Fox News and MSNBC

buynow

Are MSNBC and Fox news the most useless networks ever?

Both are ridiculously biased, un informative, un thrustworthy shouting shops.

This can't be what people want in when they watch news. But it is.

They really are useless. But it seems to be the way american cable news is heading - no actual news, just useless opinion pieces that you wouldn't bother reading if it was in a newspaper.

Fox often assert that they are right because of ratings, but no, you are not.

One night I actually tried to find a new bulletin around midnight on American TV and it wasn't possible. Just repeats of the aforementioned useless opinion pieces.

I don't know how this can be solved without interfering with press freedom. Is it just the price that has to be paid?

irish_bob

buynow wrote: »

Are MSNBC and Fox news the most useless networks ever?

Both are ridiculously biased, un informative, un thrustworthy shouting shops.

This can't be what people want in when they watch news. But it is.

They really are useless. But it seems to be the way american cable news is heading - no actual news, just useless opinion pieces that you wouldn't bother reading if it was in a newspaper.

Fox often assert that they are right because of ratings, but no, you are not.

One night I actually tried to find a new bulletin around midnight on American TV and it wasn't possible. Just repeats of the aforementioned useless opinion pieces.


I don't know how this can be solved without interfering with press freedom. Is it just the price that has to be paid?

claims that fox is the most credible due to rattings is about as valid as claiming mcdonalds have the most nutrisious food as their the biggest restaraunt chain in the world

banquo

Aye. Each as bad as the other.

Neither are news. At least Fox is entertaining. c

CNN can get on my nerves too with all their hippy crap. ''And now, a 1 Hour special on women's rights/global warming in [deprived country]''.

I said I wanted the news, asshole.

Manic Moran

For some reason, people have this bizarre concept that American media is in the business of reporting news. It's not. It's in the business of making money.
That basically means 'telling people what they want to hear'. Believe it or not, about the most balanced American paper I've ever read is "Stars and Stripes"

The issue came up recently, when S&S recently cancelled its 'counterpoint' of posting a Coulter Op-Ed next to a Huffington Op-Ed. I quote the S&S Ombudsman (Appointed to enforce the fair-and-balanced requirement by law) in his piece a few days ago.

Thanks for your inquiry regarding the discontinuation of the regular left/right columnist feature pitting Ann Coulter against Arianna Huffington. I decided to cancel this arrangement because I felt both columnists had become stale, predictable, utterly tiresome caricatures of what thoughtful political commentators should be. In their place, we are endeavoring to publish a broad selection of smarter, richer, deeper commentaries by columnists — from both the left and the right — who are more interested in making cogent arguments than throwing provocative ad hominem bombs intended to further their own book sales, Web sites and public media personas.

These are two of the most popular columnists in America. And he's absolutely right. They don't analyse, they simply appeal to their base and sell books. On my satellite radio, we have a left-leaning channel, and a right-leaning channel. Tune into the one, and all you hear are hosts and callers bitching about the idiots on the other channel and how stupid their policies are. It's not discussion. It's not debate. It's simply pitching to the masses.

He continues:

Many newspapers try to erect a wall between their news pages, whose purpose is to tell people what they should know, and their opinion pages, whose purpose is to tell them what they should think

Frankly, I don't think papers should tell people what they should think, but in the US, I'm a minority. Even the large, supposedly reputable news organisations which do distinguish between what they think and what they report put a much larger prominence to the 'think' than we would be used to in Europe. For example, the San Francisco-based Chronicle will print out a pull-out supplement for people to bring into the polling booth telling them which way they think people should vote in various elections and referenda. Of course, these choices tend to match with those of most San Franciscans: After all, if they put out a supplement telling people to vote for McCain, they'd lose half their readership in protest. And thus, half their income.

NTM

irish_bob

Manic Moran wrote: »

For some reason, people have this bizarre concept that American media is in the business of reporting news. It's not. It's in the business of making money.
That basically means 'telling people what they want to hear'. Believe it or not, about the most balanced American paper I've ever read is "Stars and Stripes"

The issue came up recently, when S&S recently cancelled its 'counterpoint' of posting a Coulter Op-Ed next to a Huffington Op-Ed. I quote the S&S Ombudsman (Appointed to enforce the fair-and-balanced requirement by law) in his piece a few days ago.



These are two of the most popular columnists in America. And he's absolutely right. They don't analyse, they simply appeal to their base and sell books. On my satellite radio, we have a left-leaning channel, and a right-leaning channel. Tune into the one, and all you hear are hosts and callers bitching about the idiots on the other channel and how stupid their policies are. It's not discussion. It's not debate. It's simply pitching to the masses.

He continues:


Frankly, I don't think papers should tell people what they should think, but in the US, I'm a minority. Even the large, supposedly reputable news organisations which do distinguish between what they think and what they report put a much larger prominence to the 'think' than we would be used to in Europe. For example, the San Francisco-based Chronicle will print out a pull-out supplement for people to bring into the polling booth telling them which way they think people should vote in various elections and referenda. Of course, these choices tend to match with those of most San Franciscans: After all, if they put out a supplement telling people to vote for McCain, they'd lose half their readership in protest. And thus, half their income.

NTM

when gorbachev was doing a college tour some years ago in the states , he commented on how in russia , back in the bad ol paranoid times , the state would go too extreme ends to stop people from thinking for themselves politically , here , you just start up a news channell

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

For some reason, people have this bizarre concept that American media is in the business of reporting news. It's not. It's in the business of making money. That basically means 'telling people what they want to hear'.

Indeed! (Even though I don't like agreeing with John Wayne in public!:eek:)

buynow wrote: »

I don't know how this can be solved without interfering with press freedom. Is it just the price that has to be paid?

Air broadcast and cable news are entertainment networks that rely on positive ratings from their audience segments to attract advertisers and be profitable. They are first of all businesses that must have a positive bottom line to stay in business. MSNBC and Fox have different segments of the market that they cater to. The same can be said of their talking heads (e.g., Bill O'Spinmaster, etc.). It's not news but entertainment that their audiences want, and the broadcasters and cable networks deliver it the best they can. End of story.

major bill

fox news, sky news any news station in major western countrys are all biased [EMAIL="b@stards"]b@stards[/EMAIL]. look up ron paul, when he was running for president in the last election fox news wouldnt even include him in polls or show his results.

KerranJast

major bill wrote: »

fox news, sky news any news station in major western countrys are all biased [EMAIL="b@stards"]b@stards[/EMAIL]. look up ron paul, when he was running for president in the last election fox news wouldnt even include him in polls or show his results.

Because he was getting a miniscule fraction of the poll :rolleyes: Interesting guy but he was never going to be a real threat to mainstream candidates.

jank

KerranJast wrote: »

Because he was getting a miniscule fraction of the poll :rolleyes: Interesting guy but he was never going to be a real threat to mainstream candidates.

I think he has a great chance in 2012. The nutty GOP right wing agenda has failed so the only way to go is go the libertarian route which Ron Paul is....

therewillbe

That lot on the breakfast slot, 3 AMIGOS OR WHAT! FOX=RIGHT REPUBLICAN in my opinion. CNN is a bit better.

major bill

KerranJast wrote: »

Because he was getting a miniscule fraction of the poll :rolleyes: Interesting guy but he was never going to be a real threat to mainstream candidates.

yea but come on, they wouldnt even achknowledge him. miniscule? yes compared with the democrats and republicans but not the rest. anyway i wnt watch fox,sky or any of them for news.

KerranJast

major bill wrote: »

yea but come on, they wouldnt even achknowledge him. miniscule? yes compared with the democrats and republicans but not the rest. anyway i wnt watch fox,sky or any of them for news.

He was on most of the early Republican debates. He was also extensively interviewed on CNN, FOX and NBC. Inevitably the TV coverage of candidates during the primaries narrows to 3 or 4 candidates with any chance of winning. It would be totally unfeasible to continue to have 10 or 11 candidates on each broadcast. They would never be able to fit more than 30 second answers from each one in.

jank

KerranJast wrote: »

He was on most of the early Republican debates. He was also extensively interviewed on CNN, FOX and NBC. Inevitably the TV coverage of candidates during the primaries narrows to 3 or 4 candidates with any chance of winning. It would be totally unfeasible to continue to have 10 or 11 candidates on each broadcast. They would never be able to fit more than 30 second answers from each one in.

Another reason why he got very little air time is the he was very critical of bush's and US foreign policy in general. He in my opinion correctly called the war on terror what it was, pay back for continuous medaling in foreign countries to suit the US. "They hate us not for who we are but what we do"

Of course the traditional GOP did not like the sound of that as America is infallible like God's words in the bible so FOX just dumped him.

As I said 2012 is a new ball game. I quite like him actually, a man of his word. Although having idiots like beck on his side as well might make me think twice:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

banquo

KerranJast wrote: »

Because he was getting a miniscule fraction of the poll :rolleyes: Interesting guy but he was never going to be a real threat to mainstream candidates.

In one of the primaries, Ron Paul came third.

Fox News showed - with pictures and much fanfare - who came first, second and fourth. It was pathetic.

randypriest

People dont want to hear about things they dont agree with. So Fox is popular with the core demographic of American's who dislike Obama socialism and like Conservative Republican values. Extremeist news sells.

sceptre

buynow wrote: »

They really are useless. But it seems to be the way american cable news is heading - no actual news, just useless opinion pieces that you wouldn't bother reading if it was in a newspaper.

Seen the BBC London news at 6:30pm lately?