Is Fox less biased than any other news source?

*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...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

What survery are you talking about? Perhaps you should read the study since you do work in media and I did take the time to find you the actual paper.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

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.

[Rudey]

Sure, but less talk about opinions and surveys and more talks about studies.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

[Kevin]

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.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by NickLc24
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...

What was the point of this post in this thread?

Perhaps it would serve as a focal point for debate in another thread that is more in keeping with debate about the War in Iraq, or the issue of WMD. As it is this has nothing to do with the debate over any bias that FNC may have.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by RACooper
What was the point of this post in this thread?

Perhaps it would serve as a focal point for debate in another thread that is more in keeping with debate about the War in Iraq, or the issue of WMD. As it is this has nothing to do with the debate over any bias that FNC may have.

I think he posted it in the wrong thread.

[The1calledTKE]

Off topic, but what did fox news forget to fuzz out in this clip?

lol

http://content.collegehumor.com/medi...pornslipup.wmv

[DeltAlum]

Appears that the CRTC folks are as strange as the FCC. Although this is only one person's opinion:

Canada, Al Jazeera, and Fox
By Rondi Adamson
Christian Science Monitor
Al Jazeera has been deemed acceptable viewing for Canadians ... but Fox News?

No. It's currently only available to Canadians with illegal satellite connections. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a federal agency that decides what constitutes appropriate viewing and listening for Canadians, and that, last month, granted Al Jazeera the right to broadcast in Canada, is a paleo-concept. That culturecrats in Ottawa have, as their mandate, the protection of "Canadian values" and promotion of "Canadian content" reeks of rightthink, doublespeak, and social engineering.

On the surface, the Al Jazeera decision seems to jell with the CRTC's raison d'tre, but the reasoning isn't consistent. The commission says Al Jazeera doesn't compete with existing channels. True enough. We don't have a 24-hour Arabic news network that bubbles with anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. We do, however, have a public broadcaster with barely concealed anti-American and anti-Israeli biases. Canadians should perhaps be grateful their taxes don't fund Al Jazeera as they do the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

What Canadians most certainly do not have is a conservative news network. Yet Fox News was told in 2000 that it could broadcast in Canada only if it offered a schedule with 15 percent Canadian content. I'm grateful this proposal never took off, particularly when I see the Canadian version of MSNBC - Matthews, Scarborough, et al., interspersed with a distressing array of Northern talking heads singing the praises of Canadian multiculturalism, social programs, and niceness.

CRTC defenders - and there are many in Canada's arts community - say the agency is simply trying to shield Canadian sensibilities from nefarious outside influences. (Read: conservative American influences.) The reluctance to allow access to a network that might shake up the status quo is a reflection of national insecurity. The issue isn't whether people will like everything they see on Fox News. CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast here sans Canadian content. But they're relatively centrist. And no one seems concerned that BBC World airs here or that the CBC 24-hour cable channel carries its nightly newscast. So the BBC is competing with existing stations - but it has all the right (or, better said, left) biases. If Al Jazeera were rejected, the CRTC would be called intolerant by many in a nation where moral relativism has become the norm. One man's fatwa is another man's hockey game.

The CRTC is again considering an application from Fox News - a decision is expected in the fall. Curiously, in clearing the way for Al Jazeera, the CRTC included a waiver asking distributors to edit out "abusive comment." This sets a dangerous precedent: If we watch Al Jazeera - and I'm not convinced we shouldn't be allowed to - we should be exposed to what it truly is, not a sanitized version. Not to mention that if Fox News is permitted in Canada, I wouldn't be astonished if "abusive comments" (Read: pro-American) were replaced with a test pattern.

Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.

[Rudey]

*Shakes his head*

-Rudey
--But then again, honestly I really don't care that much about what goes on in Canada so...

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Appears that the CRTC folks are as strange as the FCC. Although this is only one person's opinion:

Canada, Al Jazeera, and Fox
By Rondi Adamson
Christian Science Monitor
Al Jazeera has been deemed acceptable viewing for Canadians ... but Fox News?

No. It's currently only available to Canadians with illegal satellite connections. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a federal agency that decides what constitutes appropriate viewing and listening for Canadians, and that, last month, granted Al Jazeera the right to broadcast in Canada, is a paleo-concept. That culturecrats in Ottawa have, as their mandate, the protection of "Canadian values" and promotion of "Canadian content" reeks of rightthink, doublespeak, and social engineering.

On the surface, the Al Jazeera decision seems to jell with the CRTC's raison d'tre, but the reasoning isn't consistent. The commission says Al Jazeera doesn't compete with existing channels. True enough. We don't have a 24-hour Arabic news network that bubbles with anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. We do, however, have a public broadcaster with barely concealed anti-American and anti-Israeli biases. Canadians should perhaps be grateful their taxes don't fund Al Jazeera as they do the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

What Canadians most certainly do not have is a conservative news network. Yet Fox News was told in 2000 that it could broadcast in Canada only if it offered a schedule with 15 percent Canadian content. I'm grateful this proposal never took off, particularly when I see the Canadian version of MSNBC - Matthews, Scarborough, et al., interspersed with a distressing array of Northern talking heads singing the praises of Canadian multiculturalism, social programs, and niceness.

CRTC defenders - and there are many in Canada's arts community - say the agency is simply trying to shield Canadian sensibilities from nefarious outside influences. (Read: conservative American influences.) The reluctance to allow access to a network that might shake up the status quo is a reflection of national insecurity. The issue isn't whether people will like everything they see on Fox News. CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast here sans Canadian content. But they're relatively centrist. And no one seems concerned that BBC World airs here or that the CBC 24-hour cable channel carries its nightly newscast. So the BBC is competing with existing stations - but it has all the right (or, better said, left) biases. If Al Jazeera were rejected, the CRTC would be called intolerant by many in a nation where moral relativism has become the norm. One man's fatwa is another man's hockey game.

The CRTC is again considering an application from Fox News - a decision is expected in the fall. Curiously, in clearing the way for Al Jazeera, the CRTC included a waiver asking distributors to edit out "abusive comment." This sets a dangerous precedent: If we watch Al Jazeera - and I'm not convinced we shouldn't be allowed to - we should be exposed to what it truly is, not a sanitized version. Not to mention that if Fox News is permitted in Canada, I wouldn't be astonished if "abusive comments" (Read: pro-American) were replaced with a test pattern.

Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Appears that the CRTC folks are as strange as the FCC. Although this is only one person's opinion:

Canada, Al Jazeera, and Fox
By Rondi Adamson
Christian Science Monitor
Al Jazeera has been deemed acceptable viewing for Canadians ... but Fox News?

No. It's currently only available to Canadians with illegal satellite connections. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a federal agency that decides what constitutes appropriate viewing and listening for Canadians, and that, last month, granted Al Jazeera the right to broadcast in Canada, is a paleo-concept. That culturecrats in Ottawa have, as their mandate, the protection of "Canadian values" and promotion of "Canadian content" reeks of rightthink, doublespeak, and social engineering.

On the surface, the Al Jazeera decision seems to jell with the CRTC's raison d'tre, but the reasoning isn't consistent. The commission says Al Jazeera doesn't compete with existing channels. True enough. We don't have a 24-hour Arabic news network that bubbles with anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. We do, however, have a public broadcaster with barely concealed anti-American and anti-Israeli biases. Canadians should perhaps be grateful their taxes don't fund Al Jazeera as they do the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

What Canadians most certainly do not have is a conservative news network. Yet Fox News was told in 2000 that it could broadcast in Canada only if it offered a schedule with 15 percent Canadian content. I'm grateful this proposal never took off, particularly when I see the Canadian version of MSNBC - Matthews, Scarborough, et al., interspersed with a distressing array of Northern talking heads singing the praises of Canadian multiculturalism, social programs, and niceness.

CRTC defenders - and there are many in Canada's arts community - say the agency is simply trying to shield Canadian sensibilities from nefarious outside influences. (Read: conservative American influences.) The reluctance to allow access to a network that might shake up the status quo is a reflection of national insecurity. The issue isn't whether people will like everything they see on Fox News. CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast here sans Canadian content. But they're relatively centrist. And no one seems concerned that BBC World airs here or that the CBC 24-hour cable channel carries its nightly newscast. So the BBC is competing with existing stations - but it has all the right (or, better said, left) biases. If Al Jazeera were rejected, the CRTC would be called intolerant by many in a nation where moral relativism has become the norm. One man's fatwa is another man's hockey game.

The CRTC is again considering an application from Fox News - a decision is expected in the fall. Curiously, in clearing the way for Al Jazeera, the CRTC included a waiver asking distributors to edit out "abusive comment." This sets a dangerous precedent: If we watch Al Jazeera - and I'm not convinced we shouldn't be allowed to - we should be exposed to what it truly is, not a sanitized version. Not to mention that if Fox News is permitted in Canada, I wouldn't be astonished if "abusive comments" (Read: pro-American) were replaced with a test pattern.

Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.

Any one else enjoy the irony of a writer deploring the percieved bias of the CRTC while demonstrating un-abashedly her own?

Al Jazeera was accepted by the CRTC yes, but with a crap-load of special rules they have to follow - time delay, permenant record of all broadcasts... stuff like that.... guess they used Don Cherry and Coach's Corner as an example

As for the allegations about the lack of Canadian content in on the channels she named... actually they cover the Canadian content by having Canadian commericals (which makes sense.. duh) and public service announcements during the broadcast. For example the broadcast of CNN does show Canadian commericals... but more importantly, it also has adds or announcements, which helps fullfill their Canadian culture "quota".

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Any one else enjoy the irony of a writer deploring the percieved bias of the CRTC while demonstrating un-abashedly her own?

No bias seen on the writer's part.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Alright since their is some discussion about Al Jazeera and FOX News in relation to Canada, sparked in part by the Rondi Adamson op-ed article earlier... I thought I'd give a little more background, so the two following links will take you to very brief articles on the subject:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...a-fc4ca17ea236

http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...5-da9e33b61989

Now both are from the National Post, which could be considered a "conservative" newspaper, just as Rondi Adamson is a "conservative" op-ed writer... think Ann Coultier , but toned down.


Now the following link is to an article reviewing a film attacking FOX News, with some background info for the readers... now bear in mind that this article comes from a newspaper that Rondi Adamson has attacked as "liberal", "anti-American", "un-Christian", and a couple of others.... now that being said the paper is pretty much from the centre of the political spectrum for Canadians, much as the CBC is... so enjoy.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1092175811195

I tried to find more on FOX News or Al Jazeera, but the majority of articles were more concerned with Al Jazeera being recently banned by the Iraqi government... or complaints about the coverage of the DNC by FOX News.

[Rudey]

Actually this thread has a link to the only study on whether Fox news is biased and how much compared to other networks. Please share with your fellow Canadians since some might be close-minded.

-Rudey

Originally posted by RACooper
Alright since their is some discussion about Al Jazeera and FOX News in relation to Canada, sparked in part by the Rondi Adamson op-ed article earlier... I thought I'd give a little more background, so the two following links will take you to very brief articles on the subject:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...a-fc4ca17ea236

http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...5-da9e33b61989

Now both are from the National Post, which could be considered a "conservative" newspaper, just as Rondi Adamson is a "conservative" op-ed writer... think Ann Coultier , but toned down.


Now the following link is to an article reviewing a film attacking FOX News, with some background info for the readers... now bear in mind that this article comes from a newspaper that Rondi Adamson has attacked as "liberal", "anti-American", "un-Christian", and a couple of others.... now that being said the paper is pretty much from the centre of the political spectrum for Canadians, much as the CBC is... so enjoy.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1092175811195

I tried to find more on FOX News or Al Jazeera, but the majority of articles were more concerned with Al Jazeera being recently banned by the Iraqi government... or complaints about the coverage of the DNC by FOX News.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by RACooper
...http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...a-fc4ca17ea236...

This first article says that Rogers was a huge supporter of bringing this to Canada.
I do believe they have decided not to carry this channel.