Politics – And Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting. Stay tuned for the back-to-back debates double-header at 6 p.m. CST.
Too bad republicans won't get to see all positions from all of their candidates,
Fox News is barring Ron Paul from the debate...silence is golden!
Even the Chairman of the NH Republican Party is outraged over Fox's unAmerican version of democracy...
That's pitiful!
Great new slogan for Fox n2n,they can change it from "fair and balanced" to just "Pitiful!"
sorry,my wife already took that one.Maybe you should change yours to BeardedClam.
Fair and balanced if the balance is between right and far-right. The left is not represented on FOX News at all. ...least of all by that wimp, Alan Colmes...
FOX ain't nothing special, but...
they are the most fair and balanced of the MSM,
but that's not saying much, it is the MSM afterall...
Well, they must be something. They get better ratings than all the rest combined.
the only MSM in my favs...
was just playing it close, Alpha
ALPHA:
"They get better ratings than all the rest combined."
First, that's simply not true. Fox does NOT draw more viewers than all other cable news outlets combined.
Secondly, ICCARUS is correct about why Fox's ratings are so high. Fox is the only news outlet that caters specifically to conservatives and they have that market cornered. The other cable news outlets must split the independents and liberal demographic.
Thirdly, popularity does NOT equate to quality journalism. How many Peabodies has Fox News won compared to PBS and CNN? How many Pulitzers have Fox News Corp print affiliates won compared to the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post? I'll give you a hint. The numbers are not even close.
thats because they are the only mouthpiece for conservatives.. . all the LEGITIMATE news networks have to split their viewers.. and before you reply, dont forget FAUX news sued for the right to lie on the news, forever destroying any hint of journalistic integrity
Could you please help us out here by posting an example of inaccurate reporting?
That would be nice and it would build you a little credibility at the same time.
Spinward: "Could you please help us out here by posting an example of inaccurate reporting?"
"At least one set of hijackers thought to have ties to bin Laden is believed to have crossed from Canada en route to Boston, from where two of the deadly flights launched."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34250,00.html
This is an outright lie based on zero evidence.
SPINWARD:
"Could you post an example of inaccurate reporting?"
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/200...
"In 2003, a Florida Appeals Court unanimously agreed with FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying news. The Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." It is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles...
"The polling, conducted by PIPA, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hbr/issues/summer03...
"In one instance, when he and O'Reilly were paired together on a panel at a conference, Franken revealed that O'Reilly had long been lying about having won two prestigious Peabody awards while working on the tabloid TV show Inside Edition. As it turns out, the show had won the considerably less prestigious Polk award—and more than a year after O'Reilly had left it, at that."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.
March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."
First: The suit you're referring to was not "Fox News Channel", it was the Fox network affiliate, WTVT in Tampa Bay.
Just so you know, WTVT is a local re-broadcaster of Fox network programming, not owned or affiliated with "Fox News Channel".
Another example of left-wing reporters not being fair and balanced.
Second: Saddam was planning to use water as a weapon, but didn't end up doing it.
Third: MANY stations were reporting on a series of intel reports regarding all kinds of booby traps and possible schemes planned by the Iraqis.
Fourth: Many bunkers were destroyed. An analyst is not the voice of a network, he's a commentator. Every network has them and they are not always spot-on... but AGAIN, many bunker inhabitants, Saddam could easily have been one of them at any given moment, did get "sunburns".
WHITE:
"The suit you're referring to was not "Fox News Channel", it was the Fox network affiliate"
First, the source did NOT say "Fox News Channel"; it merely said "Fox News," which refers to Fox News Corp, which includes affiliates under that umbrella organization, and which was named in the lawsuit. This is a matter of public record. You need to have your eyesight checked.
WHITE:
"Just so you know, WTVT is a local re-broadcaster of Fox network programming, not owned or affiliated with "Fox News Channel"."
Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were employees of Fox as part of a Fox team cooperating with WTVT. They were fired by Fox News Corp division Fox Television.
WHITE:
"Saddam was planning to use water as a weapon, but didn't end up doing it."
Prove it. Cite declassified intelligence documents, the ISG, Senate Intelligence report, or Pentagon papers.
WHITE:
"MANY stations were reporting on a series of intel reports regarding all kinds of booby traps and possible schemes planned by the Iraqis."
Firstly, prove it. Show me a PBS, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN article about floods and underground napalm being used as a weapon.
Secondly, this website listed a NUMBER of inaccuracies reported by Fox. I only quoted the first two. There are many more on that page.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
WHITE:
"An analyst is not the voice of a network, he's a commentator."
Wrong. An analyst is a REPORTER, not a commentator. An analyst determines from multiple sources whether the data and credible and then reports the news WITHOUT biased comments.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/press...
"Matt Gross, now an assistant editor at New York magazine, used to work at Fox. Continuing the recent action at Romensko's Letters about The Memo, he recalls a certain day when an executive from Fox News Channel came to talk to the online troops, with a mission to better align the site with the televised Fox News. 'Seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions." That's what Gross recalls hearing. This directive had consequences, but not the kind we would call a conservative tilt or pro-Bush agenda. "What followed was a dumbing-down of what had been an ambitious and talented news operation,' Gross writes. CBS, NBC, ABC gave birth to news divisions at a time when 'public service, at a loss if necessary' was a serious starting point and for hard-headed, practical reasons."
The article you site has nothing to do with inaccuracies, but the desire to get stories on the air that appeal to the viewers... liberal and conservative.
It says nothing about Fox skewing the story with a slant or falsehood.
You like typing, don't you?
WHITE:
"The article you site has nothing to do with inaccuracies."
On the contrary, the article speaks to the overall LACK in quality of journalism at Fox News and their preoccupation with ratings over accuracy. The former Fox News employee suggests that Fox treats news as a form of entertainment attmepting to garner high ratings, instead of as a form of public service attempting to produce accurate, dispassionate reporting.
I think it's telling you have presented ZERO documentation thus far to support any of your unsubstantiated arguments.
http://www.coldtype.net/Assets/danny/Embed.intr...
"The role of Fox News, an unabashed 24-hr-a-day booster of the Iraq war, probably deserves a book of its own. Its aggressive coverage pandered to the audience, simplified the issues, and attacked competing media outlets and correspondents who deviated in any way from the 'script' they were promoting."
A poll by Pew Research shows that Republicans rate CNN the 2nd most trustworth news outlet after Fox. But for Independents and Democrats, Fox News ranks NOWHERE in the top 6 most trusted news sources.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005-...
REPUBLICANS:
1) Fox News (29%)
2) CNN (26%)
3) 60 minutes (25%)
INDEPENDENTS:
1) 60 minutes (29%)
2) CNN (28%)
3) CSPAN (26%)
DEMOCRATS:
1) CNN (45%)
2) 60 minutes (42%)
3) CSPAN (36%)
FIRST: Danny is an example of a liberal reporter working for a liberal media outlet.
Here's a quote form his boss:
"Join MediaChannel.org and hundreds of thousands of Americans in calling on U.S. media outlets to do a better job of reporting on the war in Iraq and the anti-war movement protests against it.
As the fifth year of the occupation of Iraq begins..."
That's not exactly balanced reporting, is it?
SECOND: I see as many liberals on Fox as conservatives and I enjoy the lively debates. If Democrats don't want to watch, ok.
It has nothing to do with inaccuracy. As liberals spout inaccuracy on Fox all the time, can we blame Fox for the liberals on there?
WHITE:
"That's not exactly balanced reporting, is it?"
There is NOTHING in your direct quote that implies the reporting is not balanced. on the contrary, it is a call for higher quality and more comprehensive reporting. Many news stations were criticized for succumbing to Bush's agenda following 9/11 and failing to ask tough questions about Iraq before the war. MediaChannel is simply responding to this call for better reporting.
WHITE:
"I see as many liberals on Fox as conservatives and I enjoy the lively debates."
There must be something wrong with your eyesight then.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
WHITE:
"It has nothing to do with inaccuracy."
Again, it has EVERYTHING to do with the poor quality of journalism at Fox News, as evidenced by FNC's lack of Peabodies (as compared to PBS, NPR, and CNN) and Fox print affiliates lack of Pulitzers (as compared to the NYT, Boston Globe, and Washington Post).
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
"Perhaps the most reliable method of gauging an outlet's perspective is to study its sources. If Fox News Channel is the bastion of balance that it claims to be, then its pool of guests should reflect a full spectrum of debate, from left to right, and neither major party should dominate over the other...The numbers show an overwhelming slant on Fox towards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests on Brit Hume's Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
As a comparison, FAIR also studied interviews on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports over the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found on Special Report."
This is another example of misconception.
Many Democrats avoid Fox because they can't stand to answer questions truthfully and they know that tough questions will be asked.
If Democrats boycott the network by not making appearances, can they then claim the network is dishonest because they boycotted it? That's creating a story and then reporting on the story you created. Honest analysis? Not exactly.
WHITE:
"Many Democrats avoid Fox because they can't stand to answer questions truthfully"
Baloney. This is a stereotype for which you have tellingly have ZERO documentation. Firstly, it has been the Bush admin (through the Douglas Feith's Office of Special Programs) who LIED to justify preemptive war against Iraq. Secondly, guests are frequently asked to be part of the show not to be directly challenged but to provide new perspectives and commentary on the story. You fall victim to the misperception that every Fox News segment is an investigative exclusive that aims to dig up dirt about its guest politician, when in fact most of their time is merely spent bloviating about news stories (and not enough time simply reporting the facts dispassionately).
Give up. The Demoshrills don't want truth, only their own slanted view.
The Knight has to learn for himself. I've debated this guy before and he basically visits every liberal site on the net and cuts and pasts.
Tiring.
SPINWARD:
"he basically visits every liberal site on the net and cuts and pasts"
Harvard's website, Oregon University's website, New York University's website, the Columbia Journalism Review, Pew Research, and the Organization for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting are NOT to be dismissed simply as "liberal sites."
You simply dismiss them as such because they present conclusions that lie contrary to your own preconceived misperceptions.
Typical.
Most people learn by secondary school how to develop AND SUPPORT an argument with evidence. Apparently, you didn't get that far. Either that or your education is severely lacking. Perhaps you're a product of Bob Jones University, or some other 3rd tier safety-school.
Pathetic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/at-...
"On the Political Grapevine segment of Special Report for December 12, 2007, Brit Hume put words in the mouth of Pope Benedict. Pick five prior segments at random, and then carefully fact check each of the stories. Trust me. The odds are extremely high that on at least three of those five segments you will find something where the facts are twisted to leave a false impression. The deceptions generally promote the standard right wing themes - global warming is a hoax, conservatives are persecuted in academia, liberals go overboard with political correctness, and you can't trust the mainstream media."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/
"On Tuesday, Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends" aired at least eight segments on a purported "news" story that was actually a parody article written by a publication similar to The Onion."
FIRST: Again, Democrats don't appear, then claim Fox has more Republicans...
SECOND: I watch Fox and didn't see the story. Your source is obviously a left-wing source which I doubt is giving any benefit of doubt to Fox. Are they being fair and balanced? Likely not.
WHITE:
"Your source is obviously a left-wing source which I doubt is giving any benefit of doubt to Fox."
And your source is...oh that's right, you don't have any sources. In fact, you have yet to present ANY documentation supporting ANY of your unsubstantiated claims. But here's an easy one for you. Why don't you dig up the number of Peabodies Fox has won for excellence in broadcast journalism and compare that to the number PBS, NPR, and CNN have won? Why don't you dig up the number of Pulitzers Fox print affiliates like the NY Post have won for excellence in print journalism and compare that to the NY Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post has won?
I'll give you a hint. The numbers are not even close. Although I seriously doubt you possess the intellectual acumen to dig up the documentation even for this easy challenge.
http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/awards/ruhl/2004.php
"Yes, we'll talking about Fox News. Cloaked deceptively in the mantle of journalism, today's opinion-brokers are playing a nasty Halloween prank on the public, and indeed on journalism itself. How could Fox have left its audience so deeply in the dark? If Fox News were a factory situated, say, in Minneapolis, it would be trailing a plume of rotting fish all the way to New Orleans. If pseudo-journalism is not journalism, what is it? Where did it come from? Will it last? What we're seeing is a difference between journalism and pseudo-journalism, between journalism and propaganda. The former seeks earnestly to serve the public. The latter seeks to manipulate it. It is the netherworld of attack politics that gave us Roger Ailes, the architect of Fox News. Having spent much of his career smearing politicians, he now refers to himself as a journalist, but his bag of tricks remains the same."
Another far left of left speech that you are citing as hard evidence of inaccuracy without an example.
The piece starts with, "It's a lovely spring afternoon here in Eugene..."
That's THE bastian of liberalism in a liberal state!
That speech you denounce is from an academic institution. It is a speech given at the University of Oregon's school of journalism. I doubt you have any more reliable sources. In fact, you haven't presented ANY sources yet at all.
Pathetic.
FYI, the Peabodies are distributed by the University of Georgia, from a Southern, heavily-Republican state. And yet, the number of Peabodies Fox News has won for excellence in broadcast journalism PALES in comparison to the number PBS, NPR, and CNN have won. What's your excuse for that one? Care to provide documentation this time to support your unsubstantiated claims?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.ma...
"Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate. Insight Magazine, reported on its Web site last week that Obama attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam. The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate. He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971. Reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false."
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fox_news_fan...
"Fox News began to spread speculation and misinformation across the airwaves. Fox News' analysis: Al Qaeda set fire to California!"
FIRST: Fox accurately reported that Insight Magazine had information revealed to it by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, that Obama had attended a Muslim school.
This report was also carried in the New York Post, The Glen Beck program and on CNN Headline news.
An example of Fox inaccuracy? No.
A GREAT EXAMPLE of a Hillary inaccuracy.
SECOND: You're really grasping at straws here, yes? On the scene reporters being asked to speculate, askind if there are any rumors, and then summing up with needing to investigate... That's not inaccurate reporting. It's people speculating and CLAIMING to speculate.
Commentators tend to commentate. That's about it.
WHITE:
"Fox accurately reported that Insight Magazine had information revealed to it by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"
First, Fox has an obligation to check on facts BEFORE repeating them on air. Ignorance is NOT a defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/us/politics/2...
"CNN did what any serious news organization is supposed to do in this kind of a situation. We actually conducted an exclusive firsthand investigation inside Indonesia to check out the school. That's the difference between talking about news and reporting it. You send a reporter, check the facts, and you decide at home."
Secondly, Hillary Clinton played NO ROLE in this story. Even Gibson acknowledged as much.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290001
"Fox's John Gibson acknowledged near the end of his show that it "doesn't seem" that "Hillary's fingerprints are on the story."
WHITE:
"That's not inaccurate reporting. It's people speculating"
Speculation is not inaccurate reporting? LOL. You've certainly tied yourself into pretzels.
First, it is Fox's responsibility to factcheck before airing stories. Secondly, as a matter of public service, Fox news job is to report facts accurately and dispassionately, NOT to engage in speculation on air. They are reporters and their job is to REPORT; let the guest politicians and analysts "commentate"--that's what the guests are there for.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
"As The Washington Post reported on July 11, 'a handful of memos from a top FOX executive suggests tilting the news.' In the memos, Moody instructs employees on the approach to take on particular stories. His instructions reflect a clear interest in furthering a conservative agenda and in supporting the Bush administration. The Post quoted Larry Johnson, identified by the paper as 'a former part-time Fox commentator,' describing the Moody memos as 'talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray.' On July 13, Salon.com reviewed the film, and provided "some of the most notable excerpts" from the memos, referred to as 'marching orders' by Jon DuPre, whom Salon identifies as 'formerly of Fox News.'"
It's not inaccurate to want to get the other side of the story reported!
Here's one of the memos proving Fox's bias:
Moody on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal:
"[T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04)."
Keeping the reporting in perspective is biased? I don't think so.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
311)
"The Republicans get their 90 minutes first, starting at 7 pm ET from Saint Anselm College and broadcast live on ABC nation-wide, good entertainment while you're staying up late waiting for returns from the Wyoming caucuses (and you know who you are).
The Democrats kick off shortly after that, following the photo-op of all photo-ops: All 10 on stage at once, sharing handshakes and awkward conversation."