Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

Overheal

Well I wont say Beck is entirely Irrational or Illogical. I just think too often he distorts or excludes facts and source material to further a point. I guess you could Argue 'Who Doesnt'. Most of the people I watch for News based TV have clear bias (Colbert, Stewart) as well.

Thats why I put up Brian Williams et all as an example. Often seen on the Daily Show (and Im sure they are two peas in a Pod) but when He's doing the Nightly News, I have yet to hear him go off on a rant or a bash. He's a News Anchor. Which is more than I can say for all of our Prime Time Pundits. And Im sure theres a counterpart on Fox News, but Im guilty of not knowing who that is. All the same I havent watched a 6:00 news slot since TBS put The Office in that slot.

Amerika

I guess the best rule of thumb to live by is to: Only trust half of what you read, and none of what you see on Fox News.

Overheal

But you just said... oh nevermind

Amerika

I should have clarified it as sarcasm, but I bet it did endear me to the masses here.

Exile 1798

David Frum makes an astute point about the Fox/Talk Radio hate machine.

in the 1990s when I was in America I always wondered what would happen to the anti-Clinton media industry. They were so nutty and angry, but surely they'd have no purpose once he wasn't in power?

It seems the anti-Obama demagoguery is more pronounced then what occurred during the Clinton years. I think some of that is due the inability of these people to cope with the utter failure that was the Bush administration.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Fox's and Rush's ratings soared as soon as Bush left office. Dick Morris is selling books again.

Defending the party in power is harder and less excitable then attacking a government.

Unlike Frum, I would consider it poetic justice if Republicans were kept down by their own media machine.

Memnoch

This is the one topic that really gets me so completely frothing at the mouth that I'm unable to make an articulate argument about it. I just cannot see how any reasonable person with even a modest education would consider Fox News to have any iota of journalistic integrity, whatever your personal politics.

I don't know what makes me more angry. Their shoddy practises, blatant lies and misrepresentation of the truth, non-stop hate mongering and fear tactics.

Or the fact that they appear to purport to represent the interests of the common man against the elites, when in fact their entire agenda on every concievable issue (apart from perhaps social conservatism) is designed to forward the cause of the "have's." I get why people in the Republican party and business interests love fox news so much. What I don't get is the average conservative voter, and how completely blind they are to the fact that Fox News doesn't give two cents about them and are actively selling them down the river at every opportunity.

Take health care as a straight forward example. The aim is to prevent insurance companies from continuing to ransack their customers. To force them to provide coverage to people who need it most. To stop them from evading their responsiblity to families when they need it most. And to provide healthcare to almost 30 million people who currently don't have access to it in the richest country in the world.

It's the classic example of the interest of big business vs the interest of the general public and the ordinary citizen. Yet some how, from day 1, through constant obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation and fear mongereing fox news has managed to convince these people that somehow, all of them getting cheaper and more reliable insurance coverage is actually going to somehow kill all of their babies.

The only way to fix injustice is to raise awareness and debate the issues that matter in a responsible way and with integrity. Honest journalism is the last true bastion of human freedom. Fox News has destroyed that in America.

But yet there are posters in this very thread defending something that is so manifestly evil and run on the operandi of greed and greed alone. Makes you despair, it really does.

Amerika

This is the one topic that really gets me so completely frothing at the mouth that I'm unable to make an articulate argument about it. I just cannot see how any reasonable person with even a modest education would consider Fox News to have any iota of journalistic integrity, whatever your personal politics.

I’m fairly reasonable, and more than moderately educated, and consider Fox News to have as much journalistic integrity as the next news channel.

I don't know what makes me more angry. Their shoddy practises, blatant lies and misrepresentation of the truth, non-stop hate mongering and fear tactics.

Examples, examples, examples please.

Or the fact that they appear to purport to represent the interests of the common man against the elites, when in fact their entire agenda on every concievable issue (apart from perhaps social conservatism) is designed to forward the cause of the "have's." I get why people in the Republican party and business interests love fox news so much. What I don't get is the average conservative voter, and how completely blind they are to the fact that Fox News doesn't give two cents about them and are actively selling them down the river at every opportunity.

Funny, but right now the tea party protesters are about as “common man” as you can get, and I believe they mostly favor Fox News. It’s not about the have’s and have not’s, it about equal opportunity to succeed.

Take health care as a straight forward example. The aim is to prevent insurance companies from continuing to ransack their customers. To force them to provide coverage to people who need it most. To stop them from evading their responsiblity to families when they need it most. And to provide healthcare to almost 30 million people who currently don't have access to it in the richest country in the world.

The last figure I’ve heard is that the insurance companies pay out approximately 96% of the money (premiums) they take in to medical providers. How is that ransacking their customers and evading their responsibilities?

It's the classic example of the interest of big business vs the interest of the general public and the ordinary citizen. Yet some how, from day 1, through constant obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation and fear mongereing fox news has managed to convince these people that somehow, all of them getting cheaper and more reliable insurance coverage is actually going to somehow kill all of their babies.

Again, examples of constant obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation and fear mongering would be helpful.

The only way to fix injustice is to raise awareness and debate the issues that matter in a responsible way and with integrity. Honest journalism is the last true bastion of human freedom. Fox News has destroyed that in America.

And who is this honest journalist I keep hearing about? To me, an honest journalist asks the tough questions and allows the subject to answer, without followup opinion on the journalist part. But it is also the job of the honest journalist to NOT allow the subject to NOT answer the question. Bret Bair pretty much represents what I would consider an honest journalist in his recent interview with President Obama recently.

But yet there are posters in this very thread defending something that is so manifestly evil and run on the operandi of greed and greed alone. Makes you despair, it really does.

I hope my blatant evilness doesn’t make you despair too much. Remember it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Examples, examples, examples please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfnBcm66Wvk

The last figure I’ve heard is that the insurance companies pay out approximately 96% of the money (premiums) they take in to medical providers. How is that ransacking their customers and evading their responsibilities?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHklw6PV3U

Again, examples of constant obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation and fear mongering would be helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPOmlm81Ro

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

Of course, you wont find the raw footage of the cut on youtube, because fox appears to be yanking them on copyright grounds.

Fortunately, this clip is 100% Viacom: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-1-2010/q---o

And who is this honest journalist I keep hearing about? To me, an honest journalist asks the tough questions and allows the subject to answer, without followup opinion on the journalist part. But it is also the job of the honest journalist to NOT allow the subject to NOT answer the question. Bret Bair pretty much represents what I would consider an honest journalist in his recent interview with President Obama recently.

Oh, then by that high standard may I present:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, not much point getting on about MSNBC and CNN. They are becoming more and more impotent each passing day, with is odd as their chosen one is at the helm of the country. Even Joe Biden poked fun at the media relationship with Barack Obama when he was talking about his Irish heritage the other day. Interesting how the Cartoon Network is now beating both MSNBC and CNN in ratings. The only domestic cable news outlets of consequence anymore is Fox News. The bogeyman will reign supreme (and remain forever hated).

Well it looks like Fox has made up your mind for you anyway.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

I’m fairly reasonable, and more than moderately educated, and consider Fox News to have as much journalistic integrity as the next news channel.

And that is really, really scary, and a little sad.

Examples, examples, examples please.

Several posted above. And there have been countless threads about this. Just google it, there are entire websites dedicated to their antics. I WOULD google it and post the links for you, but sadly, I think anyone who already believes fox news has any integrity at all with all the wealth of information available to the contrary has already made their mind up and is unlikely to be persuaded, whatever the evidence. Heck, they themselves have on several occasions argued that they are "an entertainment channel," not a "news channel," and therefore should not be held to standards of journalistic integrity.

Funny, but right now the tea party protesters are about as “common man” as you can get, and I believe they mostly favor Fox News. It’s not about the have’s and have not’s, it about equal opportunity to succeed.

Did you not read my post at all? The above is exactly my greatest gripe. That ordinary common people, who fox are actively selling down the river have been hoodwinked into believing it is some kind of champion for them, when in fact, it is the exact opposite and supports the pilfering of said citizenry at every opportunity. Equal opportunity to succeed is exactly the thing Fox is most against.

The last figure I’ve heard is that the insurance companies pay out approximately 96% of the money (premiums) they take in to medical providers. How is that ransacking their customers and evading their responsibilities?

I'm sure they pay out the majority of the small claims. It's the ones with serious difficulties, people who get cancer or aids in the family who end up losing their homes, having to sue. I think if you are going to not even accept that the system in America as it is is badly broken for many many people(favouring the haves) then I don't see how we can have a debate on this. Hell, even the republicans accept that the situation is unacceptable. Reforming the health service in the States was one of Obamas main campaign promises. You really think all those people who voted for it, didn't care about it or don't have a beef with insurance companies. Also, I'd like to know where you got that 98% statistic from.

Again, examples of constant obfuscation, lies, misrepresentation and fear mongering would be helpful.

Again... I don't see the point of this, because the information is out there in such an obvious manner that you have to have taped your eyelids shut to not see it... but.. I am a glutton for punishment... here is just one example...

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company’s production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida’s whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a “law, rule, or regulation”, and so the whistle blower law did not apply.
The court agreed with WTVT’s (Fox) argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”[1]
In 2001, Jane Akre and her husband won the Goldman Environmental Prize as a recognition for their report on RBGH. [2]
In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs. Akre and Wilson both appear in a major portion of the 2004/5 critical documentary, The Corporation.
In 2007 Jane became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.

The above example is really the essence of Fox News. Giving falsifying or misleading information to the public, usually in favour of big business/corporations. Then doing their very best to tear to shreds, ANYONE who dares to speak the truth about what they do. And finally when it came down to it, they argued in court, that actually, there is nothing wrong with lying and they should be allowed to do it, and to hell with journalistic ethics and all that malarky. After all, they're only ethics, not law.

And who is this honest journalist I keep hearing about? To me, an honest journalist asks the tough questions and allows the subject to answer, without followup opinion on the journalist part. But it is also the job of the honest journalist to NOT allow the subject to NOT answer the question. Bret Bair pretty much represents what I would consider an honest journalist in his recent interview with President Obama recently.

Try watching BBC's Question time or Hard Talk. Now that is real current journalism. Want an example of a good tough interview? Try watching any of Katie Couric's interviews with Sarah Palin. She interviewed her exactly the same way she does any other politician. She simply asked open ended questions and gave Palin the time and space to answer.

Fox does not conduct interviews.

If the interview subject is "hostile," i.e. one who's viewpoint they want to show in a negative light. They will constantly interrupt, mid sentence. Not allow the person to make a single point. They will constantly shift the subject of the questioning if it at all looks like the person is succeeding in getting their point across. They will use false information and statistics with little or no credibility to try and debunk any real facts presented by the interviewee. And last but not least present veiled attacks under the guise of bonus questions. "Some people would say that..." "but critics have argued that" (when most of those some people and "critics" are just fox news shills themselves)

What I find especially hilarious is when they get one of their shills on and pretend to have a debate about whether Obama is actually evil or just stupid. Where the Fox news anchor usually takes the later tone in order to appear moderate.

I hope my blatant evilness doesn’t make you despair too much. Remember it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

I don't think you are evil, not one bit. To me, there are only two categories of people who actually believe a word of fox news.

1) Those who have something to gain. i.e. the "haves," / "gop" who's cause Fox news so furiously battles for day in and day out.

2) People who are brainwashed and haven't made the effort to look at independent sources of information or verify independently anything that Fox News have said. Who rely solely on Fox News for their information.

What Fox have done brilliantly is label "everyone else," as some kind of extremists, there by positioning their own extremism as some kind of moderate stance by comparison and by the looks of it, it has worked spectacularly well.

Here's an honest question you should ask yourself. The way you are asking for evidence in this thread for proof of Fox's bias. Do you ever question Fox's reporting similarly?

In the UK there are many competing, reputable news outlets. There's the Guardian, considered to lean left, The times, considered to lean right, and BBC who are generally considered to be pretty unbiased. (Hell, the BBC conducts independent reviews to assess whether it is being fair in its coverage and adhering to journalistic standards and it then makes these reviews public. Name ONE other news organisation that has done this). But no one accuses any of them of deliberately misleading or trying to falsify the news. Whatever their politics. Then there are the tabaloids, such as the "Daily Mail," that everyone recognises as being "news" in only the thinnest sense of the word.

That's what fox is, "Daily Mail," on TV.

jank

I think Fox News greatest success is the bluring of the line to what consitutes an opinion and of course news. Fox are the self described "Fair & Balanced" media outlet, the "Most trusted name in news". Says who? Fox? If you want to study marketing study fox.
If you keep saying it over and over and over again, day in day out year after year these things stick after a while.

IMO though they are playing with fire BIG time, they are whiping up a frenzy on the far right that is going to have dire consequences in the future. These crazies have already taken over the GOP. I just hope the more extreme they go, their audience becomes smaller.

Overheal

I think thats how they lost to be fair.

Amerika

Na. I think republicans lost becasue they were acting like democrats.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Na. I think republicans lost becasue they were acting like democrats.

Another Fox News catchphrase....

The great irony of the republican party in the Bush era is this. Supposedly they believe in free market enterprise and economics. Which means that fair competition in the market is ultimately self correcting. Of course this isn't really of benefit to big business, because the last thing they want is a level playing field where their monopoly can be challenged. The theory that no regulation of any industrial sector (eg the financial sector) is central to economic health only works if there is true open competition. Of course, businesses use their power to make this not so in order to maximize their profits, not to mention lobbying politicians in order that they may get away with running cartels and avoid precisely the kinds of self correcting market pressures that are at the heart of pure capitalist principles.

So the irony is that in order to preserve these principles and allow the market to autocorrect, you need intelligent regulation to prevent those with power and wealth circumventing market forces.

But the republicans did the opposite, zero regulation of any kind, and the promotion of total unadulterated greed.

Which of course resulted in the inevitable, the market was stretched too far and despite everything it DID self-correct, in the most spectacular manner possible, hurtling the US and the rest of the world into the biggest recession in our lifetimes.

It's sad that they weren't just voted out because of the utter ridiculousness that was the Bush presidency. Ultimately, their actions (inaction really) just hit too many people in the pocket, where it hurts the most.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

But the republicans did the opposite, zero regulation of any kind, and the promotion of total unadulterated greed.

Which of course resulted in the inevitable, the market was stretched too far and despite everything it DID self-correct, in the most spectacular manner possible, hurtling the US and the rest of the world into the biggest recession in our lifetimes.

As rebuttal, I offer the truth.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=democrats+regulation&n=21&ei=utf-8&fr=yfp-t-910&tnr=21&vid=0001534386868

Memnoch

I love the whole Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac thing. The democrats did act moronic about it, but they weren't in power, the republicans were. And this is a typical fox news tactic, blame 1 instance and divert all attention towards and away from the big elephant sitting in the other corner...

Here's one example.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=15

Exhibit One is Daniel Troy, who Bush appointed to be Chief Counsel for the Food and Drug Administration. Previously, as a lawyer, he filed a number of lawsuits against the FDA arguing against its right to regulate drug companies. Once in office, he stalled efforts to investigate the problems surrounding ephedra - a dietary supplement implicated in the deaths of more than 100 people. Amazingly, in a speech he gave to drug industry lawyers after his appointment, he offered the help of the government in defending these companies against lawsuits by consumers, such as those claiming that medications caused devastating side effects. Not coincidentally, enforcement actions against improper drug advertising went down dramatically after his appointment.

Jeffrey Holmstead, who became the EPA's assistant administrator for Air and Radiation. How protective could he be of the environment when he formerly worked as lawyer representing numerous corporations seeking to block environmental regulations? He eventually headed the administration’s efforts to relax clean air requirements for coal-fired power plants – a move that Sen. James Jeffords called “the biggest rollback of the Clear Air Act in history.”

And these are just a few examples. An investigative reporter for the Denver Post found that over 100 of the high level officials appointed by President Bush in this first term of office were “overseeing” the industries they used to represent as lobbyists, employees, or lawyers. As Maria Weidner of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund observed at the time: “They are lawyers and lobbyists who build their careers by helping industry get out of … regulations. Now they will be doing the same things, only the taxpayers will be paying for it."

The Republican party were in power for the 8 years leading directly to the collapse of the American economy. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac don't change that. Some of the democrats did act like idiots, and more of them should have stood up and shouted out sooner, but they didn't.

The fact remains however, that once in power, it is the Obama administration that is pushing for increased regulation, while the GOP is back to campaigning against it. Of course it's probably because of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac that they forgot what an unregulated industry results after little more than 12 months out of office, during which time they of course did everything in their power to regulate the financial sector.

Tell you what, rather than this youtube clip, can you show me of any acts of the Bush administration that actually improved regulation of the financial sector?

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Tell you what, rather than this youtube clip, can you show me of any acts of the Bush administration that actually improved regulation of the financial sector?

Here you go.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
You are welcome I'm sure.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

As rebuttal, I offer the truth.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=democrats+regulation&n=21&ei=utf-8&fr=yfp-t-910&tnr=21&vid=0001534386868

Edited clips with no context as proof. Sounds like Fox news.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

As rebuttal, I offer the truth.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=democrats+regulation&n=21&ei=utf-8&fr=yfp-t-910&tnr=21&vid=0001534386868

Hang on.

Im not defending Democrats here and this Thread is not Really about Political Partisanship as much as it is about Fox News and Journalism Standards.

Aside from the HMO video I posted, the rest is in direct response to the detestable practices endorsed by News Corp. and its Holding, Fox News.

You're sidestepping the issue of Fox News employing fear mongering and obfuscation and many other tactics. Go ahead and google Genn Beck Slaughter for example

UFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it's not a question of picking a fight. And aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree... (CROSSTALK)
AILES: Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people. So I think he was probably accurate. Also, I'm a little....
HUFFINGTON: No, no, he was talking about this administration.
AILES: I don't -- I think he speaks English. I don't know, but I mean, I don't misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing, which he apologized for, but that happens in live television.
Well, as John pointed out, this is flatly false. Just a couple of months ago, Beck was telling his audience that "progressives" like President Obama and SEIU chief Andy Stern were taking the country down the path to genocide:

Beck: I told you yesterday, buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit -- there's one here, here, and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing. Because this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees!
Most likely, it'll happen sometime after Christmas. You're gonna see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it, and now it's gonna start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/roger-ailes-lies-about-glenn-beck-sl

Now if you choose not to believe the quoted article, I've provided the clip in my previous post and you are welcome to hear it straight from the Horse's mouth.

Amerika

So is it your contention that the “opinion pieces” provided are indications of “proof,” or is it the case that "we hold these clips to be self evident?"

A very good piece from the WSJ, noting the Fox interview. "PUBLIC SERVICE"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So is it your contention that the “opinion pieces” provided are indications of “proof,” or is it the case that "we hold these clips to be self evident?"

"Opinion Pieces" - The entire charade is an opinion piece. Thats the point.

Journalistic Integrity. Its a News Network and as far as the lay man is concerned it should be held to Journalistic Standards much in the same way you say they hold the Administration to a Standard.

To give time to this "Opinion" and allow them to invoke fear into your audience - what does that say about the Network? They want their audience to be terrified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

So is it your contention that the “opinion pieces” provided are indications of “proof,” or is it the case that "we hold these clips to be self evident?"

A very good piece from the WSJ, noting the Fox interview. "PUBLIC SERVICE"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html

I'm sure you don't see the problem with using a WSJ article to back up the integrity of fox news, considering their both owned by Murdoch.

Amerika

You are correct, I don't have a problem. They even have the journalistic integrity to state as much about ownership in the article.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

You are correct, I don't have a problem. They even have the journalistic integrity to state as much about ownership in the article.

Sorry but it doesn't wash. That wasn't journalistic integrity, it was just common sense. They would have been ripped to shreds had the not openly stated the obvious inherent bias in the article. Their statement however, neither removes nor mitigates said bias.

By your standards, from now on, every statement of the white house press secretary should be an automatic conforimation of the integrity of the Obama administration and should be taken at face value without any consideration of possible bias.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

And that is really, really scary, and a little sad.

Sort of reminds me of a story.

A 14 year old eighth grader in Oak Park Illinois proves once again just how intolerable the so called all inclusive liberals really are and in the process has turned into a bit of a mini celebrity, giving interviews to news outlets all over the country. I caught her story this morning on Fox News. Prior to the recent election perky little Catherine Vogt decided to conduct a top secret experiment at her school, with the knowledge of her history teacher, to see just how “diverse” the thoughts and opinions of her fellow students and school staff would be regarding the presidential candidates.
Her plan was to wear tee shirts to school emblazoned with “McCain Girl” in red on one day and “Obama Girl” in blue on another and document the reactions of the students, teachers and administrators.

Her project revolved around simply wearing the shirts and taking notes. She apparently was not interested in engaging in debate or “defending” her political choice when wearing the shirts, she was more interested in gauging responses and boy did she get them!

What she quickly discovered was two completely divergent points of view when it came to McCain and Obama from the students and teachers.
Sporting the McCain shirt on the first day of the experiment she was quickly pounced upon as stupid, no wait…very stupid and she received several suggestions that perhaps she should die or as a few kids proclaimed “get killed.” One brilliant student recommended an interesting punishment telling Vogt, “you should be crucifixed.” Vogt was keeping track of all the comments in her notebook including those that said she should be burned with her shirt on because she was a filthy rich Republican. Not to be outdone by all of the lightweight stuff being bandied about some pint sized knuckleheads felt Vogt, by showing her “support” for McCain, was basically agreeing with those skinheads that were plotting to whack Obama prior to the election. Keep in mind these are middle school students.

On the few times she did get a thumbs up on the McCain shirt it was done quietly and off to the side.

Still alive after all of the vile threats on her well being for representing those evil Republicans Vogt slipped into the Obama shirt the next day and off to school she went.

Boy what a difference a day makes. Suddenly Vogt’s brain grew back and she was smart again so said her classmates. She was told by many that they liked her new shirt and it was nice to see she had the “right one” on that day. Instantly she was back in the good graces of the enlightened elites. As far as I can tell there is no record of any threats on her life from the closeted McCain fans at the school. Funny how that works.

Now we know kids this age spend much more time playing hoops on their Playstations, texting like mad on their LG Shines and stuffing Ipod earbuds into their heads than reading Rush Limbaugh’s homepage so just where does the anger, nastiness and vitriol come from? In Catherine Vogt’s case mom is a liberal and her pops is a conservative so she probably absorbs a fairly balanced shouting match during dinnertime but what about the little school creeps that wanted to snuff her lights out? In Oak Park it’s probably a safe bet that most of these kids go home to Keith Olbermann fans every afternoon hence the ‘tude towards the McCain shirt.

http://www.just-a-regular-guy.com/2008/11/14/tolerance-tee-shirt-test-proves-liberals-truly-intolerant/

Also, I'd like to know where you got that 98% statistic from.

Actually I heard the number on the talk radio, but this will provide you with a wakeup call regarding profits by health insurance companies.
http://www.kansascity.com/2009/10/28/1536470/health-insurance-companies-profits.html

I don't think you are evil, not one bit. To me, there are only two categories of people who actually believe a word of fox news.
1) Those who have something to gain. i.e. the "haves," / "gop" who's cause Fox news so furiously battles for day in and day out.
2) People who are brainwashed and haven't made the effort to look at independent sources of information or verify independently anything that Fox News have said. Who rely solely on Fox News for their information.

So is everything so black or white in your world?

Here's an honest question you should ask yourself. The way you are asking for evidence in this thread for proof of Fox's bias. Do you ever question Fox's reporting similarly?

Absolutely at times I question Fox News reporting. I also watch MSNBC and CNN to get a rounded political spectrum. I just find Fox News to provide the most fair and balanced political reporting, but with a slant to the right, which suits me just fine.

In the UK there are many competing, reputable news outlets. There's the Guardian, considered to lean left, The times, considered to lean right, and BBC who are generally considered to be pretty unbiased. (Hell, the BBC conducts independent reviews to assess whether it is being fair in its coverage and adhering to journalistic standards and it then makes these reviews public. Name ONE other news organisation that has done this). But no one accuses any of them of deliberately misleading or trying to falsify the news.

There seems to be a number of websites dedicated to BBC bias. Here’s one for you. It's all just a matter of opinion.
http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Sort of reminds me of a story.

An irrelevant story unless your point was to prove that a 14yr old is more of a Journalist than Bill O'Reilly.

Absolutely at times I question Fox News reporting. I also watch MSNBC and CNN to get a rounded political spectrum. I just find Fox News to provide the most fair and balanced political reporting, but with a slant to the right, which suits me just fine.

Whats scary about this candid remark is its the same thing they've drilled into their viewers for the last - 5 years or so? - it seems to be sticking. I guess if you call a spade a shovel long enough...

jank

Overheal wrote: »

An irrelevant story unless your point was to prove that a 14yr old is more of a Journalist than Bill O'Reilly.
Whats scary about this candid remark is its the same thing they've drilled into their viewers for the last - 5 years or so? - it seems to be sticking. I guess if you call a spade a shovel long enough...

Orwell is proven right every passing day

Overheal

Wow. If you didnt watch the Daily Show tonight - or alternatively, are one of Glenn Beck's loyal subjects - you must watch that when the clips go live. He redid the entire format of the show like the Glen Beck show and totally ripped it apart.

I'll have to watch beck tomorrow and listen to his radio piece in the morning just to here the counter-rant. Oh, expect this on the blogs.

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

Wow. If you didnt watch the Daily Show tonight - or alternatively, are one of Glenn Beck's loyal subjects - you must watch that when the clips go live. He redid the entire format of the show like the Glen Beck show and totally ripped it apart.

I'll have to watch beck tomorrow and listen to his radio piece in the morning just to here the counter-rant. Oh, expect this on the blogs.

Is this up online anywhere?

whatstherush

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od#3048217

Show from the 19th, 2 days left of viewing

Overheal

http://thedailyshow.com

afaik viacom doesnt region block europe this.

jank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u28JVB380Mo

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSbzCow04I

Has anyone seen these clips from the John Stewart O'reilly factor interview from the last month. These are the un-edited ones (of course fox didnt air the whole thing, thats up on youtube aswell).
He has put the nail on the head during the whole interview and at the end had o'reilly himself convinced even on the ways and mean of Fox. O'Reilly has been very quiet of late just doing the usual Us vs Them show while beck and co are talking communist take over. O'reilly is too smart for that as when/if a GOP president is elected then these ideas will all of a sudden become mute.


Best moment in the show when John Stewart says in relation to fox's subtle digs at Obama in relation to all things "socialist" .

"Not saying your mothers a whore, she just sleeps with people for money"

Overheal

O'Reilly saying Stewart would need protection? In Charleston??

Uhm, Bill doesn't know the Tricounty like he think he does. You'll find the whole 9 yards here including your Liberals and Neo-Cons.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

http://thedailyshow.com

afaik viacom doesnt region block europe this.

FYI it does, unfortunately.

billy the squid

Wrestling was a sport until WWF came along. now it is a soap opera full of actors.

News is going the same way. Actors and celebrity creating drama disguised as current affairs.

Fox isn't news, it is entertainment.