FOX/Faux News - Ministry of Information?
 

For all the "outrage" that is on FOX over the 'lies' of liberals or anti-Americanism, why do personalities on the network seem to see no problem with their lies? or their bashing of other nations?

Aside from the obvious example of O'Reilly, others on FOX have been editorializing instead of reporting - and blatantly mis-representing, ignoring, or making up facts to support their views...

Case in point would have been the recent coverage of the Air France crash up here in Toronto....

We have the tool that is on before Bret Hume (sorry his name escapes me at the moment) going off on a standardized tear on anything French - grudgingly acknowledging that the actions of the air crew saved the passengers.... then he makes an aside comment about the co-pilot being up by the highway instead of back at the crash sight, implying he was a coward, or had abandonded his duty/post...

Problem is in the papers up here and on CBC we have crew and passenger accounts that the co-pilot was the last to leave the plane after checking the seats to ensure that no one was left behind; he then went to the highway to organize the evacuation/transport of the 2 dozen plus passengers gathers at there; then the co-pilot went back to the crash site to aid in the emergency efforts there... why were the facts ignored, or lies made up to once again? and why no outrage at FOX over their own "reporters" continuing lies/willful ignorance/propoganda?

Re: FOX/Faux News - Ministry of Information?
 

Because FOX TV is to news reporting, as "Mad Magazine" is to magazines and journals.

Re: FOX/Faux News - Ministry of Information?
 

You're confusing reporters and commentators.

Reporters on FOX do a fine job of reporting the news, in an unbiased manner ("We report, you decide"). In panic situations, air crashes, etc., not every fact is known, and the people/victims/witnesses who are talking often have only a part of the story. The trapped Russian sub in a current example - initial reports said the prop was caught in a fish net, and they had enough air for 24 hours. Later reports said the sub was trapped in an underwater sensor cable, and there was more air. These people have to go on the air and tell/show video that is available (but perhaps incomplete, maybe not accurate). You can't hold the instant reporter to the standard of a weekly or monthly magazine.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, etc. are commentators giving opinions - like the commie editors of your Toronto newspaper on their editorial page. Thank God for the freedom to comment and editorialize, and for the education that allows us to read and think.

"We report, you decide" well nice marketing tag and all... but really it strikes as more than a little false given the heavy bias and lack of divergent views... I'd say it's more "We destort, you follow".

As for the reports being all over the place initially - well yes it's to be expected, as the facts in a story move so does the reporting - the point is to clarify and verify the facts as the story matures. So I wasn't to disapointed with the intial reporting on FOX (well other than the "experts" didn't seem to have a clue about some basics). However that being said, I can hold them to at least do some research if they reporting on a story more than a day old... the FOX comments/reports were from a broadcast then next evening... in fact you can even look up the John Gibson's "My Word" crap/transcript on the FOX News website.

You may thank God for the freedom... but don't insult him by failing to use it.

Commentators parading as news reporting is very disingenious - as is of course the constant editorializing during the "legit" news programs - actually what are the commentary shows and what is actual reporting on FOX? Seriously when you look at a daily schedule are the commentary shows the ones with names persona's hosting them? See as you point out the papers have clearly marked editorial sections, that make up a sliver of the actual media coverage - the ephasis is on facts not editorial... other news media seem to do a good job of keeping the majority of coverage being clearly defined (and executed) "reporting" - but not FOX, they seem to like blending or muddying the waters between reporting and commentary - between analyzingand editorializing. Why do they do that? I don't know, but I suspect it has more to do with marketing to a target audience than it does reporting...

As for the commie newspapers... heh - don't rely on good'ol boy Bill's opinion of them - after all he has absolutely no credibility when it comes to commentary on Toronto or Canadian media sources. Now just because some are liberal doesn't mean they all are... nor does one liberal journalist make the whole paper liberal. If you're going to "comment" on a media-print source at least make the effort to read some articles, because I'm sure if you did you notice that A there is more than one paper up here, B there is more than one view presented in said papers, C the papers actually cover the political spectrum of opinion and viewpoints.

I thought FOX was not available in Canada? Are you watching it regularly via a US station?

"Commentators parading as news reporting is very disingenious - as is of course the constant editorializing during the "legit" news programs - actually what are the commentary shows and what is actual reporting on FOX?"

Which commentator does this?

Any examples of "constant editorializing"?

A local talk show host has offered a large cash donation to your favorite charity for a single example of bias in FOX newscasts. So far, no takers.

Much hot air about bias in FOX news, but no examples.

FOXNews is available on digital cable.

Well, I'd say that individual papers tend to lean more towards one end of the spectrum than being all over the place. I'd put, for example, the Toronto Star as lightly left of centre (for the most part...), the Globe slightly right, the Post on the right and the Sun as as...well...the Toronto Sun.

Despite what you may have been led to believe FOX News is available up here... channel 181 on Rogers Digital Cable... all the channels between 180 and 199 are 24 hour news services so I flip around alot to if nothing interesting is on - or more often between the channels when something big is in the news, in order to get as many sources (I hope) as possible.



Well any of the major talking heads really...

An example is the constant use of expressions such as: "as we reported earlier" and such during a commentary - commentators don't "report" the present their views on a topic.

Okay examples of editorializing - how many negative references do you say hear about France, when France may have nothing to do with the story they are reporting on?

As for an example of bias on FOX for $$$ (feel free to collect) - no problem, visit the thread earlier discussing media bias, there is a link to an investigative report that won a number of awards specifically dealing with media bias - FOX figures prominately... it'd be the one with O'Rielly snapping on the son of a 9/11 victim, Coulter thinking Canada sent troops to Vietnam, O'Reilly being shown to fabricating facts and sources, the FOX news team engaging in a little on-air Canada bashing.

Or you can take the simple approach and just look at the language or "FOX-ism" that they have added to the vocabluary lately: Islamo-Facist or Jihadis.... or you can look at how they apply the term terrorist to a pretty broad spectrum, but the exceptions are somewhat telling (ie. IRA or Jewish extremists).

It was so much easier when each paper could really be identified with a party - in terms of their slant when reporting.

I'd agree and say that the Star is a little left of centre; the Globe a little right of centre, but more of a traditional conservatism; the Post, well they are out on the right - high-brow Republicanism, and the Sun well low-brow Republicanism...

Of course this is a pretty general assessment really, as no one paper can be peg firmly in one political camp (except maybe for the Post).

You just don't seem to know the difference between News and Commentary. If you look at the FOX schedule for Sun. night:

6:00 Fox News Live
7:00 Fox report
8:00 War Stories, Oliver North
9:00 Sunday Best
10:00 Geraldo
11:00 Fox Magazine

I would expect the 6, 7, 9, & 11 would be news.

Shows such as Oliver North's and Geraldo are commentaries, based on current and past news.

O'Reily, Coulter, Hannity, Geraldo, etc. are highly paid for their ability to comment on the news - they're full of opinions, and Geraldo could never be labeled "conservative".

"Islamo-facists" and "jihadists" seem to be pretty descriptive words that tell the story.

Is this the study you said proved Fox was biased, when actually it says it is less biased than others?

Actually that was one of the studies I had problems with - mainly because I have problems with the methodology used by Groseclose and Milyo's in the report: mainly that I have issues with only taking into account what stories were reported, without taken into account the context of the reporting, nor the discriptive or subjective content of the piece either... basically a quantitative analysis with no (or little) weight given to qualitative analysis.

For example if news if two news outlets broadcast an equal number of pieces on both "liberal" and "conservative" issues, they would both be "balanced" - even if one uses decidely descriptive language that is negative when say reporting on the "conservative" issue.

The "article" that I was specifically refering too was actual a video documentary found here (top of page):
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

Now bearing in mind that yes the CBC will have a "liberal" bent (particularlly from an American viewpoint) the piece actually does raise some interesting questions or concerns... as well as entertainment value in the form of the Coulter interview.

You want a study on bias to rely on qualitative analysis? That seems . . . wrong.

The academic study is out.

People can get all worked up over commentators but it's a tradition that is well and alive in every form of news media I have seen from magazines to television. Heck media often endorses a Presidential candidate and most of the time it's along party lines.

-Rudey

Your link is to a page offering me a 42-min. video to watch - sorry.

The page is interesting, listing both the media watching sites of the libs and rights (could I say "Fair and Balanced).

I defintely have a feeling that the major media in the US (NYTimes, WashPost, ABC, CBS, NBC, LATimes, etc.) are liberally oriented. The evidence:

1 - NYTimes book reviews (prob. most important in US) has never reviewed either of Rush Limbaughs best sellers, Hannity's best seller, O'Reilly's best sellers, etc., yet every Bush attack book is fully covered.

2 - The morning news shows never/seldom have guests from the right. Will Neal Boortz's new book on the Fair Tax (Amazon's best seller No. 1 right now) even be mentioned?

3 - NYTimes, WashPost, ABC, CBS, NBC, LATimes, etc. have all run repeated puff pieces on Air America (25 in NYTimes alone), but never mention the conservative talkers except negatively.

If talk radio, FOX news, and the Wall Street Journal have a right lean, we're still outnumbered about 20 to one.