Is Fox News A REAL news organization?

Triad said:

If its too hard for the FOX haters to even click a remote button then do you think its a good idea to take their advice on anything?

Click to expand...

Problem is that some people watch only Fox News & then consider themselves well informed. I watch a number of different media with differing slants/biases &^ include Fox News to basically hear the RNC's version of any current event.
My problem with Fox is their claim of being fair & balanced.
They are the LEAST Fair & Balanced of any network I can think of & I suggest you watch them with the knowledge that what you will hear are Republican talking points. Personally, I'll trust news coverage that is reported on both Fox News AND MSNBC b4 I'll trust its veracity.

Devil505 said:

I'm agreeing with you.

Fox News is obviously a poorly disguised mouthpiece of the RNC.
Always has been & always will be!

Click to expand...

You would agree, as a card carrying libwingnut. You didn't need to go farther than your first post to prove it, so you've wasted pages and time. You're biased in a biased forum. :roll:

American said:

You would agree, as a card carrying libwingnut. You didn't need to go farther than your first post to prove it, so you've wasted pages and time. You're biased in a biased forum. :roll:

Click to expand...

It's been a week since I issued my challenge to find a single example of a Fox Chryron "mistake" favoring Democrats. It would seem that hostility and name calling is all you have left, since the facts do not favor your position.

Devil505 said:

Sorry if I have disappointed you but .....hey...Life is full of disappointments isn't it?!:lol:

I'll give a quick example of how Fox News is more of a propaganda arm than a legitimate news organization:

During the invasion of Iraq, Fox news reported (at least twice that I saw) the discovery of massive quantities of WMD by U.S. troops. I immediately switched to other stations for verification, which was obviously not reported....anywhere but Fox.
Fox News reports only stories that further their (RNC) agenda.

Fox News hosts and guests touted discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq | Media Matters for America

Click to expand...

..................................so, following your link, i read; "Indeed, even Fox News was apparently aware of the reported ineffectiveness of the chemical weapons touted by Santorum and Hoekstra. During Special Report -- which airs at 6 p.m. ET -- host Brit Hume reported on the Defense Department's reaction to Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, noting: "the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this that, 'Well, yes, they were found, and yes, they were -- though degraded -- weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there.' " Additionally, as Fox News host Alan Colmes noted later that evening during an interview with Santorum on Hannity & Colmes, at least one "defense official" informed Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle that the weapons "could not have been fired ... because they'd already been degraded," and "that these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." Colmes continued: "So, the chest-beating that the Republicans are doing tonight, thinking this is a justification, is not confirmed by the Defense Department." I would say that reflects what Fox always does-show both sides of the issue. It's funny to me that someone trying to invalidate Fox News would quote Fox news as their source. I watch Fox News and always hear the liberal side. If anything, Fox just gives you MORE news. Conservative points of view have been completely neglected by the other networks for most of my life. There commentators are definately more conservative, but it is opinion. In there news reporting. They report the facts-just more of them. Those who say Fox is a "Mouthpiece" for Bush or republicans obviously do not watch Fox. Even their conservative commentators frequently criticized Bush. I'm constantly hearing debate from competent liberals such as Geraldine Ferarro, Bob Beckl, Ellis Henicken(probably misspelled,) and many others, such as Juan Williams. I recommend reading the book "Bias," by Bernnie Goldberg.

I don't think the problem at all is whether there is or isn't bias, but rather the repackaging of opinionated news as "Fair and Balanced" when it is neither fair, nor balanced.

The Most Biased Name in News - FAIR (Progressive media watchdog)

Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.). In Great Britain, papers like the conservative Times of London and the left-leaning Guardian deliver consistently excellent coverage while making no secret of their respective points of view. There's nothing keeping American journalists from doing the same.

If anything, it is partly the disingenuous claim to objectivity that is corroding the integrity of the news business. American journalists claim to represent all political views with an open mind, yet in practice a narrow bipartisan centrism excludes dissenting points of view

Click to expand...

When I read the NY Times and Washington Post, I look specifically at the Opinion sections. I appreciated that when I read David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Eugene Robinson, Robert Samuelson, Fareed Zakaria, and others that I will know exactly the angle they will present, and that when their argument is supported by facts, evidence, data, and reality I can much more appreciated ALL sides of an argument.

More troubling for FOX though is not just the disingenuous "Fair and Balanced" claim, but that news is presented in such a tabloid fashion. O'Reilly, Hannity, and those morning idiots are quite frankly more an embarrassment to conservatives if anything. While I understand that Hannity is NOT a journalist but an editorial presenter, it is still beyond dishonest to continually do a lot of the things he does. Just recently he was caught again manipulating speeches (i.e. re-editing) made by the President. This after the famous brouhaha when FOX altered the photos of two NY Times journalists. This is not the actions of a credible news source, but the antics of a tabloid paper.

sam_w said:

I don't think the problem at all is whether there is or isn't bias, but rather the repackaging of opinionated news as "Fair and Balanced" when it is neither fair, nor balanced.

The Most Biased Name in News - FAIR (Progressive media watchdog)


When I read the NY Times and Washington Post, I look specifically at the Opinion sections. I appreciated that when I read David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Eugene Robinson, Robert Samuelson, Fareed Zakaria, and others that I will know exactly the angle they will present, and that when their argument is supported by facts, evidence, data, and reality I can much more appreciated ALL sides of an argument.

More troubling for FOX though is not just the disingenuous "Fair and Balanced" claim, but that news is presented in such a tabloid fashion. O'Reilly, Hannity, and those morning idiots are quite frankly more an embarrassment to conservatives if anything. While I understand that Hannity is NOT a journalist but an editorial presenter, it is still beyond dishonest to continually do a lot of the things he does. Just recently he was caught again manipulating speeches (i.e. re-editing) made by the President. This after the famous brouhaha when FOX altered the photos of two NY Times journalists. This is not the actions of a credible news source, but the antics of a tabloid paper.

Click to expand...

Why am I so familiar with all liberals arguements and I watch Fox news? Editing always takes place. In what way has Hannity mischaracterized the context of what Obama has said?

I can understand why there might be concerns about accepting criticisms from Media Matters for America (although that seems to curiously disappear when Media Research Center criticism of MSNBC emerges), but there's published empirical research on "the Fox News effect," namely DellaVigna and Kaplan's The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting:

Does media bias affect voting? We analyze the entry of Fox News in cable markets and its impact on voting. Between October 1996 and November 2000, the conservative Fox News Channel was introduced in the cable programming of 20 percent of U. S. towns. Fox News availability in 2000 appears to be largely idiosyncratic, conditional on a set of controls. Using a data set of voting data for 9,256 towns, we investigate if Republicans gained vote share in towns where Fox News entered the cable market by the year 2000. We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News. Fox News also affected voter turnout and the Republican vote share in the Senate. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure. The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion.

Click to expand...

Media outlets are by no means isolated operations, and have very real impacts and consequences on the electoral process, obviously. If the Fox News Effect was "a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion," then we'd have a fairly troubling insight into the manner in which manipulative rather than rational persuasion affects the American electoral process...and that's coming from someone with a general lack of interest in that process, incidentally.

"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure. The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for nonrational voters subject to persuasion." Perhaps that's the result of getting better, more accurate information.

It certainly could be, and that was made clear in the abstract.

frazier991 said:

Why am I so familiar with all liberals arguements and I watch Fox news? Editing always takes place. In what way has Hannity mischaracterized the context of what Obama has said?

Click to expand...

Watch this

The third "edit" was especially dishonest. What does this say about Hannity and his argument if he needs to lie and deceive? Can he find no better argument, thus he needs to manipulate? I would prefer facts to speak for themselves. If the President had in fact given voice to 9/11 sympathizers, that would be pretty damning wouldn't it? But Hannity could NOT make that argument based on the actual reality, so he created his own reality.

A lot of things can be argued back and forth, but it is quite difficult when we can see it for ourselves at the moment it happens. And here is a clear case as ever of media manipulation and distortion.

sam_w said:

Watch this

The third "edit" was especially dishonest. What does this say about Hannity and his argument if he needs to lie and deceive? Can he find no better argument, thus he needs to manipulate? I would prefer facts to speak for themselves. If the President had in fact given voice to 9/11 sympathizers, that would be pretty damning wouldn't it? But Hannity could NOT make that argument based on the actual reality, so he created his own reality.

A lot of things can be argued back and forth, but it is quite difficult when we can see it for ourselves at the moment it happens. And here is a clear case as ever of media manipulation and distortion.

Click to expand...

Can you be more specific? If he did do that and misrepresent Obama's context, I want to know-even if I don't like the answer. I did not see that particular show.

frazier991 said:

Can you be more specific? If he did do that and misrepresent Obama's context, I want to know-even if I don't like the answer. I did not see that particular show.

Click to expand...

Hannity begins the segment:

"He also decided to give 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage"

Click to expand...

Then cuts to Obama's speech

"I am aware there is still some who would question, or even justify the events of 9/11

Click to expand...

To which Hannity cuts right back and proceeds with his program saying:

"Throughout the speech Mr. Obama continued to speak out of both sides of his mouth"

Click to expand...

Now look at the full transcript of the speech to which I will highlight exactly just that part to which Hannity chose to air:

"Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

Click to expand...

Taken in Hannity's context this is quite damning now isn't it. Yet it is a lie. And by being so disingenuous Hannity only succeeded in showing
A.) He is a douche
B.) He has no ethics
C.) He has no argument

How or why anyone would want that type of information is beyond me, I guess some people just prefer to remain ignorant. This type of tactics is the anti-thesis to journalism and the quest for truth. If Obama had made that statement as Hannity presents it, there is no argument that it should be aired. But by selective editing, it just shows that Hannity should not be aired.

sam_w said:

Hannity begins the segment:


Then cuts to Obama's speech



To which Hannity cuts right back and proceeds with his program saying:



Now look at the full transcript of the speech to which I will highlight exactly just that part to which Hannity chose to air:



Taken in Hannity's context this is quite damning now isn't it. Yet it is a lie. And by being so disingenuous Hannity only succeeded in showing
A.) He is a douche
B.) He has no ethics
C.) He has no argument

How or why anyone would want that type of information is beyond me, I guess some people just prefer to remain ignorant. This type of tactics is the anti-thesis to journalism and the quest for truth. If Obama had made that statement as Hannity presents it, there is no argument that it should be aired. But by selective editing, it just shows that Hannity should not be aired.

Click to expand...

You know what? That's not cool. From what I've been able to find out, that actually happened. That's a line that's NOT OK for him to cross-not even once. My opinion of Sean just took a nose dive.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

This is just a ***that guy*** circle jerk.



*UNSUBSCRIBE*

Click to expand...

Good post Keith Oberman, real in-depth and penetraiting question.

frazier991 said:

You know what? That's not cool. From what I've been able to find out, that actually happened. That's a line that's NOT OK for him to cross-not even once. My opinion of Sean just took a nose dive.

Click to expand...

Props to you not only for allowing your opinion to be changed, but for admitting it in public.

Sam W illustrates very clearly the media bias FoxNews shows towards the left and in particular towards Pres. Obama. The Conservative talking heads do it on their radio shows all the time. Let's take this issue of cap-N-trade, for example. Rush, Hannity and Mark Levin have all used the argue that a cap on energy will cost the American household over $1,000 a year. But what they don't tell you is this figure is an estimate based on expenditures and possible inflationary cost projected at over 35 yrs into the future! So, when people here this extra expenditure to their home energy cost they immediately look at their wallets and think about today's hard economy.

Very misleading indeed!

Granted, media outlets for both sides do this, but at least those who are in support of the Obama Administration will from time to time speak on the negatives of his Administration, whereas FoxNews goes out of its way to take their jabs at the OA at every turn.

It's not that I'm gah-gah over this president, but rather I really don't see anything "fair and balanced" about FoxNews. I mean, where was the negativity over G. W. Bush during his 8 years in office? Rarely did they have anything bad to say about "Dubyah", yet we all know he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. And still when Clinton was in office FoxNews jumped on every mistake he made no matter how slight.

Fair and balanced my ***. FoxNews is what it is - a media outlet for the right. And before anyone starts bashing CNN, NBC or MSNBC, let me be clear:

CNN does place panelist from both sides of the argument on their news segments all the time.

NBC has always tried to be fair in the news stories it covers.

MSNBC goes far more indepth in their analysist of a given situation than most other cable news agencies.

I find these news agencies far more fair and balanced in their reporting than anything FoxNews has to say. I've tried to watch them over the years, but find their views are just to far to the right...not objective enough, IMO. No, I'm not looking for just liberal points of view. But I do look for the pros and cons on a indepth story, and where there are two-sides to an issue I want the media outlet I've tuned into to provide me with information on both sides. I just don't see where FoxNews does this on a regular basis.

WillRockwell said:

No you didn't, that's a lie. You offered three links, none of which led to a fabricated story. One of your offerings claimed that Chris Mathews was biased in a debate, another claimed they "lied" because they did not call Yassir Arafat a terrorist. The third claimed they "lied" when they said UPS pulled their sponsorship of O'Reilly's show. Except UPS DID pull their sponsorship.
So again I ask you, show ONE example of MSNBC fabricating a story.

Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

MSNBC.com removes story that plagiarized from About.com | Regret the Error


FAIL


Plagarism is in fact, a fabrication.



I accept your concession.

Click to expand...

WillRockwell said:

You get no concession.
This was on the business website, they acknowledged the error and pulled the story.
Try again.
And, by the way, is this the best you can do? I thought you claimed MSNBC was as bad as Fox about concocting stories? I expected more from you.

Click to expand...

Rev,

I think the point WillRockwell was trying to get at is FoxNews rarely, if ever, has apologized for any story they've done that was reported in error or found to have been fabricated or "doctored" by its reporters or commentators, whereas, the example you provided above clearly shows that MSNBC apologized for their error soon after reporting the story.

So, you're point really hasn't been validated...at least not with this example (from 2 years ago! Can we get something more recent?).