Mind Control of MSNBC, FOX and The Net

[Foxfyre]

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

Exactly. I certainly don't get even most of my news from Fox News, but I do catch programs here and there, usually while I'm working and usually when there is especially breaking news so I'm pretty familiar with the flavor and slant of all the primary figures on Fox. But when you figure that most Americans tilt right of center on most issues, and Fox gets a relatively small market share when compared to share when there were only three networks that dominated all the news, it is pretty obvious not all conservatives watch Fox.

Nor do only liberals watch the other cable news channels. I check in on all of them from time to time and I am about as modern American conservative as it gets.

But the left does get apolectic about Fox don't they? Apparently they think it isn't fair that Fox is so successful and they only have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS to turn to for their point of view to be emphasized.

Oh c'mon you two. Really. You're both smart enough to know that Liberals don't record Hannity or O'Reilly when they're out of the house. Conservatives don't look forward to Rachel Maddow.
The overwhelming majority of people who watch and consider FOX the "objective" source of news (which it's obviously not), are Conservatives. Duh.
The overwhelming majority of people who watch and consider MSNBC the "objective" source of news (which it's obviously not), are Liberals.

You guys are seriously trying to dispute that? Really?

I'm going to negrep myself just for having read your posts!

And still, I would put a straight up Fox News report against ANYBODY's news report for being fair and balanced and honestly presenting both sides of an issue. That is something nobody else is doing as well.

Yes, editorially, Fox overall does have a conservative bias and it is as successful because it is the ONLY television source where that can consistently be found. Evenso, the conservative point of view is not the ONLY point of view presented. And certainly the majority of Fox's regular viewers are going to be those who appreciate having their conservative point of view presented as well as the opposing point of view. There is no other television outlet in which that is the case.

Again the primary television news sources are Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN, PBS. Of all of those the ONLY one that tilts more right than left is Fox.

Do you think it's okay for one of all those television news sources to be slanted more conservative? Do you see that as such a threat that it shouldn't allowed in the world of information or those who watch Fox News must be belittled, demeaned, ridiculed, or disrespected in order to be politically correct? Or that leftist leaders seem almost desperate to find some way to legally defang Fox News?

 

[Vast LWC]

Exactly. I certainly don't get even most of my news from Fox News, but I do catch programs here and there, usually while I'm working and usually when there is especially breaking news so I'm pretty familiar with the flavor and slant of all the primary figures on Fox. But when you figure that most Americans tilt right of center on most issues, and Fox gets a relatively small market share when compared to share when there were only three networks that dominated all the news, it is pretty obvious not all conservatives watch Fox.

Nor do only liberals watch the other cable news channels. I check in on all of them from time to time and I am about as modern American conservative as it gets.

But the left does get apolectic about Fox don't they? Apparently they think it isn't fair that Fox is so successful and they only have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS to turn to for their point of view to be emphasized.

OK:

1. The country doesn't "slant center right on most issues". That phrase is in fact, a FoxNews talking point, invented by, and most used by, FoxNews.
Not to mention the fact that it is in fact impossible for the country to "Swing center-right", as that would then be the "center".

2. I find it incredibly amusing to see a rightie talk about the "left getting apolectic about Fox".
For decades, the right has been screaming it's head off about how the media is "left-wing", and even you repeat the same mantra in your post, immediately after your accusation.
That would be what is commonly known as "projection".

 

[Vast LWC]

And still, I would put a straight up Fox News report against ANYBODY's news report for being fair and balanced and honestly presenting both sides of an issue. That is something nobody else is doing as well.

FoxNews only reports the news that they choose to report. Whether the actual reports are "objective" is of little-to-no consequence if they only report the news that fits their world view.

MSNBC does the same thing.

Yes, editorially, Fox overall does have a conservative bias and it is as successful because it is the ONLY television source where that can consistently be found. Evenso, the conservative point of view is not the ONLY point of view presented. And certainly the majority of Fox's regular viewers are going to be those who appreciate having their conservative point of view presented as well as the opposing point of view. There is no other television outlet in which that is the case.

See, again, you make this completely unsupported statement.

The people you mentioned when you attempted to support this statement ARE ALL CONSERVATIVES.

Whether they're less or more radical in their conservative viewpoints is of no consequence, they are still all on the same side of the spectrum.

There is NO credible representation of the "the opposing point of view".

Again the primary television news sources are Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN, PBS. Of all of those the ONLY one that tilts more right than left is Fox.

In you opinion, and in the opinion of right-wing talking heads. There is no actual evidence to support the viewpoint that all of those stations present a "left-wing" viewpoint.

In fact, the only studies done on the subject concern the political leanings of the individual reporters, and exclude the political leanings of the people with final say on the stories: the Corporate owners of the media sources.

Do you think it's okay for one of all those television news sources to be slanted more conservative? Do you see that as such a threat that it shouldn't allowed in the world of information or those who watch Fox News must be belittled, demeaned, ridiculed, or disrespected in order to be politically correct? Or that leftist leaders seem almost desperate to find some way to legally defang Fox News?

If that were in fact the case, I would think it was OK. But that is not the case. That is a phrase that's been repeated again and again, in an Orwellian mantra-ish way, in order to make it seem true.

And your persecution complex is unwarranted, and clearly over the top, as we are, in the same statements, making the same sort of references to people who watch FoxNews' left-wing equivalent, MSNBC.

 

[Vast LWC]

You see, instead of presenting "Both Sides" of the spectrum, and being "Fair and Balanced", both MSNBC and FoxNews present one person that is reasonable, but on the same side, and then pits them against someone who is bat-shit crazy, and radical as hell, like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann.

What the viewer walks away with is that, to be reasonable and moderate, they should be somewhere between these two points. Which leaves them pretty far on one side or the other, and always leaning the same way on the particular issues that the media source in question wants them to be.

Which is why both Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers believe that they are actually "moderate".

 

[MarcATL]

That is the key. You're actually pretty safe watching Fox because they are pretty meticulous in providing both points of view in controversial issues. O'Reilly for instance, if he can't find a bonafide liberal to fuss with him, will put on the beautiful and very popular Megyn Kelly or one of the other top guns at Fox who will argue against his position. And sometimes you side with the opposition; sometimes with Bill. But in any case, you come away knowing what the opposing sides of the argument are.

You will also find that done to a lesser extent on CNN which doesn't always try to be fair and balanced and you won't find that much at all on MSNBC.

The funny thing about this is, that someone who watches MSNBC will say the EXACT same thing, substituting MSNBC for Fox, and vice-versa.

I actually just had this conversation with several of my relatives over Thanksgiving vacation, and they all said that their media source "might be biased, but at least told both sides of the story".

Neither side actually tells both sides of the story. They set up a straw man to act like they represent the other side, but don't really. Think Alan Colmes.

But since I trust Conservative sources more to have their facts right and at least to know what the facts are, I do also make sure I'm on the right track by checking in with several leftist writers that I admire. Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, William Raspberry when he was still alive, Molly Ivans when she was alive, were/are great sources to get a well researched and well articulated leftist point of view. Even Maureen Dowd, the leftwing compliment to Ann Coulter , has her moments and I appreciate her take on some things. There are a number of others that I read at least now and then.

Sooner or later we all pick a side and that's okay. But it isn't okay when it isn't an informed bias but is simply a kneejerk response to the prejudice and bigotry against certain people or concepts that has been brainwashed into us.

It is admirable that you read opposing viewpoints. Though I would argue that there is a false dichotomy set up by the corporate media.

There are completely different points of view in the political spectrum than the two that have been forced upon us.

I agree that Alan Colmes is a good example of dishonestly presenting the other side. He is so clueless and has no real argument but only spews sound bites for his point of view and he is a generally unappealing person in general, that he would make anybody debating him look good if they were only reciting the phone book.

You can't say that, however about Charles Krauthammer, Gretchen Carlson, Megan Kelly, John Stossel, and others who are not only bright, attractive, personable, and appealing and who do their homework and come up with different conclusions than a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity come up with. Many times the opposition has swayed my point of view and I pronounced Bill or Sean or whomever wrong on that one.

It is exactly that phenomenon that is fueling Fox's impressive ratings. On any given day and almost any given hour, Fox ratings will exceed ALL the other cable news sources COMBINED. That is because you CAN get the information you need from Fox and the others are way too obvious in their pre-selected bias making it hard to trust their conclusions.

But don't even get me started on the networks who if they want a "Christian" perspective will present us with a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or some other extremist person that nobody would think of as objective--the intent of course is to turn the audience's opinion AWAY from such perspective--or they put up some other looney tune, extremist, or unlikable type to present the 'opposing' point of view.

And sometimes the editing of content among both network and cable is so dishonest as to make a body scream.

Charles Krauthammer is the man behind the "Reagan Doctrine" and was recently (2009) lauded by Politico thusly: "Krauthammer has "emerged in the Age of Obama as a central conservative voice," a "kind of leader of the opposition"

Gretchen Karlson and Megyn Kelly are true conservatives, and are hosts of VERY conservative Fox News shows.

John Stossel is a Libertarian.

So, the only person who even comes close to providing a non-Fox-sanctioned point-of-view on that list is John Stossel, and even he is just there to appeal to the Libertarian side of the conservative crowd, and then dismissed to prove a point.

What you're basically saying is that FoxNews is "fair-and-balanced" because they also have commentators that are slightly less radical than the usual people they have on.

And, I hate to tell you this, but MSNBC does the exact same thing.

They do it to make it look like they have a shred of credibility, but they don't. They're both the exact same animal. FoxNews just does what they do a bit better than MSNBC, but they adhere to the exact same playbook.

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

They have a solid base of watchers that never strays, because FoxNews always tells them what they want to hear.

You seem to have a very good grasp as to what goes on at the FOXNews. Clearly you've watched and studied enough of it's programming to formulate such an opinion.

I'm curious to see your analysis of msnbc.

 

[Vast LWC]

You seem to have a very good grasp as to what goes on at the FOXNews. Clearly you've watched and studied enough of it's programming to formulate such an opinion.

I'm curious to see your analysis of msnbc.

MSNBC is set up in the exact same format. They pretty much copied what FoxNews did.

Keith Olbermann was the original. He is now gone, but many like him survive.

What they do is this:

Step 1: They show real news during the day, but only show the stories that fit their world-view. The reporting of the stories is relatively objective, so they can make some claim to journalistic integrity.

Step 2: They use the stories they report during the day as a springboard to launch into their prime time commentary shows.

In these shows, radical talking-heads like Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews will bring on either people who either:

• completely support their opinion and pretend to be objective reporters, or
• people who slightly disagree with their opinion, who they then proceed to talk over and badger into submission.

This creates the illusion that there are actually multiple points of view, which there aren't.

Now, pretty much the only thing that separates MSNBC from Fox at all, is that they have a genuine conservative (Joe Scarborough) on in the morning.

But I guess they figure that if they have one in a time-filling slot, it will lend them an air of credibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

You see, instead of presenting "Both Sides" of the spectrum, and being "Fair and Balanced", both MSNBC and FoxNews present one person that is reasonable, but on the same side, and then pits them against someone who is bat-shit crazy, and radical as hell, like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann.

What the viewer walks away with is that, to be reasonable and moderate, they should be somewhere between these two points. Which leaves them pretty far on one side or the other, and always leaning the same way on the particular issues that the media source in question wants them to be.

Which is why both Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers believe that they are actually "moderate".

I don't think most regular Fox viewers see themselves as moderate. "Moderate" is for fence sitters, those who go along to get along, the compromisers, those who have little or no convictions about much of anything or just don't really care. And when that produces unintended negative consequences, it can hardly be described as 'reasonable.'

I think most, but not all, Fox viewers see themselves as conservatives or libertarians or right of center though they won't all agree on all the definitions for those terms and won't all agree on every issue. I think most of Fox's audience are fairly well informed on the issues and have pretty comprehensive perspectives on most issues.

And I certainly don't see most of those Fox brings on to give the hosts a good debate on various issues as bat shit crazy, uninformed, unappealing, or offering arguments without merit. If they were that way, they certainly wouldn't win the debate with me as a judge and they often do. Certainly a Bob Beckel or Megyn Kelly or Juan Williams or John Stossel or Greta Sustern or even Geraldo Rivera are worthy opponents in any debate, and they are all lovable too. There are numerous others who fall into that category too.

And I KNOW Fox presents both sides of every argument, even if it favors one side over another, because I watch and hear them do it. All debaters worth their salt can see and support the opposing point of view well enough to argue a case for the opposing point of view. If you have ever been on a debate team you know you are often assigned the side in opposition to what you actually support, and if you can't develop a good argument for that side, you lose.

 

[Vast LWC]

I don't think most regular Fox viewers see themselves as moderate. "Moderate" is for fence sitters, those who go along to get along, the compromisers, those who have little or no convictions about much of anything or just don't really care. And when that produces unintended negative consequences, it can hardly be described as 'reasonable.'

I think most, but not all, Fox viewers see themselves as conservatives or libertarians or right of center though they won't all agree on all the definitions for those terms and won't all agree on every issue. I think most of Fox's audience are fairly well informed on the issues and have pretty comprehensive perspectives on most issues.

Most of the people that I know personally, (One's that aren't regular posters on a posting board) who watch either Fox or MSNBC, consider themselves to be basically "moderate", perhaps leaning "slightly" one way or the other.

Multiple polls have been conducted that agree with my first-hand opinion on the subject.

But, putting those aside, your own comment "The US is a center-right nation", is an example of a FoxNews viewer considering themselves to be part of the "real" mainstream.

In other words, as a Fox viewer, you may call yourself a conservative, but because you believe that conservative views are in fact the norm, you actually believe that you are a "moderate".

This of course is not true of ALL Fox viewers, and you may be an exception.

And I certainly don't see most of those Fox brings on to give the hosts a good debate on various issues as bat shit crazy, uninformed, unappealing, or offering arguments without merit. If they were that way, they certainly wouldn't win the debate with me as a judge and they often do. Certainly a Bob Beckel or Megyn Kelly or Juan Williams or John Stossel or Greta Sustern or even Geraldo Rivera are worthy opponents in any debate, and they are all lovable too. There are numerous others who fall into that category too.

And I KNOW Fox presents both sides of every argument, even if it favors one side over another, because I watch and hear them do it. All debaters worth their salt can see and support the opposing point of view well enough to argue a case for the opposing point of view.

You are naming people on the more moderate half of the equation. The other half of the equation is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc, etc. Who are, most definitely, "nutbags".

And, though I know you are being perfectly honest in your responses, and I appreciate that, but I feel that, like many MSNBC viewers, you simply aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

If you have ever been on a debate team you know you are often assigned the side in opposition to what you actually support, and if you can't develop a good argument for that side, you lose.

Yes, that is correct. And that would serve to back my point.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think most regular Fox viewers see themselves as moderate. "Moderate" is for fence sitters, those who go along to get along, the compromisers, those who have little or no convictions about much of anything or just don't really care. And when that produces unintended negative consequences, it can hardly be described as 'reasonable.'

I think most, but not all, Fox viewers see themselves as conservatives or libertarians or right of center though they won't all agree on all the definitions for those terms and won't all agree on every issue. I think most of Fox's audience are fairly well informed on the issues and have pretty comprehensive perspectives on most issues.

Most of the people that I know personally, (One's that aren't regular posters on a posting board) who watch either Fox or MSNBC, consider themselves to be basically "moderate", perhaps leaning "slightly" one way or the other.

Multiple polls have been conducted that agree with my first-hand opinion on the subject.

But, putting those aside, your own comment "The US is a center-right nation", is an example of a FoxNews viewer considering themselves to be part of the "real" mainstream.

In other words, as a Fox viewer, you may call yourself a conservative, but because you believe that conservative views are in fact the norm, you actually believe that you are a "moderate".

This of course is not true of ALL Fox viewers, and you may be an exception.

And I certainly don't see most of those Fox brings on to give the hosts a good debate on various issues as bat shit crazy, uninformed, unappealing, or offering arguments without merit. If they were that way, they certainly wouldn't win the debate with me as a judge and they often do. Certainly a Bob Beckel or Megyn Kelly or Juan Williams or John Stossel or Greta Sustern or even Geraldo Rivera are worthy opponents in any debate, and they are all lovable too. There are numerous others who fall into that category too.

And I KNOW Fox presents both sides of every argument, even if it favors one side over another, because I watch and hear them do it. All debaters worth their salt can see and support the opposing point of view well enough to argue a case for the opposing point of view.

You are naming people on the more moderate half of the equation. The other half of the equation is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc, etc. Who are, most definitely, "nutbags".

And, though I know you are being perfectly honest in your responses, and I appreciate that, but I feel that, like many MSNBC viewers, you simply aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

If you have ever been on a debate team you know you are often assigned the side in opposition to what you actually support, and if you can't develop a good argument for that side, you lose.

Yes, that is correct. And that would serve to back my point.

But your point seems to be in opposition to my point and my first hand experience has led me to a much different conclusion than your first hand experience has led you as well as we have a broad difference of opinion re definitions and who is a 'nutjob'. So we'll just have to let it go at that.

 

[uscitizen]

Kill your TVs, folks.

Why I do not watch any political punditry shows and mostly only the PBS nightly news.

TV is good for Movies and how to shows though.

 

[Vast LWC]

But your point seems to be in opposition to my point and my first hand experience has led me to a much different conclusion than your first hand experience has led you as well as we have a broad difference of opinion re definitions and who is a 'nutjob'. So we'll just have to let it go at that.

Alright, we'll agree to disagree. LOL.

One question though, do you, like me, believe Keith Olbermann to be a nutjob?

 

[Synthaholic]

That is the key. You're actually pretty safe watching Fox because they are pretty meticulous in providing both points of view in controversial issues. O'Reilly for instance, if he can't find a bonafide liberal to fuss with him, will put on the beautiful and very popular Megyn Kelly or one of the other top guns at Fox who will argue against his position. And sometimes you side with the opposition; sometimes with Bill. But in any case, you come away knowing what the opposing sides of the argument are.

You will also find that done to a lesser extent on CNN which doesn't always try to be fair and balanced and you won't find that much at all on MSNBC.

But since I trust Conservative sources more to have their facts right and at least to know what the facts are, I do also make sure I'm on the right track by checking in with several leftist writers that I admire. Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, William Raspberry when he was still alive, Molly Ivans when she was alive, were/are great sources to get a well researched and well articulated leftist point of view. Even Maureen Dowd, the leftwing compliment to Ann Coulter , has her moments and I appreciate her take on some things. There are a number of others that I read at least now and then.

Sooner or later we all pick a side and that's okay. But it isn't okay when it isn't an informed bias but is simply a kneejerk response to the prejudice and bigotry against certain people or concepts that has been brainwashed into us.

I believe William Raspberry is still alive.

By golly, I am delighted to say that you are right. I had read that he had retired awhile back and his regular column did disappear and I missed it terribly. And then I read somewhere that he had passed on and I just assumed that he had retired because he was ill. But after checking it out I found him alive, apparently in good health, and still active on the speakers' circuit. Here is vintage Raspberry presented last year to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. If ALL liberals were more like him, I would be tempted to convert.
William Raspberry Remarks on Civil Rights - C-SPAN Video Library

His column was the only reason to ever buy the Post.

 

[Foxfyre]

But your point seems to be in opposition to my point and my first hand experience has led me to a much different conclusion than your first hand experience has led you as well as we have a broad difference of opinion re definitions and who is a 'nutjob'. So we'll just have to let it go at that.

Alright, we'll agree to disagree. LOL.

One question though, do you, like me, believe Keith Olbermann to be a nutjob?

Olbermann a nutjob? No, not really. Mean spirited, sensationalist, diehard partisan which often blinds him to the truth of a matter? Yeah, he is all that. But he is not off in la-la land someplace and I have not felt he was totally out of touch with reality.

Somebody being decidedly dishonest, uncool, unpleasant, unlikable, and obnoxious is the not the same thing as 'nutjob' to me.

 

[Vast LWC]

Olbermann a nutjob? No, not really. Mean spirited, sensationalist, diehard partisan which often blinds him to the truth of a matter? Yeah, he is all that. But he is not off in la-la land someplace and I have not felt he was totally out of touch with reality.

Somebody being decidedly dishonest, uncool, unpleasant, unlikable, and obnoxious is the not the same thing as 'nutjob' to me.

Ahh, he's just an jackass then, not a nut-job. OK, well that makes you consistent and honest. We may see the world in different ways, but at least your not hypocritical.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And still, I would put a straight up Fox News report against ANYBODY's news report for being fair and balanced and honestly presenting both sides of an issue. That is something nobody else is doing as well.

I disagree completely. But I'm not a Conservative so it's not surprsing that I would disagee. Nor do I contend that MSNBC does a better job of being objective, btw. Like I said, they are both obviously biased, to those of us not subscribing to their respective agenda.

Yes, editorially, Fox overall does have a conservative bias and it is as successful because it is the ONLY television source where that can consistently be found. Evenso, the conservative point of view is not the ONLY point of view presented. And certainly the majority of Fox's regular viewers are going to be those who appreciate having their conservative point of view presented as well as the opposing point of view. There is no other television outlet in which that is the case.


Nah, that's complete crap there. I mean HELLO, the regulars on CNN are the former Republican Strategist for Bush, Former head of Intel for Bush (the good one, not the idiot) and so on. MSNBC? They do exactly what FOX does to "appear" fair & balanced. The get someone who is almost an apologist for the other side and who is easily talked over - just like FOX.

Again the primary television news sources are Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN, PBS. Of all of those the ONLY one that tilts more right than left is Fox.

I find CNN objective. Certainly more so than FOX - which I'm sure you and other Conservatives will have feelings about but oh well, there it is. The Left claims FOX is a bunch of liars or SO biased. The Right Claims every other source on the planet is a bunch of liars or SO Biased. Those who aren't married to ideology see both for what they are.

Do you think it's okay for one of all those television news sources to be slanted more conservative?
I think whatever a media business finds successful, it will do.

Do you see that as such a threat that it shouldn't allowed in the world of information or those who watch Fox News must be belittled, demeaned, ridiculed, or disrespected in order to be politically correct? Or that leftist leaders seem almost desperate to find some way to legally defang Fox News?

When did you decide to go all vicitm-mentality on me? I watch FOX. I like FOX. Not to mention it gave me one of my all-time favorite shows (24). So your basis for me seeing it as a "threat" is based on what? Because I don't BS about it being fair, balanced or objective, just because it isn't?
Seems like you're the one who is displaying the traits of someone who feels threatened and honestly, I don't know why. I have not demeaned, belittled or even farted in your direction! (trying to lighten up a little here).

Look, you can say what you want but guess what? The only people who find FOX "fair & balanced" are Conservatives. Just like the only people who feel that way about MSNBC are Liberals.
Yet you're not attacking my view that MSNBC is completely biased to the Left, are you?

 

[Foxfyre]

And still, I would put a straight up Fox News report against ANYBODY's news report for being fair and balanced and honestly presenting both sides of an issue. That is something nobody else is doing as well.

I disagree completely. But I'm not a Conservative so it's not surprsing that I would disagee. Nor do I contend that MSNBC does a better job of being objective, btw. Like I said, they are both obviously biased, to those of us not subscribing to their respective agenda.

Yes, editorially, Fox overall does have a conservative bias and it is as successful because it is the ONLY television source where that can consistently be found. Evenso, the conservative point of view is not the ONLY point of view presented. And certainly the majority of Fox's regular viewers are going to be those who appreciate having their conservative point of view presented as well as the opposing point of view. There is no other television outlet in which that is the case.


Nah, that's complete crap there. I mean HELLO, the regulars on CNN are the former Republican Strategist for Bush, Former head of Intel for Bush (the good one, not the idiot) and so on. MSNBC? They do exactly what FOX does to "appear" fair & balanced. The get someone who is almost an apologist for the other side and who is easily talked over - just like FOX.

Again the primary television news sources are Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN, PBS. Of all of those the ONLY one that tilts more right than left is Fox.

I find CNN objective. Certainly more so than FOX - which I'm sure you and other Conservatives will have feelings about but oh well, there it is. The Left claims FOX is a bunch of liars or SO biased. The Right Claims every other source on the planet is a bunch of liars or SO Biased. Those who aren't married to ideology see both for what they are.

Do you think it's okay for one of all those television news sources to be slanted more conservative?
I think whatever a media business finds successful, it will do.

Do you see that as such a threat that it shouldn't allowed in the world of information or those who watch Fox News must be belittled, demeaned, ridiculed, or disrespected in order to be politically correct? Or that leftist leaders seem almost desperate to find some way to legally defang Fox News?

When did you decide to go all vicitm-mentality on me? I watch FOX. I like FOX. Not to mention it gave me one of my all-time favorite shows (24). So your basis for me seeing it as a "threat" is based on what? Because I don't BS about it being fair, balanced or objective, just because it isn't?
Seems like you're the one who is displaying the traits of someone who feels threatened and honestly, I don't know why. I have not demeaned, belittled or even farted in your direction! (trying to lighten up a little here).

Look, you can say what you want but guess what? The only people who find FOX "fair & balanced" are Conservatives. Just like the only people who feel that way about MSNBC are Liberals.
Yet you're not attacking my view that MSNBC is completely biased to the Left, are you?

No because MSNBC IS biased to the left editorially just as Fox is biased the right editorially. But in my professional opinon as one who was thoroughly trained in what is media bias and what is not, Fox straight news reporting does a much better job of not being biased than does MSNBC or CNN.

And victim mentality? When have you heard a Republican President get before a microphone and complain about media coverage from a particular network or cable cannel like Obama and the Democrats complain about Fox? When have you EVER heard of a suggested 'fairness doctrine' to rein in MSNBC or any of the other alphabet networks or channels or to 'balance' Air America from the right? Yet you frequently hear leftists thinking Fox News should be forced to be more 'balanced' and that stations should be forced to offer as much liberal talk radio as they program conservative talk radio, etc.

Of course MSNBC sounds 'fair and balanced' to the garden variety leftist because that is what they want to hear. And a conservative slant on Fox sounds good to a conservative who has nowhere else to go to have his or her point of view articulated.

But from a purely objective point of view, I know when something is dishonestly slanted right or left. Fox does a better job in being less dishonest than does MSNBC.

 

[MarcATL]

You seem to have a very good grasp as to what goes on at the FOXNews. Clearly you've watched and studied enough of it's programming to formulate such an opinion.

I'm curious to see your analysis of msnbc.

MSNBC is set up in the exact same format. They pretty much copied what FoxNews did.

Keith Olbermann was the original. He is now gone, but many like him survive.

What they do is this:

Step 1: They show real news during the day, but only show the stories that fit their world-view. The reporting of the stories is relatively objective, so they can make some claim to journalistic integrity.

Step 2: They use the stories they report during the day as a springboard to launch into their prime time commentary shows.

In these shows, radical talking-heads like Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews will bring on either people who either:

• completely support their opinion and pretend to be objective reporters, or
• people who slightly disagree with their opinion, who they then proceed to talk over and badger into submission.

This creates the illusion that there are actually multiple points of view, which there aren't.

Now, pretty much the only thing that separates MSNBC from Fox at all, is that they have a genuine conservative (Joe Scarborough) on in the morning.

But I guess they figure that if they have one in a time-filling slot, it will lend them an air of credibility.

Interesting. Have you ever watched a good amount of msnbc? I get the impression that you don't have as much experience on msnbc as you do on the FOXNews.

 

[Synthaholic]

You see, instead of presenting "Both Sides" of the spectrum, and being "Fair and Balanced", both MSNBC and FoxNews present one person that is reasonable, but on the same side, and then pits them against someone who is bat-shit crazy, and radical as hell, like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann.

What the viewer walks away with is that, to be reasonable and moderate, they should be somewhere between these two points. Which leaves them pretty far on one side or the other, and always leaning the same way on the particular issues that the media source in question wants them to be.

Which is why both Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers believe that they are actually "moderate".

I don't see any correlation whatsoever between Beck and Olbermann. Olbermann is not a kook. He is a Liberal broadcaster, nothing more.

 

[Vast LWC]

No because MSNBC IS biased to the left editorially just as Fox is biased the right editorially. But in my professional opinon as one who was thoroughly trained in what is media bias and what is not, Fox straight news reporting does a much better job of not being biased than does MSNBC or CNN.

And victim mentality? When have you heard a Republican President get before a microphone and complain about media coverage from a particular network or cable cannel like Obama and the Democrats complain about Fox? When have you EVER heard of a suggested 'fairness doctrine' to rein in MSNBC or any of the other alphabet networks or channels or to 'balance' Air America from the right? Yet you frequently hear leftists thinking Fox News should be forced to be more 'balanced' and that stations should be forced to offer as much liberal talk radio as they program conservative talk radio, etc.

Of course MSNBC sounds 'fair and balanced' to the garden variety leftist because that is what they want to hear. And a conservative slant on Fox sounds good to a conservative who has nowhere else to go to have his or her point of view articulated.

But from a purely objective point of view, I know when something is dishonestly slanted right or left. Fox does a better job in being less dishonest than does MSNBC.

Just off the first search I did:

George W Bush complains about media coverage of Iraq (10/21/03):

Here.

George HW Bush complains about media coverage of his children (5/19/92):

Here.

Ronald Reagan Complains about the media conspiringn against the presidency with congress and special interest groups (12/14/88):

Here.

Yes, it turns out that it is actually quite common for a president to complain about media attention. Seems to be a crowd pleaser, to rile up the base.

You can go all the way back to McKinley complaining about Hearst if you'd like. Though, admittedly, that one didn't go so well for McKinley.

Of course, you won't hear that particular angle on the "Obama's a complainer" stories on FoxNews.

 

[Synthaholic]

You seem to have a very good grasp as to what goes on at the FOXNews. Clearly you've watched and studied enough of it's programming to formulate such an opinion.

I'm curious to see your analysis of msnbc.

MSNBC is set up in the exact same format. They pretty much copied what FoxNews did.

Keith Olbermann was the original. He is now gone, but many like him survive.

What they do is this:

Step 1: They show real news during the day, but only show the stories that fit their world-view. The reporting of the stories is relatively objective, so they can make some claim to journalistic integrity.

Step 2: They use the stories they report during the day as a springboard to launch into their prime time commentary shows.

In these shows, radical talking-heads like Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews will bring on either people who either:

• completely support their opinion and pretend to be objective reporters, or
• people who slightly disagree with their opinion, who they then proceed to talk over and badger into submission.

This creates the illusion that there are actually multiple points of view, which there aren't.

Now, pretty much the only thing that separates MSNBC from Fox at all, is that they have a genuine conservative (Joe Scarborough) on in the morning.

But I guess they figure that if they have one in a time-filling slot, it will lend them an air of credibility.

I would need some examples of this. Stories FOX (or even CNN) covered but MSNBC ignored because of some worldview.

Now, the opposite is true. FOX frequently does not cover a mid-day Obama speech, while MSNBC and CNN do. FOX did not cover the Egyptian square protests until well into it. FOX didn't cover the Senator John Ensign sex scandal/ethics scandal (a two-fer!!!), even though MSNBC certainly covered the Anthony Weiner Scandal.

I just don't think there is equivalence between what FOX does and what real news organizations do.