bowerbird

There was a book here by an Australian journalist with the Aust Broadcasting Commission - he talks about being in the Iraqi war during the first days doing the coverage of the war.

"Appalled" would be too mild a term for how he described his feelings as, instead of being out in the battle zone with the troops they were locked in a room and fed press releases which the (very) young "reporters" from Fox greeted with high fives and whoops of glee

After reading that there was no doubt in my mind that corporate news had sold out and were no better than State run media from a dictatorship.

About the only independent journalism coming out of Iraq in the first few years was the dribs and drabs that ABC (Aust) and the BBC were able to present - both of which were either ignored or dismissed by the "whoop te do Fox is right" party

__________________

Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.

American

Well of course "our" news media were the only people with truth, while all others were drinking koolaid.

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

bowerbird

No, if you followed the arguments within the industry there is some very real concerns that we are sacrificing true investigative journalism for sensationalism and quick sound bites.

Look at those TV companies that still have "investigative journalism" and there are precious few on commercial TV that are looking at the deep issues

__________________

Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.

jackalope

C-span does interviews too.

WI Crippler

The problem is, people don't even know what "objective" is any more. People tend to state their opinions as if they are facts, and then people that agree with it think its the best objective journalism/argument ever, and people that disagree with it think its a load of horse****. For example, if a journalist writes that "Iraq is a quagmire, and there is no hope for a future for those people." that is an opinion, or evaluation. Not an objective analysis. An objective analysis would only report things such as the length of the war, number of casualties, where fights took place, etc...Objectivism cannot include any evaluative statements. That is where journalists, and people that read these things get screwed up. Put plainly, objectivism is very bland and boring because it is devoid of the appeal to emotion.

__________________
"We have people like that in our world too. People who say that freedom is no longer practical, that we must surrender it for a greater common good."

"Fear them....They tolerate tyranny, excuse it, compromise with it. In doing so they always bring savagery and death upon the rest of us".
-Terry Goodkind Law of Nines

Sir Loin

How does Fox make their bias part of the journalistic method? When CNN reports the same story in the same hour as Fox, reporting the exact same facts, how pray tell is Fox placing their bias into the journalistic method? Or is this yet another of your proclamations you can't actually produce any support for, ya know aside from because you say so.

Ethereal

Yup. I'd say that about covers it.

You are stupid.

The media does suck.

And most Americans would rather be cozy than free.

Anyway, my personal circumstances don't, in any way, depend on getting libertarians elected to office. For myself, it won't really matter who is in Washington because I'll have enough money and connections to insulate myself from the negative social consequences that arise from poor governance. I could even work for the Federal government some day. Just ignore all the problems and live worry free on the tax-payers dime!

The reason I won't do this is because I actually care about this country and its people. I think some libertarian values are just what this country needs to get back on the right track.

So, yea, libertarians can't get elected; it's no skin off my back. I just feel sorry for Americans who have to deal with your crappy governance...

bowerbird

There is an easy way to test this - pick a random story and post an excerpt - one from Fox and one from another news source.

__________________

Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.

Sir Loin

Then why do you need me or someone else to do so for you? As you claim it is "easy" yet....................

Also WOW! Congrats on your complete dodge. You were looking for an 'atta boy' for doing the slow and lazy here? Why? Let me guess, because according to you, this was the intellectual approach? Good God why did you bother getting out of bed today?

WillRockwell

It's so easy to provide evidence of Fox bias, I'm surprised you have to ask.
Let's take the lead story on FoxNews.com right now. The headline is:
GOP Gains Could Hurt Obama Political Capital, If Not Agenda
What the story is about is that Republican governors were elected in New Jersey and Virginia. That's all. And yet the headline focuses on an imaginary defeat for the president. If the bozos at Fox were really journalists, their headline would say something about what actually happened, instead of trumpeting what they hope will happen. This is just one easy example of Fox bias, I could list hundreds more.

__________________