• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Fox News A REAL news organization?

Devil505

Devil505

Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
315
Location
Masschusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I believe that Fox News has no more credibility as an independent news organization than did Pravda (of the Soviet Union) during the "Cold War".
My opinion is that Fox News is merely the media arm of the RNC &, as such came as close to a state run propaganda machine during the Bush Presidency as anything has in U.S. history.

For those who will counter with a claim that MSNBC is the same on the left, I would merely counter with the assertion that even MSNBC will occasionally disagree with the Obama administration on numerous important issues: stopping the wars, protecting the torture "Deciders" of the last administraion, etc.

Fox News is a straight "Party Line" mouthpiece for the Republican Party, posing as a legitimate news organiztion & therefore represents a grave danger to this country. It's perfectly fine for media to have a political opinion/slant, but it's not OK to lie to the public & try to hide the fact that you are actually an arm of a political party....Just ask Karl Rove.
 
Last edited:
If you watch Fox news during the day, it's not bad actually for news...and that is coming from a lefty.
 
No, it reports news and does so generally no worse than most others of the 24/7. When it has its commentators, there is a distinct right wing slant of a very noticable nature though if your criteria for it being excused is its not ALWAYS in line with the party line then Fox covers it too as there have been disagreements stated on air between their commentators and Bush and/or Republicans before just like with MSNBC.

I think the more reasonable question would actually be if the 24/7 "News" networks are truly news networks any longer, or if they are entertainment networks that have news programs due to the enormous amount of commentator programs on Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent CNN that are there more, or as much, to push a political view point as it is to give "news".
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How do you think they compare say to ABC?
Click to expand...

I think the danger lies here:

All other news organizations have one simple "raison d'etre"........To make money!
(If they weren't selling advertising space/time, they would be selling shoes)

My fear is that Fox News has a more sinister motive than just simply greed....They are motivated FIRST & Foremost by a political & religious agenda & only then by the good old profit motive, & that is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I think the danger lies here:

All other news organizations have one simple "raison d'etre"........To make money!
If they weren't selling advertising space/time, they would be selling shoes.

My fear is that Fox News has a more sinister motive than just simply greed....They are motivated FIRST & Foremost by a political & religious agenda & only then by the good old profit motive, & that is dangerous.
Click to expand...




non responsive to my question.


This whole healthcare town hall where ABC REFUSED to accept advertising from opposition viewpoints is no issue to you?



As for your bogey man view of Fox news, I simply have to laugh.


What about msnbc? Any problems with them?
 
Redress said:
If you watch Fox news during the day, it's not bad actually for news...and that is coming from a lefty.
Click to expand...

I like to watch Fox nowadays moreso than I like to watch other cable news channels. The news coverage is definitely news. but the infotainment angle of it is more entertaining, and sometimes it's just fun to have it dumbed down. plus, they constantly get right to the criticisms of whatever Obama is up to at the moment, which is good to hear, no matter how trivial they can be.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
non responsive to my question.


This whole healthcare town hall where ABC REFUSED to accept advertising from opposition viewpoints is no issue to you?



As for your bogey man view of Fox news, I simply have to laugh.


What about msnbc? Any problems with them?
Click to expand...


We are dealing with OPINION here & my opinion is that, taken as a whole, I think most media outlets will cover whatever stories will bring in revenue as their FIRST priority. Fox News, on the other hand, puts their agenda in first place! (if they can turn a profit while pushing their agenda.....All the better!,,,,BUT.....the agenda comes first!)
 
Devil505 said:
We are dealing with OPINION here & my opinion is that, taken as a whole, I think most media outlets will cover whatever stories will bring in revenue as their FIRST priority. Fox News, on the other hand, puts their agenda in first place! (if they can turn a profit while pushing their agenda.....All the better!,,,,BUT.....the agenda comes first!)
Click to expand...





I have shown you the error in your thesis, you just want to say "FOX NEWS ARE POOPY HEADS"....



Sorry, I expected better from you, "Moderate". :2wave:
 
Pew Research study said that during the 2008 election coverage, Fox News was the most unbiased of all the network and cable news organizations.

Fox News attacked President Bush numerous times. Commentators such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity disagreed with President Bush and have complimented President Obama (on his decision to not release interrogation photos to give just one example).

Finally, Fox News has a number of guest commentators who appear regularly who are Democratic supporters. Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams to name just three.
 
Devil505 said:
We are dealing with OPINION here & my opinion is that, taken as a whole, I think most media outlets will cover whatever stories will bring in revenue as their FIRST priority. Fox News, on the other hand, puts their agenda in first place! (if they can turn a profit while pushing their agenda.....All the better!,,,,BUT.....the agenda comes first!)
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. I think it is all about profit. You're just spinning.

Traditional media view of things was that major stories, trajedies, "threats", and gossipy type stuff got rating so they pushed those stories generally. Its impossible to be 100% completely and utterly objective, and the majority of print and TV media are liberals, so it had anywhere from a very light to a noticable liberal slant to it for the majority.

Fox saw, as a good capitalist, an oppertunity here. ALL things can be viewed essentially from two view points, and in general fox tends to take it from a right sided view point than a left compared ot most of the media. You seem to think this is because of some political goal of propoganda; I however think it very much is a business decision. They saw a deficiency in the market and took advantage of it...took advantage of it to a point where it over took the big dog on the block by going after that market.

MSNBC is doing the same thing. I don't think MSNBC is liberal because its some kind of democrat conspiracy to use a network for propoganda. I think its extremely liberal now because they were BADLY being beaten in the ratings, needed to do something, saw that Fox's business plan was going well and figured that while CNN and MSNBC was lightly slanted left, if they went farther to the left it may have a similar effect as fox. MSNBC of Today is far different to what it was say, 6 years ago. I don't think the move happened becuase of politics, I think it happened because of business.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I have shown you the error in your thesis, you just want to say "FOX NEWS ARE POOPY HEADS"....



Sorry, I expected better from you, "Moderate". :2wave:
Click to expand...

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
 
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...




Truly disapointing.


Abc is hosting the obama health care "town hall" and refusing advertisements from the opposition.


Dan Rather used forged documents to slander Bush



Then you have chris mathews who said on his program it was his job to see obama elected.


You are truly disapointing here.
 
Zyphlin said:
I disagree completely. I think it is all about profit.
Click to expand...


That's obviously a possibility, but I stand by my opinion that Rupert Murdoch (Fox News owner) cares more about pushing his agenda than he does about making money with Fox News.
(Hell..........Murdoch has plenty of other sources to just earn money!)
 
I know some people say FNC is biased.

I think if you watch Outfoxed with a grain of salt, you'll better understand how Fox works. I've seen Outfoxed and I still watch Fox... with a grain of salt or copious to very copious measure of skepticism, depending on the show.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw]YouTube - Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say"[/ame]

BTW - Fox has said that their mid-day programming is the straight news and the rest is 'news-based opinion' programming.

You still hear the 'we report, you decide' and 'fair and balanced' mantra during these 'opinion' shows.

I take it for what it is -- another point of view.

Shepard Smith is great!!
 
hazlnut said:
I know some people say FNC is biased.

I think if you watch Outfoxed with a grain of salt, you'll better understand how Fox works. I've seen Outfoxed and I still watch Fox... with a grain of salt or copious to very copious measure of skepticism, depending on the show.


YouTube - Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say"

BTW - Fox has said that their mid-day programming is the straight news and the rest is 'news-based opinion' programming.

You still hear the 'we report, you decide' and 'fair and balanced' mantra during these 'opinion' shows.

I take it for what it is -- another point of view.

Shepard Smith is great!!
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clip & you are quite right.....As long as viewers take Fox News as just "another point of view" it's not quite the danger to our society that I fear they aspire to be.
 
Zyphlin said:
Can I just point out the hillarious irony of you trying to prove one group as a partisan propoganda machine by using evidence supplied by a partisan propoganda machine?
Click to expand...

You can, but unfortunately, while doing so, you neglect to pay any attention at all to actual content. Mere labeling exercises are generally pointless.

Any source can be dismissed this way. Meanwhile the point is not refuted or acknowledged.

Attacking the source of information is no argument.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I think the danger lies here:

All other news organizations have one simple "raison d'etre"........To make money!
(If they weren't selling advertising space/time, they would be selling shoes)

My fear is that Fox News has a more sinister motive than just simply greed....They are motivated FIRST & Foremost by a political & religious agenda & only then by the good old profit motive, & that is dangerous.
Click to expand...

:eek::damn:sinking::afraid:

Yeah, b/c all that religious programming on Fox News is just....everywhere isnt it?

I usually dont dive into the psychosis of the left, but I would really love to hear more of this sinister plot by Fox News in your opinion.
 
Devil505 said:
Fox News is a straight "Party Line" mouthpiece for the Republican Party, posing as a legitimate news organiztion & therefore represents a grave danger to this country.
Click to expand...

This post went from ill-informed to highly exaggerated to hysterical in about three sentences.

:2wave:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Truly disapointing.


Abc is hosting the obama health care "town hall" and refusing advertisements from the opposition.


Dan Rather used forged documents to slander Bush



Then you have chris mathews who said on his program it was his job to see obama elected.


You are truly disapointing here.
Click to expand...


So Devil, any "sinister plots" by ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC after all these fiascos that the Rev so humbly threw out there?

Least we forget the CBS news guy, who went to an Obama rally and said on TV that it was hard to stay "objective"?

Or we can always go with the Chris Matthews "thrill down my leg" quote.
 
niftydrifty said:
You can, but unfortunately, while doing so, you neglect to pay any attention at all to actual content. Mere labeling exercises are generally pointless.

Any source can be dismissed this way. Meanwhile the point is not refuted or acknowledged.

Attacking the source of information is no argument.
Click to expand...


This is true, however much how some people won't bother with Fox or Rush Limbaugh because they feel they continually show themselves to be fraudulent, I've found the same with Media Matters.

I'll still generally read their things if someone links to it, but I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. I've seen times when they've sped up and looped video of Rush Limbaugh to make things look worse than it is. I've seen them take words he's said completely out of context, presenting something said completely and utterly facetiously and even acknowleding that people will hear it and misrepresent it as if it was completely and utterly serious with no context. I've seen them make an entire story about a screen shot of a Fox News report where a tag line looks damning, while when seeing the actual report the thing being talked about is actually speaking badly about someone that the tag line was paraphrasing. I can go on and on, but Media Matters time and time again, from my experience with it, has shown itself to not give an actual story, but to take a story and manipulate, contort, and twist it to serve their purposes to a greater extent than I've seen by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any actual legitimate news organization. And I have found these things over time not because I've read some other extremely slanted site, but from reading Media Matters and then going to the actual source material and making the judge for myself. As such, while I will look at Media Matters, I take nothing they say as if it is gospel or truth unless and until I can find the actual source material to make my own judgement because they frequently and so often take things out of context, manipulate information, and go at it with a stated and open completely left wing slant.
 
Last edited:
niftydrifty said:
You can, but unfortunately, while doing so, you neglect to pay any attention at all to actual content. Mere labeling exercises are generally pointless.

Any source can be dismissed this way. Meanwhile the point is not refuted or acknowledged.

Attacking the source of information is no argument.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Pass the salt.;)
 
Zyphlin said:
This is true, however much how some people won't bother with Fox or Rush Limbaugh because they feel they continually show themselves to be fraudulent, I've found the same with Media Matters.

I'll still generally read their things if someone links to it, but I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. I've seen times when they've sped up and looped video of Rush Limbaugh to make things look worse than it is. I've seen them take words he's said completely out of context, presenting something said completely and utterly facetiously and even acknowleding that people will hear it and misrepresent it as if it was completely and utterly serious with no context. I've seen them make an entire story about a screen shot of a Fox News report where a tag line looks damning, while when seeing the actual report the thing being talked about is actually speaking badly about someone that the tag line was paraphrasing. I can go on and on, but Media Matters time and time again, from my experience with it, has shown itself to not give an actual story, but to take a story and manipulate, contort, and twist it to serve their purposes to a greater extent than I've seen by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any actual legitimate news organization. And I have found these things over time not because I've read some other extremely slanted site, but from reading Media Matters and then going to the actual source material and making the judge for myself. As such, while I will look at Media Matters, I take nothing they say as if it is gospel or truth unless and until I can find the actual source material to make my own judgement because they frequently and so often take things out of context, manipulate information, and go at it with a stated and open completely left wing slant.
Click to expand...

I am curious, but you can you show us one of these "issues" you have with Media Matters?
 
Zyphlin said:
This is true, however much how some people won't bother with Fox or Rush Limbaugh because they feel they continually show themselves to be fraudulent, I've found the same with Media Matters.

I'll still generally read their things if someone links to it, but I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. I've seen times when they've sped up and looped video of Rush Limbaugh to make things look worse than it is. I've seen them take words he's said completely out of context, presenting something said completely and utterly facetiously and even acknowleding that people will hear it and misrepresent it as if it was completely and utterly serious with no context. I've seen them make an entire story about a screen shot of a Fox News report where a tag line looks damning, while when seeing the actual report the thing being talked about is actually speaking badly about someone that the tag line was paraphrasing. I can go on and on, but Media Matters time and time again, from my experience with it, has shown itself to not give an actual story, but to take a story and manipulate, contort, and twist it to serve their purposes to a greater extent than I've seen by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any actual legitimate news organization. And I have found these things over time not because I've read some other extremely slanted site, but from reading Media Matters and then going to the actual source material and making the judge for myself. As such, while I will look at Media Matters, I take nothing they say as if it is gospel or truth unless and until I can find the actual source material to make my own judgement because they frequently and so often take things out of context, manipulate information, and go at it with a stated and open completely left wing slant.
Click to expand...

The purpose of media matters is not to "give an actual story." The site presents examples of conservative-leaning bias and inaccuracies when they occur. Your (mere) anecdotes, if true, account for how much content at the site? 1%? 0.5%?

These kinds of charges continually get leveled at MM, and yet I have not seen a thread started here about MM, in which these claims can be scrutinized. Instead, it tends to happen in place of weighing the actual claims that they make, and in threads about other things. This is irrational and unfortunate.

If you believe they do it to a "greater extent" than Fox, MSNBC, etc., I'd really like to see that assertion somehow substantiated. Let's discover together just how sorely mistaken you have been.

It's telling that a single link presented here, from Media Matters, about what Fox News Anchors actually have done, doesn't result in a more enlightened understanding of what Fox News Anchors actually did do. Instead, it devolves into a sideline discussion about the alleged credibility of Media Matters! Did "Fox News hosts and guests tout a discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq?" Who cares! Mention of such, prompts you to deflect. Ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom