• 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 The Fox News Channel The Mouthpiece For The GOP?

Is The Fox News Channel The Mouthpiece For The GOP?


  • Total voters
    60

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes
No
Other

foxprimary1-49-5.png
 
Does a bear **** in the woods?
 
Yes. (In case you were wondering, ice is still cold too.)
 
While significantly to the benefit of the GOP, it is in all actuality a mouthpiece unto itself, for itself. In many ways it tries to influence the GOP rather than have the GOP influence it.
 
While significantly to the benefit of the GOP, it is in all actuality a mouthpiece unto itself, for itself. In many ways it tries to influence the GOP rather than have the GOP influence it.

^ This. ^
 
I will take meaningless stats for 1000, Alex. What did I win.

Stats without context are meaningless. For your stats to have any meaning you would need comparisons to their appearance on other channels, and the numbers for no republican appearances on Fox. Without those you have nothing.
 
While significantly to the benefit of the GOP, it is in all actuality a mouthpiece unto itself, for itself. In many ways it tries to influence the GOP rather than have the GOP influence it.
^ This. ^
Third.

A mouthpiece would speak for the party. Fox News' opinion heads speak to try to steer the party.
 
It's nothing new. Back in lincoln's day there were dem/repub newspapers. You might think back when there was only one source of news, that'd be more a threat to the republic, but the problem is everything is so polarized now that the most mundane happenings get spun into a dem vs repub angle, leaving the indifferent viewer unsure what to believe.

Of course, they could still turn to actual journalism, what little of that remains, but here is the real dilemma: most people want to be told what to think about some event, in a way that confirms their biases, and faux news serves that role. They don't want bland facts or nuance or a delay while some commission investigates

So rand paul is on there every 4-5 days the past two years...that network may as well be his entire campaign. Why even bother going out to the endless corn fields in iowa when you have a platform like that
 
It's nothing new. Back in lincoln's day there were dem/repub newspapers. You might think back when there was only one source of news, that'd be more a threat to the republic, but the problem is everything is so polarized now that the most mundane happenings get spun into a dem vs repub angle, leaving the indifferent viewer unsure what to believe.

Of course, they could still turn to actual journalism, what little of that remains, but here is the real dilemma: most people want to be told what to think about some event, in a way that confirms their biases, and faux news serves that role. They don't want bland facts or nuance or a delay while some commission investigates

So rand paul is on there every 4-5 days the past two years...that network may as well be his entire campaign. Why even bother going out to the endless corn fields in iowa when you have a platform like that

I'm with you, but the only thing I would change is the idea that there is a "real journalism" to implement. The notion that objectivity came with neutralizing language, confirming with multiple sources, and getting a response from multiple opposing parties is a relatively recent development. It may be more ephemeral than we can appreciate.
 
I answered "yes". On the flip side, although nobody asked, I also vote that "yes", MSNBC is the Democratic Party's mouthpiece.
 
While significantly to the benefit of the GOP, it is in all actuality a mouthpiece unto itself, for itself. In many ways it tries to influence the GOP rather than have the GOP influence it.
This morning the GOP exclusively released it's Stop Hillary vldeo to Fox. I'll add that I don't think Fox does the GOP any favors by propping up some of the silliest candidates like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann while pretty much ignoring Jon Huntsmann who might have beaten Obama. So its a mixed bag.
 
I answered "yes". On the flip side, although nobody asked, I also vote that "yes", MSNBC is the Democratic Party's mouthpiece.

Nope I think you aare wrong there, MSNBC doesn't feature appearances by candidates like Fox does all the time
 
This morning the GOP exclusively released it's Stop Hillary vldeo to Fox. I'll add that I don't think Fox does the GOP any favors by propping up some of the silliest candidates like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann while pretty much ignoring Jon Huntsmann who might have beaten Obama. So its a mixed bag.

I don't deny that. It's also worth noting that the station, much like MSNBC, provides a stepping-stone for ex-political advisers to work in private media.

But David Frum was very much onto something when he noted that the GOP has become responsive to developments in Fox News's narratives and their anchors.
He made the argument, somewhat exaggerated, that because of the overwhelming numbers of viewers Fox has, the GOP was being held hostage to Fox News.
 
Right on queue Megyn Kelly interviews Marco Rubio.
 
Yes
No
Other

foxprimary1-49-5.png

Does playing cards with Kenny Rogers get old fast?



of course they are, many media outlets have bias. Fox news caters to the conservative crowd as part of their business model, it's no secret.
 
Fox news is just like any other station in that it panders to its demographic which is extremely lucrative . If parading around candidates and distorting facts get it ratings it's going to continue doing so.
 
While significantly to the benefit of the GOP, it is in all actuality a mouthpiece unto itself, for itself. In many ways it tries to influence the GOP rather than have the GOP influence it.

I agree. I don't really watch fox. Don't like their formula.
 
Nope I think you aare wrong there, MSNBC doesn't feature appearances by candidates like Fox does all the time
If you look at the graph by the Left Wing version of WND it says "contenders" not "candidates". Those words are not synonymous.
 
Fox employs too many liberals to be a mouthpiece for the GOP.
 
From my observations, I watch ABC World News every night as well as some Fox News programming, I'll share with you this.

Fox News, the hard news part like Bret Bear and others, is factual without, or with very very limited, color or commentary. Something you really don't get anymore from the majors, and especially not from the likes of MSNBC.

There are other segments who's hosts are commentators, who pose a news topic with a summary of the surrounding facts, and then render their opinion, comments, analysis of that topic and elicit the same from their guests. These aren't the hard news segments, although they contain some hard news.

Is Fox News the mouthpiece of the GOP? Hardly. They are critical of GOP elected officials and candidates. That being said, they are also critical of Democratic elected officials and candidates as well. The frequency of criticism between these two isn't the same.

Does Fox News cater to the more traditional and conservative mindset? Yes. The more traditional and conservative mindset are an undeserved market that Fox News is serving, the same way that the majors are serving their more liberal market.

If you are of the liberal mindset, you'll probably not agree with much on Fox News, as you've been accustomed to what the majors have been serving up and spoon feeding for years and years now. Fox News will probably leave you with the impression of being factually wrong, radical, off in the right hand weeds, etc, etc. as well as being reenforced by other ideologically and politically driven 'sources' such as MediaMatters, Mother Jones, and Rolling Stones.

Realistically, that's not an objective view nor an objective analysis. Fox News is wrong because they don't agree with MediaMatters, Mother Jones, and Rolling Stones? :lamo Well Duuuh!
 
Nope I think you aare wrong there, MSNBC doesn't feature appearances by candidates like Fox does all the time
Even MSNBC admits that they're biased.
 
From my observations, I watch ABC World News every night as well as some Fox News programming, I'll share with you this.

Fox News, the hard news part like Bret Bear and others, is factual without, or with very very limited, color or commentary. Something you really don't get anymore from the majors, and especially not from the likes of MSNBC.

There are other segments who's hosts are commentators, who pose a news topic with a summary of the surrounding facts, and then render their opinion, comments, analysis of that topic and elicit the same from their guests. These aren't the hard news segments, although they contain some hard news.

Is Fox News the mouthpiece of the GOP? Hardly. They are critical of GOP elected officials and candidates. That being said, they are also critical of Democratic elected officials and candidates as well. The frequency of criticism between these two isn't the same.

Does Fox News cater to the more traditional and conservative mindset? Yes. The more traditional and conservative mindset are an undeserved market that Fox News is serving, the same way that the majors are serving their more liberal market.

If you are of the liberal mindset, you'll probably not agree with much on Fox News, as you've been accustomed to what the majors have been serving up and spoon feeding for years and years now. Fox News will probably leave you with the impression of being factually wrong, radical, off in the right hand weeds, etc, etc. as well as being reenforced by other ideologically and politically driven 'sources' such as MediaMatters, Mother Jones, and Rolling Stones.

Realistically, that's not an objective view nor an objective analysis. Fox News is wrong because they don't agree with MediaMatters, Mother Jones, and Rolling Stones? :lamo Well Duuuh!

And for hitting a home run you win the series. What are you going to do now?
 
Back
Top Bottom