is breaking news,they all have it about the same time. I believe they are fair more than biased. For people to whine about the conservative bias is ridiculous given the likes of CBS,CNN,ABC,and NBC,to mention just a few.What Libs don't like about Fox is they always give just as much say to the Cons as the Libs. You will get just as much accurate info there as anywhere,but they all screw up once in a while reporting something too fast,trying to be the first to report a big story,

 

[Annie]

"No". You trying to be cute or is the matter of news trustworthyness so compromised that the news media is no longer relevant?

I guess we can now operate off self motivations and assume they are correct, if that's what you mean?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

The latter. I think FOX is less biased than most. That is my meaning.

 

[Gabriella84]

Sorry to say that there is no commercial news source where you can obtain a complete, unbiased source of news. Newspapers, TV and Radio are all dependent on ratings and advertising revenue. The conservative factions control much of the ad revenue.

What Libs don't like about Fox is they always give just as much say to the Cons as the Libs.

A complete and total FALSEHOOD. When was the last time you saw Bush criticized on Fox? Did you ever see a positive story about Kerry? How about Clinton?

 

[softwaremama]

The latter. I think FOX is less biased than most. That is my meaning.

Kathianne, I agree. At least Fox admits it is biased and tries to present both sides of an issue. However, they can be terribly Rupert Murdockish, especially when they focus too much on celebs and their hoo-ha. I feel ill watching network news; the liberal bias is insulting.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm a big MSNBC and CBS news nut. I occasionally stroll over to CNN or Headline News by CNN. I also like ABC on Sunday morning with George Stephanopolous. I find FoxNews either partisan or misinformed on most topics and offensive to balance in the general sense.

Is there a truly "balanced" news network? As an American I feel compelled to listen to both sides or all sides of an issue. Certainly no network can adequately provide "all" sides but do you really think FoxNews is worthy of the name of a "NewsChannel" at all?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

Since Reagan dispensed with the "Fairness Doctrine" we have been blessed with a dearth of "fair and balanced" coverage from any domestic news source. PBS has been the most rellable, but with partisan Republicans sitting on the board that has gone by the wayside as well.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, I agree. At least Fox admits it is biased and tries to present both sides of an issue. However, they can be terribly Rupert Murdockish, especially when they focus too much on celebs and their hoo-ha. I feel ill watching network news; the liberal bias is insulting.

and that I agree with. I used to enjoy their morning program, now they have too many outside stuff or music groups or what have you. After the first 15 minutes, I'm reading my paper and getting online.

 

[Psychoblues]

krisy, you gotta be kidding me? But maybe not? I find FoxNews as being so unreliable, so partisan, so over-the-top, so scripted, so (even Robert Murdoch admits) unbalanced to simply provide (in his opinion) balance, that I only go there for the same reasons, I guess, that so many migrate to the Jerry Springer Show. It's entertainment. If that's your thing, go for it. I was asking about a more serious subject. I would prefer a cable/satellite/broadcast news source that is complete/credible and honest according to accepted moral values. In these respects I find FoxNews lacking, seriously lacking, even mocking common sense and general morality.

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[Bullypulpit]

psycho,I belive Fox reports as accuratley and pretty much the same stuff as most of the other networks. When there is breaking news,they all have it about the same time. I believe they are fair more than biased. For people to whine about the conservative bias is ridiculous given the likes of CBS,CNN,ABC,and NBC,to mention just a few.What Libs don't like about Fox is they always give just as much say to the Cons as the Libs. You will get just as much accurate info there as anywhere,but they all screw up once in a while reporting something too fast,trying to be the first to report a big story,

According to <a href=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187>Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting</a>'s most recent study, FOX has been listing heavily to the right. In the year since that report, I have seen no chnges to the FOX News bias.

 

[Psychoblues]

Well, I've learned one thing here. Fox is biased but tries to present both sides. That's a typical but prevalent opinion as I read the the screeds. What kind of schools were you educated in? Maybe that's where I'll find an understanding of biased but balanced.

But I still view FoxNews as entertainment, nothing more. Hope you do the same. There are more serious news outlets out there, somewhere. I'm still looking.

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'

 

[Gem]

I think the bottom line, the conclusion that most educated people are coming to, is that getting all of your news from any one source is a terrible idea.

If you are looking for studies, they are out there. Studies that show that CBS, NBC, ABC News presented a much higher number of negative stories about the economy under Bush than under Clinton, they presented more negative stories about Bush then Kerry, they covered Bush's Guard record much more frequently than Kerry's military record, they gave several mornings of time to Kitty Kelley's tell-all book about the Bush family but have had an almost media blackout to Klein's Clinton book, studies that show how Fox puts on more Conservative speakers then Liberal speakers, studies that show what average Fox viewers know and don't know about politics...blah blah blah blah blah.

Does that mean you shouldn't watch them? No, absolutely not. You should always see what they are saying...then compare it to other news sources...on tv, in the papers, online, etc. By comparing, you can start to see what is really happening, and the variety of ways in which the media with all of its biases, is presenting it.

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks Gem!!!!!! You are telling me what I already knew but needed to be reminded of. A good look at diversity in news reporting is healthy to us all, don't you think?

As far as your comments about the news reporting more bad news about the Bush economy verses the Clinton economy are concerned, don't you somehow associate that with the FACTS that confirm the Bush economy is far more incompetently run and wildly upper-crust oriented that news for us underlings is actually welcomed by most of us that really pay attention? My present retirement is worth about 80% of what it was in 2000 despite constant contributions of 15% of my salary. In other words, I've lost my ass to the "market" that GWB wants to expose the general populace.

Your comment about the "Bush" military record as compared to the "Kerry" record exposes your own bias. Kerry served honorably and admirably as compared with Bush but somehow Bush gets a bye and even a praise for his nonparticipation. Get's me, but a lot of other things do as well.

And as far as the Kitty Kelly book is concerned, that's advertising. I resent it as much as you do. What about the Hatfield book? You know, the guy that got killed unexplainably in the Texas motel that claims to have snorted cocaine with Bush and alot more even more evil stuff, financially speaking, that GWB was involved in while I was in Viet Nam?

I can truly appreciate a conversion to the teachings of Jesus Chist. I reject any notion of conversion by a person that would so blatantly and consistently lie to me about WAR, especially considering that this conversion happened after such an immoral life and before such an immoral war against a perceived enemy that had not perpetrated any war against me or my country. But that's another topic. Catch you on boards!!!!!

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin' even though the Republicans own the roads

 

[Gem]

Psychoblues,

I'm glad you were so enthused by my, "make sure to read more sources," advice...because its obvious you need to go do some reading.

Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. Bush served honorably in the TX National Guard. Bush did not jump over any "poor" guys waiting to get into the guard...there was not a waiting list for the branch he entered. While there, he flew very well and received high marks when he was reviewed. He volunteered to go to Vietnam twice and was turned down both times. There were multiple reasons for this. 1) The war was winding down, troops were being brought home. 2) The plane he flew was becoming more and more obsolete and unneccessary and 3) Some speculate that his fathers position in the CIA would make him an unneccessary target...putting him and the men he fought beside at a needless risk.

This is not bias...Bush didn't go to Vietnam. I have not denied that. Nor have I said that I am impressed with Bush's war record. Or unimpressed with Kerry's for that matter. But to somehow mock his record demonstrates your own bias. All I have done is properly research the facts.

Psychobubble...you can dislike Bush, I certainly have numerous gripes with him as leader of our country. But my point before was a simple one...read more than one source, look into something, even if you think you know everything...thats all. You'll be surprised at how much you don't know.

 

[xandy123]

I think the bottom line, the conclusion that most educated people are coming to, is that getting all of your news from any one source is a terrible idea.

If you are looking for studies, they are out there. Studies that show that CBS, NBC, ABC News presented a much higher number of negative stories about the economy under Bush than under Clinton, they presented more negative stories about Bush then Kerry, they covered Bush's Guard record much more frequently than Kerry's military record, they gave several mornings of time to Kitty Kelley's tell-all book about the Bush family but have had an almost media blackout to Klein's Clinton book, studies that show how Fox puts on more Conservative speakers then Liberal speakers, studies that show what average Fox viewers know and don't know about politics...blah blah blah blah blah.

Does that mean you shouldn't watch them? No, absolutely not. You should always see what they are saying...then compare it to other news sources...on tv, in the papers, online, etc. By comparing, you can start to see what is really happening, and the variety of ways in which the media with all of its biases, is presenting it.

All that you have said is true. However media is changing. Gone are the days when Rather,Koppel,Jennings,Brokaw and Crokite controlled to a large degree what the average american had acess to in terms of information. People who are older and have basically spent their entire lives listening to these guys will find it hard to accept it but their are alternative sources of information on the internet. Information that was not available public knowledge is now available with the press of a button. Anything a politician says or does can now be scrutinized not only by the media, but by the general public. Now elected officials will have a much harder time covering up trangressions they make. They wont be able to hide behind the media, conservatives or liberals. Instead we the people shall find out for ourselves what candidates and elected officals have really been up to. Instead of bieng told what they are doing by media stalwarts and radio blowhards. I agree with Gem however, getting your news from one source on the internet it basically the same as getting all your news from Dan Rather (who by the way was forced to resign because of the internet). Diversify yourself when it come to infromation. Seek out articles from sources with various points of view. Be wary however, if you find yourself skeptical there is probably a good reason for it.

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for your uninformed answer, Gem. But the facts remain. Bush did in fact jump over hundreds of aspiring National Guard members. Bush was trained on aircraft that were deemed obsolete for Viet Nam involvement years before his enlistment or entitlement whichever you choose to call it. The National Guard, at that time, was considered as a last resort before refuge in Canada. His commander hated his constant political interference. He never fought or volunteered to fight. At the time of the Bush AWOL the war was in limbo but not at all winding down. Check the Viet Nam Wall next time you visit D.C. His father's position in the CIA was secret, even to me at that time. The production of "Swift Boat Liars For Truth" haven't swayed me one moment. John Kerry did what he had to do at the time for his country. GWB did what he had to do for himself and that ain't no damn lie.

I've heard heard a lot of opinions regarding these issues, even lived and survived through those times, and read a lot confirming my beliefs. I'll be happy to read what you have to offer.

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin' even though the republicans own the roads