Warning: watching Fox News will make you stupid

[RACooper]

Originally posted by kappaloo
To add to this..

Has anyone else also notice growing trend of newspapers who actually put opinion pieces on the FRONT PAGE of the newspaper?? I don't know about you, but I'd like to read NEWS on the front page.

Hey that's one reason I don't read the National Post or the Sun....

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by RACooper
Hey that's one reason I don't read the National Post or the Sun....

But Rob, the front page of the Sun is normally a huge picture plus headlines.

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by RACooper
Hey that's one reason I don't read the National Post or the Sun....

As much as I love bashing the Post/Sun (and I do)... I even noticed the Toronto Star doing this!!! The only major newpaper I haven't caught is the Globe&Mail - though I'm thinking that's probably just because I don't read it often.

[krazy]

Originally posted by RACooper
I for one am not suprised by the numbers, nor the belief in "facts" that some of the watchers hold to.

After all there is a growing number of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As well there is a shock number of people that believe that the tabliod newspapers and magazine are credible newssources.

Is this really a group that is "growing"? Who? and Why?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Taualumna
But Rob, the front page of the Sun is normally a huge picture plus headlines.

Yes.... true..... but look at what picture they run along with the headline and taglines in comparision to the other papers.

Take for example the yesterday

- The Sun main headline dealt with the huge pot bust up in Barrie, and how it was being treated as a joke by the public (I don't know were this opinion comes from mind you).

- The Globe, The Star, & The Post all dealt with who was in the running for the new conservative party, and the meeting between Bush and Martin.

The Sun (which has become more conservative over the years for some reason) in chosing to run their headline and photo is in effect seeting up the opinion article which follows on the next page once you open the paper.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
In reality it's more like, "People who support the war are more inclined to watch Fox News."

I do think that Fox News had a MAJOR problem with reporting things too soon before they had even been confirmed and then NOT reporting much when these "findings" were denounced -- but this is a problem all over the TV news, not just at Fox. The newspapers and magazines didn't have as much of a problem with this because they have time to edit articles when what's assumed to be true is proved false. Not so much with TV.

Two excellent points.

As I've mentioned several times, the president of Fox News, Roger Ailes (also a fellow Ohio U. Bobcat) was Richard Nixon's media advisor. It at least somewhat stands to reason that people who "want" to hear a more "conservative" view that backs the present administration would turn to Fox.

To carry the thought forward, and as a comment on the second point, reporters, editors and managers with that point of view are probably quicker to report those stories that are likely to support the administration or other conservative entities.

In theory, of course, ideology should have nothing to do with reporting and all coverage should be unbiased. People have accused media of having a "liberal" bias for years.

It is my opinion that Fox, while claiming "ballanced" coverage, has gone much farther in supporting an agenda than any other major electronic media. The history of print is something else, but that is because print has never been "controlled" like true broadcast was (a government institution granted or revoked your license to exist). Fox NewsChannel (and CNN) does not have that regulation, because they are cable -- not onair -- media and have never been regulated to the extent of the over the air media.

[justamom]

I remember switching channels during the Bush Gore fiasco.
Judy Woodruff (CNN) had the biggest sneer on her face and just the way she would phrase things as well as her vocal inflections-made obvious where she stood politically. THAT was the point where I lost all respect for CNN. Her job was to report and decipher the information, NOT add attitude to the facts.
The same type of situation exist on FOX. "Attitude" on BOTH of the
stations is very real. So, since there is freedom of choice, I will go with FOX since it more closely reflects MY attitude. I don't think that makes me stupid. It just means I'm exercising my freedom of choice. Prior to FOX-there was NO CHOICE!

[RACooper]

Originally posted by justamom
I remember switching channels during the Bush Gore fiasco.
Judy Woodruff (CNN) had the biggest sneer on her face and just the way she would phrase things as well as her vocal inflections-made obvious where she stood politically. THAT was the point where I lost all respect for CNN. Her job was to report and decipher the information, NOT add attitude to the facts.
The same type of situation exist on FOX. "Attitude" on BOTH of the
stations is very real. So, since there is freedom of choice, I will go with FOX since it more closely reflects MY attitude. I don't think that makes me stupid. It just means I'm exercising my freedom of choice. Prior to FOX-there was NO CHOICE!

Just as long as you are aware of the extreme bias of FOX, which DeltAlum is correct in pointing out. I don't know but FOX has not made an effort to correct any reporting errors that it has made, while at least the other majors have.

..... but yes I agree with you about CNN too..... the bent of their stories leaves a little to be desired (and don't get me started on Lou Dobbs).

What ever happened to the concept of the impartial press? and what's up with the self censorship?

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by RACooper
Just as long as you are aware of the extreme bias of FOX, which DeltAlum is correct in pointing out. I don't know but FOX has not made an effort to correct any reporting errors that it has made, while at least the other majors have.

..... but yes I agree with you about CNN too..... the bent of their stories leaves a little to be desired (and don't get me started on Lou Dobbs).

What ever happened to the concept of the impartial press? and what's up with the self censorship?

I don't think there ever was impartial press - there just was a lack of reporting on controversial issues in the past. Wilson and FDR's infirmities (as well as FDR's extramarital affairs), JFK's personal life; none of this made it out in the media, and there wasn't as much of a onus on ratings. If you want to look at the print media, there's been a bias/sensationalism kick since the days of Hearst.

Things haven't necessarily gotten worse, just magnified. There's more competition between TV news networks than ever, and each of them is trying to capture a constant audience.

I like what justamom said - flip between MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews and the others, and just go with what's more palatable to you.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by DeltAlum

It is my opinion that Fox, while claiming "ballanced" coverage, has gone much farther in supporting an agenda than any other major electronic media. The history of print is something else, but that is because print has never been "controlled" like true broadcast was (a government institution granted or revoked your license to exist). Fox NewsChannel (and CNN) does not have that regulation, because they are cable -- not onair -- media and have never been regulated to the extent of the over the air media.

I definitely agree. I think that while all of the major TV news networks have some kind of slant in one direction or another, Fox is the only one that is plagued with a substantial number of rumors that the company higher-ups demand that news items be slanted a certain way. I think the other networks just tend to attract workers who agree with their "slant" -- like justamom was saying about CNN -- and are less aggressive than Fox in regards to an "agenda."

[enlightenment06]

I feel like Fox has been moving increasingly more to the right...it just keeps getting worse

I watch C-SPAN

[justamom]

There was a thread "Where do you get your news?". I need to go back and look at it, because I really do agree that the slant on all the channels is getting out of hand. I do NOT like the way FOX is reporting on the war for example. If I want a particular "spin" I want to CHOOSE it-not be fed it if that makes sense. On Lou Dobbs-DITTO! Paula Zahn-LOVED her on FOX, but never watch her anymore since she went to CNN. I thought she was one who did ask the hard questions, but her slant has changed.

I'm getting pretty fond of Greta Van Susteren. She's entertaining and has varied opinions but her issues are more sensational than political.

C-Span is just so dry. I try to watch, but end up turning the channel. I guess a good percentage of us LIKE to be entertained and there in lies the problem. Straight forward reporting doesn't always result in high ratings and ad dollars. It's like the Communist Manifesto in a way-keep the people entertained and the issues won't be closely examined. So, in a way, I and people like me are a big part of the problem. No matter WHAT the choice- conservative or liberal-we like to be entertained.

enlightenment06 -Thank you! I tried to send you a PM, but your box was full! You were RIGHT!

[DeltAlum]

It occurred to me that there might be some confusion about "FOX" and that many on cable or satellite might receive two "FOX" program sources.

FOX NewsChannel is the entity with the "conservative" bent. It is the one that has total news/talk programming 24/7. It can only be seen on cable and/or Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS). Because it is NOT a traditional TV service, it does not have the government oversight that an "on air" TV station does.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has control of the "public airways," which does not include cable. (Although it can use some influence because it has some regulatory powers over "common carrier" land lines, etc.)

You may also receive a FOX TV station in your area which may or may not have any news at all -- but rather has The Simpsons and lots of reruns of Steinfeld, etc. Those are Fox Affiliates and are local TV station that happen to be carried on cable or satellite. Some are owned by FOX and some by other groups and owners. If you don't have cable or satellite, you probably can't get FOX NewsChannel.

Bottom line is that since FOX NewsChannel is not an over the air service, it doesn't even have to pretend to be "fair." Nor does CNN for that matter, which is the same type of case.

I don't think either make you "stupid," although at times both make me "crazy."

This has probably either helped -- of deepened the confusion.

[enlightenment06]

Hmm...justamom you're right that C-SPAN isn't necessarily for those with short attention spans. Sometimes I just leave it on and pay attention when I want to.

I still watch Fox, MSNBC, and CNN too, but usually only when it comes to politics. I find that looking at a number of different news sources of various media helps me to get a better idea of how I want to shape my views. BBC is also good too.

I'm not for the censorship of any channel, including Fox and the rest. I just think it's a shame that in our country the popular television news outlets are so biased. It seems like everyone has their own commentator these days instead of reporters.

Does anyone watch BET news?

[Munchkin03]

I watch BBC for global news (I got hooked on it living abroad). For pure facts, I read the NYTimes.

C-SPAN is probably the least biased, but gosh! It can be very boring.