• 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 Megyn Kelly being "Fair & Balanced" Here

How do you vote?

  • It's "Fair and Balanced"

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • She has an agenda.

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    8
pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
At the link below is a video of one of Megyn Kelly's "Fair and Balanced" segments on her afternoon show on Fox from almost three years ago. Please watch and note how she is handling it. I am not interested in the subject matter they are discussing, except she (or her producer) is the one who chose the subject matter, so the that is a consideration. I am interested how she is handling it.

The choices in the Poll are:

. It's "Fair and Balanced"

. She has an agenda.

. I don't know
​


Does The Term "Illegal Immigrant" Encourage Violence?
 
If your small window is in regard to her technique, then I would have to say she was not being "balanced." She did not push the discussion to challenge both individuals, but rather on one guest.

Is what she is bringing up a fair criticism of the proponents for terminology change? Absolutely.
 
why even watch? what's the point? fox and msnbc are infotainment; bias is part of the business model.
 
Helix said:
why even watch? what's the point? fox and msnbc are infotainment; bias is part of the business model.
Click to expand...

My barometer for excellence is: will it bore the average person? If yes, you have a solid broadcast. If it is entertaining: you have a crappy broadcast.
 
Helix said:
why even watch? what's the point? fox and msnbc are infotainment; bias is part of the business model.
Click to expand...

Layoff of MSNBC, it's the only channel one can go to and learn about prisons in America.

MSNBC aka The Prison Channel is the only network that sticks up for criminals who are behind bars.
 
Fiddytree said:
My barometer for excellence is: will it bore the average person? If yes, you have a solid broadcast. If it is entertaining: you have a crappy broadcast.
Click to expand...

sadly, you're correct. when it comes to news and wine, i generally like it dry. just tell me what is going on, and let me use my own intellectual curiosity to form an opinion. occasionally, i even admit that a previous opinion of mine was wrong, and i update my theory in light of new data. oh, the horror of not just being spoon fed the slant that i want to hear.
 
APACHERAT said:
Layoff of MSNBC, it's the only channel one can go to and learn about prisons in America.

MSNBC aka The Prison Channel is the only network that sticks up for criminals who are behind bars.
Click to expand...

the last time i watched MSNBC, Dr. Nancy was the only good show on the entire channel. she did a great job of swatting down anti-vaxers and Dr. Oz bull****. the rest was celebrity prison sex and Olbermann calling for the president to resign every ****ing night. then they cancelled Dr. Nancy, and i tuned out. the network is a joke.

i dropped fox in '06, though i was still a libertarian then. the slant was so obvious that my suspension of disbelief was destroyed. the only time i see any of that network is when it inadvertently pops up in my blank google news search. almost every article is chosen and written for a Republican audience. i admit tuning in on election night for about five minutes to watch Rove's Ohio reaction. i skipped MSNBC's reaction, though i'm sure it was probably an orgasmic celebration of "go team." that **** is not news, and the "journalists" who are employed by these networks should send apology letters to their journalism professors. i took one journalism class in college, and lesson one was objectivity and integrity.
 
Fiddytree said:
My barometer for excellence is: will it bore the average person? If yes, you have a solid broadcast. If it is entertaining: you have a crappy broadcast.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the irony is that the people who bitch the most about the decline usually spend their entire day grazing on punditry and op-ed style reporting show. pbrauer is the perfect example of this, the man constantly complains about fox, but religiously follows MSNBC and media matters
 
Helix said:
Olbermann calling for the president to resign every ****ing night. then they cancelled Dr. Nancy, and i tuned out. the network is a joke.
Click to expand...

It was like some daily ritual on political forums. A bunch of chatter heads would post a clip of Olberman getting outraged at Bush and then they would all post about how outraged they were.

all pointless and completely impotent.
 
Helix said:
i took one journalism class in college, and lesson one was objectivity and integrity.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that it's taught any more in journalism classes.

It definitely isn't practiced any more.

It's a shame.
 
Fox was talking about something other than the shutdown their politicians caused...shocking
 
APACHERAT said:
I don't believe that it's taught any more in journalism classes.

It definitely isn't practiced any more.

It's a shame.
Click to expand...

Heh, even that reputation was overblown. The more one reads from the past, the more it becomes apparent that though they strove for objectivity, reporters were men and women of their times, and as such, claims of past objectivity is suspect.
 
Fiddytree said:
Heh, even that reputation was overblown. The more one reads from the past, the more it becomes apparent that though they strove for objectivity, reporters were men and women of their times, and as such, claims of past objectivity is suspect.
Click to expand...


but there is a difference between pursuing it and just tossing the concept under a bus
 
Fiddytree said:
Heh, even that reputation was overblown. The more one reads from the past, the more it becomes apparent that though they strove for objectivity, reporters were men and women of their times, and as such, claims of past objectivity is suspect.
Click to expand...

It took four decades before we found out that Walter Cronkite was lying to the American people.

Didn't Randolph Hearst get us in a shooting war with Spain ?
 
nothing on Fox is fair and balanced, at all.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
but there is a difference between pursuing it and just tossing the concept under a bus
Click to expand...

Indeed there is, but I hold the concept with more suspicion than most apparently do.
 
pbrauer said:
At the link below is a video of one of Megyn Kelly's "Fair and Balanced" segments on her afternoon show on Fox from almost three years ago. Please watch and note how she is handling it. I am not interested in the subject matter they are discussing, except she (or her producer) is the one who chose the subject matter, so the that is a consideration. I am interested how she is handling it.

The choices in the Poll are:

. It's "Fair and Balanced"

. She has an agenda.

. I don't know
​


Does The Term "Illegal Immigrant" Encourage Violence?
Click to expand...

She wasn't fair and balanced with her interviewing style. That's rather obvious. However, the fact that she encouraged both persons to state their positions was fair and balanced. Heck, she could have just had the guy on her show...kind of like Maddow does.
 
pbrauer said:
At the link below is a video of one of Megyn Kelly's "Fair and Balanced" segments on her afternoon show on Fox from almost three years ago. Please watch and note how she is handling it. I am not interested in the subject matter they are discussing, except she (or her producer) is the one who chose the subject matter, so the that is a consideration. I am interested how she is handling it.

The choices in the Poll are:

. It's "Fair and Balanced"

. She has an agenda.

. I don't know
​


Does The Term "Illegal Immigrant" Encourage Violence?
Click to expand...

Be it an agenda or not, the practice compelled by the need to be 'politically correct' has gone beyond the bounds of reasonable. If you have a round, rubber spherical object with a shade on the color wheel between red and yellow, it is most likely an orange rubber ball. However I'm suspect a liberal will make an effort to call it something else so as not to offend or insult balls that are neither rubber, nor orange.
 
I don't think of Megyn Kelly as a journo; rather, I see her as lawyer and political commentator. I finally kinda saw her new show Friday and think it's going to be very popular with its target demographic. Only segment I remember was the one with Judge Judy. They talked about taking personal responsibility.

Perhaps that will be a theme or part of an "agenda."
 
nota bene said:
I don't think of Megyn Kelly as a journo; rather, I see her as lawyer and political commentator. I finally kinda saw her new show Friday and think it's going to be very popular with its target demographic. Only segment I remember was the one with Judge Judy. They talked about taking personal responsibility.

Perhaps that will be a theme or part of an "agenda."
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Megyn is, an attorney. She use to be a practicing attorney who has the experience of cross examining wittinesses on the stand. And I've watched Megyn over the years interviewing people and when they are trying to hide something or refuse to answerer a question, she all of a sudden goes in to the mode of cross examining a hostile wittiness.

Megyn is good at what she does.
 
Fiddytree said:
If your small window is in regard to her technique, then I would have to say she was not being "balanced." She did not push the discussion to challenge both individuals, but rather on one guest.

Is what she is bringing up a fair criticism of the proponents for terminology change? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

She seemed to not be as concerned with the political debate as with defending the journalistic standard set forth by the AP.
 
johndylan1 said:
She seemed to not be as concerned with the political debate as with defending the journalistic standard set forth by the AP.
Click to expand...

There are certainly political implications involved, but my statement was by mere technique of balance on a given topic. Her pressing questions were directed toward upholding the position of one group (represented in the segment) versus the other (also represented). The balance was not there, despite my agreement toward the criticism of those who want to remove the term "illegal immigrant" from journalistic practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom