|
Quote:
Actually let me educate you. Ritalin and Adderall have huge abuse issues. The best way is to bop it - sometimes you crush it and you sniff taking the shot straight into your brain. This brings about stronger results in a shorter time span. Essentially you have a form of speed. -Rudey --Oh and if we return to the subject at hand, Fox is less biased than other news sources and you have nothing to say otherwise |
I love seeing in which direction your puerile ravings will go... though perhaps you should keep a record of these "insults" so as to keep them straight from now on... okay? Then at least I can seem some new material that would be more entertaining and not just sad...
Oh in case your wondering... or want to update your repertoire: - yes I'm still at school, but it's post-grad studies now... - at least I served my country... in a military that soldier to soldier is no better or worse than the US or UK military... - oh the officer thing actually isn't an insult, because of my "trade" I couldn't be one (nor wanted to)... I don't disparage people who were or weren't officers, but judge them on how competent they were at there job. FOX is biased... |
Quote:
-Rudey |
|
thanks, Phi Psi....
|
Quote:
-Rudey |
Quote:
-Rudey |
IF you want news, go to Reuters, or the AP. OF COURSE Fox News is biased. They are tailoring to a self-selected audience that expects a conservative edge to the information being conveyed. You dont need a study to prove that.
|
Quote:
Ugh...again, READ THE STUDY. I bet you don't even read the news. -Rudey |
Quote:
YES YOU DO. YOU DO, IN FACT, NEED TO PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE. YOUR OPINIONS OR ANECDOTAL CLAIMS TO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT CARRY NO WEIGHT IN AN ARGUMENT. If i ever have to reiterate this again in this forum, I will force my friend/sockpuppet arya to stickey it for me. -RC --Sorry for the caps, this is important to me (not the fox news part) |
Chill with the personal attacks people.
|
Quote:
Now, some of their specific programs, such as O'reilly, etc. offer plenty of opinion, but offer it from both sides. But we are talking news here, and the FNC journalists are very good. |
Quote:
|
All caps is rude...come on children, let's play nice. I am entitled to my opinion, and I have no problem saying that I dont trust what FNC dishes out. Why? It's entertainment, and hardly anything more :)
Please continue to rip my views to shreds...although it will be a royal waste since I'm thoroughly bored with this superfluous argument. Opinions are opinions, let's leave it at that. |
Quote:
-Rudey --My opinion is that dragons eat pudding in my bathroom at night! ladee dah! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
*putting on the WRATH SHIELD - please do not flame*
Rudey, now this is an honest question. I can't remember which study it was about Fox - I read a few - but there was a chart that showed Fox news on the conservative side and others on the liberal side. But, Fox was as conservative as some others were liberal, according to the chart. Is this not true? |
Quote:
-Rudey |
Quote:
-Rudey --The people who are selling something against Murdoch did their own study |
Argg. I'm getting really tired of seeing this story all over the place. Fox News is a fine cable news channel...and it just bother me that an openly, highly liberal organization such as moveon has a way to get so many people's attention with this stunt. its just sad. they're ridiculous.
|
Liberals Step Up Political Assault Against Fox News
By JULIA ANGWIN Staff Reporter, The Wall Street Journal (July 20) - During presidential election years, conservative politicians have often attacked the media for their liberal bias. But during this year's campaign, liberals are fighting back with what they see as a powerful issue -- the alleged conservative slant of the Fox News Channel, a unit of the media conglomerate Staff Reporter. The assault on Fox News started on July 8, with a report from media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting claiming that in the six months through Dec. 19, 2003, 57% of guests on Fox News's popular evening news show, "Special Report with Brit Hume" were conservatives. The next week, left-leaning advocacy groups MoveOn.Org and Center for American Progress sponsored the release of a documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," which uses clips from the cable channel to show what the filmmakers claim is a pattern of right-wing bias and support for the Republican agenda. Yesterday, MoveOn.Org and political watchdog Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming that Fox News Channel's slogan "fair and balanced" violates the federal agency's prohibition against deceptive advertising. At the same time, the Independent Media Institute, an advocacy group for alternative journalism, announced it had filed a challenge against Fox News' trademark on the term "fair and balanced." This type of concerted campaign against a single news outlet is rare, but not surprising given the tenor of this year's hotly contested presidential election. "In a razor-thin race like this, you need to fire up your base," says Thomas Hollihan, professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. "An issue like this gets those hard-core liberals focused and attentive. It's a kind of issue that people can talk about at work." 'Outfoxed' Getty In New York and elsewhere, small groups are screening 'Outfoxed,' an independent film making the case that Fox News Channel carries a conservative bias. Read Review The campaign against Fox News Channel partly reflects the growing importance of cable news channels as the main arena in which these elections are played out. Four years ago, more Americans said they got their political news from the broadcast evening news than cable news, according to a study by Pew Research Center, an independent opinion research group based in Washington, D.C. But this year, the study shows that the cable channels have eclipsed the nightly network news. And among cable channels, Fox News Channel wins the highest ratings. Fox News Channel was founded in 1996 by Roger Ailes, a former Republican political consultant, who wanted to create an alternative to what he believed was the liberal bias of mainstream media such as CNN. Mr. Ailes loaded up the prime-time schedule with conservative commentators such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but focused on straight news during the daytime lineup. "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks," says Fox News Spokesman Rob Zimmerman. "It's best to ignore nuts." Critics such as MoveOn.Org and Common Cause charge that Fox News leans to the right even during its straight news segments. "We think Fox News is really the poster child for how the concept of journalism in media has been deconstructed," says MoveOn.Org Co-Founder Wes Boyd. "It's no longer about the search for the truth. Fox has taken up a truly partisan role." Numbers indicate the percentages of people of each political affiliation who say they regularly watch these news programs. From "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized, Online News Audience Larger, More Diverse" Pew Research Center for the People and The Press. Washington, DC. June 8, 2004. Common Cause President Chellie Pingree adds that the campaign against Fox News is meant to highlight increasing media consolidation, which many feel threatens to limit diversity. "That goes well beyond one news network," she says. Both Ms. Pingree and Mr. Boyd point out that their campaign is not linked to the Democratic party. But conservative strategists say they aren't buying it. "They're doing the dirty work of the Democratic party and everybody knows it," says Brent Bozell, a conservative media watchdog. Mark Tapscott, director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls the anti-Fox News campaign "corporate guerilla harassment." Democratic consultants and strategists say they are pleased that MoveOn.Org is taking a page from the conservative playbook. In 1970, Vice President Spiro Agnew famously attacked the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism," helping boost President Richard Nixon's popularity. Since then, many conservative politicians have found that attacking the liberal media strikes a chord with voters. "For years, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and the other right-wing bozos have been rabble-rousing people on the right," says Karl Struble, a Democratic media adviser. "Now, Democrats and progressives are fighting back." Paul Maslin, a Democratic pollster who was an adviser to former presidential candidate Howard Dean, says that progressives are finally capitalizing on the fact that "people don't like the media in general." Mr. Maslin says that when Mr. Dean criticized the media conglomerates that control much of the nation's news outlets, his standing in the polls soared. |
The difference is that it isn't an unbiased real study.
The thing is this: People who watch Fox don't change stations. I think it's a damn waste by groups like Moveon. What can possibly happen? -Rudey Quote:
|
Quote:
you mistyped, i think - this is a more correct statement: "Some will perceive Fox News as being right-leaning - however, if you measure the distance of FNC from the center vs. that of other channels, it is smaller, regardless of the direction they lean." Thus "less biased" |
Funny - I don't like Fox. I find it to be too superficial like most news sources so I tune in but rarely. In fact I probably read more left-wing sources than conservatives ones only because I like their style better and usually the writers are much stronger.
-Rudey |
Quote:
|
I agree. Most media outlets, by and large are left leaning. And as you said, this is why a lot of people are yelling and running around flailing their arms, claiming that Fox News is biased to the right. It's aggrevating to hear this mindless flotsum and jetsum from Moveon and these other media outlets pouncing on this as an opportunity to knock down their opponent.
|
Well MoveOn.org is hardly high-end... they are simply extemist.
I do agree that most literary news that is worth a damn is left-leaning, but I feel I can decipher the opinion from the fact. FNC doesn't dress up their news; it is as simple as that. You may not like the way it is presented, but it is fair. That is what makes me so livid about the way they are being treated by MoveOn.org, etc. If these groups really wanted to squash biased journalism, they would go after CNN. |
Fox vs. CNN: a deepening divide
The Dallas Morning News By Colleen McCain Nelson DALLAS _ In the divisive world of cable television news, three letters say a lot about a person. The TV nation, like the electorate, is split down the middle, with viewers choosing sides: Fox or CNN. And just as in presidential politics, most are committed to their preference, with few swing voters or undecideds up for grabs. As the race for the White House heats up, the partisan divide is deepening on the TV dial. Charges and countercharges of bias fly between viewers of the two networks, with Fox watchers labeling the competition liberal and CNN viewers dubbing the other guys GOP-TV. But are the broadcasts on Fox News Channel and CNN really that different? For viewers such as Patty Cron, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." A frequent business traveler, she insists on staying in hotels that offer Fox News. "A lot of hotels just have the Ted Turner CNN package," she says. "When that happens, I check out and switch hotels." The result of such unwavering loyalty, media experts said, is a growing disconnect between those who rely on "fair and balanced" news, which Fox says it provides, and those watching "the most trusted name in news," which CNN claims to be. While a diversity of opinions and information sources is useful, media experts say, the danger of this divide is a lack of consensus on even basic facts. "The common ground for public understanding and public information may be destroyed in all of this," said Frank Sesno, a former CNN executive and a professor of public policy and communication at George Mason University. "The simple question of what happened today becomes something we're in danger of arguing over." Network representatives say the question of whether Fox or CNN promotes a point of view is easily put to rest. No, each said without hesitation. Both claim to be the best and most unbiased source of news. "It's obvious that we place the highest premium on being impartial, on providing all sides _ not just both sides _ but all sides," said Matthew Furman, CNN spokesman. "We try to make sure that everything is fair and is balanced," said Bill Shine, vice president of production for Fox News. "It's our slogan, but it's also what we live by." Shine said Fox goes so far as to take a stopwatch into the studio to ensure that opposing viewpoints get equal airtime. Furman said that during every step of production _ from guest bookings to script vettings _ fairness is considered at CNN. For confirmation of their evenhandedness, both networks turn to their audiences. Cable news viewers represent only a sliver of the television universe, but they are an engaged and brand-loyal bunch. Fox points to its success in the ratings, which have consistently outpaced the competition, making the 8-year-old network No. 1 in cable news. "The American public likes what we do, and that shows in the ratings," Shine said. At CNN, the network cites studies showing that people of all political stripes are tuning in. "The ideological makeup of our audience most closely mirrors the makeup of the country," Furman said. A study released last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that conservatives are watching Fox in greater numbers. CNN's audience has become more Democratic, but the network still draws a politically varied audience. According to the study, 52 percent of Fox viewers describe themselves as conservative, compared with 36 percent of CNN's audience. CNN has more credibility with viewers _ 32 percent believe what they hear on the network, compared with 25 percent for Fox _ but CNN's rating has slipped in the last couple of years. Hector Leija was a CNN viewer but gradually grew frustrated with the network. A Republican, Leija abandoned CNN after becoming fed up with what he perceived as undue criticism of the president. "I got tired of all the negative," he said. "They were bashing my man Bush, so I had to make the switch." As Leija sees it, all networks slant their stories, so he might as well watch the channel that mirrors his views. "When people are in agreement with one another, they tend to be good company. Fox and I are good company," he said. Like Leija, many viewers are seeking affirmation _ not information, experts said. (bold type added by DA) "We have too much info to sift through to form our own opinions, so we lean on partisan hosts who form them for us," said Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a world of sound bites and bullet points, many viewers seek out simplistic, definitive declarations rather than sift through complexity and nuance, said Felling, who likened many people's TV watching habits to eating at a restaurant instead of preparing a home-cooked meal. "They go to the opinion mongers rather than prepare their own because it's easier and saves time _ much like eating out," he said. CNN viewer William Newbill agreed, saying that many people are unwilling to debate issues and prefer to boil things down to digestible, black-and-white answers. Fox News, he said, is populated with talking heads making grand pronouncements _ regardless of whether the evidence supports their opinions. "It would be one thing if they were just right-wingers," he said. "But they don't get their facts right, and they go out of their way to dispute facts that mainstream media reports accurately." But Fox News president Roger Ailes has asserted that the rest of the media is so far left of center that an objective network such as Fox seems conservative by comparison. Brent Baker, vice president of the conservative Media Research Center, said Fox News breaks from media "groupthink" by presenting story angles that weren't being covered by left-leaning networks. "It provides an alternative because they're offering information you can't get elsewhere," he said. Baker acknowledged many of the prime-time commentators at Fox are conservative and said that some CNN anchors are more fair than others. But in general, CNN appears to be a liberal network, he said. "Overall, the Fox News Channel is more fair and balanced than anybody else," Baker said. Bias appears to be in the eye of the beholder, though, as many longtime journalists disagreed. "This is a very complicated issue," said Sesno, who consults for CNN and teaches a class about media bias. "What you see mostly depends on where you stand." CNN, he said, takes a traditional approach to news, reporting from a detached perspective and raising tough questions. "There's a sense that when you watch Fox, you're on America's side," he said. "They have built a network that people expect to be more conservative, more supportive of the current administration." Viewers and experts point to the two networks' coverage in Iraq and Afghanistan as an example of how CNN and Fox approach news differently. In some ways, the two networks aren't even speaking the same language, as they use dueling spellings and phrases when referring to the same people and places. Fox News' word choice often mirrors that of the Bush administration. The network regularly reports Iraq news under the heading "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and Fox is one of the only news outlets that refers to the al-Qaida leader as "Usama" bin Laden. CNN has reported on "the fight for Iraq," "the war in Iraq" and the "countdown to handover." And its anchors call bin Laden "Osama." Breaking news dominates CNN's Iraq coverage _ bombings, soldiers' deaths and government news receive prominent play. But Fox anchors make a concerted effort to tell positive stories about progress in Iraq. They regularly show pictures of grinning Iraqi children and ask viewers to write in describing soldiers' good deeds. "While other networks focus only on the bad news in Iraq, we try to balance it out," Linda Vester told viewers recently. "Here's a little boy clearly grateful for the help." Whether such feel-good pieces are newsworthy could be debated. But the coverage leaves the impression that the network is unwilling to ask challenging questions, said Joe Angotti, professor and chairman of the broadcast program at Northwestern University. "Fox continues to take a flag-waving approach," said Angotti, a former vice president and executive producer at NBC News. "While the other networks are acknowledging people killed in the war. ... Fox considers that almost unpatriotic." But regardless of which side viewers fall on in the TV news debate, viewer Jim Depew said the recalcitrant positions both sides have taken are discouraging. "People are just too wrapped up in their views," he said. "They want their side to be right, even if they're wrong. "For me, if I turn on the news, I just want to see news," Depew said. (bold type added by DA) |
I agree. People flock to news sources they tend to feel more comfortable with. I don't, but I can see others that do. The difference though comes down to finding out who is biased (we all tend to agree they all are) and how much they are biased since everything is relative.
-Rudey --The study I offered at the beginning of this thread is the only such measure of bias I've seen that is reputable. Quote:
|
Anchor begins criticism of Gore only 40 seconds into speech. Fellow FOX commentator would have done it differently. O'Reilly "quotes" Teresa...
""The newspaper pinheads claim that because we (Fox News) aren't covering the speeches we aren't fair. That, of course: a bunch of baloney. . . How desperate some in the print media are to smear Fox News. In the words of Teresa Heinz Kerry, the newspaper critics can shove it." - BILL O'REILLY, responding to Howard Kurtz on O'Reilly's criticism of Al Gore's speech before Gore finished his speech" Here are part of Brit Hume's comments: "But sometimes even pinheads have a point, as some Fox staffers, both publicly and privately, acknowledge. "I don't know if that was the right call or not," says Brit Hume, Fox's Washington managing editor, who replayed a few minutes of the Gore speech two hours after O'Reilly passed it up. "At that point we were in a program that is principally about one man's analysis. It wasn't part of our live coverage. If it had been my hour, I'd have done it. Bill O'Reilly chose not to do it. It's his program." On Tuesday, O'Reilly interrupted an interview with Jerry Brown to listen to about four minutes of Ted Kennedy's 25-minute address. On Wednesday, he took Al Sharpton for two minutes of a 20-minute speech, interjecting: "That's our pal Sharpton, doing what Al does. He's whipping them up." Frankly, I think this is preposterous. Even if O'Reilly did read the speech in advance, if you begin covering something, you owe it to the audience to make it's own judgement. 40 seconds isn't enough to do that. |
So how do y'all feel about MSNBC?
|
Quote:
-Rudey |
In my opinion, if they billboard live coverage of the convention, they cross the line into News shows.
I didn't see either the show(s) in question or MSNBC. I only posted the coverage with my personal comments about the length of the live carriage before beginning the commentary. By the way, a well crafted survey can "prove" just about anything. I had one call from "a national opinion survey" the other night with really leading questions about a number of highly contentious issues. They terminated the call quickly when I countered their negatively phrased questions with double negative answers. I don't think they were getting what they wanted. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
*Warning: Graphic images*
http://www.kdp.pp.se/2604.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/1.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/2.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/3.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/ku06.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/4.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/5.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/6.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/7.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/10.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/hal.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/halx6.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/11.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/12.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/13.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/14.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/15.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/image001.gif http://www.kdp.pp.se/hal8.jpg http://www.kdp.pp.se/16.jpg Seen enough? Imagine 5,000 of them. Strewn throughout the town and countryside. Oh, wait what is your defintion of weapon of mass destruction? Ladies and gentlemen, you don't have to have a nuke to have a weapon of mass destruction. The pictures were taken in the aftermath of Saddam's attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located almost 200 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town's inhabitants. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987. I apologize for the graphic images. However, sitting back quietly and listening to people here in the U.S. condemn Operation Iraqi Freedom has made me sick. We drive our gas-guzzling SUVs, we have air conditioning, we live luxurious lives while many lived and still live under tyranny. Saddam probably did not pose a threat to you Joe Smith or Jenny Wilson, but he did to the men, women, and children living under his iron fist. Have a good one and just some thoughts... |
Quote:
-Rudey |
I'm talking about ANY survey -- whether about FOX News, CNN, the price of eggs in Great Britain, whether cigarette smoking is good for cows -- it doesn't matter.
My opinion (important word: opinion) is based on the principals running the network whom I either know fairly well or have at least met. By the way, that goes for other networks, too -- although I don't know that many people at CNN. I watched part of Brit Hume's show last night. He, at least, has a background in network journalism, and seems to me to at least give the pretense of covering both sides of a story. The outcome was that during the 30 minutes or so that I watched, every single story (except for the hurricane) was Republican based. Even on the story of The President's bad showing in a recent poll, the only interview was with the GOP media advisor who gave the Republican "spin" on the survey. The rest mentioned the Democrats only in passing. I don't know what kind of news day it was overall, but surely Kerry and Edwards did something. I've also sat on the other side of the one way mirror during focus group surveys, etc and helped craft survey questions. For years, the cigarette industry could "prove" that their product isn't harmful. The drug companies can "prove" their products work by paying for slanted surveys. As they say, "Figures lie and liers figure." One final thought. Maybe we're at the point where media won't even give the impression of "fairness." I don't think anyone will agrue that talk radio isn't heavily oriented toward the political right. So, if that's what the public wants, so be it. Those of us who grew up under the so called "Fairness Doctrine" of the Communications Act of 1934, later amended, will just have to learn to deal with the change in paradigm. But let's not be hipocritical about it. If it's OK for radio and FOX to be tilted right, let's stop bitching about other networks being tilted left. It's been that way in newspapers -- who were never controlled by an agency like the FCC -- for many years. I don't like it, but I'm only one voice and one opinion -- even though highly experienced are reasonably well educated on on the topic. |
Sure, but less talk about opinions and surveys and more talks about studies.
-Rudey Quote:
|
You can call into question the conclusion of the study. But it is difficult to call into question the fact that it shows a definite pattern of certain news sources using certain sources for information -- some using liberal sources, one (FOX) using a good mixture of both.
Just looking at the raw data, you could come to the same conclusion. You can argue against the conclusion, but I think the methodology is pretty sound. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.